Prüfung

  • Susanne Bücker
  • Meike Deimling
  • Janina Durduman
  • Julia Holzhäuser
  • Sophie Schnieders
  • Maria Tietze
  • Sharmina Sayeed
  • Michael Schneider
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Studiennoten weisen starke Zusammenhänge mit standardisierten Kompetenztests und Schulnoten auf, sind gleichzeitig jedoch auch stark messfehlerbehaftet. Das Anspruchsniveau von Prüfungsaufgaben hängt vor allem davon ab, ob die Aufgaben lediglich Wiedererkennen und Reproduktion oder auch Transformation, Anwendung oder Transfer des Gelernten erfordern. Die Notenvergabepraxis in Deutschland unterscheidet sich stark zwischen Studiengängen und Hochschulen. Deutschlandweit wurden gute Noten zwischen 2000 und 2011 kontinuierlich häufiger vergeben. Studierende bereiten sich intensiv auf Prüfungen vor, wenn eine Veranstaltung ihnen hohe Selbstwirksamkeitsüberzeugungen in Bezug auf das Erreichen der Lehrziele und guter Prüfungsresultate vermittelt. Gut dokumentierte Lerninhalte, Erfolgserlebnisse während des Semesters sowie klare Lehrziele und Bewertungskriterien tragen dazu bei. Die Ergebnisrückmeldung sollte differenziert und inhaltsorientiert erfolgen, um nachfolgendes Lernen anzuregen.

Weiterführende Literatur

  1. Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (Hrsg.) (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Sacher, W., & Rademacher, S. (2009). Leistungen entwickeln, überprüfen und beurteilen: Bewährte und neue Wege für die Primar- und Sekundarstufe. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  4. Internationale Fachzeitschrift mit Peer-Review: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Literatur

