Vol.

II (LXIV)
No. 1/2012

35 - 40

Traditional and alternative issues in students evaluation

Simona Eftimie
Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti, Bucuresti Blvd., 39, Ploiesti, 100680, Romania

Abstract
Our study aims to analyze traditional vs. alternative issues regarding the evaluation process at
university level. Developing mostly an investigative research, we have focused especially on obtaining
data about traditional and alternative methods used in students evaluation; also, we have analysed
students perception on the role of evaluation in the didactic activities, and the efficiency of traditional
versus modern evaluation methods. Other issues concerning evaluation at university level are also
discussed.
Keywords: evaluation; traditional vs alternative evaluation; evaluation methods

1. Introduction
In Romania, the changes proposed by the new Education Law concerning European
reference framework about the eight key competencies for lifelong learning involves a
lot of consequences in the evaluation system. If, traditionally, curricula projection was
focused mostly on knowledge (teacher deliver of knowledge and student achiever of
it), now, the curricula projection, implementation and evaluation start from
competences development and respect a functional correlation between all curricula
components (finalities, contents, time, teaching and evaluation strategies).
Teaching, learning and evaluation are the three components of instructive
educative process. A functional correlation between all these components will
determine a better efficiency of learning reflected in students achievements (Jinga,
Negre , 1999).
Since 2000, Tal & al. have emphasised the contribution of authentic assessment to
learning evoking the researches of Mitchell (1992) and Sizer (1992) that have
indicated the relation between the two components of the instructional process.
Moreover, learning and evaluation through alternative methods like project-based
learning and / or evaluation could determine cooperation between students, and the
positive effects of cooperative learning in higher education have already been
demonstrated (Astin, 1993, McKeachie, 1986 cited in Erdem, 2009).
Considering the evaluation process, since 1997, studies (Herman et al.) have
focused on the advantages of alternative evaluation tools analysis and got to the
conclusion that, in this situation (using alternative evaluation methods like project,
investigation, portfolio etc.), students are stimulated to solve critical and complex
problems, to be creative in finding their own arguments and perspectives on real life
etc.
More, since 2003 Llewellyn concluded that alternative tools respect the differences
between students concerning their learning styles (cited in H. aliskan, Y. Kasikci,
2010). So, a quality curriculum is a differentiated one (it respects the differences
between students learning styles and proposes and uses appropriate evaluation
methods).
Corresponding author:
E-mail address:simone_eftimie@yahoo.com

Simona Eftimie /Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology

But, in spite of all these arguments, other studies on this issue concluded that
teachers apply traditional evaluation tools, especially multiple choice test, the open
ended, short answer, gap-filling test. Teachers generally prefer project and
performance assignments to alternative assessment methods and evaluation tools. (H.
aliskan, Y. Kasikci, 2010).
So, in this context, we were interested to discover which are the methods used by
professors that are teaching to technical faculties from our university, if they are
focused on traditional or alternative methods; more, we have analyzed students
perception on the efficiency of these methods, strategies, relation between evaluation
and learning, evaluation implication on developing competences for real life problem
solving etc.
2. Research Methodology and Procedure
2.1. Research purpose
Our study aims to make a diagnosis of evaluation system on technical faculties
from our university in order to propose a series of recommendations meant to improve
the learning teaching evaluating process. So, we have proposed to analyze if there
is an incompatibility between evaluation methods used by professors from technical
faculties and students need to develop competences that help them to solve real life
problems (and not to achieve knowledge theories, concepts etc. which represents
only the basis for competences), competences requested by an adequate insertion on
labour market.
So, our study proposed the following objectives:
To identify student perception regarding the role of evaluation and the
evaluation strategies used by professors from technical faculties;
To analyze students opinion / attitude on traditional evaluation vs. alternative
evaluation and their perception of the efficiency of their learning and
evaluation;
Following our studys findings, to propose some recommendations meant to
improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of didactic activities (based on an
improved curricula projection, implementation and evaluation).
2.2. Sample
Our study involved 55 students from technical faculties included in pre-service
training program from Petroleum Gas University of Ploiesti. Aged between 18 25
years old, our subjects are mostly girls (67%) and 33% boys; their specialisation is
technical sciences.
2.3. Methods and research stages
Developed mostly as an investigative research, we collected data using the focus
group interview, documents analysis and personalized interview.
Our investigation comprised two stages:
I. in the first stage we have applied focus group interviews with students
(concerning their perception on evaluation role, and the efficiency of
traditional versus alternative methods used by their teachers in evaluation
process);
II. and in the second stage, we have used documents analysis (legislative
documents, curricula documents) and personalised interview in order to
complete data obtained from students concerning evaluation process
characteristics.

