Collaborative Testing Improves Performance on Long Answer Questions, and Maintains Long‐Term Retention of Course Material
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Collaborative testing (CT) is an assessment strategy whereby students first write a test as an individual and then immediately following, write the same test again as a group, with the opportunity to discuss their thought process in reaching their answers. This strategy has been shown to increase performance on multiple‐choice (MC) tests, and to improve short‐term retention of material. However, this format has not been evaluated for tests using long answer (LA) questions, and measures of improved long‐term retention are inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to determine if CT improves performance on LA questions and whether CT could improve long‐term retention of course material compared to traditional teaching and testing methods. Two courses, (3 rd year Exercise Physiology, n=102 and 2 nd year Biochemistry, n=64) administered identical protocols which included an in‐class collaborative midterm (half MC and half LA questions), an unannounced, individual retention test 1 week later (short‐term) followed by a brief instructor‐led, in‐class review of the test, and finally another unannounced individual retention test 6 weeks later (long‐term). Performance was calculated as the difference in grades between collaborative and individual midterm. Retention was calculated as the difference in grades between a given retention test and the individual midterm. CT improved performance on both MC and LA questions, but the degree of improvement was greater on LA questions (16.5% ± 1.29%, 20.6% ± 1.41%, p<0.05). As expected, short‐term retention was better on questions that had been tested collaboratively compared to questions that were only seen individually (+3.7% ± 1.53% vs. −7.9% ± 1.50%, p<0.05). Surprisingly, long‐term retention was similarly maintained for both collaborative and individual questions (+0.69% ± 1.92% vs. −0.16% ± 1.89%), indicating that retention of the questions that had been tested individually had improved since the short‐term retention test. Our results show that CT can improve performance on LA questions and help students retain this information over several weeks, but also suggests that taking the time to review a test in class may be an equal strategy to improve long‐term retention of material.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle