Does team-based testing promote individual learning?
| dc.contributor.advisor | Robinson, Daniel H. | en |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Schallert, Diane | en |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Svinicki, Marilla | en |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Borich, Gary | en |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Muir-Broaddus, Jacqueline | en |
| dc.creator | Walker, Joshua David | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-06-08T14:56:11Z | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-06-08T14:56:30Z | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-05-11T22:22:08Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2011-06-08T14:56:11Z | en |
| dc.date.available | 2011-06-08T14:56:30Z | en |
| dc.date.available | 2017-05-11T22:22:08Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011-05 | en |
| dc.date.submitted | May 2011 | en |
| dc.date.updated | 2011-06-08T14:56:30Z | en |
| dc.description | text | en |
| dc.description.abstract | Team-based testing gives students a chance to earn additional points on individual unit tests by immediately re-taking the test as a team competing against other teams. This instructional approach has enjoyed widening implementation and impressive anecdotal support, but there remains a dearth of empirical studies evaluating its prescribed processes and promoted outcomes. Although the posited effectiveness and appeal of team-based testing seem consistent with the benefits of test-enhanced learning and collaborative learning in general, several limitations are readily apparent. Namely, the current format of the individual and team readiness assurance tests is expressly multiple-choice. Though there are some advantages of this type of question (e.g., ease of administering and grading), the long-term cognitive disadvantage relative to short-answer questions is well documented. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the proposed gain in learning through this format is attributable to the group effect -- be it social or cognitive, or simply to repeated exposure to the test items. Therefore, this study measured the effects of initial test question Format (short-answer vs. multiple-choice), Mode (individual vs. group), and Exposure (once vs. twice) on four delayed measures of learning: Old multiple-choice items (ones students had initially been tested over), Old short-answer items, New multiple-choice items, and New short-answer items. Two weeks after watching a video-recorded lecture, 208 college students took a thirty-item test comprising both the old and new items in multiple-choice and short-answer formats. Results revealed that 1) taking an initial test twice is better than once when the delayed test has old short-answer items or new multiple-choice items, 2) taking an initial short-answer test is better than multiple choice when the delayed test has either old multiple-choice, old short-answer, or new multiple-choice items, and 3) taking an initial team test is no different than taking an individual test when it comes to long-term learning. Particularly noteworthy from these results is how a) the effects of short-answer tests and taking tests twice are not present within Team conditions, and b) taking a multiple-choice test twice is as effective as taking a short-answer test once. Implications are discussed in light of learning theory and instructional practice. | en |
| dc.description.department | Educational Psychology | en |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05-3480 | en |
| dc.language.iso | eng | en |
| dc.subject | Team-based learning | en |
| dc.subject | Testing effect | en |
| dc.subject | Collaborative testing | en |
| dc.subject | Educational testing | en |
| dc.subject | Testing | en |
| dc.subject | Educational tests and measurements | en |
| dc.title | Does team-based testing promote individual learning? | en |
| dc.type.genre | thesis | en |