Analyzing Reading Assessments through a Randomized Trial

Abstract

Abstract Reading is critical to success in college. Faculty members often decry students who come to class without reading, and unprepared for the lessons of the day. Yet, relatively little empirical research assesses how to best stimulate collegiate reading and what types of reading assessments provide the best student learning outcomes. This paper assesses two common ways of assessing reading compliance and learning—reading quizzes and Course Preparation Assignments (CPAs)—using a randomized trial in a large introductory political science course. The data show that students are more compliant with completing the reading quizzes vs. the CPAs, and that students prefer completing the reading quizzes to the CPAs. Data from the 2020 Assessing Critical Reading Techniques study demonstrate little substantive difference between the two groups on the measured learning outcomes through either the exams or the papers. These findings provide empirical support that traditional methods of reading checks or assessments can provide value to the student learning process. Implications for instructors across different course formats are discussed.