During the last years Norwegian schools have increased the emphasis on monitoring students learning and achievements. An important factor in this work is more use of assessment. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the frequency of assessment is related to students’ academic performance, and whether this varies for different assessment methods.

Assessing students’ achievements is an important source of information for learning and teaching, and may provide feedback to both students and teachers regarding own performance and how to improve this (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Yin et al., 2008). Several researchers have suggested that an important aspect of assessment is feedback to the students (Yin et al., 2008; Black and Williams, 2009). Basol and Johanson (2009) found that the effect of frequent testing varied substantially depending on whether the assessment involved feedback to the students or not. The finding implies that assessment is positive on its own, but that feedback to students based on the assessment increases the effect.

Two meta-studies on how the frequency of assessment relates to academic performance suggest that more frequent assessment is positively related to student’s academic performance (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik and Kulik, 1991; Basol and Johanson, 2009).

Frequent assessment probably involves monitoring the learning process and feedback to the students, factors that could explain the found positive effects. In addition, it is plausible that both students and teachers need to learn how to use the applied method to get the most out of it. Therefore, more frequent use may lead to improved gains from the assessment, something that could be positive for the academic performance.

Neither Bangert-Drowns and colleagues (1991), nor Basol and Johanson (2009) suggests that there may be upper limits for how much testing that is advisable. However, Bangert-Drowns and colleagues (1991) found large effects of one or a few tests, but smaller effects of additional testing. The difference in exam scores between those with none versus one previous test was substantial, whereas the difference between one versus several tests were relatively small. This suggests that a few tests during a course increase the end result substantially, and that testing beyond this has limited effect. However, frequent assessment may also induce stress and frustration among the students, particularly among the weak performance students. Dutro and Selland (2012) suggest that children’s experience from assessment may be important for how they perceive themselves and for their engagement at school. This may reduce the positive effects of assessment.

The current paper will expand knowledge regarding the frequency through examination of the relationship between the frequency of assessment and academic performance. Is this relationship linear, where higher frequency is more positive, or is it curvilinear, suggesting that there is an upper limit for the frequency of assessment?

Furthermore, the paper will examine the relationship between frequency and academic performance for a variety of assessment methods. Different methods may be differently related to academic performance because they provide different information to the student and teacher. Apart from Basol and Johanson (2009), who found some support for positive effects of multiple choice tests, few studies have examined whether different assessment methods vary regarding their relationship to academic performance. 

Bangert-Drowns, R.L, Kulik, J.A. and Kulik, C.L.C. (1991) Effects of frequent classroom testing. Journal of educational research, 85(21): 89-99. Basol, G. and Johanson, G. (2009) Effectiveness of frequent testing over achievement: a meta-analysis study. International journal of human sciences. 6:2. Available: http://www.insanbilimleri.com.en Black, P. and William, D. (2009) Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1): 5-31. Hattie, J. and Temperley (2007) The power of feedback. Review of educational research. 77(1): 81-112