FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W199439394> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W199439394 endingPage "270" @default.
• W199439394 startingPage "265" @default.
• W199439394 abstract "Abstract This study examines the impact of collaborative testing on exam and students' engagement with course content. Numerous studies have documented the efficacy of collaborative learning, and several researchers have examined collaborative testing. However, few studies compare individual and collaborative testing procedures on the same exam. The results of this study demonstrate the efficacy of collaborative testing and will supplement the small body of research on this alternative testing method as compared to a traditional methodology, when used on the same exam. Introduction Whatever term you choose: collaborative learning, cooperative learning, active learning, peer mediated instruction, group or team learning, etc. students learning together has been widely promoted and accepted in all levels of education. Evidence of the efficacy of these pedagogical models abounds (Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005; Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2004; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, Smith, & MacGregor, 1992; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Slavin, 1991). While some researchers are skeptical, (Bacon, 2005; Kelmett, Young & Berril, 1999; Punchocar & Fox, 2004; Stuart, 1994) group learning is rapidly moving from something alternative and non-traditional, to standard operation procedure in many classrooms. This is due in part, to the increased level of collaboration in the real world, outside the academy, the world into which we are preparing our students to enter. Literature Review By the late 1980s researchers were moving beyond examining the efficacy of collaborative learning, to exploring the possible advantages of allowing students to work collaboratively on quizzes and exams. Lambiotte et al. (1987) compared four different testing methods with psychology students, including collaborative testing. They found collaborative testing resulted in higher due to students providing more information in their answers as compared to individual testing. In 1993, Meinster and Rose's developmental psychology students were given four exams, two of which were taken individually, and two that had collaborative testing procedures. They found that most students performed better on the collaborative format, although they did not observe a carry-over phenomenon, in other words students who may have scored high on their collaborative tests, did not subsequently score as high on their next individual exam. However, Jensen (1996) as well as Jensen, Johnson and Johnson (2002), found that administering collaborative quizzes during the semester resulted in improved on individually completed major exams. Zimbardo, Butler, and Wolfe (2003) noted an increase in exam when they compared the first exam of a course, which was taken individually, to subsequent exams that were taken collaboratively. Similar results were found by Skidmore and Aagaard (2004). Breedlove, Burkett, and Winfield (2004) observed that taking tests collaboratively raised scores, compared to exams that were given individually, for concept and knowledge questions, but did not raise for theory questions. While most researchers have concluded that collaborative testing is advantageous, Webb (1993) gave both individual and group exams in her math classes, and while the mean performance was higher in the collaborative testing format, ultimately she concluded that scores from group assessment may not be valid indicators of many students' individual competence (p. 150). Only a limited number of researchers have compared individual and collaborative testing formats on the same exam. Applegate (1995) found that test improved 80% of the time when students worked in groups to complete tests that they have already completed individually. Rao and DiCarlo (2000) asked multiple choice questions during class sessions to verify whether or not students understood course content. …" @default.
• W199439394 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W199439394 creator A5079114457 @default.
• W199439394 date "2006-09-22" @default.
• W199439394 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W199439394 title "Collaborative Testing: A Second Chance to Learn" @default.
• W199439394 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W199439394 type Work @default.
• W199439394 sameAs 199439394 @default.
• W199439394 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W199439394 countsByYear W1994393942022 @default.
• W199439394 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W199439394 hasAuthorship W199439394A5079114457 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C138020889 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C18296254 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C51672120 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C77967617 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W199439394 hasConcept C88610354 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C111472728 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C138020889 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C138885662 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C145420912 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C151730666 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C154945302 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C15744967 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C18296254 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C2777267654 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C41008148 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C51672120 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C77967617 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C86803240 @default.
• W199439394 hasConceptScore W199439394C88610354 @default.
• W199439394 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W199439394 hasLocation W1994393941 @default.
• W199439394 hasOpenAccess W199439394 @default.
• W199439394 hasPrimaryLocation W1994393941 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W1518692127 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2140521773 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W220448697 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2278599173 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2472225677 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2575405905 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2613828929 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2731907531 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2740832316 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W285136750 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W286538094 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2887075925 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W299278694 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2994517792 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W62225118 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W65086246 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W91438163 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W219281703 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2596104497 @default.
• W199439394 hasRelatedWork W2604789177 @default.
• W199439394 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W199439394 isParatext "false" @default.
• W199439394 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W199439394 magId "199439394" @default.
• W199439394 workType "article" @default.