Testing together: When do students learn more through collaborative tests?

LoGiudice, Andrew B.; Pachai, Amy A.; Kim, Joseph A.

doi:10.1037/stl0000041

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 97 publications

(131 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By design, the group portion of the examination facilitates high levels of engagement. It has been hypothesized that the immediate feedback and group discussion are the key features that yield improved test taking skills, improved retention of knowledge, and reduced test anxiety that ultimately result in improved performance on examinations (Giuliodori et al, ; Gilley and Clarkston, ; Rieger and Heiner, ; LoGiudice et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using collaborative two‐stage examinations to address test anxiety in a large enrollment gateway course

Fournier

Couret

Ramsay

et al. 2017

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large enrollment foundational courses are perceived as "high stakes" because of their potential to act as barriers for progression to the next course or admittance to a program. The nature of gateway courses makes them ideal settings to explore the relationship between anxiety, pedagogical interventions, and student performance. Here, two-stage collaborative examinations were implemented to improve test-taking skills and address widespread test anxiety in an introductory human anatomy course. Test anxiety data were collected (using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire) before the first examination and last examination. Most students experienced decreased test anxiety over the course of the semester; however, some students may have experienced performance limiting conditions due to test anxiety at the end of the semester based on academic ability in the course (in "C" students when compared to "A" students: P < 0.00006 and "B" students: P < 0.05), overall academic ability (in academically weaker students: P < 0.025), and demographic factors (in women: P < 0.025). The strongest performances on examinations were primarily observed in already academically strong students (mean individual performance: P < 0.000, mean group performance: P < 0.000). Furthermore, changes in test anxiety were not significantly associated with the group portion of the examinations. Patterns of changes in test anxiety over the course of the semester underscore a complex interaction between test anxiety, student background, and student performance. Results suggest that pathways for test anxiety in "high stakes" courses may be separate from the mechanisms responsible for the benefits of collaborative testing. Anat Sci Educ 10: 409-422. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using collaborative two‐stage examinations to address test anxiety in a large enrollment gateway course

Fournier

Couret

Ramsay

et al. 2017

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In vitro studies of mostly low-stakes collaborative testing have indicated that collaborative testing can improve learning by reexposing students to material (reexposure), prompting them to retrieve the information either from memory (retrieval) or through cueing from team members (cross-cueing), and helping students reject misinformation (error pruning). 1 These mechanisms may have also been at play for our results. Additional studies are needed in this area.…”

Section: Insightsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…[1][2][3][4] Studies of collaborative testing within the classroom setting suggest that it can improve academic performance, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork skills while decreasing test anxiety. [1][2][3][4] Studies in nursing education and exercise physiology show that collaborative testing improves retention of content. [5][6] Other publications 7 suggest that collaborative testing can result in increased retention of concepts that were originally missed by a student.…”

Section: Phenomenonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent review had called for more research regarding collaborative testing, especially studies that include comparison or control groups and ones that differ in only a few variables. 1 Studies of high-stakes collaborative testing remains sparse, especially in medical education. In particular, there is a paucity of research regarding the influence of previous team experience on high-stakes collaborative testing.…”

Section: Phenomenonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not?

Levine

Roman

Carchedi

et al. 2017

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students described a range of heightened emotions around the collaborative test yet perceived it as valuable regardless if they were in established or newly formed teams. Students described learning about the subject matter, themselves, others, and interpersonal dynamics during collaborative testing. Triangulation of these results via quantitative data supported these themes. Insights: Despite student concerns, high-stakes collaborative tests may be both valuable and feasible. The data suggest that high-stakes tests (tests of learning or summative evaluation) could also become tests for learning or formative evaluation. The paucity of research into this methodology in medical education suggests more research is needed.

show abstract

“…Rieger and Heiner (2014) found that students were generally positive in their collaborative exam experience 76% of the time, neutral 14% of the time, and had negative experiences 10% of the time. Similarly, many studies over the past 15 years have reported positive experiences during collaborative exams, from reductions in test anxiety to perceptions of enhanced learning (for a review, please see LoGiudice et al. , 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention following Two-Stage Collaborative Exams Depends on Timing and Student Performance

Cooke

Weir

Clarkston

2019

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multistage collaborative exams are implemented to enhance learning and retention of course material. However, the effects of multistage collaborative exams on retention of course content are varied. These discrepancies may be due to a number of factors. To date, studies examining collaborative exams and content retention have used questions that all, or mostly, require students to select an answer, rather than generate one of their own. However, content retention can improve when students generate their own responses. Thus, we examined the effect of collaborative exams with open-ended questions on retention of course content. Retention was measured at two time periods; one relatively shortly (9 days) following a collaborative exam and another over a longer time period (23 days). Furthermore, we examined whether content retention differed for low-, mid-, or high-performing students. Our results suggest that collaborative exams offer retention benefits at relatively long time periods between pre- and posttests, but not over shorter time periods. Retention varied across students in different performance categories. Our study, the first to use only open-ended questions, showed relatively small effects compared with studies using multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank format, but still suggest that collaborative exams can aid in content retention.

show abstract

Testing together: When do students learn more through collaborative tests?

Cited by 20 publications

References 97 publications

Using collaborative two‐stage examinations to address test anxiety in a large enrollment gateway course

Using collaborative two‐stage examinations to address test anxiety in a large enrollment gateway course

High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not?

Retention following Two-Stage Collaborative Exams Depends on Timing and Student Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About