Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices On ST
The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices On ST
The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices On ST
438
Impactof ClassroomEvaluationon Students
Bremme & Herman, 1986; Haertel, 1986; Kellaghanet al., 1982; Salmon-Cox,
1981;Stiggins& Bridgeford,1985).
Becauseclassroomevaluationactivitiesappearto have verysignificanteffectson
students,this reviewwill synthesizeresearchthat relatesto the impactof classroom
evaluationon students.Researchevidencefroma wide varietyof researchdomains
will be reviewedand summarized,and the conclusionsfrom these domainswill be
drawntogetherto identifyimplicationsfor effectiveeducationalpractice.
For the purposesof this review,classroomevaluationis defined as evaluation
based on activitiesthat studentsundertakeas an integralpart of the educational
programsin which they are enrolled.These activitiesmay involve time spentboth
inside and outside the classroom.This definition includes tasks such as formal
teacher-madetests, curriculum-embedded tests (includingadjunct questions and
otherexercisesintendedto be an integralpartof learningmaterials),oralquestions
askedof students,and a wide varietyof otherperformanceactivities(cognitiveand
psychomotor).It also includesassessmentof motivationaland attitudinalvariables
and of learningskills.
Formal testing under carefully controlled conditions is often only a small
component of the total set of evaluationactivitiesin a course (especiallyin the
earlyyearsof schooling),but the impactof classroomtestingon studentshas been
studied much more extensively than the impact of other forms of classroom
evaluation.Thus tests and test-likeactivitiesfeatureprominentlyin this review.
Otherforms of classroomevaluationundoubtedlyalso have importanteffects on
students.Fortunately,many of the generalconclusionsthat can be drawn from
researchon testingare likelyto applyalso to otherformsof classroomevaluation.
I have chosento discussresearchthat was conductedin laboratorysettings,even
though it may seem to have little ecological validity for classroom evaluation.
Much of the classroom-basedresearchalso has verylimitedecologicalvalidity,due
to artificialexperimentalconditions, very brief treatments,or other factors.The
applicationof almostall educationalresearchto new settingsor conditionsrequires
thoughtful analysis and sensitivity to factors that may affect the relevance or
applicabilityof the findings in the new settings, or with particularcategoriesof
people.As Cronbach(1975) has put it,
Systematicinquirycanreasonably hopeto maketwocontributions.
Onereasonable
is to assesslocaleventsaccurately,
aspiration to improveshort-runcontrol.The
otherreasonable aspiration concepts,conceptsthatwill
is to developexplanatory
helppeopleusetheirheads.(p. 126)
442
Impactof ClassroomEvaluationon Students
learning.So if we areto test for understanding,
we musttest in circumstances
whichareat leastpartnew.(Thorndike, 1969,p. 2)
Clearly,educationalachievementmust be seen as substantiallymore than the
accumulationof isolated pieces of informationand the developmentof certain
overlearnedskills that can be reliablyperformed.Indeed, Broudy (1988) argues
that neitherthe replicativenor the applicativeuses of schoolingare sufficientto
make a good case for generaleducationof the whole school population.Rather,he
argues, one must look to what he calls the associativeand interpretiveuses of
schoolingto build such a case.
Ways in which evaluations affect students:An overview.Evaluations affect
studentsin short, medium, and long term ways. I have classifiedthe effects into
three groupsbased on this time perspective.There are inevitablysome parallels
betweeneffectsin the differentcategories.
At the level of a particularlesson,topic, or assignment,the followingeffectsseem
to apply(see Gagne, 1977, for a similarlist):
1. Reactivatingor consolidatingprerequisiteskills or knowledgepriorto intro-
ducingthe new material;
2. Focusingattentionon importantaspectsof the subject;
3. Encouragingactive learningstrategies;
4. Giving studentsopportunitiesto practiceskillsand consolidatelearning;
5. Providingknowledgeof resultsand correctivefeedback;
6. Helping studentsto monitor their own progressand develop skills of self-
evaluation;
7. Guiding the choice of furtherinstructionalor learningactivitiesto increase
mastery;
8. Helpingstudentsfeel a sense of accomplishment.
At the level of a particularlearning module, course, or extended learning
experience,the followingare importanteffects:
1. Checkingthat studentshave adequateprerequisiteskills and knowledgeto
effectivelylearnthe materialto be covered;
2. Influencingstudents'motivationto studythe subjectand theirperceptionsof
their capabilitiesin the subject;
3. Communicatingand reinforcing(or in some cases undermining)the instruc-
tor's or the curriculum'sbroadgoals for students,includingthe desiredstandards
of performance;
4. Influencingstudents'choice of (and developmentof) learningstrategiesand
studypatterns;
5. Describingor certifyingstudents'achievementsin the course,thusinfluencing
their futureactivities.