36

Simona Eftimie/Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology

3. Results
3.1. Perception on the role of education
An interesting finding is that all investigated subjects have indicated the utility of
evaluation process. They have identified the role of feed-back for a better efficiency
of learning process: is important for us to know what we have learned in order to
continue or study again some aspects that we havent understood; the evaluation is
motivating us to learn, is helping us to develop our own potential; the evaluation
offers a feed-back to the teacher so that he could improve his teaching process.
We can notice that the students have indicated the potential of evaluation to offer
information both for them and for their teachers in order to improve the didactic
process.
What surprised us was students observation about the absence of a concordance
between evaluation and teaching methods: almost all professors, when they teach,
offer us theoretical support and to the final exam ask us to solve practical issues;
there a big discrepancy between teaching and examination methods the
examination is more complex, based on problem-solving unlike teaching that is based
on theoretical approach. We could notice here that there is a discrepancy between a
traditional teaching and a less traditional evaluation (orientated to verify competences
practical issues, problem solving etc.).
Another interesting finding was about the link that our subjects have indentified
between their motivation for learning and their assessments. They revealed that they
usually obtain better marks and a higher level of knowledge if they are interested /
motivated to participate in those classes. So, we could find that they are unsatisfied
about the small number of choices considering the subjects that they have to study.
And we consider that their lack of motivation has other consequences, like their lack
of responsibility they do not feel responsible for their lack of involvement or for
their failure because they feel forced to study subjects they are not interested in (are
imposed, not chosen by them).
3.2. Evaluation strategies used by professors from the technical faculties
Considering that our subjects are future teachers, it is not surprising for us to find
that students identified the importance for both initial, continue and summative
evaluation. More than 65 % of them have indicated as the best evaluation strategy a
combination between these three strategies. But, what was surprising for us was the
fact that 27% of investigated subjects have mentioned that their professors are not
using initial evaluation. This justifies the students complaints about the inappropriate
level of their professors scientific language and the level of the tasks they are
proposing to be analyzed during classes: they are not testing us at the beginning of
the semester and they suppose that we know all the knowledge that allows us to
understand their discourse and solve the problems they are proposing to us.
24% of our subjects mentioned that they have not been evaluated during the
semester. In their case, the only evaluation strategy is the summative evaluation
which, as we could find from the focus - group interview, allows a non-systematic
learning process (a major part of investigated students have mentioned that they
invest time for systematic learning only during exams session).
But the rest of them (76%) have indicated as evaluation methods used during
semester problem-solving/ exercises and practical or laboratory work (proposed and
solved during classes / laboratory) or homework. When they have been asked to
establish a rank for those categories, the first rank was for problems / exercises solved
during classes, the second rank were for the practical / laboratory practice and the
third for homework. This demonstrates us that the formative / continuous evaluation is
a strategy used by professors from technical faculties.

