The effects of different course assessment methods on college studentstennis performance and basic psychological needs: A cluster randomized controlled trial

PurposeThis study aimed to examine the effects of formative and summative assessments on college students tennis performance and basic psychological needs. MethodsA total of 128 undergraduate students (64 males, 64 females; Mage = 19.22, SD = 0.91) participated in this study. Participants were cluster-randomized to either a formative assessment group (n = 64) or a summative assessment group (n = 64). The formative assessment intervention involved setting personalized learning goals and success criteria, administering periodic tests, and providing process-oriented and individualized feedback. The summative assessment intervention involved setting uniform goals for all students, offering instructor feedback only on common problems, and requiring students to practice independently after class without personalized guidance. Both interventions were implemented over 10 weeks, with one 90-minute session each week. Tennis skills and basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) were assessed before and after the intervention. Tennis skills were reassessed 1 week after the intervention. Two-way mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the impact of group, time, and their interaction on tennis skills and basic psychological needs. ResultsThe results showed that the interaction between group and time was significant for all of the outcome variables. Simple effects analyses indicated that, at pre-test, the two groups did not differ significantly in tennis performance or in satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (p > 0.05). At post-intervention, the formative assessment group demonstrated significantly better performance than the summative assessment group in tennis skills (MD = 3.50, 95% CI = [1.303, 5.697], p = 0.002), autonomy (MD = 2.44, 95% CI = [1.816, 3.059], p < 0.001), relatedness (MD = 1.33, 95% CI = [0.679, 1.977], p < 0.001), and competence (MD = 1.75, 95% CI = [1.046, 2.454], p < 0.001). At the 1-week follow-up session, the formative assessment group also showed significantly better tennis performance than the summative assessment group (MD = 6.81, 95% CI = [4.667, 8.958], p < 0.001). ConclusionFormative assessment was more effective than summative assessment in improving college students tennis performance and satisfying their basic psychological needs. These findings suggest that incorporating personalized goals, process-oriented evaluation, and individualized feedback into tennis instruction could promote both skill development and psychological outcomes in college physical education.