Cargando…
Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Society for Cell Biology
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23222835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0048 |
_version_ | 1782252343000039424 |
---|---|
author | Leight, Hayley Saunders, Cheston Calkins, Robin Withers, Michelle |
author_facet | Leight, Hayley Saunders, Cheston Calkins, Robin Withers, Michelle |
author_sort | Leight, Hayley |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3516795 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | American Society for Cell Biology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35167952012-12-10 Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class Leight, Hayley Saunders, Cheston Calkins, Robin Withers, Michelle CBE Life Sci Educ Articles 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. American Society for Cell Biology 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3516795/ /pubmed/23222835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0048 Text en © 2012 H. Leight et al.CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2012 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0). “ASCB®,” “The American Society for Cell Biology®,” and “Molecular Biology of the Cell®” are registered trademarks of The American Society of Cell Biology. |
spellingShingle | Articles Leight, Hayley Saunders, Cheston Calkins, Robin Withers, Michelle Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class |
title | Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class |
title_full | Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class |
title_fullStr | Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class |
title_full_unstemmed | Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class |
title_short | Collaborative Testing Improves Performance but Not Content Retention in a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Class |
title_sort | collaborative testing improves performance but not content retention in a large-enrollment introductory biology class |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23222835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0048 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leighthayley collaborativetestingimprovesperformancebutnotcontentretentioninalargeenrollmentintroductorybiologyclass AT saunderscheston collaborativetestingimprovesperformancebutnotcontentretentioninalargeenrollmentintroductorybiologyclass AT calkinsrobin collaborativetestingimprovesperformancebutnotcontentretentioninalargeenrollmentintroductorybiologyclass AT withersmichelle collaborativetestingimprovesperformancebutnotcontentretentioninalargeenrollmentintroductorybiologyclass |