Finally,evaluationhas longerterm consequences,especiallywhen studentsmeet
consistentpatternsof evaluationyearafteryear.These longerterm effectsinclude:
1. Influencingstudents'abilityto retainand apply in variedcontextsand ways
the materiallearned;
2. Influencingthe developmentof students'learningskillsand styles;
3. Influencingstudents'continuingmotivation,both in particularsubjectsand
more generally;
443
TerenceJ. Crooks
4. Influencingthe students'self-perceptions,such as their perceptionsof their
self-efficacyas learners.
Theseeffectshavebeenlistedveryconciselyhere,but most of them will be discussed
in considerabledepthin the next two sectionsof this paper.
An examination is a revealing
statement
by a teacheraboutwhatis important in
thecourse.In fact,facultystandards
concerningA-gradeperformancemaybe the
singlemeansbywhichteachers
mostsignificant settheacademicvaluesof a college.
(p. 135)
50), and in studies that more closely specified and/or monitored the degree to
which higher level questions were used.
Taking all these considerations into account, I believe it is justifiable to conclude
that the use of higher level oral questions by teachers usually fosters, or at least
does not harm, student achievement. The main exceptions are likely to be situations
in which the achievement measure consists almost entirely of factual recall or
recognition questions and situations in which the higher level questions are too
difficult or too unclear for many of the students. Careful guidance and training
may be needed before some students can respond appropriately to higher level
questions (see Dillon, 1982; Klinzing, Klinzing-Eurich, & Tisher, 1985; Mills, Rice,
Berliner, & Rousseau, 1980). Further, if higher level questions are to substantially
enhance student achievement, they will need to be used consistently over extended
periods of time.
The impact of the cognitive level of questions on student affect has not received
much attention. In particular, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that higher level
questions of appropriate difficulty would tend to enhance student interest in the
course content more than factual questions. Because of the long-term importance
of motivational factors in learning, research is needed to investigate this hypothesis.
Effects offeedback on performance. There is extensive literature on the effects on
providing knowledge of results and other forms of feedback on the evaluative tasks
performed by students. Factors involved include the nature and extent of the
feedback, its timing, its value in relation to the student's existing level of perform-
ance, and its relationship to the summative functions of evaluation.
Research that examined the effects of feedback on learning from text was
reviewed thoroughly by Kulhavy (1977). He found that feedback generally increased
what students learned from reading assignments that included questions or tests
for them to answer.
One exception to this positive conclusion occurred if the material was too difficult
for the students to process, so that they tended to choose to try to learn the
highlights from the feedback. This exception is further supported by a recent meta-
analysis of the effects of feedback in 22 studies involving programmed and com-
puter-based instruction. In this meta-analysis, Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, and Kulik
(1987) found a correlation of -0.44 between task difficulty (control group error
rate) and benefit of feedback (effect size comparing feedback group mean with
control group mean). Where error rates are high, the task of learning from the
feedback apparently becomes daunting.
A second exception occurred if the feedback was available too soon (as in some
programmed textbooks), thus allowing the student to avoid careful reading and
answering of the questions. This exception has also been confirmed by Bangert-
Drowns et al. (1987), who found in their sample that where students had to make
responses to questions before receiving feedback, the average effect size was 0.38,
but where feedback was available without a student response, the average effect
size was -0.13.
Research on feedback on learning from classroom teaching has produced similar
findings on the effectiveness of feedback (Beeson, 1973; Bergland, 1969; Ingen-
kamp, 1986; Karraker, 1967; O'Neill, Razor, & Bartz, 1976; Page, 1958; Sassenrath
& Garverick, 1965; Strang & Rust, 1973; Wexley & Thornton, 1972).
Functions and form of feedback. Kulhavy reported that feedback acts to confirm
455
TerenceJ. Crooks
458
Impactof ClassroomEvaluationon Students
into two subcategories:cooperationwith intergroupcompetition,and cooperation
without intergroupcompetition).They used three differentways of summarizing
the findings(vote count, a z-score method, and effect size). Becausethese three
approachesusuallyproducedsimilarconclusions,I shallbase my summaryof their
findingson the effect size data. They found that competitiveand individualistic
structuresseemedequallyeffective,with a mean effectsize betweenthese structures
of 0.03. Cooperativestructures(without intergroupcompetition)generallypro-
ducedhigherachievementthancompetitiveor individualisticstructures(bothmean
effect sizes were 0.78). Structuresthat involved cooperationwithin groups but
competitionbetweengroupsalso led to higheraverageachievementthan compet-
itive or individualisticstructures(mean effect sizes of 0.37 and 0.50, respectively).
Johnsonet al. (1981) also conductedregressionanalysesto examinethe influence
on theseeffectsizesof some 20 possiblemediatingor moderatingvariables,although
small sample sizes restrictedthe usefulnessof many of the findings. There was
some evidencethat the benefitsof cooperativestructuresweregreaterwhen group
sizes were small (2 or 3), when the task requiredmore interdependenceamong
groupmembers(e.g., a groupproductwas to be generated),and when the task was
not a simple exercise(see Johnson, Maruyama,& Johnson, 1982, for the clearest
data on these issues). Overall,Johnson et al. (1981) concluded that cooperative
structuresare generallysuperiorto competitive or individualisticstructuresin
promotingstudentachievement.
