Anticipated Group versus Individual Examinations: A Classroom Comparison

Woody, William Douglas; Woody, Lisa K.; Bromley, Susan

doi:10.1177/009862830803500104

Cited by 12 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Harton and colleagues tested a focused interactive learning technique with several undergraduate psychology classes and found that students' immediate performance improved when they engaged in contentfocused discussions with other students. In contrast, Woody et al (2008) found that students' long-term retention of concepts did not benefit from social collaboration. Their findings indicated that undergraduate psychology students who completed a group exam performed better initially than students who took exams individually; however, on individual retests 3 weeks later, retention was similar for students who initially completed a group exam and those who initially completed an individual exam.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Although Woody et al's (2008) findings are not promising from a long-term retention standpoint, the potential benefits of student collaborations are not limited to academic gains. As Crooks (1988) suggested, student collaborations might also foster interpersonal relationships, increase motivation, and enhance selfevaluation skills.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…When applied to group testing situations (e.g., Harton, Richardson, Barreras, Rockloff, & Latané, 2002;Woody, Woody, & Bromley, 2008), social collaboration appears to be effective in increasing students' immediate performance. For example, Harton and colleagues tested a focused interactive learning technique with several undergraduate psychology classes and found that students' immediate performance improved when they engaged in contentfocused discussions with other students.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Group-Based Formative Summative Assessment Relates to Improved Student Performance and Satisfaction

Drouin

2010

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, I examined the effectiveness of a group exam review activity on students' long-term retention of concepts and satisfaction. As part of a formative summative assessment activity (FSA;Wininger, 2005), students worked either individually or collaboratively on an exam review activity in the class periods following the 2 unit exams. Students indicated that both activities were useful and enjoyable; however, the group activity had a more positive effect on retention of concepts and student satisfaction. At the 5-week posttest, students who completed the group activity scored 10% higher (on average) than their original exam scores, whereas the students who completed the individual activity scored only 1.2% higher. I discuss these results with regard to a multidimensional FSA framework.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Group-Based Formative Summative Assessment Relates to Improved Student Performance and Satisfaction

Drouin

2010

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, 2003; Lusk and Conklin, 2003; Giuliodori et al. , 2008; Woody et al. , 2008; Bloom, 2009; Eaton, 2009; Haberyan and Barnett, 2010; Sandahl, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2002; Cortright et al. , 2003; Bloom, 2009), while others show no effect (Lusk and Conklin, 2003; Woody et al. , 2008; Sandahl, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class

Leight

Saunders

Calkins

et al. 2012

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative testing has been shown to improve performance but not always content retention. In this study, we investigated whether collaborative testing could improve both performance and content retention in a large, introductory biology course. Students were semirandomly divided into two groups based on their performances on exam 1. Each group contained equal numbers of students scoring in each grade category (“A”–“F”) on exam 1. All students completed each of the four exams of the semester as individuals. For exam 2, one group took the exam a second time in small groups immediately following the individually administered test. The other group followed this same format for exam 3. Individual and group exam scores were compared to determine differences in performance. All but exam 1 contained a subset of cumulative questions from the previous exam. Performances on the cumulative questions for exams 3 and 4 were compared for the two groups to determine whether there were significant differences in content retention. Even though group test scores were significantly higher than individual test scores, students who participated in collaborative testing performed no differently on cumulative questions than students who took the previous exam as individuals.

show abstract

Do collaborative practical tests encourage student‐centered active learning of gross anatomy?

Green

Cates

White

et al. 2015

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefits of collaborative testing have been identified in many disciplines. This study sought to determine whether collaborative practical tests encouraged active learning of anatomy. A gross anatomy course included a collaborative component in four practical tests. Two hundred and seven students initially completed the test as individuals and then worked as a team to complete the same test again immediately afterwards. The relationship between mean individual, team, and difference (between team and individual) test scores to overall performance on the final examination (representing overall learning in the course) was examined using regression analysis. The overall mark in the course increased by 9% with a decreased failure rate. There was a strong relationship between individual score and final examination mark (P < 0.001) but no relationship for team score (P = 0.095). A longitudinal analysis showed that the test difference scores increased after Test 1 which may be indicative of social loafing and this was confirmed by a significant negative relationship between difference score on Test 4 (indicating a weaker student) and final examination mark (P < 0.001). It appeared that for this cohort, there was little peer-to-peer learning occurring during the collaborative testing and that weaker students gained the benefit from team marks without significant active learning taking place. This negative outcome may be due to insufficient encouragement of the active learning strategies that were expected to occur during the collaborative testing process. An improved understanding of the efficacy of collaborative assessment could be achieved through the inclusion of questionnaire based data to allow a better interpretation of learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ 9: 231-237. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

show abstract

Anticipated Group versus Individual Examinations: A Classroom Comparison

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Group-Based Formative Summative Assessment Relates to Improved Student Performance and Satisfaction

Group-Based Formative Summative Assessment Relates to Improved Student Performance and Satisfaction

Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class

Do collaborative practical tests encourage student‐centered active learning of gross anatomy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About