Proposal Title

Creating and Solidifying Knowledge by Incorporating Feedback into Group-Based, Two-Stage Collaborative Exams

Session Type

Presentation

Room

P&A Rm 117

Start Date

July 2015

Keywords

Assessment, Evaluation, Collaboration, Immediate Feedback

Primary Threads

Evaluation of Learning

Abstract

Individual testing, often via multiple choice questions, tends to be the norm in post secondary education. Collaborative testing has been proposed as an alternative and the benefits have been widely documented (Lusk & Conklin, 2003; Sandahl, 2009, Cortright et al, 2003). In the first stage of collaborative testing, students write the exam individually. In the second stage students write the same exam in groups (ideally 4) where they are required to come to consensus. Our own experience with these 2-stage collaborative midterm exams in very different programs (Nursing and Engineering) resulted in improved performance and overwhelmingly positive student review, consistent with the results of Gilley & Clarkston (2014), whose 2-stage model we followed.

Using the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF-AT) scratch cards (Epstein, 2001), we created the opportunity to dispel misconceptions, allow students to discover correct answers during testing, and provide partial credit for multiple-choice questions. In addition to the improved self-confidence and metacognitive skill development promoted by collaboration (Carvalho, 2010), we hypothesize that delivering the guided answers using IF-AT cards, at a time when students are most receptive, aids in retention of the tested concepts.

We will present preliminary data providing some support for this hypothesis from our recent study to assess whether collaboration with immediate feedback or collaboration alone is superior in encouraging retention. A hands-on simulation of this procedure will be included, along with tips for implementing this form of testing in other science (and non-science) classrooms.

Carvalho, M. K. F. (2010). Assessing changes in performance and monitoring processes in individual and collaborative tests according to students' metacognitive skills. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 1107-1136.

Cortright, R.N., Collins, H.L., Rodenbaugh, D.W. & Di Carlo, S.E. (2003). Student Retention of Course Content Is Improved By Collaborative-Group Testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 27: 102-108

Epstein, M.L., Epstein B.B., and Brosvic, G.M. (2001). Immediate Feedback During Academic Testing. Psychological Reports, 88(3 Pt 1), 889-894.

Gilley, B. H. & Clarkston, B. (2014). Collaborative Testing: Evidence of Learning in a Controlled In-Class study of Undergraduate Students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 83-91.

Lusk, M., & Conklin, L. (2003). Collaborative testing to promote learning. The Journal of nursing education, 42(3), 121-124.

Sandahl, S. S. (2009). Collaborative testing as a learning strategy in nursing education: A review of the literature. Nursing education perspectives, 30(3), 171-175.

Elements of Engagement

A hands-on simulation of the collaborative testing with immediate feedback procedure.

This document is currently not available here.


Share

COinS
 
Jul 10th, 1:00 PM

Creating and Solidifying Knowledge by Incorporating Feedback into Group-Based, Two-Stage Collaborative Exams

P&A Rm 117

Individual testing, often via multiple choice questions, tends to be the norm in post secondary education. Collaborative testing has been proposed as an alternative and the benefits have been widely documented (Lusk & Conklin, 2003; Sandahl, 2009, Cortright et al, 2003). In the first stage of collaborative testing, students write the exam individually. In the second stage students write the same exam in groups (ideally 4) where they are required to come to consensus. Our own experience with these 2-stage collaborative midterm exams in very different programs (Nursing and Engineering) resulted in improved performance and overwhelmingly positive student review, consistent with the results of Gilley & Clarkston (2014), whose 2-stage model we followed.

Using the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF-AT) scratch cards (Epstein, 2001), we created the opportunity to dispel misconceptions, allow students to discover correct answers during testing, and provide partial credit for multiple-choice questions. In addition to the improved self-confidence and metacognitive skill development promoted by collaboration (Carvalho, 2010), we hypothesize that delivering the guided answers using IF-AT cards, at a time when students are most receptive, aids in retention of the tested concepts.

We will present preliminary data providing some support for this hypothesis from our recent study to assess whether collaboration with immediate feedback or collaboration alone is superior in encouraging retention. A hands-on simulation of this procedure will be included, along with tips for implementing this form of testing in other science (and non-science) classrooms.

Carvalho, M. K. F. (2010). Assessing changes in performance and monitoring processes in individual and collaborative tests according to students' metacognitive skills. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 1107-1136.

Cortright, R.N., Collins, H.L., Rodenbaugh, D.W. & Di Carlo, S.E. (2003). Student Retention of Course Content Is Improved By Collaborative-Group Testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 27: 102-108

Epstein, M.L., Epstein B.B., and Brosvic, G.M. (2001). Immediate Feedback During Academic Testing. Psychological Reports, 88(3 Pt 1), 889-894.

Gilley, B. H. & Clarkston, B. (2014). Collaborative Testing: Evidence of Learning in a Controlled In-Class study of Undergraduate Students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 83-91.

Lusk, M., & Conklin, L. (2003). Collaborative testing to promote learning. The Journal of nursing education, 42(3), 121-124.

Sandahl, S. S. (2009). Collaborative testing as a learning strategy in nursing education: A review of the literature. Nursing education perspectives, 30(3), 171-175.