Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.1.5-9
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Comparison of Management Faculty Perspectives
on Quizzing and Its Alternatives
Paul Bacdayan
To cite this article: Paul Bacdayan (2004) Comparison of Management Faculty Perspectives
on Quizzing and Its Alternatives, Journal of Education for Business, 80:1, 5-9, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.80.1.5-9
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.1.5-9
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:22
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
Comparison of Management Faculty
Perspectives on Quizzing and
Its Alternatives
PAUL BACDAYAN
University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth
Dartmouth, Massachusetts
W
hen an entire section of students
shows up without having prepared the day’s homework, it can hinder
the in-class activities for that day. When
such behavior becomes frequent, the
atmosphere and achievement of the
class can decline markedly. Students
who ignore homework assignments may
subsequently miss related points in lectures, behave passively in case discussions, or miss the conceptual element in
experiential exercises.
The topic of how to deal with poor
student preparation—including giving
quizzes and their alternatives—is timely.
The economic downturn has tightened
university budgets (Chaptman, 2002;
Klein, 2004; Russell, 2003) and promoted conditions that may reduce student
preparation. For example, larger classes
are efficient but may reduce preparation
by allowing student anonymity (Chism,
1989; Doran & Golen, 1998). Also, cuts
in financial aid may reduce student
preparation as students work ever more
hours at part-time jobs (Dutton &
Gokcekus, 2002). These economic factors serve only to heighten the effect of
other conditions that already lower student preparation. These conditions
include disengaged students (Trout,
1997), a decline in the basic academic
skills of incoming students (Lanier, Tanner, Zhu, & Heady, 1997), and students
with expectations of acceptable grades
ABSTRACT. In this study, the author
compares the views of faculty members who give quizzes and those who
do not regarding (a) the potential
drawbacks of quizzing and (b) the viability of various quiz alternatives such
as graded homework. The results suggest that quizzers and nonquizzers
have much in common and that
quizzing is simply one of a variety of
potentially effective techniques for
boosting student preparation. The
author also presents data on typical
quiz practices.
for subpar work (Landrum, 1999).
Finally, instructors may be reluctant to
push students because of concerns that
low student grades will result in low
teaching evaluations (Wallace & Wallace, 1998; Winsor, 1977). These factors
all may combine to reduce student
preparation and allow a decline in academic standards.
As a policy response to the potential
erosion of academic standards, Crumbley (1995) argued that it may be necessary for some schools or departments
to introduce “regulated courses.” In
such courses, all instructors apply rigorous uniform procedures (including
norms for workload, testing procedures, and grade distributions).
Although this uniformity somewhat
restricts the instructor’s discretion,
Crumbley argued that it can help boost
academic standards while insulating
instructors from backlash from stu-
dents unhappy about being pushed.
The regulated course presents a united
front to students and reduces disparities in workload between sections.
A less extreme policy, but with some
resemblance to the regulated course,
might simply mandate the use of quizzes
to boost student preparation. Quizzes are
defined as short, relatively frequent
(often weekly) tests on a limited amount
of material. This definition is in line with
previous uses in the educational literature (Michaelsen, Fink, & Watson, 1994;
Noll, 1939; Turney, 1931) and accommodates the fact that quizzes can vary
widely in weight, question type, content
overlap with exams, and other characteristics. A uniform policy of mandated
quizzing, especially in large multiinstructor introductory courses, would
serve to protect those who might otherwise hesitate to quiz. But would it truly
be necessary to propose such a policy at
very many schools? Data indicate that
although quizzes may be useful for some
instructors, not all will find that a policy
of uniform quizzing is the best way to
boost student preparation.
Research Questions
In this article, I offer data about faculty perceptions on three practical questions related to the idea of uniform mandated quizzes.
September/October 2004
5
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
My first question is “What represents
typical quizzing practices?” A clear picture of typical quizzing practices could
help set the parameters for any mandated
quizzing approach. Also, this information could help individual instructors,
whether they currently use quizzes or
not, to visualize the quiz arrangements
and course designs that quiz-using colleagues have found workable. Accordingly, data are needed on the number of
quizzes given, their weight, the degree of
warning given, and the use of group
quizzes (Michaelsen et al., 1994).
The remaining research questions
compare the views of instructors who
quiz (“quizzers”) with the views of
those who do not quiz (“nonquizzers”).
These questions address the advisability
of a uniform quizzing policy by identifying quiz drawbacks as well as viable
nonquiz methods that can supplement
or replace quizzes.
The second question is “What drawbacks of quizzing might discourage
quiz usage?” Instructors may perceive
both instrumental and pedagogical
drawbacks to quizzing. Each kind of
drawback has different implications for
the potential usefulness of a uniform
quizzing policy. For example, on the
one hand, if instructors perceive instrumental drawbacks to quizzing (i.e.,
quizzing hurts instructors), this finding
would be favorable to a quizzing policy. Faculty members may believe that
quizzes—especially if they contribute
to lower grades for some students—
will worsen the end-of-term teaching
evaluations. Certainly there is a long
history of concern about the impact of
lower grades on student evaluations of
teaching (Wallace & Wallace, 1998;
Winsor, 1977; Worthington & Wong,
1979). On the other hand, a finding that
instructors perceive pedagogical drawbacks (i.e., quizzing somehow hurts the
learning process) would be unfavorable
to a quiz policy. For example, faculty
members may believe that quizzes take
excessive class time from other valuable activities.