This conclusionwas criticizedby Cottonand Cook (1982) and McGlynn(1982),
with a responsefrom Johnson et al. (1982). The heart of the criticisminvolved
concern that no such generalstatementcould be made, given the reportedinter-
actions of the effect sizes with other variables,and furtherprobableinteractions
with othervariablesthat were not studied.Johnsonet al. (1982) effectivelyrefuted
some of the more specificcriticisms,but agreedthat there probablyare learning
situationsin which cooperativestructuresare not as effective as competitiveor
individualisticstructures.They noted, however,that such situationsappearto be
much less common than those in which cooperativestructuresare superior.
The effectson achievementof cooperativelearningstructureshave been further
analyzed by Slavin (1983b, 1984), who focused on the value of cooperative
incentives.Cooperativeincentivesare incentivesin which the rewardsfor individ-
uals are based on performanceof the group as a whole (either througha group
productor throughthe aggregatedperformancesof the individualgroupmembers).
Slavin contrastedthree incentive situationsfor studentswho have been asked to
work on tasks in groups:group rewardfor the individualperformanceof group
members,grouprewardfora groupproduct,and individualrewardforperformance
tested individuallyafter the group activitieswere completed. He reportedstrong
evidence(basedon 28 studies)thatthe use of grouprewardbasedon the individual
performanceof group memberswas an effectivestrategyfor enhancingthe mean
achievementof the group, hypothesizingthat this incentive structureencouraged
group membersto be concernedabout improvingthe learningof all group mem-
bers.Slavinreportedthat studiesof the use of grouprewardon the basisof a group
product did not demonstrateany clear superiorityof cooperativelearningover
noncooperativeapproaches.Slavin gave some emphasis to this finding in his
conclusions,causingsome controversybecauseit was based on only eight studies
459
TerenceJ. Crooks
and should thus probably be regardedas tentative. The 10 studies in which
individualrewardsweregiven basedon individualperformanceshowedno advan-
tage for cooperativestudy over noncooperativeapproaches.
Slavinconcludedthat the use of grouprewardsbasedon the individualperform-
ance of group members is essentialto the effectivenessof cooperativelearning
methods.Such a strongconclusionmay not be justifiedon the basisof the data he
reported,but this incentivestructuredoes appearto be beneficialto grouplearning
(see also Lew, Mesch,Johnson,& Johnson, 1986).
Effects on social outcomes. One widely cited benefit of cooperativelearning
structuresis that they lead to increasedcohesivenessamong the studentsinvolved
(Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama,1983; Slavin, 1983a). This can be especially
beneficialin classesthat are diversein ethnic composition,abilitylevel, or because
of the inclusion of mainstreamedhandicappedstudents. Johnson et al. (1983)
conducteda meta-analysisof 98 studiesof cooperativelearning,with interpersonal
attractionas the dependentvariable.They found little differencebetweencompet-
itive and individualisticstructures,but studentsin cooperativestructuresscored
substantiallyhigherin mean interpersonalattraction.Wherethe cooperativegroups
were not competitivewith each other, the effect size was 1.11 (comparedboth to
competitiveandto individualisticstructures).Wheretherewascompetitionbetween
groups,the meaneffectsizewassmaller(0.79 comparedto individualisticstructures,
0.55 comparedto competitivestructures).Clearly,structuresthat encouragecoop-
erationamongstudentscan havesubstantialbeneficialeffectson socialrelationships
among students.
Astin (1987) discussedthe benefitsof cooperativelearningin highereducation.
Among otherthings,he emphasizedthat a key benefitcould be an enhancedsense
of mutualtrust,both among studentsand betweenstudentsand teacher.He noted
that in competitivelearningsituations,studentsoften work very hard to disguise
theirignorance(frompeersand fromtheirteacher).This limits the availabilityand
effectivenessof feedback,thus undermininglearning.Astin sees cooperativestruc-
tureshelpingto overcomethis problem,while fosteringinterpersonalskillsthat are
greatlyneededin the community.
MotivationalAspects Relatingto ClassroomEvaluation
Researchhas repeatedlydemonstratedthat the responsesof individualstudents
to educationalexperiencesand tasks are complex functionsof their abilitiesand
personalities,theirpasteducationalexperiences,theircurrentattitudes,self-percep-
tions and motivationalstates,togetherwith the natureof the currentexperiences
and tasks. Effectiveeducationrequiresthe fusing of "skilland will" (Paris, 1988;
Paris& Cross, 1983),and intrinsicinterestand continuingmotivationto learnare
educationaloutcomesthat shouldbe regardedas at least as importantas cognitive
outcomes(Maehr,1976;Paris, 1988).The importanceof motivationalfactorshas
been vigorouslystatedby Howe (1987):
I have a strong feeling that motivational factors are crucial whenever a person
achieves anything of significance as a result of learning and thought, and I cannot
think of exceptions to this statement. That is not to claim that a high level of
motivation can ever be a sufficient condition for human achievements, but it is
undoubtedly a necessary one. And, conversely, negative motivational influences,
such as fear of failure, feelings of helplessness, lack of confidence, and having the
460
Impactof ClassroomEvaluationon Students
experiencethatone'sfateis largelycontrolled
by externalfactorsratherthanby
oneself,almostcertainly
haveeffectsthatrestricta person'slearnedachievements.
