Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students

Abstract

We used collaborative group testing in a veterinary physiology course (65 students) to test the hypothesis that all students (e.g., high-performing and low-performing students of each group) benefit from collaborative group testing. In this format, students answered questions in the traditional format as individuals. Immediately after completing the exam as individuals, students answered the same questions in groups of two, and, finally, the same questions were discussed by the instructor and students. We measured two learning outcomes for every student: individual and group test scores. Based on individual test scores, students were categorized as "high performing" (students with higher individual scores) or "low performing" (students with lower individual scores). Finally, student evaluations of the format were collected. Collaborative group testing enhanced student performance. Specifically, group scores were higher than individual scores (P < 0.001). Importantly, the size of the collaborative testing effect was large for the population and for the low-performing students; however, the collaborative testing effect was small for the high-performing students. Finally, student evaluations of this testing format were very positive. In conclusion, collaborative group testing was beneficial for all students; however, collaborative testing was significantly more beneficial for low-performing students.

Student Attitudes, Satisfaction, and Learning in a Collaborative Testing Environment*

“…17,56 Interestingly, this arrangement is not thought to be detrimental to high-achieving students, because they will nonetheless benefit from the discussion and group feedback. 17,21,27,54 The issue of "freeloading" is thought not to be problematic in smaller-sized groups (three to four persons) as in the present study. 55 While students in the collaborative groups may become dependent on others' preparation for the assessment (ie, "freeload"), most comments from the experimental group state a level of peer pressure that promoted studying and participation.…”

“…18 Results from student attitude surveys confirm that collaborative testers have more positive attitudes toward the testing process in general compared to students who take assessments individually. 11,[19][20][21] It should be noted, however, that when students are exposed to traditional teaching methods but tested in a collaborative manner, they may not perform as well on higher-level theory questions even if performance on lower-level concept questions is improved. 11,19 While researching the effects of collaborative testing on test performance without prior collaborative learning, Breedlove and colleagues reported that the effects of collaborative testing were directly related to the level of cognitive processing required by the test question.…”

“…Giuliodori and colleagues studied team testing versus individual testing among students taking a veterinary physiology course. 21 The study was designed so that students completed exams individually first, then immediately paired with another classmate to answer the same questions. Using individual test scores, students were sorted into "high performing" or "low performing" categories.…”

“…The collaborative testing effect was particularly large for the overall population and the low performers, but was conversely small for the high performers. 21 The study also evaluated student satisfaction with testing format and found that a majority of students favored the collaborative format. Overall, the researchers concluded that the collaborative testing paradigm benefits all students and is particularly beneficial for lower-performing students.…”

Learning through role-playing games: an approach for active learning and teaching

“…Encouraging group work and peer discussions, along with other cooperative strategies, may lead to better student learning outcomes. Experts thus suggest that these approaches should be used in conjunction with, or even instead of, lectures [7][8][9][10][11][12] . Such teaching strategies are consistent with the Vygotskian perspective that learning is built socially through participants' interaction with each other throughout the process of assimilating new knowledge 13 .…”