The third research question is “How
do quizzes compare with potential alternative techniques for motivating student
preparation?” If faculty members perceive viable alternatives to quizzing, it
might be preferable to allow them to use
6
Journal of Education for Business
those techniques instead. These alternatives include both “soft” and “hard”
techniques. Soft techniques include
inspirational speeches and focusing on
topics or exercises of interest to the students (Buskist & Wylie, 1998). Hard
techniques include graded homework
and announced quizzes. Hard techniques
align extrinsic rewards with desired
behavior, as suggested by Kerr (1975) in
his well-known article “The folly of
rewarding A, while hoping for B.” Even
small increases in accountability can
change student behavior, as illustrated
by McDougall and Cordeiro’s (1993)
finding that community college students
who expected cold-call questions prepared significantly more than students
who expected a lecture.
Data on these three questions would
tell us more about the nature and advisability of a uniform quizzing policy, as
well as about potentially viable alternatives to quizzing.
Method
Responses from 78 faculty members,
which respresented a 68% response rate,
provided the data for addressing the three
research questions. All respondents were
instructors in organizational behavior,
human resources, or strategy. Participants
were members of an academic professional organization. A total of 115 surveys were distributed to members at the
group’s annual meeting in spring 2001. I
present a profile of the respondents in
Table 1. They are evenly divided between
tenured and untenured faculty members.
We should note that the sample was split
almost evenly between those who had
used quizzes in the previous 3 years
(53%) and those who had not (47%).
Findings
Typical Quizzing Practices
I initially defined quizzes as short,
relatively frequent tests on a limited
amount of material. The data in this section allow us to go beyond that definition to specify what represents common, mainstream practices regarding
quizzes. Furthermore, by revealing the
compromises that other quizzers have
found acceptable, the data also provide
a baseline against which quizzers may
compare their own practices.
Number of quizzes per semester. For
those who quizzed, the average number
of quizzes per semester was 6.6. This
represents about half the weeks in a 14week semester.
Weight assigned to quiz scores. The
average assigned weight was 16% of the
final grade. Weights of 10%, 15%, and
20% were most common. Quizzes were
not substituting for other forms of evaluation (exams, papers, participation) but
appeared to be supplementing these
other indicators of student performance.
Pop and announced quizzes. Pop
quizzes were given relatively rarely.
Announced quizzes outnumbered pop
quizzes by a wide margin: Sixty-four
percent of the respondents reported
using only announced quizzes, with the
remainder evenly split between other
formats. I show these results in Figure 1.
Group and individual quizzes. Finally, it
appears that group quizzes are rare
compared with individual quizzes
(Michaelsen et al., 1994). Seventy-nine
percent of the faculty respondents in my
study reported using individual quizzes
exclusively.
TABLE 1. Profile of Instructors
(N = 78)
At schools that grant MBAs: 83%
At schools that do not grant PhDs in
business: 74%
Teach management/HRM/OB: 67%
Teach strategy: 23%
Teach other fields: 10%
At schools with AACSB
accreditation: 57%
Male: 55%
Female: 45%
At public (state-affiliated) schools:
54%
Gave quizzes to classes within the
past 3 years: 53%
Tenured: 50%
Not tenured: 50% (32% are tenuretrack, 18% are adjuncts or
students)
Have >21 years of teaching: 30%
Have 10–20 years of teaching: 34%
Have 1–9 years of teaching: 36%
A second set of questions asked
instructors about selected drawbacks
that might discourage quiz use. Using
a 7-point scale with the anchor points 1
(minimal drawback), 4 (moderate
drawback), and 7 (large drawback),
respondents rated items for degree of
difficulty posed. In Figure 2, I compare the ratings by nonquizzers and
quizzers. The drawbacks are again
arranged in ascending order by the ratings of the nonquizzers; issues on the
right are the biggest drawbacks for the
nonquizzers.
Answers for all five items tend to
suggest relatively low absolute levels of
concern; most answers were under 4.0
(i.e., moderate drawback or less). The
item of greatest concern for nonquizzers
was “Quizzes are not consistent with
treating students as adults.” Although
the quizzers saw this as a moderate disadvantage (average 3.90), the nonquizzers were inclined to see it as a larger disadvantage (average 4.94). Of the
five items, this was the only one with a
statistically significant difference (p =
.018, t test of independent samples).
The item about nonadult treatment
appears to the right of Figure 2.
The next-greatest perceived drawback, the amount of in-class time that
quizzes can consume, was also pedagogical. Grading (an instrumental concern) was not seen as a major drawback.
Interestingly, the perceived possibility
of student backlash appeared to be a
minor issue, as shown by results for the
last two instrumental items: “Students
might complain about the quizzes” and
“Quizzes might lower (harm) the ratings
that I get from students.” Neither had a
high average, and neither showed statistically significant contrasts between the
quizzers and nonquizzers. (The item
regarding instructor ratings got a mean
rating of only 2.10 from quizzers and
2.18 from nonquizzers.) The numbers
indicate less concern among the respondents regarding ratings than one might
expect, given the amount of publications
focusing on concerns about the impact
of student evaluations of teaching on
academic standards (Crumbley, 1995).
