Assessment at CHC Education Institutions: Problems and Strategies to Enhance Cooperative Learning

  • Pham Thi Hong Thanh
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 25)


The main focus of this chapter is to discuss the nature of assessment practices at CHC education institutions and how the current assessment system at CHC institutions impacts cooperative learning. Arguments in this chapter indicate that to enhance cooperative learning, current assessment practices need to change from well-structured to ill-structured tests. The chapter then reports an empirical study that was conducted by the researcher to investigate the effects of ill-structured tests on cooperation among students. The findings reported that when students worked on ill-structured tests that aimed to assess their high-level knowledge and required group efforts to accomplish (i.e. a joint project), group members were conditioned to share equal opportunities to talk, make fairer contributions, highly evaluate each other’s ideas, enthusiastically support each other by giving help and elaborative explanations, value group benefits more importantly than individual achievements and enjoy working with each other. Importantly, ill-structured tests were also found to increase cooperation among different ability students.


Cooperative Learning Treatment Class High Achiever Assessment Practice Control Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boles, W. (1999). Classroom assessment for improved learning: A case study in using e-mail and involving students in preparing assignments. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boud, D. J. (1991). Three principles for good assessment practice. The New Academic, 1, 4–5.Google Scholar
  6. Candy, P., Crebert, G., & O’Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS).Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, G. E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elton, L., & Laurillard, D. (1979). Trends in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 4, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London/Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  10. Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Interaction, 6, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, J. (2005). Cultures and organization-software of the minds (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Approaches to implementing cooperative learning in the social studies classroom. In R. J. Stahl & R. L. VanSickle (Eds.), Cooperative learning in the social studies classroom: An invitation to social study (pp. 44–51). Washington: National Council for the Social Studies.Google Scholar
  14. Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King, R. (1981). How shall they be judged? Notes and sources on assessment. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 5(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marso, R. N., & Pigge, F. L. (1991). An analysis of teacher-made tests: Item types, cognitive demands, and item construction errors. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Nguyen-Thi. D. (2000). Students’ perception about learning and teaching approaches at college. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Teachers’ College, Vietnam.Google Scholar
  19. Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2008). Comprehension strategy at the college level. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 75–104). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schuwirth, L. W. T., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine. British Medical Journal, 326(7390), 643–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tang, C., & Biggs, J. (1996). How Hong Kong students cope with assessment. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 159–181). Hong Kong: CERC and ACER.Google Scholar
  23. Thanh-Pham, T. H. (2008). The roles of teachers in implementing educational innovation: The case of implementing cooperative learning in Vietnam. Asian Social Science, 4(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  24. Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on process and effects of cooperation between primary school children. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  25. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147–172). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pham Thi Hong Thanh
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations