Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:25:30.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Take-Home Tests: Educational Fast Food for the New Millennium?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2015

Liz Hall
Liz Hall*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of Otago, Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Changes such as a ‘user pays’ philosophy in tertiary education and the student loan scheme have placed pressure on New Zealand academics and students alike. Teachers of adults may need to adjust to the ‘new breed’ of student and the faster paced semesterised education system. It is proposed that focussing on the learner and creating a learning environment that encourages students to assume responsibility for their own learning is more important in the new educational environment.

The present paper conceptualises take-home tests as being analogous to an educational fast food - a familiar, made-to-order commodity - that curiously appears to be missing from the educational smorgasbord outside the United States of America. Results of a pilot study using take-home tests in a first year management class at the University of Otago suggested they fit the proposed new mood of education. Students in the self-selected experimental group (n=35) achieved a higher course grade than those in the control group (n=35). The students recommended that take-home tests be used more frequently and they saw them as having ‘learning’ and ‘anxiety reducing’ benefits.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , 2001 , pp. 50 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrada, GN and Linden, KW (1993) ‘Effects of Two Testing Conditions on Classroom Achievement: Traditional In-class Versus Experimental Take-home Conditions’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association 04 Atlanta GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
Boud, D (1995) ‘Enhancing Learning Through Self-Assessment’ Kogan Page: LondonGoogle Scholar
Campbell, G (1999) ‘Debt by Degrees’ Listener 10 30 pp 18–21Google Scholar
Cox, S and Heames, R (1999) ‘Managing The Pressures in Teaching - Practical Ideas For Tutors and Their Students’ Falmer Press: LondonGoogle Scholar
Ebel, RL (1972) Essentials of Educational Measurement Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Foley, DP (1981) ‘Instructional Potential of Teacher-made Tests’ Teaching of Psychology Vol 8 No 2 pp 243–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, J (2001) ‘Loan Scheme Must Change, Students Say’ Otago Daily Times 11 01 p 3Google Scholar
Graham, S and Leach, L (1996) ‘Interacting Paradigms: The Human Face of Recent Educational Change’ Connections Vol 44 04 pp 48–59Google Scholar
Greenberg, R (1998) ‘Online Testing’ Techniques Vol 73 No 3 p 26Google Scholar
Kalish, RA (1958) ‘An Experimental Evaluation of the Open-book Exam’ Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 49 No 4 pp 335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linden, KW and Mazzucca, SA (1977) ‘Using Testing to Promote Learning: Comparisons of Two Testing Conditions’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association 00 San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, R (1984) ‘A Comparison of Take-home Versus In-class Exams’ Journal of Educational Research Vol 78 No 2 pp 111–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, R (1988) ‘An Effect of Unstructured Evaluation on Academic Integrity’ Paper presented to Mid-South Educational Research Association conference 11 Louisville KentuckyGoogle Scholar
Meyer, RJ (1982) ‘“Take-home” Placement Tests: A Preliminary Report’ College English, Vol 44 No 5 pp 506–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, JP (1990) ‘Better Testing for Better Learning’ College Teaching Vol 38 No 4 pp 148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinsch, R and Wambsganss, JR (1994) ‘Class Participation: How it Affects Results on Examinations’ Journal of Education for Business Vol 70 No 1 pp 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, MC and Apanewicz, R (1993) ‘Where is the Line: How Ethical Questions Reflect a Writing Center's Philosophy’ Paper presented at the annual Mid-Atlantic Writing Center's conference 04 VillanovaGoogle Scholar
Robinson, F (1998) ‘Take-home Exams for Otago University Students’ Otago Daily Times 27 10 p 1Google Scholar
Spiller, D and Fraser, D (1999) ‘Writing to Learn: A Collaborative Endeavour’ Innovations in Education and Training International Vol 35 No 2 pp 137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, LJ and McBee, JK (1983) ‘Cheating: A Problem with Take Home Exams’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education 04 MontrealGoogle Scholar
Weber, LJ, McBee, JK, and Krebs, JE (1983) ‘Take-home Tests: An Experimental Study’ Research in Higher Education Vol 18 No 2 pp 473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar