Collaborative testing as posttest review.

COLLABORATIVE TESTING INVOLVING SMALL GROUPS OF TWO TO SIX STUDENTS HAS BEEN USED OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS IN HIGHER EDUCATION B U T O N LY R E C E N T LY I N N U R S I N G P R O G R A M S . some faculty use this technique as a form of test review, to reinforce important concepts of a unit of study, while others use collaborative testing as the primary means of evaluation in a course. other terms for collaborative testing include group testing, cooperative testing, double testing, and dyad testing. Collaborative testing has been shown to increase critical thinking scores (Lusk & Conklin, 2003). Guiliodori, Lugan, and diCarlo (2008) demonstrated that collaborative testing had a positive impact on learning among veterinary students in an early course in physiology. students achieved higher scores with collaborative testing when compared with the traditional individual testing format. While high and low achievers evaluated the experience positively, lower achieving students benefited the most from the group testing experience. Cortright, Collins, rodenbaugh, and diCarlo (2003) showed that group testing increased retention of theoretical content. students who participated in group testing following individual testing demonstrated significantly higher retention of content when compared with students who were only tested individually. no posttest review was held for either group. sandahl (2010) used a collaborative testing approach in a quasi-experimental study of Bsn students. the intervention group demonstrated increased learning as evidenced by improved exam scores and positive student perception of their learning experience when compared with a control group. Another benefit of group testing is reduced test anxiety, demonstrated in learning situations with small groups, usually two to three students taking the unit test or final exam cooperatively (Morgan, 2003). Moderate to severe levels of anxiety can be crippling to students, but criticism of this format derives from concern about the student's ability to succeed on the certification exams required of graduates. Many nursing curricula are aimed toward successful achievement on the nCLeX-rn, and group testing is contrary to this format. Collaborative group testing was introduced as an action research project in all nursing courses offered by a two-year combined diploma and associate nursing program over a one-year period. action research, conducted with rather than on participants, is often used in education and industry to improve outcomes. this approach gives educators an opportunity to test and evaluate new ideas. the purpose of the project was to develop and establish an effective method of posttest review to reinforce important theoretical concepts. students did not participate in the design of the study, but their feedback was considered in the initial evaluation of the collaborative testing format. For a three-year period prior to implementation of the project, students had consistently evaluated posttest reviews poorly, pointing to the timing (one week after the test or late in the day) and the format. the instructor would read the correct answers and review specific questions; students would attempt to argue their point of view, and the review sessions became disruptive, with some students resenting those students who were most assertive. Method this action research project involved the use of course evaluations, and institutional review board approval was not needed. immediately following a traditional testing period (individuals took their own tests), students were assigned to small groups to retake the same test. With each unit test (six per semester) students were randomly assigned to a different group. Groups initially consisted of six to seven students but were reduced to groups of five to allow for adequate group work and participation. At first, each group was given one hard copy of the test (50 to 60 questions) and one answer sheet. …