(p. 142)
466
Impactof ClassroomEvaluationon Students
parablein their mix of abilities.Finally,Ames (1984) and Johnson and Johnson
(1985) presentedevidencethat learningin a cooperativegroupis more enjoyable
for most studentsthan learningindividually,and thatthistendsto enhanceintrinsic
motivationfor learning.
Conclusionsand Recommendations for EducationalPractice
This review began with a caution about the dangersof overgeneralizationin
educationalresearch.In statingthe followingconclusionsand recommendations,
therefore,I must stressthat they are not likelyto applyin all situationsor with all
students.Instead,they representsimplificationsthat appearlikely to benefit the
greatestproportionof students,and in particularto providemorefavorablelearning
conditionsfor the weakerstudents.Many of the specificpoints drawsupportfrom
severalof the areas of researchreviewedearlier,thus increasingthe confidence
which I have in them.
Importanceof evaluation.Classroomevaluationaffectsstudentsin manydifferent
ways. For instance,it guidestheirjudgmentof what is importantto learn,affects
their motivationand self-perceptionsof competence,structurestheir approaches
to and timing of personalstudy (e.g., spacedpractice),consolidateslearning,and
affectsthe developmentof enduringlearningstrategiesand skills. It appearsto be
one of the most potent forcesinfluencingeducation.Accordingly,it deservesvery
carefulplanningand considerableinvestmentof time fromeducators.Manyof the
skills and attitudesthat are goals of education take years to develop, and their
developmentcan be underminedby lack of consistent supportfor them in the
educationalexperiencesof the students(see Howe, 1987;Meyers,1986).
Classroomevaluationcurrentlyappearsto receiveless thoughtthan most other
aspectsof education.Itspowerto affectstudentsis not widelyperceivedor discussed.
A more professionalapproachto evaluationwoulddemandregularand thoughtful
analysisby teachersof theirpersonalevaluationpractices,greateruse of peerreview
procedures,and considerableattention to the establishmentof more consistent
progressionsof expectationsand criteriawithinand amongeducationalinstitutions.
Importanceof deep learning.All too often, classroomevaluationplaces heavy
emphasison the recallor recognitionof comparativelyisolatedpieces of informa-
tion to which the students have earlierbeen exposed. This encouragessurface
(memorizing)approachesto learning. Many of these details have at best only
temporaryrelevanceto the students,eitherbecausethe areastudieddoes not relate
to their later activitiesor interests,or becausethe details are supercededby new
informationor developments.Further,it has been repeatedlydemonstratedthat
isolateddetailsareespeciallyreadilyforgotten,and that informationis remembered
better and is more useable if students learn it within a broaderframeworkof
meaningfulinterrelationships and understanding.Finally,the knowledgethat stu-
dents accumulateduringschoolingmay be less importantthan the learningskills
and habitsthey develop, which can help them grow and adaptto new needs and
experiencesthroughouttheirlifetime.This is increasinglytrue as moderntechnol-
ogy makesfactualinformationavailableveryflexiblyand quickly(Rothkopf,1988,
p. 279).
For all these reasons,there is a need to make deep learninga centralgoal of
education,and to fosterdevelopmentof this goalthroughthe evaluationof students
467
TerenceJ. Crooks
(see also Bloom, 1986; Bok, 1986; Cronbach, 1988; Lowell, 1926; Whitehead,
1929).This requiresthat we place emphasison understanding,transferof learning
to untaught problems or situations, and other thinking skills, evaluating the
developmentof these skills throughtasks that clearly must involve more than
recognitionor recall.
Theseskillstaketime to develop,however,and areparticularlydifficultfor some
students(Lohman, 1986;Thomas,Iventosch,& Rohwer, 1987),so it is important
that they be given steadilyincreasingemphasisfromthe earliestyearsof schooling.
By the time studentsare in the uppergradelevels or in college,thereis a good case
for arguingthat factualknowledgeshould be subsumedunderhigherlevel objec-
tives, so that studentsare expectedto use factualknowledgein solvinga problem
or carryingout a process,but are not tested directlyon their ability to recallthe
information.
Evaluationto assist learning.Too muchemphasishasbeen placedon the grading
functionof evaluation,and too little on its role in assistingstudentsto learn.The
integralrole of evaluationin teachingand learningneeds to be grasped,and its
certificationfunctionplacedin properperspective.It is hardto see anyjustification
before the final year or so of high school for placing much emphasison using
classroom evaluation for normativegradingof student achievement,given the
evidence reviewedhere that normativegrading(with the social comparisonand
interstudentcompetitionthat accompanyit) producesundesirableconsequences
for most students.
