IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mts/jrnlee/v17y2017i1p40-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Students’ Perception of a Multi-Scheme Assessment Method

Author

Listed:
  • Ambrose
  • Cheryl A. Kier

Abstract

The discipline of economics has the reputation of being abstract and difficult to understand. Students’ perceptions about the course and its assessment methods may affect their learning strategies and outcomes. A flexible grading scheme (in terms of weights assigned to different assessment components) may help to reduce anxiety about the course, leading to improved performance and higher satisfaction. The present study reports on the implementation of such a flexible grading scheme. Students in five introductory economics classes received their final course grade based on one of three grading schemes that gave them the highest mark. An 11-item satisfaction survey assessed students’ perceptions about the flexible marking scheme. Students expressed a preference for flexibility over a more traditional, fixed marking scheme. This has implications for other courses that create anxiety among students and has the potential to improve students’ experiences at post-secondary institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ambrose & Cheryl A. Kier, 2017. "On Students’ Perception of a Multi-Scheme Assessment Method," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 17(1), pages 40-52, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:mts:jrnlee:v:17:y:2017:i:1:p:40-52
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://capone.mtsu.edu/jee/2017/pp40-52MS516final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Watts, Michael & Bosshardt, William, 1991. "How Instructors Make a Difference: Panel Data Estimates from Principles of Economic Courses," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 336-340, May.
    2. Kennedy, Peter E. & Siegfried, John J., 1997. "Class size and achievement in introductory economics: Evidence from the TUCE III data," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 385-394, October.
    3. Siegfried, John J & Fels, Rendigs, 1979. "Research on Teaching College Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 923-969, September.
    4. Frank, Bjorn, 1997. "The Impact of Classroom Experiments on the Learning of Economics: An Empirical Investigation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(4), pages 763-769, October.
    5. Mary O. Borg & Stephen L. Shapiro, 1996. "Personality Type and Student Performance in Principles of Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 3-25, January.
    6. William E. Becker & Carol Johnston, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(4), pages 348-357, December.
    7. Stephen Buckles & John J. Siegfried, 2006. "Using Multiple-Choice Questions to Evaluate In-Depth Learning of Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 48-57, January.
    8. Becker, William E. & Powers, John R., 2001. "Student performance, attrition, and class size given missing student data," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 377-388, August.
    9. repec:bla:ecorec:v:75:y:1999:i:231:p:348-57 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Nixon Chan & Peter E. Kennedy, 2002. "Are Multiple-Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple-Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed-Response Exam Questions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(4), pages 957-971, April.
    11. Kara Boatman & Richard Courtney & William Lee, 2008. "“See How They Learn†: The Impact of Faculty and Student Learning Styles on Student Performance in Introductory Economics," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 39-48, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leung, Ambrose & Moldovan, Lavinia & Ata, Michael, 2023. "Teaching economics in higher education with universal design for learning," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    2. Ambrose Leung & Hiroyo Nakagawa, 2021. "Exploring Collaborative Learning in Economics with Visual Aids," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 6(1), pages 53-69, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tisha L. N. Emerson & Beck A. Taylor, 2004. "Comparing Student Achievement across Experimental and Lecture‐Oriented Sections of a Principles of Microeconomics Course," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 70(3), pages 672-693, January.
    2. Roger B. Butters & Carlos J. Asarta & Tammie J. Fischer, 2011. "Human Capital in The Classroom: The Role of Teacher Knowledge in Economic Literacy," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 56(2), pages 47-57, November.
    3. Yvonne Durham & Thomas Mckinnon & Craig Schulman, 2007. "Classroom Experiments: Not Just Fun And Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 162-178, January.
    4. Tisha L. N. Emerson & Linda K. English & KimMarie McGoldrick, 2018. "The High Costs of Large Enrollment Classes: Can Cooperative Learning Help?," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 455-474, June.
    5. Benjamin Matta & Joseph Guzman & Sue Stockly & Benjamin Widner, 2015. "Class Size Effects on Student Performance in a Hispanic-Serving Institution," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 443-457, December.
    6. Ken Rebeck & Carlos Asarta, 2011. "Methods of Assessment in the College Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Melanie A. Fennell & Irene R. Foster, 2021. "Test Format and Calculator Use in the Testing of Basic Math Skills for Principles of Economics: Experimental Evidence," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 66(1), pages 29-45, March.
    8. Zimmermann, Klaus F. & Bauer, Thomas K., 1998. "Learning Efficiency of Economics Students," IZA Discussion Papers 23, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    10. W. Robert Reed & Stephen Hickson, 2011. "More Evidence on the Use of Constructed-Response Questions in Principles of Economics Classes," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 28-49.
    11. David Sabiston & Ambrose Leung & Gianfranco Terrazzano, 2017. "Learning styles and performance in principles of economics: does the gender gap exist?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2935-2944.
    12. Sue Stockly, 2009. "Is Race a Determinant of Student Performance in Economics?," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 181-195, December.
    13. Hart Hodges & Yvonne Durham & Steve Henson, 2018. "Economic Education Production Functions for the Principles of Macroeconomics and the Principles of Microeconomics: Is There a Difference?," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 18(2), pages 22-41, Fall.
    14. Belton Fleisher & Masanori Hashimoto & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2002. "Foreign GTAs Can Be Effective Teachers of Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 299-325, December.
    15. Coates, Dennis & Humphreys, Brad R. & Kane, John & Vachris, Michelle A., 2004. ""No significant distance" between face-to-face and online instruction: evidence from principles of economics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 533-546, October.
    16. Mandel, Philipp & Süssmuth, Bernd, 2011. "Size matters. The relevance and Hicksian surplus of preferred college class size," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1073-1084, October.
    17. Matej Opatrny & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova & Milan Scasny, 2023. "Publication Bias and Model Uncertainty in Measuring the Effect of Class Size on Achievement," Working Papers IES 2023/19, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised May 2023.
    18. James F. Ragan & Bhavneet Walia, 2010. "Differences in Student Evaluations of Principles and Other Economics Courses and the Allocation of Faculty across Courses," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 335-352, September.
    19. Carlos Asarta & Ken Rebeck, 2011. "Measurement Techniques of Student Performance and Literacy: College and High School," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 29, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Harrington, Donna Ramirez & Kulasekera, Kumuduni & Bates, Rick & Bredahl, Maury E., 2006. "Determinants of Student Performance in an Undergraduate Financial Accounting Class," Working Papers 34117, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    assessment; undergraduate teaching; students’ learning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mts:jrnlee:v:17:y:2017:i:1:p:40-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael Roach (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/efmtsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.