IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/nzecpp/v47y2013i3p245-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing online quizzes and take-home assignments as formative assessments in a 100-level economics course

Author

Listed:
  • Gillis Maclean
  • Paul McKeown

Abstract

Conventional take-home assignments and online quizzes are compared as formative assessments intended to engage students in learning. Using data from six semesters for each, we consider five characteristics: participation, timeliness and nature of feedback, fit within overall course assessment, and cost of delivery. Both assignments and quizzes generated high participation. Marked feedback took up to five weeks with assignments but was immediate with quizzes. In both cases, passing the formative assessment did not ensure a pass in the exam, but failing it indicated a lack of engagement and almost certain exam failure. The 10% course weighting for quizzes fitted better than the 30% for assignments. The assignments were costly to administer, but online quizzes had a marginal cost close to zero. As formative assessments, we find that overall online quizzes were as effective as take-home assignments and cost considerably less.

Suggested Citation

  • Gillis Maclean & Paul McKeown, 2013. "Comparing online quizzes and take-home assignments as formative assessments in a 100-level economics course," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 245-256, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:nzecpp:v:47:y:2013:i:3:p:245-256
    DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2012.707530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00779954.2012.707530
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00779954.2012.707530?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:nzecpp:v:47:y:2013:i:3:p:245-256. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RNZP20 .

    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.