Generative Learning, Quizzing and Cognitive Learning: An Experimental Study in the Communication Classroom

Abstract

This investigation tests Wittrock's generative learning model as an explanation for the positive relationship found between quizzing and student performance in a number of studies. Results support the theory, suggesting that quizzes structured to include multiple levels of Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill and Krathwohl's (1956) taxonomy, and thereby evoke generative learning, are related to greater cognitive learning. Students completing quizzes performed better on the first course exam and written assignment than students who were not quizzed, and those quizzed to facilitate generative learning performed better on the first and second exams than students completing comprehension-focused quizzes. The discussion addresses implications for generative learning and for classroom instructors.

Keywords:

• Cognitive Learning
• Generative Learning
• Quizzing

Notes

1. Nonparticipants did not differ from participants in terms of scores on the three assignments evaluated here. For the no quiz condition, nonparticipants averaged 71.26 (SD=10.78) on exam 1, 73.76 (SD=15.28) on exam 2, and 85.00 (SD=3.54) on the written assignment. For in-class comprehension, nonparticipants scored comparably with participants for exam 1 (M=87.33, SD=12.66), exam 2 (M=75.3, SD=15.2) and the written assignment (M=88.5, SD=4.24). For in-class generative learning quizzes, nonparticipants averaged 86.12 (SD=11.44) on exam 1, 84.20 (SD=9.72) on exam 2, and 88.40 (SD=4.28) on the written assignment. For out-of-class generative learning quizzes, nonparticipants averaged 89.54 (SD=7.60) on exam 1, 84.19 (SD=5.0) for exam 2 and 86.6 (SD=3.22) for the written assignment.

2. Synthesis questions are appropriately less represented than the other categories of Bloom et al.'s (1956) taxonomy in the body of examination questions given the level and objectives of the courses sampled. Bloom et al.'s taxonomy is generally conceived of as hierarchical, with higher levels coming after students master lower levels. In the introductory courses sampled, primary emphasis was on comprehension, application, and analysis, with an introduction to synthesis and evaluation. Further, departmental objectives (e.g., be a thoughtful and systematic observer of one's own and others' communication choices) and institutional general education objectives (e.g., evaluate the effects of one's own beliefs and values in daily life) focus less on synthesis than on the other levels of Bloom et al.'s taxonomy.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Danette Ifert Johnson

Danette Ifert Johnson is at Ithaca College

Kaleigh Mrowka

Kaleigh Mrowka is at Ithaca College