Differential Daily Writing Conditions and Performance on Major Multiple-Choice Exams

Abstract

Students (N=153) in three equivalent sections of an undergraduate human development course compared pairs of related concepts via either written or oral discussion at the beginning of most class sessions. A writing-for-random-credit section achieved significantly higher ratings on the writing activities than did a writing-for-no-credit section. The writing-for-random-credit section also obtained significantly higher correlations between the writing ratings and scores on multiple-choice exam items related to the conceptual pairs (r=.74) and on total exam scores (r=.78) than did the writing-for-no-credit section (rs=.45 and .43, respectively). Finally, the writing-for-random-credit condition produced significantly higher scores on exam items related to the conceptual pairs than did the oral-discussion-only condition. Plus, effect-size comparisons showed weak to medium differences between exam scores under the writing-for-random-credit and the writing-for-no-credit condition.