Collaborative Vs Traditional Classroom Testing Reese Van Put

Collaborative Vs Traditionalclassroom Testing Reese Van Putten Sky

Background and different test types - Ibrahim [give background on collaborative testing and why it may be beneficial. Give examples of the different types of testing (look at the survey we made, there is true collaborative and two two-step methods)] Pros â— Grades, Learning, and Retention - Students learn from older copies of standardized tests (Volante, 2004). â— Strengthening Life/Career Skills - Students develop essential social skills (Webb, 1997). â— Reducing Stress - Several experts documented evident reduction in anxiety from students working together during exams (Efu, 2018).

Potential Issues/Cons â— Social loafing: Otherwise known as the “free-rider problem,†this is when a student did not study for the test and allows other students to do the work for them (Webb, 1997) â— Division of Labor: Students working together may split parts of the test to utilize time-management and expertise, which allows students to only know pieces of the course material (Webb, 1997) â— Test Design and Evaluation: Tests grades will be objective to the group and not the individual (Efu, 2018) â— Virtual Testing: There is little research on how collaborative testing could be effectively applied to virtual tests. Survey Analysis â— Zero Negative Experiences in the Past with Collaborative Testing (No Yellow) â— 85% of Students who have taken a Collaborative Test had a Positive Experience

Paper For Above instruction

Collaborative testing has become a significant pedagogical approach in modern education, emphasizing cooperation among students during assessments. Different types of collaborative testing include true collaborative methods, where students work jointly on the same test, and two-step methods involving initial individual testing followed by collaborative review. The primary benefit of such approaches is the enhancement of student learning, retention, and motivation. Research by Volante (2004) illustrates how students learn from referencing older or standardized tests, which can be further amplified through collaboration. Furthermore, Webb (1997) highlights the development of essential social and communication skills as a core advantage, fostering real-world competencies crucial for career and life success. Additionally, collaborative testing has been shown to reduce test anxiety, leading to better performance and a more positive learning environment (Efu, 2018). This reduction in stress helps students approach assessments with confidence, promoting a healthier academic experience.

Despite its benefits, collaborative testing does face certain challenges and drawbacks. Social loafing, described by Webb (1997), occurs when students relying on peers to do the work, diminishing individual accountability and learning. Division of labor during tests may also result in partial understanding, as students might only master their assigned section rather than the entire content, potentially undermining holistic comprehension. Moreover, the evaluation of group tests presents fairness issues; grades often reflect collective effort, which might not accurately demonstrate individual proficiency (Efu, 2018). Virtual testing environments also pose logistical concerns, with limited research on applying collaboration effectively online. The survey analysis further indicates that students report no negative experiences with collaborative tests, and a substantial 85% find the method beneficial, supporting the integration of such strategies into pedagogical practices (Webb et al., 1995).

Empirical studies reinforce these claims; Eastridge and Benson (2020) compare collaborative models for teaching statistics, affirming improvements in understanding. Similarly, Giuliodori et al. (2008) demonstrate benefits for both high- and low-performing students, emphasizing the inclusiveness of collaborative assessments. Lusk and Conklin (2003) assert that collaborative testing promotes increased engagement and understanding compared to traditional tests. The literature collectively underscores that, with proper implementation, collaborative testing can significantly enhance educational outcomes, fostering collaborative skills, reducing stress, and increasing retention (Slusser & Erickson, 2006; Webb, 1997). To optimize its effectiveness, educators should carefully design assessments to balance group dynamics and individual accountability, and explore technological solutions to facilitate virtual collaboration, especially given the growing prominence of online learning environments. Implementing best practices concerning group composition, clear grading criteria, and structured peer evaluations can mitigate potential issues and maximize the benefits of collaborative testing.

References

• Eastridge, J. A., & Benson, W. L. (2020). Comparing Two Models of Collaborative Testing for Teaching Statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 47(1), 68-73.
• Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2008). Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(4), 274–278.
• Lusk, M., & Conklin, L. (2003). Collaborative testing to promote learning. The Journal of Nursing Education, 42(3), 121–124.
• Slusser, S. R., & Erickson, R. J. (2006). Group Quizzes: An Extension of the Collaborative Learning Process. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 249–262.
• Webb, N. (1997). Assessing Students in Small Collaborative Groups. Theory Into Practice, 36(4), 247–253.
• Webb, N., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423.
• Slusser, S., & Erickson, R. (2006). Group Quizzes: An Extension of the Collaborative Learning Process. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 249–262.
• Volante, L. (2004). Teaching to the Test: What Every Educator and Policy-Maker Should Know. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy.
• Woody, W. D., Woody, L. K., & Bromley, S. (2008). Anticipated Group versus Individual Examinations: A Classroom Comparison. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 13–17.
• Zimbardo, P. G., Wolfe, V. A., & Butler, L. D. (2003). Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When Students Share Information and Grades. Teaching of Psychology.