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, L. L. (1985). Do grades and tests predict adult accomplishment? In Research in Higher Education, 23(1), 3–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balch, W. R. (1989). Item order affects performance on multiple-choice exams. In Teaching of Psychology, 16(2), 75–77. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1602_9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balkis, M., Duru, E., & Bulus, M. (2013). Analysis of the relation between academic procrastination, academic rational/irrational beliefs, time preferences to study for exams, and academic achievement: a structural model. In European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 825–839. doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0142-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bar, T., Kadiyali, V., & Zussman, A. (2009). Grade information and grade inflation: The Cornell Experiment. In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as means for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(1), 84–103. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechler, O., & Thielsch, M. T. (2012). Schwierigkeiten bei der Vorbereitung auf schriftliche Prüfungen. In Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 7(3), 137–156.Google Scholar
  9. Bird, F., & Yucal, R. (2012). Improving marking reliability of scientific writing with the Developing Understanding of Assessment for Learning programme. In Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 536–553. doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.658155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bleske-Rechek, A., Zeug, N., & Webb, R. M. (2007). Discrepant performance on multiple-choice and short answer assessments and the relation of performance to general scholastic aptitude. In Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 89–105. doi:10.1080/02602930600800763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boatright-Horowitz, S. L., & Arruda, C. (2013). College students’ categorical perceptions of grades: It’s simply ‚good‘ vs. ‚bad‘. In Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 253–259. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.618877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boretz, E. (2004). Grade inflation and the myth of student consumerism. In College Teaching, 52(2), 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broekkamp, H., & Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. v. (2007). Students’ adaptation of study strategies when preparing for classroom tests. In Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 401–428. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9025-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlson, J. L., & Ostrosky, A. L. (1992). Item sequence and student performance on multiple-choice exams: Further evidence. In Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 232–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. In Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dinther, M. v., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. In Educational Research Review, 6, 95–108. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downing, S. M. (2005). The effects of violating standard item writing principles on tests and students: The consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education. In Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 133–143. doi:10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. In Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta-analysis. In School Psychology International, 24(3), 313–328. doi:10.1177/01430343030243004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. In Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430. doi:10.3102/00346543059004395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. In Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. doi:10.3102/00346543070003287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisseni, H. J. (2004). Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik (3. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  23. Froncek, B., Hirschfeld, G., & Thielsch, M. T. (in Druck). Characteristics of effective exams: Development and validation of an instrument for evaluating written exams. In Studies in Educational Evaluation. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.01.003.Google Scholar
  24. Gordon, M. E., & Fay, C. H. (2010). The effects of grading and teaching practices on students’ perceptions of grading fairness. In College Teaching, 58(3), 93–98. doi:10.1080/87567550903418586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hahne, R., Lohmann, R., Krzyszycha, K., Österreich, S., & App, A. (2009). Studium und psychische Probleme: Sonderauswertung zur 15. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks. Berlin: Deutsches Studentenwerk.Google Scholar
  26. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. In Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hattie, J. (2013). Lernen sichtbar machen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.Google Scholar
  28. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. In Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. In Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 47–77. doi:10.3102/00346543058001047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogan, T. P., & Murphy, G. (2007). Recommendations for preparing and scoring constructed-response items: What the experts say. In Applied Measurement in Education, 20(4), 427–441. doi:10.1080/08957340701580736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. In Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. In Educational Research Review, 2, 130–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. In Instructional Science, 39, 387–406. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kevala, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2012). Deskriptivstatistische Evaluation von Items (Itemanalyse) und Testwertverteilung. In H. Moosbrugger, & A. Kevala (Hrsg.), Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl., S. 75–102). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. In Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. In Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lundeberg, M. A., & Fox, P. W. (1991). Do laboratory findings on test expectancy generalize to classroom outcomes? In Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 94–106. doi:10.3102/00346543061001094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. In Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 280–296. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martinez, M. E. (1999). Cognition and the question of test item format. In Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 207–218. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3404_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McMorris, R. F., Boothroyd, R. A., & Pietrangelo, D. J. (1997). Humor in educational testing: A review and discussion. In Applied Measurement in Education, 10(3), 269–297. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1003_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Millman, J., Slovacek, S. P., Kulick, E., & Mitchell, K. J. (1983). Does grade inflation affect the reliability of grades? In Research in Higher Education, 19(4), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newman, D. L., Kundert, D. K., Lane Jr., D. S., & Bull, K. S. (1988). Effect of varying item order on multiple-choice test scores: Importance of statistical and cognitive difficulty. In Applied Measurement in Education, 1(1), 89–97. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0101_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. In Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmer, E. J., & Devitt, P. G. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: Modified essay or multiple choice questions? In BMC Medical Education, 7, 49. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-7-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Patton, C. (2012). ‚Some kind of weird, evil experiment‘: Student perceptions of peer assessment. In Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 719–731. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.563281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perlini, A. H., Lind, D. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (1998). Context effects on examinations: The effects of time, item order and item difficulty. In Canadian Psychology, 39(4), 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Meter, P. v., Etten, S. V., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? In Educational Psychology Review, 9(1), 1–38. doi:1040-726X/97/0300-0001$12.50/0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Radmacher, S. A., & Latosi-Sawin, E. (1995). Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in psychology. In Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 113–115. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. In Psychological Bulletin, 38(2), 353–387. doi:10.1037/a0026838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ritts, V., Patterson, M. L., & Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, impressions, and judgments of physically attractive students: A review. In Review of Educational Research, 62(4), 413–426. doi:10.3102/00346543062004413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roberts, D. M. (1993). An empirical study on the nature of trick questions. In Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(4), 331–344. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00430.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Construct equivalence of multiple-choice and constructed-response items: A random effects synthesis of correlations. In Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(2), 163–184. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01102.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Switzer, F. S., & Schippmann, J. S. (1996). Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and job performance. In Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 548–556. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roth, P. L., & Clarke, R. L. (1998). Meta-analyzing the relation between grades and salary. In Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sacher, W., & Rademacher, S. (2009). Leistungen entwickeln, überprüfen und beurteilen: Bewährte und neue Wege für die Primar- und Sekundarstufe. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  57. Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. In Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scoles, J., Huxham, M., & McArthur, J. (2013). No longer exempt from good practice: Using exemplars to close the feedback gap for exams. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 38(6), 631–645. doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.674485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgements of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. In Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. doi:10.1037/a0027627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tal, I. R., Akers, K. G., & Hodge, G. K. (2008). Effect of paper color and question order on exam performance. In Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 26–28. doi:10.1080/00986280701818482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tamir, P. (1993). Positive and negative multiple choice items: How different are they? In Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(3), 311–325. doi:10.1016/S0191-491X(05)80013-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Weigand, S., & Schuler, H. (2007). Die Validität von Schulnoten zur Vorhersage des Studienerfolgs: Eine Metaanalyse. In Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21(1), 11–27. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.21.1.11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vardi, I. (2013). Effectively feeding forward from one written assessment task to the next. In Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 599–610. doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.670197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wimshurst, K., & Manning, M. (2013). Feed-forward assessment, exemplars and peer marking: Evidence of efficacy. In Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 451–465. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.646236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wissenschaftsrat (2012). Prüfungsnoten an Hochschulen im Prüfungsjahr 2010: Arbeitsbericht mit einem wissenschaftspolitischen Kommentar des Wissenschaftsrates. Köln: Geschäftsstelle des Wissenschaftsrates.Google Scholar
  66. Zeidner, M. (2007). Test anxiety in educational contexts: Concepts, findings, and future directions. In P. A. Schulz, & R. Pekrun (Hrsg.), Emotion in education (S. 165–184). San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Bücker
    • 1
  • Meike Deimling
    • 1
  • Janina Durduman
    • 1
  • Julia Holzhäuser
    • 1
  • Sophie Schnieders
    • 1
  • Maria Tietze
    • 1
  • Sharmina Sayeed
    • 1
  • Michael Schneider
    • 2
  1. 1.Bachelorstudiengang PsychologieUniversität Trier – Fachbereich ITrierDeutschland
  2. 2.Abtlg. für Pädagogische PsychologieUniversität Trier – Fachbereich ITrierDeutschland

Personalised recommendations