The New Media Journalism at SHU blog today uncovered an article on the effectiveness of pop quizzes (from OSU Research News), suggesting that evaluating students over shorter intervals of time produce better-prepared students.

I don't think anyone who teaches would disagree. Sadly, in some ways quizzes are the only way to ensure that students will read assignments according to the class calendar -- if at all. I'm still not sure if quizzes are better if "pop" or pre-announced... I'm doing one of each this semester in two different classes (my poetry class is "pop" quizzed; my film class has a quiz every two weeks (upon which students are held accountable for two weeks worth of material). I think the pre-announced quizzes are generating better results if only because students know they HAVE to study, whereas with pop quizzes, you can always roll the dice or pray that today won't be the day the teacher decides to test me.

I like playing around with quiz formats that make them not simply a means of evaluating or disciplining, but also a method for educating (see "Quiz Grader...Note Taker" from last month). A few weeks ago, I borrowed an experimental approach to assigning quizzes that I picked up from my colleague, David Droppa: having students collaborate on quizzes by taking them in a team, or as partners. I thought this would be a WONDERFUL idea for allowing the quiz to become a teaching moment, where collaborators could teach one another not only the content but maybe even the thinking and literacy necessary for taking a test well. But I was surprised when I received a few complaints from students who felt pressured by their partner into giving answers that were then marked incorrect. Peer pressure, it seems, was more of an influence than grade points. I don't find this a sufficient reason to never use collaborative quizzing again, but there might be a better way to do this.

You can ping this entry by using .