Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students

Abstract

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.