Thus, the results do not support the
adoption of a uniform quiz policy.
Quizzes Versus Alternative Ways to
Boost Preparation
I presented faculty members with
seven techniques, including quizzes, and
asked them to rate each technique for its
effectiveness in motivating preparation
(see Figure 3). Respondents answered on
a scale ranging from 1 (not at all effective) to 7 (highly effective). In Figure 3, I
compare the ratings by nonquizzers (n =
37) and quizzers (n = 41). The techniques
are arranged in ascending order according to the ratings of the nonquizzers;
techniques on the right were deemed
most effective by the nonquizzers. Only
the quiz-related techniques showed statistically significant differences (t test of
independent samples) between quizzers
and nonquizzers. Quizzers ascribed
greater effectiveness to both forms of
quizzing (pop quizzes, p = .035;
announced quizzes, p = .000). These
items appear on the left side of Figure 3.
Quizzes aside, the respondents
agreed on the effectiveness of the other
five techniques. One of the soft techniques, inspirational speeches, received
low absolute ratings from both quizzers
and nonquizzers. Soft techniques that
topped the list for both groups included
making class fun and focusing on topics
interesting to the students. Among hard
techniques, cold calling received relatively low ratings, whereas graded
homework scored relatively well. The
techniques with the highest joint ratings
from both groups were a mix of hard
and soft techniques: graded homework,
interesting topics, and making class fun.
Pop
18%
Announced
64%
MIxed
18%
FIGURE 1. Proportion of quizzes announced, pop, and mixed.
5.00
Severity (7 = max)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
Perceived Drawbacks of Quiz Use
4.94
No quiz
Quiz
4.12
4.00
3.90
2.78
3.00
3.74
3.08
2.18
2.00
2.10
2.42
2.45
Complain
Grading
Drawback
1.00
Ratings
Class time
Nonadult
FIGURE 2. Drawbacks of quizzing.
September/October 2004
7
Effectiveness (7 = max)
7.00
No quiz
Quiz
6.00
6.0
5.2
5.1
5.00
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.5
5.6
5.97
5.55
4.9
4.00
3.00
3.4
3.6
2.00
1.00
Pop Quiz Ann. Quiz Speech Cold Call Homework
Fun
Interesting
Technique
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
FIGURE 3. Motivational techniques compared for effectiveness.
Discussion
The generalizability of the findings is
limited to some extent by the sample.
Respondents were in the discipline of
management and worked at teachingoriented schools. The results may differ
for disciplines such as accounting or at
highly research-oriented schools. Future
research might explore differences
among disciplines or types of schools.
Despite limitations in the sample, however, the current findings do provide the
basis for five implications.
Implications for Instructors
First, regarding mandatory quiz policies, the findings suggest that such policies may simply be unnecessary. Student backlash about quizzes apparently
was not a major concern for the respondents in the current sample. The united
front presented by a mandatory quiz
policy apparently provides unneeded
protection.
Second, the data suggest that instructors (both quizzers and nonquizzers)
perceive a whole portfolio of viable
techniques. Not even the quizzers themselves appear to rely solely on quizzing;
rather, they are generally positive about
the motivational impact of techniques
such as making class fun. Conversely,
nonquizzers are not entirely averse to
hard approaches: Graded homework
was rated highly by both groups.
Regarding uniform quiz policies, these
results indicate that quizzing need not
be mandated as long as instructors are
8
Journal of Education for Business
willing to employ a variety of motivational techniques.
Even for especially tough groups of
students for whom only hard techniques
will suffice, instructors can create
accountability without quizzing. In addition to graded homework, they can use
the McAleer Interactive Case Analysis
Method (Desiraju & Gopinath, 2001;
Siciliano & McAleer, 1997) and the
technique of frequent testing (Murphy &
Stanga, 1994). The McAleer method features a requirement that class members
submit action recommendations about a
case on the day before the discussion.
The frequent testing method uses numerous small tests instead of a handful of
major exams. Murphy and Stanga (1994)
compared a traditional accounting class
(using 2 or 3 exams) with a frequenttesting treatment (using 6 mini-exams).
Although the results on the final were
the same, the scores on the mini-exams
were higher than the scores for the traditional condition. Interestingly, the endof-term teaching evaluations were higher
for the frequent-testing group. These
additional techniques—the McAleer
Interactive Case Analysis method and
the “frequent testing” approach—offer
potentially useful new ways to create
interim student accountability for class
preparation.
Third, quizzers might reflect seriously on how their use of quizzes might
support the ideal of “treating students as
adults.” The idea of treating students as
adults is important because such treatment may enhance students’ intrinsic
motivation for learning. The need to cul-
tivate internalized study habits already
has been raised by mainstream educational researchers (Nolen, 1988). Internalization matters in a business school
setting because business graduates need
a positive attitude toward lifelong learning to keep up with changes in technology and business practices (Lynton,
1984). Quizzes raise a red flag because,
like other extrinsic motivators, they may
lessen intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971).
However, an instructor’s use of quizzes
does not mean necessarily that the
instructor does not care about treating
students like adults. Instructors who use
quizzes might benefit from asking: Does
the way that quizzes are used in my
class simply compel short-term performance, or can it also help to develop students’ intrinsic motivation and lifelong
study habits? Quizzes may not automatically extinguish intrinsic motivation,
especially when supplemented by nonquiz motivational techniques. Quizzes
for some students also may be a necessary developmental step that guides
them toward acting like adults: A student’s small wins on quizzes ultimately
may build that student’s work habits and
develop a sense of self-efficacy (Wesp,
1986).
Fourth, if classroom conditions
should indicate that quizzes are appropriate, then announced quizzes may
work best. In this study, I found that
quizzers see announced quizzes as having a much stronger motivational
impact than pop quizzes. The specific
deadline of an announced quiz may provoke more actual study than the freefloating threat of a pop quiz.
Fifth and finally, the conditions that
may call for hard motivational techniques
(including quizzes) may be on the
upswing. Serious budget shortfalls exist
at many public and private colleges
(Associated Press, 2002; Chaptman,
2002), and tuition increases may be
insufficient to close the gap (Klein, 2004;
Russell, 2003). As a result, administrators are being forced to cut financial aid,
boost admissions, and trim staff. Student
preparation may decline further as more
students respond to less availability of
financial aid by taking part-time jobs
(Dutton & Gokcekus, 2002) and larger
classes allow student anonymity (Chism,
1989; Doran & Golen, 1998).
Conclusion
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
A classroom full of prepared students
can better undertake in-class learning
activities. Unfortunately, students do
not always prepare. Indeed, the current
economic contraction may foster situations (such as a move to large sections)
that require increased attention to student motivation. To boost student preparation, faculty members should understand faculty views on what works best,
including not only quizzes but alternatives as well. An appreciation of the
options can give instructors the techniques to help the contemporary class
truly perform.
REFERENCES
Associated Press. (2002, November 26). State
coffers are hit hard; Budgets worst since
WWII; Tax hikes loom. The Boston Globe, p.
C2.
Buskist, W., & Wylie, D. (1998). A method for
enhancing student interest in large introductory
classes. Teaching of Psychology, 25(3),
203–205.
Chaptman, D. (2002, December 6). Cuts put
squeeze on Wisconsin campuses; Schools say
they’re strapped for funds. The Boston Globe, p.
A18.
Chism, N. V. (1989). Large enrollment classes:
Necessary evil or not necessarily evil? Notes on
Teaching, 5 [occasional paper]. Columbus:
Ohio State University, Center for Teaching
Excellence.
Crumbley, D. L. (1995). The dysfunctional atmosphere of higher education: Games professors
play. Accounting Perspectives, 1, 67–76.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated
rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Desiraju, R., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Encouraging
participation in case discussions: A comparison
of the MICA and the Harvard Case methods.
Journal of Management Education, 25,
394–408.
Doran, M. S., & Golen, S. (1998). Identifying
communication barriers to learning in large
group accounting instruction. Journal of Education for Business, 73(4), 221–224.
Dutton, M., & Gokcekus, O. (2002, Fall). Work
hours and academic performance. Journal of
the Academy of Business Education, 3, 99–105.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while
hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769–783.
Klein, A. (2004, March 5). States move to limit
increases in tuition. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. 26.
Landrum, R. E. (1999). Student expectations of
grade inflation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 124–128.
Lanier, P. A., Tanner, J. R., Zhu, Z., & Heady, R.
B. (1997). Evaluating instructors’ perceptions
of students’ preparation for management curricula. Journal of Education for Business, 73,
77–84.
Lynton, E. A. (1984). The missing connection
between business and the universities. New
York: Macmillan.
McDougall, D., & Cordeiro, P. (1993). Effects of
random-questioning expectations on community college students’ preparedness for lecture
and discussion. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 17, 39–49.
Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D., & Watson, W. E.
(1994). Pre-instructional minitests: An effi-
cient solution to the problem of covering content. Journal of Management Education, 18,
32–44.
Murphy, D. P., & Stanga, K. P. (1994). The effects
of frequent testing in an income tax course: An
experiment. Journal of Accounting Education,
12(1), 27–41.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
Noll, V. H. (1939). The effect of written tests upon
achievement in college classes: An experiment
and a summary of evidence. Journal of Educational Research, 32, 345–357.
Russell, J. (2003, September 4). A leaner UMass
opens with much bigger classes. The Boston
Globe, p. B4.
Siciliano, J., & McAleer, G. M. (1997). Increasing
student participation in case discussions: Using
the MICA method in strategic management
courses. Journal of Management Education, 21,
209–220.
Trout, P. A. (1997). Disengaged students and the
decline of academic standards. Academic Questions, 10, 46–56.
Turney, A. H. (1931). The effect of frequent short
objective tests upon the achievement of college
students in educational psychology. School and
Society, 33, 760–762.
Wallace, J. J., & Wallace, W. A. (1998). Why the
costs of student evaluations have long since
exceeded their value. Issues in Accounting Education, 13, 443–447.
Wesp, R. (1986). Reducing procrastination
through required course involvement. Teaching
of Psychology, 13, 128–130.
Winsor, J. L. (1977). A’s, B’s, but not C’s?: A
comment. Contemporary Education, 48, 82–84.
Worthington, A. G., & Wong, P. T. P. (1979).
Effects of earned and assigned grades on student evaluations of an instructor. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 764–775.
September/October 2004
9
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Comparison of Management Faculty Perspectives
on Quizzing and Its Alternatives
Paul Bacdayan
To cite this article: Paul Bacdayan (2004) Comparison of Management Faculty Perspectives
on Quizzing and Its Alternatives, Journal of Education for Business, 80:1, 5-9, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.80.1.5-9
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.1.5-9
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:22
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
Comparison of Management Faculty
Perspectives on Quizzing and
Its Alternatives
PAUL BACDAYAN
University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth
Dartmouth, Massachusetts
W
hen an entire section of students
shows up without having prepared the day’s homework, it can hinder
the in-class activities for that day. When
such behavior becomes frequent, the
atmosphere and achievement of the
class can decline markedly. Students
who ignore homework assignments may
subsequently miss related points in lectures, behave passively in case discussions, or miss the conceptual element in
experiential exercises.
The topic of how to deal with poor
student preparation—including giving
quizzes and their alternatives—is timely.
The economic downturn has tightened
university budgets (Chaptman, 2002;
Klein, 2004; Russell, 2003) and promoted conditions that may reduce student
preparation. For example, larger classes
are efficient but may reduce preparation
by allowing student anonymity (Chism,
1989; Doran & Golen, 1998). Also, cuts
in financial aid may reduce student
preparation as students work ever more
hours at part-time jobs (Dutton &
Gokcekus, 2002). These economic factors serve only to heighten the effect of
other conditions that already lower student preparation. These conditions
include disengaged students (Trout,
1997), a decline in the basic academic
skills of incoming students (Lanier, Tanner, Zhu, & Heady, 1997), and students
with expectations of acceptable grades
ABSTRACT. In this study, the author
compares the views of faculty members who give quizzes and those who
do not regarding (a) the potential
drawbacks of quizzing and (b) the viability of various quiz alternatives such
as graded homework. The results suggest that quizzers and nonquizzers
have much in common and that
quizzing is simply one of a variety of
potentially effective techniques for
boosting student preparation. The
author also presents data on typical
quiz practices.
for subpar work (Landrum, 1999).
Finally, instructors may be reluctant to
push students because of concerns that
low student grades will result in low
teaching evaluations (Wallace & Wallace, 1998; Winsor, 1977). These factors
all may combine to reduce student
preparation and allow a decline in academic standards.
As a policy response to the potential
erosion of academic standards, Crumbley (1995) argued that it may be necessary for some schools or departments
to introduce “regulated courses.” In
such courses, all instructors apply rigorous uniform procedures (including
norms for workload, testing procedures, and grade distributions).
Although this uniformity somewhat
restricts the instructor’s discretion,
Crumbley argued that it can help boost
academic standards while insulating
instructors from backlash from stu-
dents unhappy about being pushed.
The regulated course presents a united
front to students and reduces disparities in workload between sections.
A less extreme policy, but with some
resemblance to the regulated course,
might simply mandate the use of quizzes
to boost student preparation. Quizzes are
defined as short, relatively frequent
(often weekly) tests on a limited amount
of material. This definition is in line with
previous uses in the educational literature (Michaelsen, Fink, & Watson, 1994;
Noll, 1939; Turney, 1931) and accommodates the fact that quizzes can vary
widely in weight, question type, content
overlap with exams, and other characteristics. A uniform policy of mandated
quizzing, especially in large multiinstructor introductory courses, would
serve to protect those who might otherwise hesitate to quiz. But would it truly
be necessary to propose such a policy at
very many schools? Data indicate that
although quizzes may be useful for some
instructors, not all will find that a policy
of uniform quizzing is the best way to
boost student preparation.
Research Questions
In this article, I offer data about faculty perceptions on three practical questions related to the idea of uniform mandated quizzes.
September/October 2004
5
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
My first question is “What represents
typical quizzing practices?” A clear picture of typical quizzing practices could
help set the parameters for any mandated
quizzing approach. Also, this information could help individual instructors,
whether they currently use quizzes or
not, to visualize the quiz arrangements
and course designs that quiz-using colleagues have found workable. Accordingly, data are needed on the number of
quizzes given, their weight, the degree of
warning given, and the use of group
quizzes (Michaelsen et al., 1994).
The remaining research questions
compare the views of instructors who
quiz (“quizzers”) with the views of
those who do not quiz (“nonquizzers”).
These questions address the advisability
of a uniform quizzing policy by identifying quiz drawbacks as well as viable
nonquiz methods that can supplement
or replace quizzes.
The second question is “What drawbacks of quizzing might discourage
quiz usage?” Instructors may perceive
both instrumental and pedagogical
drawbacks to quizzing. Each kind of
drawback has different implications for
the potential usefulness of a uniform
quizzing policy. For example, on the
one hand, if instructors perceive instrumental drawbacks to quizzing (i.e.,
quizzing hurts instructors), this finding
would be favorable to a quizzing policy. Faculty members may believe that
quizzes—especially if they contribute
to lower grades for some students—
will worsen the end-of-term teaching
evaluations. Certainly there is a long
history of concern about the impact of
lower grades on student evaluations of
teaching (Wallace & Wallace, 1998;
Winsor, 1977; Worthington & Wong,
1979). On the other hand, a finding that
instructors perceive pedagogical drawbacks (i.e., quizzing somehow hurts the
learning process) would be unfavorable
to a quiz policy. For example, faculty
members may believe that quizzes take
excessive class time from other valuable activities.
The third research question is “How
do quizzes compare with potential alternative techniques for motivating student
preparation?” If faculty members perceive viable alternatives to quizzing, it
might be preferable to allow them to use
6
Journal of Education for Business
those techniques instead. These alternatives include both “soft” and “hard”
techniques. Soft techniques include
inspirational speeches and focusing on
topics or exercises of interest to the students (Buskist & Wylie, 1998). Hard
techniques include graded homework
and announced quizzes. Hard techniques
align extrinsic rewards with desired
behavior, as suggested by Kerr (1975) in
his well-known article “The folly of
rewarding A, while hoping for B.” Even
small increases in accountability can
change student behavior, as illustrated
by McDougall and Cordeiro’s (1993)
finding that community college students
who expected cold-call questions prepared significantly more than students
who expected a lecture.
Data on these three questions would
tell us more about the nature and advisability of a uniform quizzing policy, as
well as about potentially viable alternatives to quizzing.
Method
Responses from 78 faculty members,
which respresented a 68% response rate,
provided the data for addressing the three
research questions. All respondents were
instructors in organizational behavior,
human resources, or strategy. Participants
were members of an academic professional organization. A total of 115 surveys were distributed to members at the
group’s annual meeting in spring 2001. I
present a profile of the respondents in
Table 1. They are evenly divided between
tenured and untenured faculty members.
We should note that the sample was split
almost evenly between those who had
used quizzes in the previous 3 years
(53%) and those who had not (47%).
Findings
Typical Quizzing Practices
I initially defined quizzes as short,
relatively frequent tests on a limited
amount of material. The data in this section allow us to go beyond that definition to specify what represents common, mainstream practices regarding
quizzes. Furthermore, by revealing the
compromises that other quizzers have
found acceptable, the data also provide
a baseline against which quizzers may
compare their own practices.
Number of quizzes per semester. For
those who quizzed, the average number
of quizzes per semester was 6.6. This
represents about half the weeks in a 14week semester.
Weight assigned to quiz scores. The
average assigned weight was 16% of the
final grade. Weights of 10%, 15%, and
20% were most common. Quizzes were
not substituting for other forms of evaluation (exams, papers, participation) but
appeared to be supplementing these
other indicators of student performance.
Pop and announced quizzes. Pop
quizzes were given relatively rarely.
Announced quizzes outnumbered pop
quizzes by a wide margin: Sixty-four
percent of the respondents reported
using only announced quizzes, with the
remainder evenly split between other
formats. I show these results in Figure 1.
Group and individual quizzes. Finally, it
appears that group quizzes are rare
compared with individual quizzes
(Michaelsen et al., 1994). Seventy-nine
percent of the faculty respondents in my
study reported using individual quizzes
exclusively.
TABLE 1. Profile of Instructors
(N = 78)
At schools that grant MBAs: 83%
At schools that do not grant PhDs in
business: 74%
Teach management/HRM/OB: 67%
Teach strategy: 23%
Teach other fields: 10%
At schools with AACSB
accreditation: 57%
Male: 55%
Female: 45%
At public (state-affiliated) schools:
54%
Gave quizzes to classes within the
past 3 years: 53%
Tenured: 50%
Not tenured: 50% (32% are tenuretrack, 18% are adjuncts or
students)
Have >21 years of teaching: 30%
Have 10–20 years of teaching: 34%
Have 1–9 years of teaching: 36%
A second set of questions asked
instructors about selected drawbacks
that might discourage quiz use. Using
a 7-point scale with the anchor points 1
(minimal drawback), 4 (moderate
drawback), and 7 (large drawback),
respondents rated items for degree of
difficulty posed. In Figure 2, I compare the ratings by nonquizzers and
quizzers. The drawbacks are again
arranged in ascending order by the ratings of the nonquizzers; issues on the
right are the biggest drawbacks for the
nonquizzers.
Answers for all five items tend to
suggest relatively low absolute levels of
concern; most answers were under 4.0
(i.e., moderate drawback or less). The
item of greatest concern for nonquizzers
was “Quizzes are not consistent with
treating students as adults.” Although
the quizzers saw this as a moderate disadvantage (average 3.90), the nonquizzers were inclined to see it as a larger disadvantage (average 4.94). Of the
five items, this was the only one with a
statistically significant difference (p =
.018, t test of independent samples).
The item about nonadult treatment
appears to the right of Figure 2.
The next-greatest perceived drawback, the amount of in-class time that
quizzes can consume, was also pedagogical. Grading (an instrumental concern) was not seen as a major drawback.
Interestingly, the perceived possibility
of student backlash appeared to be a
minor issue, as shown by results for the
last two instrumental items: “Students
might complain about the quizzes” and
“Quizzes might lower (harm) the ratings
that I get from students.” Neither had a
high average, and neither showed statistically significant contrasts between the
quizzers and nonquizzers. (The item
regarding instructor ratings got a mean
rating of only 2.10 from quizzers and
2.18 from nonquizzers.) The numbers
indicate less concern among the respondents regarding ratings than one might
expect, given the amount of publications
focusing on concerns about the impact
of student evaluations of teaching on
academic standards (Crumbley, 1995).
