The use of question mark software for formative and summative assessment in two universities

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 128-136

  Bull, Joanna ^a   Stephens, Derek ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BEDFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^b LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033412369     PISSN: 14703297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1355800990360205     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Barnett-Foster, D and Nagy, P (1995) A comparison of undergraduate test response strategies for multiple-choice and constructed test response questions, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41, 1, 18-35.
2. Biggs, J (1987) Student Approaches in Learning and Studying Melbourne, Australian Conference for Educational Research.
3. Brown, G (1994) Assessment of learning: its implications for quality, paper given at the Open University Conference on Assessment, London, September, 1994.
4. Brown, G, Bull, J and Pendlebury, M (1997) Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education, Routledge, London.
5. Burgess, R and Lee, B (1989) Good Practice in Assessment: Criteria and Procedures for CNAA Undergraduate Courses, Council for National Academic Awards, London.
6. Chansarkar, B A (1995) Teaching learning and assessment in large classes. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 26, 1 (Jan-Feb), 69-73.
7. CNAA (1989) How Shall we Assess Them? Council for National Academic Awards, London.
8. Dempster, J (1994) Review: Question Mark Designer for Windows. Active Learning, 1, (December), 47-50.
9. Entwistle, N (1987) Styles of Learning and Teaching (2nd edn), Wiley, Chichester.
10. Entwistle, N J (1992) The Impact of Teaching on Learning Outcomes, Committee for Vice Chancellors and Principals/Universities' Staff Development Unit, Sheffield.
11. Entwistle, N J and Tait, H (1990) Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and preferences for contrasting academic environments, Higher Education, 19, 169-261.
12. Flowers (see Lord Flowers)
13. Fuchs, L and Fuchs, D (1989) Enhancing curriculum-based measurement through computer applications: review of research and practice. School Psychology Review, 18, 3, 318-27.
14. Hakstian, A R (1971) The effects of type of examination anticipated on test preparation and performance, Journal of Educational Research, 64, 319-24.
15. Kniveton, B H (1996) A correlation analysis of multiple-choice and essay assessment measures. Research in Education, 56, 73-84.
16. Kulik, J J and Kulik, C C (1979) College teaching. In Peterson, R L and Waldberg, H J (eds), Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings and Implications, McCutchan, Berkeley.
17. Leask, M (1994) Modular courses, assessment and student capability. In Jenkins, A and Walker, L (eds), Developing Student Capability through Modular Courses, Kogan Page, London.
18. Laurillard, D (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology, Routledge, London.
19. Lloyd, D, Martin, J G and McCaffery, K (1996) The introduction of computer-based testing on an engineering technology course, Assessment and Evaluation In Higher Educational, 21, 1, 83-90.
20. Lord Flowers and the Committee of Enquiry (1993) Review of the Academic Year: Interim Report for Consultation, HMSO, London.
21. Maddux, C and Johnson, L (1993) Best practices in computer-assisted assessment (Ch. 6). In Best Practices in Assessment for School and Cultural Settings, Clinical Psychology Publishing, Brandon, Vermont, 177-201.
22. Marton, F and Saljo, R (1976) On qualitative differences in learning. 1 - outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
23. McCabe, M (1994) Computing practical exams for over-forties (large student numbers), Monitor, Newsletter of the Computers in Teaching Initiative Centre for Computing, 4, (Winter), 82-8.
24. Newble, D and Clarke, R (1987) Approaches to learning in a traditional and an innovative medical school. In Richardson, J T E, Eysenck, M W and Piper, D W Student Learning Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology, SRHE and Open University, Milton Keynes.
25. Newble, D I and Jaeger, K (1983) The effect of assessment and examinations on the learning of medical students, Medical Education, 17, 165-71
26. Newstead, S and Dennis, I (1994) Examiners examined: the reliability of exam marking in psychology. The Psychologist 7, 216-19.
27. Parshall, C (1995) Practical issues in computer-based testing, Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems, Summer, 13-17.
28. Pritchett, N and Zakrzewski, S (1996) Interactive computer assessment of large groups: student responses, Innovations in Education and Training International, 33, 3, 242-7.
29. Proctor, A and Donoghue, D (1994) Computer based assessment: a case study in geography. Active Learning, 1, December, 29-34.
30. Ramsden, P (1988) Context and strategy: situational influences on learning. In Schmeck, R R (ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, Plenum, New York.
31. Scouller, K M and Prosser, M (1994) Students' experiences in studying for multiple choice question examinations, Studies in Higher Education, 19, 3, 267-79.
32. Stephens, D (1994) Using computer-assisted assessment: time saver of sophisticated distraction? Active Learning, 1, December, 8-15.
33. Stewart, M (1995) Increasing student numbers and diversity: a problem or a stimulus? Physics Education, 30, 1, 38-41.
34. Tsai, C (1989) Hypertext - technology, applications and research issues, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 17, 1, 3-14.
35. Turney, C (ed.) (1984) Skills of Supervision, University of Sydney Press, Sydney.
36. Watkins, D and Hattie, J (1985) A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students, Human Learning, 4, 127-41.
37. While, D and Riley, R (1996) Getting your weekends back, paper presented at the Innovations in Student Assessment Conference, Quality Support Centre, London, April 1996.
38. Wolf, A and Silver, R (1993) The reliability of test candidates and the implications for one shot testing, Educational Review, 45, 3, 263-78.