These undesirableeffectsinclude reductionof intrinsicmotivation,debilitating
evaluation anxiety, ability attributionsfor success and failure that undermine
studenteffort,loweredself-efficacyfor learningin the weakerstudents,reduceduse
and effectivenessof feedbackto improvelearning,and poorersocial relationships
among the students.Gradingon a fixed curve is especiallyinappropriatebecause
it emphasizesparticularlystronglya comparativeapproachto grading.Strong
emphasison the gradingfunctionof evaluationhas also led to overuseof features
normallyassociatedwith standardizedtesting, such as very formal testing condi-
tions, speededtests with strict time limits, a restrictedrange of item types, and
emphasison the overallscoreratherthan what can be learnedabout strengthsand
weaknesses.These may be appropriatein psychologicaltesting, but are rarely
appropriatein educationaltesting(Wood, 1986).
Much of the evaluationactivityin educationmight more profitablybe directed
solely to giving useful feedbackto students,whereasthe less frequentevaluations
for summativepurposesshould focus on describingwhat studentscan or can't do
(i.e., should be criterion referenced).The likely small reduction in reliability
associatedwith countingfewerevaluationsin the summativeevaluationwould be
a modestpenaltyto pay for the benefitsdescribedaboveand the improvedvalidity
associatedwith greateremphasison final competence(ratherthan on the mistakes
made alongthe way).
Effectivefeedback.Thereare severalwaysin whichthe effectivenessof feedback
could be enhanced.First,feedbackis most effectiveif it focusesstudents'attention
on their progressin masteringeducational tasks. Such emphasis on personal
progressenhancesself-efficacy,encourageseffortattributions,and reducesattention
to social comparison.The approachthat leads to the most valuablefeedbackis
nicely capturedby Easleyand Zwoyer(1975):
468
Impactof ClassroomEvaluationon Students
If youcanbothlistento childrenandaccepttheiranswersnotas thingsto justbe
judgedrightorwrongbutaspiecesof information whichmayrevealwhatthechild
is thinkingyou will havetakena giantsteptowardbecominga masterteacher
ratherthanmerelya disseminator of information.
(p.25)
Second, feedbackshould take place while it is still clearlyrelevant.This usually
implies that it should be providedsoon after a task is completed, and that the
studentshould be given opportunitiessubsequentlyto demonstratelearningfrom
the feedback.One of the strengthsof masterylearningapproachesis the emphasis
on feedbackand subsequentopportunitiesto correctdeficiencieswithout penalty
for the earlierfailure.
Third, feedbackshould be specific and relatedto need. Simple knowledgeof
resultsshould be providedconsistently(directlyor implicitly),with more detailed
feedbackonly where necessaryto help the studentwork throughmisconceptions
or other weaknessesin performance.Praiseshould be used sparinglyand where
used should be task specific, whereas criticism (other than simply identifying
deficiencies)is usuallycounterproductive.
Benefits of cooperation.Cooperativelearning approachescan be effective in
facilitatingstudentlearningand motivationand in developinggood interpersonal
skills and relationships.They are particularlyappropriatefor more complex tasks
wherethe differentperspectivesand skillsof groupmemberscan complementeach
other.
Approachesthat encourageactive engagementof all individualsand that stimu-
late helpingbehaviorswithingroupsaremost desirable.Groupsmay worktogether
on a group product, but it is also desirableto include some evaluation of the
learningof the individualmembersin the overallevaluationof the achievements
of the group.
One of the benefitsof cooperativelearningis likelyto be enhanceddevelopment
of valuablepeer and self-evaluationskills (see Boyd & Cowan, 1985, Johnston &
Winograd,1985), becausethere is an incentive for groupsto monitor their own
progress.When normativegradingis de-emphasized,cooperativelearningis pre-
dictablymore easy to establish.
Setting standards.Researchhas repeatedlydemonstratedthat studentsachieve
most and gain most on key motivationalvariableswhen evaluationstandardsare
high but attainable.In many teachingsituationsthis is not possibleif all students
are working simultaneouslyon the same tasks and trying to meet the same
standards.Under such circumstances,some studentswill probablynot be chal-
lenged,whereasothersmay find the standardsunattainable(see Bennett, 1988, p.
26).
To optimize learning outcomes, several alternativeapproachesare possible.
Standardsand/or tasksmay be set forindividualstudents,or considerableflexibility
in learningpathwaysprovided(e.g., masterylearningapproaches),or cooperative
learning may be used to reduce pressure on individuals and compensate for
individualstrengthsand weaknesses.Weakerstudentsmay benefit from identifi-
cation of more attainableintermediategoals, thus makingpossiblethe patternof
repeatedsuccessesthat leads to improvedself-efficacy.Requirementsand criteria
should be made very clear before an importanttask is attempted(Anderson&
Armbruster,1984; Natriello, 1987), to avoid misdirectedeffort and increased
evaluationanxiety.
469
Terence J. Crooks
Frequency of evaluation. Students should be given regular opportunities to
practice and use the skills and knowledge that are the goals of the program, and to
obtain feedback on their performance. Such evaluation fosters active learning,
consolidation of learning, and if appropriately arranged can also provide the
retention benefits associated with spaced practice. Much of this evaluation can be
quite informal, however, and certainly does not need to be conducted under test-
like conditions. For higher level outcomes, in particular, it seems likely that too
much formal evaluation may be as bad as too little because conceptual understand-
ing and skills do not develop overnight.
Selection of evaluation tasks. The nature and format of evaluation tasks should
be selected to suit the goals that are being assessed. In most courses this will lead
to substantial variety in tasks, with benefits in versatility of approach and devel-
opment of transfer skills (Elton, 1982). If it is not inconsistent with program
objectives, students could be given some choice of tasks to be attempted. This
stimulates and takes advantage of intrinsic motivation, and helps provide suitable
challenges for all students.
What is evaluated. The most vital of all the messages emerging from this review
is that as educators we must ensure that we give appropriate emphasis in our
evaluations to the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that we perceive to be most
important. Some of these important outcomes may be hard to evaluate, but it is
important that we find ways to assess them. Cross (1987) sums up this point very
clearly:
It serves no useful purpose to lower our educational aspirations because we cannot
yet measure what we think is important to teach. Quite the contrary, measurement
and assessment will have to rise to the challenge of our educational aspirations. (p.
6)
470
Impact of Classroom Evaluation on Students
471
Terence J. Crooks
472
Impact of Classroom Evaluation on Students
Francis, J. (1982). A case for open-book examinations. Educational Review, 34, 13-26.
Fredericksen, N. (1984a). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning.
/AmericanPsy!chologist,39, 193-202.
Fredericksen, N. (1984b). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving.
Reviewlof EducationalResearch,54, 363-407.
Friedman, H. (1987). Repeat examinations in introductory statistics. Teaching of Psychology,
14, 20-23.
Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of instructional design. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers' questioning. Educational Leadership,
42(3), 40-47.
Gay, L. R. (1980). The comparative effects of multiple-choice versus short-answer tests on
retention.Journalof EducationalMeasurement,17, 45-50.
Glaser, R. (1985, November). The integration of instruction and testing. Paper presented at
the E.T.S. Invitational Conference on the Redesign of Testing for the 21st Century, New
York.
Goslin, D. A. (1967). Teachers and testing (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gullickson, A. R. (1984). Teacher perspectives of their instructional use of tests. Journal of
Edlucational
Research,77, 244-248.
Gullickson, A. R. (1985). Student evaluation techniques and their relationship to grade and
curriculum.Journalof EducationalResearch,79, 96-100.
Gullickson, A. R., & Ellwein, M. C. (1985). Post hoc analysis of teacher-made tests: The
goodness-of-fit between prescription and practice. Educational Measurement. Issues and
Practice, 4(1), 15-18.
Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of mastery learning
in elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 73-80.
Guza, D. S., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1987). A comparison of daily and weekly testing on
student spelling performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 373-376.
Haertel, E. (1985). Construct validity and criterion-referenced testing. Review of Educational
Research,55, 23-46.
Haertel, E. (1986, April). Chloosingand using classroomtests. Teachers'perspectiveson
asse.srsment.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
Hakstian, R. (1971). The effects of type of examination anticipated on test preparation and
performance.Journalof EducationalResearch,64, 319-324.
Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational
Research,56, 212-242.
Hamilton, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct
questions and objectives. Reviewvof Educational Research, 55, 47-85.
Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive
model of self-worth. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self. New York: Academic
Press.
Hill, K. T. (1984). Debilitating motivation and testing: A major educational problem-
Possible solutions and policy applications. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivationin education.Vol.1. Studentmotivation.New York:AcademicPress.
Hill, K. T., & Wigfield, A. (1984). Test anxiety: A major educational problem and what can
be done about it. Elementary School Joulrnal,85, 105-126.
Howe, M. J. A. (1987). Using cognitive psychology to help students learn how to learn. In J.
T. E. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck, & D. W. Piper (Eds.), Student learning: Research in
education and cognitive psychology. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press &
Society for Research into Higher Education.
474
Impact of Classroom Evaluation on Students
McKeachie,W. J., Pintrich,P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith,D. A. F. (1986). Teachingand learning
in the collegeclassroom:A reviewof the researchliterature.Ann Arbor,Michigan:National
Centerfor Researchto ImprovePostsecondaryTeachingand Learning.
McPartland,J. M. (1987, April).Changingtestingand gradingpracticesto improvestudent
motivationand teacher-student relationships:Designsfor researchto evaluatenewideasfor
departmentalexams and progressgrades. Paperpresentedat the annual meeting of the
AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Washington,DC.
Medley,D. M. (1979).The effectivenessof teachers.In P. L. Peterson& H. J. Walberg(Eds.),
Researchon teaching.Berkeley,CA: McCutchan.
Messick,S. (1984a). The psychologyof educationalmeasurement.Journalof Educational
Measurement,21, 215-237.
