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

Abstract

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.

Research and Teaching: Collaborative Testing: Evidence of Learning in a Controlled In-Class Study of Undergraduate Students

“…There are substantial and similar normalized learning gains for all groups of students as a result of the collaboration; indeed, in this study only four individuals scored equal to or higher than their group over both midterms. This finding addresses a concern commonly voiced about collaborative testing (e.g., Leight et al, 2012)-that they benefit only the lower students. This is not the case based on our evidence.…”

“…vious studies such as Cortright et al (2003) and Leight et al (2012), because students in the individual and collaborative conditions saw questions an equal number of times and because there was a shorter time period between the two-stage exam and the learning test, 3 days in this study versus 4 weeks for Cortright et al and several weeks, the time between midterms, for Leight et al Two-stage exams are not simply a process of the top students providing answers to the rest of the group; most groups score higher than any individual in the group. There are substantial and similar normalized learning gains for all groups of students as a result of the collaboration; indeed, in this study only four individuals scored equal to or higher than their group over both midterms.…”

“…Two studies used a subsequent posttest to measure the amount of content retained by students following collaborative testing (Cortright et al, 2003, Leight et al, 2012. Cortright et al (2003) reported significantly greater retention after 4 weeks on questions students had answered in groups compared with questions answered as individuals.…”

“…Cortright et al (2003) reported significantly greater retention after 4 weeks on questions students had answered in groups compared with questions answered as individuals. Leight et al (2012), in a study based on Cortright et al, reported no increase in retention when students were tested collaboratively. However, in both studies students completed the experimental questions three times in the collaborative condition and only twice in the individual condition, which has the potential to confound their results with the well-established benefit of repeated testing (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008).…”

“…An alternative to this traditional format is the collaborative test, in which students work together in small groups to answer test questions. In the two-stage exam, perhaps the most common method of collaborative testing, students independently complete a test and then immediately complete the same, or similar, test again in groups of four; a proportion of each student's grade is assigned to the independent-and group-test sections (Cortright, Collins, Rodenbaugh, & DiCarlo, 2003;Stearns, 1996;Yuretich, Khan, Leckie, & Clement, 2001; see Leight, Saunders, Calkins, &Withers, 2012, andZipp, 2007, for summaries of select collaborative testing literature). For recommendations on the use of two-stage exams in the classroom, see Appendix 1 (available at http://www.nsta.org/college/ connections.aspx).…”