37

Simona Eftimie /Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology

3.3. Traditional vs. Alternative Evaluation Methods

Considering the traditional evaluation methods used by professors from technical
faculties (exams at the end of the semester), the first rank has been obtained by
written tests, the second by oral and the third by practical exams. The only alternative
method mentioned by our subjects in their classification was the portfolio and it
obtained the last rank (from all evaluation methods mentioned by them).
This situation indicates a too predominant traditional evaluation and we consider
that the profile of the students specialization ask for their involvement in practical,
creative thinking exam forms that are more appropriate for the challenges of real life
(and labour market).
From the category of written tests, most students (81%) have been mentioned as
their preferred the multiple choice test; their motivation suggests more the student
perspective/ advantage than a future teacher perspective: you can be lucky, the
choices you have could help by suggesting the answer, it is important to get to the
right answer and an exam like that involve less time, you can learn only two or
three days and pass easily the exam. The other 19% of investigated subjects have
identified the disadvantages of this kind of tests: a good answer has to be justified, so
that the teacher has the certitude that the student didnt guess the answer, when
you have an exam with elaborated answers, you learn better, more profound. The last
argument indicates the connection that the subject has identified between the learning
and evaluation process. But also, the fact that most of the subjects have indicated as
advantageous multiple choice test because it offers clues about the correct answer,
we could recommend that teachers propose to the students exams which allow them to
consult the information but to use it in an intelligent way (creative solving problems,
justify their answers, solving real life problems etc.). So, we suggest that the emphasis
to be not on knowledge evaluation, but on competences evaluation (student ability to
use the information, to apply it, to analyse, create and solve creatively problems etc.).
In order to confirm their preference, students indicated as the most efficient
evaluation method a traditional form of evaluation the written exam: Written
evaluation is the most efficient because we can demonstrate our knowledge level and
we have more time to think and solve the items, in comparison with oral examination
which is not advantageous for the emotional students; written exams are more
objective; you can detail your answer and focus better.
It is interesting that the second rank after written exams is another traditional form
practical exam: more important than to have and demonstrate theoretical
knowledge is to apply it in solving practical problems. We consider that this is a
consequence of the fact that many of investigated subjects indicated that in order to
pass the exam, they have to pass first laboratory exams. When they were asked to
explain what solving practical problems means, we were surprised to find that it
wasnt nothing like laboratory experiments, but another form of written test to solve
on paper problems using algorithms, formulas etc. presented during classes and
memorised.
When students have been asked about alternative evaluation methods that their
professors have been used, 65% of respondents have indicated evaluation by project
but only 34% of them have appreciated it as efficient:
It was efficient because I had the chance to discover by myself certain things, to
study individually.; it was efficient because a lot of knowledge became more stable
for me; after other exams I forgot almost everything; this exam helped us to
organize better the information and to work as a team with my colleagues.
The rest of them have appreciated the evaluation by project as inefficient: it was
inefficient because we didnt work during the semester for this project, and for the
exam we presented information from the Internet; I didnt like this experience
because the professor didnt appreciate my work and didnt take it into account for the
final mark. These answers indicate that when this alternative method is not correctly
used, there is a risk not to develop the wanted competences to the students.
Since 2000, researchers (Dori & Tal; Tal, Dori & Lazarowitz) have demonstrated
the importance of project based learning in order to improve students competences to

38

Simona Eftimie/Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology

solve problems in real life situations (data analysis, problem solving, and decision
maker). The industry environment project-based curriculum corresponds to the ideas
of Bybee (1987) concerning Science Technology Society (STS) as a curriculum
focus. (...) a unique learning setting like this requires a non-traditional assessment
method and calls for the development of a suitable assessment system. (Tal & al,
2000). We consider that this learning method is also useful as an evaluation
(alternative) method.
Another interesting finding was that almost half (42%) of the subjects have
mentioned that their professors never examine them using the investigation, for
example. We consider that this kind of activities that could be used both for learning
and evaluation should be an opportunity to develop one important competence for our
students: research competence.
More, in the technology era, we have found that 76% of investigated students
(future specialists in technologies!) have never been examined based on computer.
More, we have to reflect on one student affirmation that very few professors ask us
to search for information on the computer (or other books) and are satisfied if only we
reproduce what they have transmitted to us. It is unacceptable that at tpresent, when
IT competence is a basic one (and intensively used on labour market), this
competence is not used in the evaluation process.
Unfortunately, as a confirmation of their professors focus on theoretical issues in
teaching and evaluation, an overwhelming percent (94% of respondents) have said
that they have never been involved in a research project. If they are not involved in
research activities with their professors, how can they develop competences that help
them to conceive and present their graduation project? How can they be creative,
innovative? How can they develop those competences that allow finding the best job
for them, developing performance and continuously improving their work?
4. Discussions and Conclusions. Future direction for research
It was interesting that both our investigated teachers and students unanimously have
identified the usefulness of the evaluation process in the didactic activity and not only:
its important both for the teacher and for the student to know the initial level of
knowledge, the progress they made in order to decide to continue or regulate the
didactic process.
Considering the used evaluation strategies, we have found that professors do not
correctly appreciate the importance of the initial evaluation. We believe that it is
dangerous to eliminate such an important step from the didactic process,
considering the changes from the last years at the curricula level in Romania. We are
referring to the fact that, when the students were admitted after they have been
carefully examined about the basic knowledge in accordance to their option for future
specialization, professors knew their students initial level. Now, when the admission
to university is based on other criteria (like their graduation marks and average of
their marks from high school general and not specific criteria), it is not appropriate
to suppose that students have a good level of specialty knowledge in order to
understand the discourse of their professors. Although, its interesting that most
investigated students have indicated that their professors are using formative and
summative/ final evaluation so that to offer a support for systematic learning.
Another finding is a demonstrated incompatibility between the evaluation methods
used by the professors from technical faculties (traditional especially written, oral
and sometimes practical tests) and students need to develop competences that help
them to solve real life problems. The students reclaim the emphasis on the
reproduction of their theoretical knowledge (which is memorized only for a short
time) and the absence of a more efficient evaluation system based on a more efficient
learning system, orientated towards problem solving (inspired from real life
problems). This kind of curriculum projection, implementation and evaluation could
offer them the basis for strong competences which are necessary for better
performances in and outside school (on labour market).