Thus, the results do not support the
adoption of a uniform quiz policy.
Quizzes Versus Alternative Ways to
Boost Preparation
I presented faculty members with
seven techniques, including quizzes, and
asked them to rate each technique for its
effectiveness in motivating preparation
(see Figure 3). Respondents answered on
a scale ranging from 1 (not at all effective) to 7 (highly effective). In Figure 3, I
compare the ratings by nonquizzers (n =
37) and quizzers (n = 41). The techniques
are arranged in ascending order according to the ratings of the nonquizzers;
techniques on the right were deemed
most effective by the nonquizzers. Only
the quiz-related techniques showed statistically significant differences (t test of
independent samples) between quizzers
and nonquizzers. Quizzers ascribed
greater effectiveness to both forms of
quizzing (pop quizzes, p = .035;
announced quizzes, p = .000). These
items appear on the left side of Figure 3.
Quizzes aside, the respondents
agreed on the effectiveness of the other
five techniques. One of the soft techniques, inspirational speeches, received
low absolute ratings from both quizzers
and nonquizzers. Soft techniques that
topped the list for both groups included
making class fun and focusing on topics
interesting to the students. Among hard
techniques, cold calling received relatively low ratings, whereas graded
homework scored relatively well. The
techniques with the highest joint ratings
from both groups were a mix of hard
and soft techniques: graded homework,
interesting topics, and making class fun.
Pop
18%
Announced
64%
MIxed
18%
FIGURE 1. Proportion of quizzes announced, pop, and mixed.
5.00
Severity (7 = max)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
Perceived Drawbacks of Quiz Use
4.94
No quiz
Quiz
4.12
4.00
3.90
2.78
3.00
3.74
3.08
2.18
2.00
2.10
2.42
2.45
Complain
Grading
Drawback
1.00
Ratings
Class time
Nonadult
FIGURE 2. Drawbacks of quizzing.
September/October 2004
7
Effectiveness (7 = max)
7.00
No quiz
Quiz
6.00
6.0
5.2
5.1
5.00
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.5
5.6
5.97
5.55
4.9
4.00
3.00
3.4
3.6
2.00
1.00
Pop Quiz Ann. Quiz Speech Cold Call Homework
Fun
Interesting
Technique
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
FIGURE 3. Motivational techniques compared for effectiveness.
Discussion
The generalizability of the findings is
limited to some extent by the sample.
Respondents were in the discipline of
management and worked at teachingoriented schools. The results may differ
for disciplines such as accounting or at
highly research-oriented schools. Future
research might explore differences
among disciplines or types of schools.
Despite limitations in the sample, however, the current findings do provide the
basis for five implications.
Implications for Instructors
First, regarding mandatory quiz policies, the findings suggest that such policies may simply be unnecessary. Student backlash about quizzes apparently
was not a major concern for the respondents in the current sample. The united
front presented by a mandatory quiz
policy apparently provides unneeded
protection.
Second, the data suggest that instructors (both quizzers and nonquizzers)
perceive a whole portfolio of viable
techniques. Not even the quizzers themselves appear to rely solely on quizzing;
rather, they are generally positive about
the motivational impact of techniques
such as making class fun. Conversely,
nonquizzers are not entirely averse to
hard approaches: Graded homework
was rated highly by both groups.
Regarding uniform quiz policies, these
results indicate that quizzing need not
be mandated as long as instructors are
8
Journal of Education for Business
willing to employ a variety of motivational techniques.
Even for especially tough groups of
students for whom only hard techniques
will suffice, instructors can create
accountability without quizzing. In addition to graded homework, they can use
the McAleer Interactive Case Analysis
Method (Desiraju & Gopinath, 2001;
Siciliano & McAleer, 1997) and the
technique of frequent testing (Murphy &
Stanga, 1994). The McAleer method features a requirement that class members
submit action recommendations about a
case on the day before the discussion.
The frequent testing method uses numerous small tests instead of a handful of
major exams. Murphy and Stanga (1994)
compared a traditional accounting class
(using 2 or 3 exams) with a frequenttesting treatment (using 6 mini-exams).
Although the results on the final were
the same, the scores on the mini-exams
were higher than the scores for the traditional condition. Interestingly, the endof-term teaching evaluations were higher
for the frequent-testing group. These
additional techniques—the McAleer
Interactive Case Analysis method and
the “frequent testing” approach—offer
potentially useful new ways to create
interim student accountability for class
preparation.
Third, quizzers might reflect seriously on how their use of quizzes might
support the ideal of “treating students as
adults.” The idea of treating students as
adults is important because such treatment may enhance students’ intrinsic
motivation for learning. The need to cul-
tivate internalized study habits already
has been raised by mainstream educational researchers (Nolen, 1988). Internalization matters in a business school
setting because business graduates need
a positive attitude toward lifelong learning to keep up with changes in technology and business practices (Lynton,
1984). Quizzes raise a red flag because,
like other extrinsic motivators, they may
lessen intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971).
However, an instructor’s use of quizzes
does not mean necessarily that the
instructor does not care about treating
students like adults. Instructors who use
quizzes might benefit from asking: Does
the way that quizzes are used in my
class simply compel short-term performance, or can it also help to develop students’ intrinsic motivation and lifelong
study habits? Quizzes may not automatically extinguish intrinsic motivation,
especially when supplemented by nonquiz motivational techniques. Quizzes
for some students also may be a necessary developmental step that guides
them toward acting like adults: A student’s small wins on quizzes ultimately
may build that student’s work habits and
develop a sense of self-efficacy (Wesp,
1986).
Fourth, if classroom conditions
should indicate that quizzes are appropriate, then announced quizzes may
work best. In this study, I found that
quizzers see announced quizzes as having a much stronger motivational
impact than pop quizzes. The specific
deadline of an announced quiz may provoke more actual study than the freefloating threat of a pop quiz.
Fifth and finally, the conditions that
may call for hard motivational techniques
(including quizzes) may be on the
upswing. Serious budget shortfalls exist
at many public and private colleges
(Associated Press, 2002; Chaptman,
2002), and tuition increases may be
insufficient to close the gap (Klein, 2004;
Russell, 2003). As a result, administrators are being forced to cut financial aid,
boost admissions, and trim staff. Student
preparation may decline further as more
students respond to less availability of
financial aid by taking part-time jobs
(Dutton & Gokcekus, 2002) and larger
classes allow student anonymity (Chism,
1989; Doran & Golen, 1998).
Conclusion
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016
A classroom full of prepared students
can better undertake in-class learning
activities. Unfortunately, students do
not always prepare. Indeed, the current
economic contraction may foster situations (such as a move to large sections)
that require increased attention to student motivation. To boost student preparation, faculty members should understand faculty views on what works best,
including not only quizzes but alternatives as well. An appreciation of the
options can give instructors the techniques to help the contemporary class
truly perform.
REFERENCES
Associated Press. (2002, November 26). State
coffers are hit hard; Budgets worst since
WWII; Tax hikes loom. The Boston Globe, p.
C2.
Buskist, W., & Wylie, D. (1998). A method for
enhancing student interest in large introductory
classes. Teaching of Psychology, 25(3),
203–205.
Chaptman, D. (2002, December 6). Cuts put
squeeze on Wisconsin campuses; Schools say
they’re strapped for funds. The Boston Globe, p.
A18.
Chism, N. V. (1989). Large enrollment classes:
Necessary evil or not necessarily evil? Notes on
Teaching, 5 [occasional paper]. Columbus:
Ohio State University, Center for Teaching
Excellence.
Crumbley, D. L. (1995). The dysfunctional atmosphere of higher education: Games professors
play. Accounting Perspectives, 1, 67–76.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated
rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Desiraju, R., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Encouraging
participation in case discussions: A comparison
of the MICA and the Harvard Case methods.
Journal of Management Education, 25,
394–408.
Doran, M. S., & Golen, S. (1998). Identifying
communication barriers to learning in large
group accounting instruction. Journal of Education for Business, 73(4), 221–224.
Dutton, M., & Gokcekus, O. (2002, Fall). Work
hours and academic performance. Journal of
the Academy of Business Education, 3, 99–105.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while
hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769–783.
Klein, A. (2004, March 5). States move to limit
increases in tuition. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. 26.
Landrum, R. E. (1999). Student expectations of
grade inflation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 124–128.
Lanier, P. A., Tanner, J. R., Zhu, Z., & Heady, R.
B. (1997). Evaluating instructors’ perceptions
of students’ preparation for management curricula. Journal of Education for Business, 73,
77–84.
Lynton, E. A. (1984). The missing connection
between business and the universities. New
York: Macmillan.
McDougall, D., & Cordeiro, P. (1993). Effects of
random-questioning expectations on community college students’ preparedness for lecture
and discussion. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 17, 39–49.
Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D., & Watson, W. E.
(1994). Pre-instructional minitests: An effi-
cient solution to the problem of covering content. Journal of Management Education, 18,
32–44.
Murphy, D. P., & Stanga, K. P. (1994). The effects
of frequent testing in an income tax course: An
experiment. Journal of Accounting Education,
12(1), 27–41.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
Noll, V. H. (1939). The effect of written tests upon
achievement in college classes: An experiment
and a summary of evidence. Journal of Educational Research, 32, 345–357.
Russell, J. (2003, September 4). A leaner UMass
opens with much bigger classes. The Boston
Globe, p. B4.
Siciliano, J., & McAleer, G. M. (1997). Increasing
student participation in case discussions: Using
the MICA method in strategic management
courses. Journal of Management Education, 21,
209–220.
Trout, P. A. (1997). Disengaged students and the
decline of academic standards. Academic Questions, 10, 46–56.
Turney, A. H. (1931). The effect of frequent short
objective tests upon the achievement of college
students in educational psychology. School and
Society, 33, 760–762.
Wallace, J. J., & Wallace, W. A. (1998). Why the
costs of student evaluations have long since
exceeded their value. Issues in Accounting Education, 13, 443–447.
Wesp, R. (1986). Reducing procrastination
through required course involvement. Teaching
of Psychology, 13, 128–130.
Winsor, J. L. (1977). A’s, B’s, but not C’s?: A
comment. Contemporary Education, 48, 82–84.
Worthington, A. G., & Wong, P. T. P. (1979).
Effects of earned and assigned grades on student evaluations of an instructor. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 764–775.
September/October 2004
9