HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Giuliodori, M. J. Articles by DiCarlo, S. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Giuliodori, M. J. Articles by DiCarlo, S. E.

HOW WE TEACH

Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students

¹ Cátedra de Fisiología, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina ² Department of Physiology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: S. E. DiCarlo, Wayne State Univ. School of Medicine, 540 E. Canfield Ave., Detroit, MI 48201 (e-mail: sdicarlo{at}med.wayne.edu)

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.

Key words: feedback; test scores