39

Simona Eftimie /Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology

In spite of the fact that teachers and students agreed that the alternative methods
like portfolio, concept maps, investigation, self and peer evaluation etc. could be more
efficient for evaluating competencies (and not knowledge), they also mentioned
teachers preference for traditional methods (oral and written exams, multiple choices
or short answer tests). As we have expected, most professors are using traditional
methods, especially multiple choice tests. Only 19% of investigated students have
mentioned the main disadvantage of a multiple choice test a big probability to
guess the correct answer; a solution for a correct evaluation could be to conceive
tests that involve objective, semi-objective and subjective items so that the evaluator
is sure that the student is able to justify his answer.
Regarding traditional methods used by professors as evaluators, we noticed that
although many students indicated their preference for multiple choice tests (its
easier to pass, is more comfortable because the choices-answers offer you clues
about the right answer), some students have identified the major disadvantage of this
category of items: it does not indicate the way / the algorithm to get to the right
answer. We could add a comment: multiple choice tests do not indicate and do not
determine the student to make an effort to get to the right answer. When students are
passing successfully an exam like this, without making a real effort, they could get to
the conclusion that you can learn only two or three days and pass the exam easily.
Therefore, we consider that final mark for a subject should be the result of a
systematic evaluation during the whole semester correlated with the effort made by
every student. Unfortunately, some investigated students have been disappointed: for
my professor, it doesnt matter if Ive been present to all his classes and I have made
my duty to all laboratories. When we have been examined, I have the same treatment
as my colleagues that havent been present not for half of classes and laboratory
activities. Fortunately, there have been also teachers that have appreciated the
students work during semester: Because Ive been present to all laboratories and
solved all duties, for the final exam Ive been examined only form specific parts of
information.
As specialists have demonstrated (see Bronson, P., Merryman, A., 2011) its
important to have the right attitude towards the students effort; we have to convince
them that the brain is like a muscle; so, with effort, it needs to permanently be
stimulated by new learning contexts or real life problem solving.
This is a theory with important implications on learning and evaluation that we
intend to analyze in a future research study about professors perception on
intelligence and, in consequence, their approach on teaching and evaluation.
An important change recommended to the university level (and also to preuniversity level) is to allow students to choose the subjects they are studying and
impose less; this will offer better motivation, involvement and responsibility for their
own preparation for real life problem solving and insertion on the labour market.
Also, alternative evaluation methods could be a real help for developing research
competences, so necessary for a permanently changing labour market.
References
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

Bronson, P., Merryman, A. (2011). ocul educa iei (Nurture Shock: new thinking about
children). Pite ti: Paralela 45.
Erdem, A. (2009). Preservice Teachers Attitude towards Cooperative Learning in
Mathematics Course, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1, 16681672.
aliskan, H., Kasikci, Y. (2010). The application of traditional and alternative assessment
and evaluation tools by teachers in social studies, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2,
41524156.
Jinga, I., Negre , I. (1999). nv area eficient (Efficient Learning), Bucure ti: Editura Aldin.
Tal, R., Dori, Y., Lazarowitz, R. (2000). A Project Based Alternative Assessment, Studies in
Educational Evaluation 26, 171-179.

40