Collaborative testing in Sport and Exercise Degrees: A comparison of first and third year students' perceptions

Collaborative testing is recognised as an effective assessment approach linked to positive student outcomes including enhanced test performance and reduced assessment anxiety. While collaborative testing approaches appear beneficial to university students in general, it is unclear whether students from different year levels benefit to the same extent. Therefore, the overarching aim of this study was to compare the perceptions and performances of first and third- year undergraduate students taking part in collaborative testing on multiple occasions during a semester. It was predicted that first-year students would perceive the collaborative testing opportunities as more beneficial than third-years given their limited formative experiences with university assessment. Further, it was expected that students would generally perform at a higher level on collaborative versus individual tests in line with previous work. Student performance and perceptions of collaborative testing were collected on two occasions within a semester over a period of two years in both a first-year and third-year course. Quantitative and qualitative results revealed that first-year students were more receptive and perceived more benefits relating to collaborative testing than third-years despite the fact both cohorts generally performed at a higher standard on the collaborative versus individual components. These findings suggest that while collaborative testing is considered beneficial to most, if not all, students, the benefits appear to be greater for first-year student cohorts.

Collaborative testing in physical examination skills training and the autonomous motivation of students: a qualitative study

Background Teaching methods that stimulate the active learning of students make a positive impact on several aspects of learning in higher education. Collaborative testing blended with teaching is one such method. At our medical school, a training session was designed using a collaborative testing format to engage medical students actively in the theoretical phase of a physical examination training, and this session was evaluated positively by our students. Therefore, we extended the use of the format and converted more of the training into collaborative testing sessions. The literature on collaborative testing and the theoretical framework underlying its motivational mechanisms is scarce; however, students have reported greater motivation. The aim of the current study was to investigate student perceptions of a collaborative testing format versus a traditional teaching format and their effects on student motivation. Methods Year four medical students attended seven physical examination training sessions, of which three followed a collaborative testing format and four a traditional format. The students were asked to evaluate both formats through questionnaires comprised of two items that were answered on a five-point Likert scale and five open-ended essay questions. Content analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. The themes from this analysis were finalized through the consensus of the full research team. Results The quantitative data showed that 59 students (55%) preferred collaborative testing (agreed or strongly agreed), 40 students (37%) were neutral, and 8 students (8%) did not prefer collaborative testing (disagreed or strongly disagreed). The themes found for the collaborative testing format were: ‘interaction’, ‘thinking for themselves’, and ‘active participation’. ‘Interaction’ and ‘thinking for themselves’ were mainly evaluated positively by the students. The most frequently mentioned theme for the traditional format was: ‘the teacher explaining’. Students evaluated this theme both positively and negatively. Conclusions The most frequently mentioned themes for the collaborative testing format, namely ‘interaction’, ‘thinking for themselves’, and ‘active participation’, fit within the framework of self-determination theory (SDT). Therefore, the collaborative testing format may support the fulfilment of the three basic psychological needs indicated in SDT: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Thus, our findings provide initial support for the idea that the use of collaborative testing in medical education can foster the autonomous motivation of students.

Nursing student perception and performance with collaborative testing

Background and objective: Collaboration is an important and necessary skill to function effectively within the practice of nursing and inter-professional teams. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the impact of collaborative testing on nursing student content retention and student perception of the collaborative testing process.Methods: A convenience sample of nursing students (n = 95) were grouped in random pairs and permitted to collaborate on exam 3 (of 5) in an entry level medical surgical nursing course. Students were surveyed with the 13-item survey, Student Evaluation of Collaborative Testing, after the collaborative exam.Results and conclusions: There was a strong, positive correlation between students’ exam 3 grades and the number of correct responses to exam 3 content items on the final exam, r = .511, p < .001. For every one-point increase on exam 3 grades, the number of correct responses on exam 3 content on the final exam increased by .511. As such, students who scored higher on exam 3 also had more correct responses to exam 3 content on the final exam. There was a strong, positive correlation between students’ exam 3 and final exam scores, r = .536, p < .001. It may (or may not) be the case that students’ who perceived collaborative learning more positively were more impacted by the collaborative learning experience, resulting in higher scores on the final exam.

Comparing Two Models of Collaborative Testing for Teaching Statistics

Research on collaborative testing has shown that it decreases test anxiety, increases learning and critical thinking skills, and allows students to practice collaboration and teamwork. However, it has most often been used as a second test following traditional individual testing. This quasi-experimental study compared two models of collaborative testing in an introductory statistics course. Students who experienced collaborative testing as a pretest ( n = 35) and as a posttest ( n = 33) were compared with a control group ( n = 61) that experienced traditional individual testing only. Grade book data and a survey administered at the end of the semester provided information on student attitudes and perceptions toward learning statistics and use of collaborative testing, and the impact of each model on student learning. The same instructor taught all students and administered the same tests. The authors found that group-first testing was favored by students and provided the greatest benefit for reducing anxiety while still supporting student learning.