Nursing student perception and performance with collaborative testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".