Messick,S. (1984b).Abilitiesand knowledgein educationalachievementtesting:The assess-
ment of dynamiccognitivestructures.In B. S. Plake(Ed.),Buros-Nebraska symposiumon
measurementand testing.Vol.1. Social and technicalissues in testing:Implicationsfor test
constructionand usage. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer,G. (1934). An experimentalstudy of the old and new types of examination:1. The
effectof the examinationset on memory.Journalof EducationalPsychology,25, 641-661.
Meyer,G. (1935).An experimentalstudyof the old andnewtypesof examination:2. Methods
of study.Journalof EducationalPsychology,26, 30-40.
Meyers,C. (1986). Teachingstudentsto thinkcritically.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Miller,C. M. L., & Parlett,M. (1974). Up to the mark:A study of the examinationgame.
London:Societyfor Researchinto HigherEducation.
Miller,G. E. (1976). Continuousassessment.MedicalEducation,10, 81-86.
Miller,G. E. (1978). 'Teachingand learningin medicalschool'revisited.MedicalEducation,
12, Supplement,120-125.
Mills, S. R., Rice, C. T., Berliner,D. C., & Rousseau,E. W. (1980). The correspondence
betweenteacherquestionsand studentanswersin classroomdiscourse.Journalof Experi-
mentalEducation,48, 194-204.
Milton,0. (1982). Willthat be on thefinal?Springfield,IL:CharlesC. Thomas.
Natriello,G. (1987). The impactof evaluationprocesseson students.EducationalPsycholo-
gist, 22, 155-175.
Natriello,G., & Dornbusch,S. M. (1984). Teacherevaluativestandardsand studenteffort.
New York: Longman.
Naveh-Benjamin,M., McKeachie,W. J., & Lin, Y-G. (1987). Two types of test-anxious
students:Supportfor an informationprocessingmodel.Journalof EducationalPsychology,
79, 131-136.
Newble, D. I., & Jaeger,K. (1983). The effect of assessmentsand examinationson the
learningof medicalstudents.MedicalEducation,17, 25-31.
Nicholls,J. G. (1983). Conceptionsof abilityand achievementmotivation:A theoryand its
implicationsforeducation.In S. G. Paris,G. M. Olson,& H. W. Stevenson(Eds.),Learning
and motivationin the classroom.Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Nicholls,J. G. (1984).Achievementmotivation:Conceptionsof ability,subjectiveexperience,
task choice, and performance.PsychologicalReview,91, 328-346.
Nungester,R. J., & Duchastel,P. C. (1982). Testing versus review:Effectson retention.
Journalof EducationalPsychology,74, 18-22.
O'Neill, M., Razor, R. A., & Bartz, W. R. (1976). Immediateretentionof objectivetest
answersas a functionof feedbackcomplexity.Journalof EducationalResearch,70, 72-75.
Page, E. B. (1958). Teachercommentsand studentperformance:A seventy-fourclassroom
experimentin school motivation.Journalof EducationalPsychology,49, 173-181.
Paris,S. G. (1988, April).Fusing skill and will in children'slearningand schooling.Paper
presentedat the annualmeetingof the AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,New
Orleans,LA.
Paris,S. G., & Cross,D. R. (1983).Ordinarylearning:Pragmaticconnectionsamongchildren's
477
Terence J. Crooks
478
Impactof ClassroomEvaluationon Students
75). East Lansing,MI: MichiganState University,Institutefor Researchon Teaching.
(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo. ED 189 136).
Ryan,R. M., Connell,J. P., & Deci, E. L. (198.5).A motivationalanalysisof self-determination
and self-regulationin education.In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.),Researchon motivationin
education.Vol.2. The classroommilieu.New York:AcademicPress.
Sadler,D. R. (1983). Evaluationand the improvementof academic learning.Journal of
HigherEducation,54, 60-79.
Salmon-Cox,L. (1981). Teachersand standardizedachievementtests:What'sreallyhappen-
ing?Phi Delta Kappan,62, 631-634.
Samson,G. E., Strykowski,B., Weinstein,T., & Walberg,H. J. (1987). The effectsof teacher
questioninglevelson studentachievement:A quantitativesynthesis.Journalof Educational
Research,80, 290-295.
Sarason,I. R. (1980). Testanxiety:Theoryand applications.Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Sassenrath,J. M., & Garverick,C. M. (1965). Effectsof differentialfeedbackfrom examina-
tions on retentionand transfer.Journalof EducationalPsychology,56, 259-263.
Sax, G., & Collet,L. S. (1968). An empiricalcomparisonof the effectsof recalland multiple-
choice tests on studentachievement.Journalof EducationalMeasurement,5, 169-173.
Schmeck,R. R. (1983). Learningstylesof college students.In R. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck,
Individualdifferencesin cognition.New York:AcademicPress.
Schmeck,R. R. (1988). Individualdifferencesand learningstrategies.In C. E. Weinstein,E.
T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander(Eds.),Learningand study strategies:Issues in assessment,
instruction,and evaluation.San Diego, CA:AcademicPress.
Schunk,D. (1984). Self-efficacyperspectiveon achievementbehavior.EducationalPsychol-
ogist, 19, 48-58.
Schunk,D. (1985). Self-efficacyand classroomlearning.Psychologyin the Schools,22, 208-
223.
Shavelson,R. J., Berliner,D. C., Ravitch,M. M., & Loeding,D. (1974). Effectsof position
and type of question on learningfrom prose material:Interactionof treatmentswith
individualdifferences.Journalof EducationalPsychology,66, 40-48.
Shulman,L. S. (1980). Test design:A view from practice.In E. L. Baker& E. S. Quellmaltz
(Eds.),Educationaltestingand evaluation.BeverlyHills, CA:Sage.
Slavin,R. E. (1978).Separatingincentives,feedback,and evaluation:Towarda moreeffective
classroomsystem.EducationalPsychologist,13, 97-100.
Slavin,R. E. (1983a).Cooperativelearning.New York:Longman.
Slavin,R. E. (1983b).Whendoes cooperativelearningincreasestudentachievement?Psycho-
logicalBulletin,94, 429-445.
Slavin,R. E. (1984). Studentsmotivatingstudentsto excel:Cooperativeincentives,coopera-
tive tasks,and studentachievement.ElementarySchoolJournal,85, 53-63.
Slavin,R. E. (1987). Developmentaland motivationalperspectiveson cooperativelearning:
A reconciliation.ChildDevelopment,58, 1161-1167.
Snyder,B. R. (1971). Thehiddencurricululm. Cambridge,MA:M.I.T.Press.
Spitzer,H. F. (1939). Studiesin retention.Journalof EducationalPsychology,30, 641-656.
Stice,J. E. (1987). Learninghow to think:Beingearnestis importantbut it's not enough.In
J. E. Stice (Ed.), New directionsfor teachingand learning. Vol. 30. Developingcritical
thinkingandproblem-solving abilities.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Stiggins,R. J. (1985). Improvingassessmentwhere it means the most: In the classroom.
EducationalLeadership,43(2), 69-74.
Stiggins,R. J., & Bridgeford,N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroomassessment.Journalof
EducationalMeasurement,22, 271-286.
Stiggins,R. J., Conklin,N. F., & Bridgeford,N. J. (1986). Classroomassessment:A key to
effectiveeducation.EducationalMeasurement:Issues and Practice,5(2), 5-17.
Stiggins,R. J., Griswold,M., Green, K. R., & associates(1988, April).Measuringthinking
479
Terence J. Crooks
skills through classroom assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans.
Strang, H. R., & Rust, J. 0. (1973). The effect of immediate knowledge of results and task
definition on multiple-choice answering. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 77-80.
Svensson, L. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: 3. Study skill and learning. British
Journal of Educational Psvchology, 47, 233-243.
Terry, P. W. (1933). How students review for objective and essay tests. Elementary School
Journal,33, 592-603.
Thomas, J. W., Iventosch, L., & Rohwer, W. D. (1987). Relationships among student
characteristics, study activities, and achievement as a function of course characteristics.
EducationalPsychology,12, 344-364.
Contemporary
Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. (1986). Academic studying: the role of learning strategies.
EducationalPsy'chologist,
21, 19-41.
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodyard, E. (1934). The influence of the relative frequency of success
and frustrations upon intellectual achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25,
241-250.
Thorndike, R. L. (1969). Helping teachers use tests. NCME Measurement in Education, 1(1),
1-4.
Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 20, 135-142.
van Rossum, E. J., Diejkers, R., & Hamer, R. (1985). Students' learning conceptions and
their interpretation of significant educational concepts. Higher Education, 14, 617-641.
van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception,
study strategy, and learning outcome. British Jolurnal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-
83.
Watkins, D. (1984). Students' perceptions of factors influencing tertiary learning. Higher
EducationResearchand Development,3, 33-50.
Watts, G., & Anderson, R. C. ( 1971). Effects of three types of inserted questions on learning
from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 387-394.
Webb, N. M. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary.
In R. E. 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.
Webb, N. M. (1988, April). Small group problem-solving.Peer interactionand learning.
Invited address at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psvcho-
logical Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attrihltional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Wexley, K. N., & Thornton, C. L. (1972). Effect of verbal feedback of test results on learning.
Journalof EducationalResearch,66, 119-121.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
Wilson, J. D. (1981). Student learning in higher education. London: Croom Helm.
Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers' use of higher cognitive level questions to
student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13-50.
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-
95.
Wittrock, M. C. (1979). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Psychologist,
13, 15-29.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.
480
Impact of Classroom Evaluation on Students
Wood, R. (1986). The agenda for educational measurement. In D. L. Nuttall (Ed.), Assessing
educational achievement. London: Falmer Press.
Author
TERENCE J. CROOKS, Senior Lecturer, Director, Higher Education Development Centre,
University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Specializations: improvement
of tertiary education, research design, measurement and evaluation.
481