Effect of Collaborative vs Noncollaborative Quizzes on Examination Scores in a Pharmaceutical Calculations Course

Abstract

Objective. To determine if midterm and final examination scores in a pharmaceutical calculations course differ among students who take weekly quizzes collaboratively, noncollaboratively, or halfcollaboratively/half-noncollaboratively ("mixed"). Methods. One hundred twenty-three students enrolled in one of 4 laboratory sections: collaborative, noncollaborative, or mixed sections. Students working noncollaboratively completed a 15-minute quiz at the end of weekly laboratories. Students working collaboratively were randomly allocated into groups of 4 and worked independently for 5 minutes before working collaboratively for 10 minutes. Students in mixed sections worked collaboratively during one half of the semester and noncollaboratively during the other half of the semester in a crossover design to control for order effect. All students took midterm and final examinations independently. Results. Mean scores for a pretest did not significantly differ between the 4 laboratory sections at the study's onset. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a significant multivariate effect for the 9 laboratory quizzes in relation to group assignment. Mean scores on the midterm examination did not significantly differ between collaborative and noncollaborative groups. On the final examination, the two mixed groups significantly outperformed the collaborative group, but did not significantly differ from one another or from the noncollaborative group. Conclusion. Peer collaboration improves quiz scores, is favorably perceived by students and enhances their course satisfaction, but does not improve subsequent performance on midterm and final examinations taken noncollaboratively.

A Study to Explore Learning Style Preferences of Pharmacy Students With Regard to Pharmaceutical Calculations

“…More than half of the students who left a positive comment, stated formative assessments were "similar to real exams" and how these questions were best used for "practice" purposes. Both Nutan [23] and Lacroix [24] and Enz and Frosch [21] agreed; students who participate in regular formative assessments, stress less so this learning style relieves students' anxiety without affecting their retention or performance [3,20]. However 9 students reported feeling "pressurised" by regular assessments and 2 students suggested formative assessments are "not good as a learning style" since no actual learning takes place, suggesting they are better as an indicator of what an individual knows or understands.…”

“…Students undertake these in a location of their choice, without the use of any materials. They cover a range of topics of varying difficulty [13,21]. These mini-tests were claimed to improve skills and performance [22] as they assess students' knowledge, retention and the ability to apply concepts [3,20].…”

“…Feedback delivered included solutions with detailed working, and an opportunity to seek one to one support [23,24]. Gums [22] claimed higher test scores were noted due to this form of individualised feedback, whitensz and Frosch [21] demonstrated that students who take these regular quizzes and assessments experience less stress than they did in the past, when taking summative examinations.…”

Improved Learning Through Collaborative, Scenario-based Quizzes in an Undergraduate Control Theory Course

“…In this model, students complete a quiz individually, then complete the same quiz as a team. In this approach, students discuss their ideas and learn from their peers [63], scoring significantly higher on collaborative quizzes than on individually-completed quizzes [64][65][66][67], and in some cases score significantly higher on delayed post-tests of retention [68][69][70], but not in others [71][72][73]. Findings from one study suggest that the effect may be short lived, with significantly higher retention over short (1-2 week) time spans only [72,74].…”

A Study in Collaborative Learning in Flipped Class Environments

“…Enz and Frosch come to a similar conclusion stating "Peer collaboration improves quiz scores, is favorably perceived by students and enhances their course satisfaction, but does not improve subsequent performance on midterm and final examinations taken noncollaboratively." 13 However, Roa, Collins, and DiCarlo find "completing the quizzes in groups enhances the understanding of the material." 14 Moreover, Leight et al hypothesis that collaborative testing might improve students' obtainment of lowerorder learning outcomes (Bloom's levels 1 and 2), but not higher-order learning outcomes (Bloom's levels [3][4][5][6].…”