Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prüfung

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gute Hochschullehre: Eine evidenzbasierte Orientierungshilfe

  • 10k Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 24.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Weiterführende Literatur

  • Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (Hrsg.) (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacher, W., & Rademacher, S. (2009). Leistungen entwickeln, überprüfen und beurteilen: Bewährte und neue Wege für die Primar- und Sekundarstufe. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Internationale Fachzeitschrift mit Peer-Review: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  • 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 

  • Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, L. L. (1985). Do grades and tests predict adult accomplishment? In Research in Higher Education, 23(1), 3–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, T., Kadiyali, V., & Zussman, A. (2009). Grade information and grade inflation: The Cornell Experiment. In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechler, O., & Thielsch, M. T. (2012). Schwierigkeiten bei der Vorbereitung auf schriftliche Prüfungen. In Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 7(3), 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boretz, E. (2004). Grade inflation and the myth of student consumerism. In College Teaching, 52(2), 42–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. In Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta-analysis. In School Psychology International, 24(3), 313–328. doi:10.1177/01430343030243004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisseni, H. J. (2004). Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik (3. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2013). Lernen sichtbar machen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. In Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. In Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 47–77. doi:10.3102/00346543058001047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, M. E. (1999). Cognition and the question of test item format. In Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 207–218. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3404_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, P. L., & Clarke, R. L. (1998). Meta-analyzing the relation between grades and salary. In Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacher, W., & Rademacher, S. (2009). Leistungen entwickeln, überprüfen und beurteilen: Bewährte und neue Wege für die Primar- und Sekundarstufe. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wissenschaftsrat (2012). Prüfungsnoten an Hochschulen im Prüfungsjahr 2010: Arbeitsbericht mit einem wissenschaftspolitischen Kommentar des Wissenschaftsrates. Köln: Geschäftsstelle des Wissenschaftsrates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bachelorstudiengang Psychologie, Universität Trier – Fachbereich I, 54286, Trier, Deutschland

    Susanne Bücker, Meike Deimling, Janina Durduman, Julia Holzhäuser, Sophie Schnieders, Maria Tietze & Sharmina Sayeed

  2. Abtlg. für Pädagogische Psychologie, Universität Trier – Fachbereich I, 54286, Trier, Deutschland

    Michael Schneider

Authors
  1. Susanne Bücker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meike Deimling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janina Durduman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julia Holzhäuser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sophie Schnieders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maria Tietze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sharmina Sayeed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abtlg. für Pädagogische Psychologie, Universität Trier, Trier, Germany

    Michael Schneider

  2. ECCS unit at CAMPUS KIRCHBERG, Université du Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Maida Mustafić

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bücker, S. et al. (2015). Prüfung. In: Schneider, M., Mustafić, M. (eds) Gute Hochschullehre: Eine evidenzbasierte Orientierungshilfe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45062-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45062-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45061-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-45062-8

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation