PURPOSE: With increased focus on student preparation for high-stakes licensure exams, there is more interest in alternate forms of content delivery and assessment. This interest has focused on factors within the learning environment that may impact student's course performance and program progress. In this project, the impact of the method of group determination (random assignment vs. student selection) on student performance in a neuroanatomy course within a collaborative testing environment is examined. METHODS: THE COURSE PERFORMANCE OF TWO COHORTS (COHORT ONE: randomized grouping = 80; cohort two: student-selected grouping = 82) were compared. All students completed weekly quizzes within collaborative groups, while completing unit exams individually. The mean sum of both the quiz scores and examination scores were compared. RESULTS: While the two groups differed (Wilks' lambda = 0.211; F = 53.541; df = 10,143; p < .05), no pattern was evident among the assessments (ie, one group did not differ significantly on all quizzes or examinations). In overall quiz performance, the randomized groupings scored significantly higher than the student-selected groups (F = 112.252; df = 1152; p < .05) while no difference was noted relative to overall exam scores (F = 2.672; df = 1152; p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: While the collaborative testing paradigm has been shown to be a valuable learning tool, no differences are apparent in the course performance between students in randomly assigned groups compared to those in student-selected groups. The very nature of random groups may have encouraged students to be proficient in all of the material, whereas students who were allowed to choose their groups may have divided the material among themselves and not become individually proficient in all concepts.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: With increased focus on student preparation for high-stakes licensure exams, there is more interest in alternate forms of content delivery and assessment. This interest has focused on factors within the learning environment that may impact student's course performance and program progress. In this project, the impact of the method of group determination (random assignment vs. student selection) on student performance in a neuroanatomy course within a collaborative testing environment is examined. METHODS: THE COURSE PERFORMANCE OF TWO COHORTS (COHORT ONE: randomized grouping = 80; cohort two: student-selected grouping = 82) were compared. All students completed weekly quizzes within collaborative groups, while completing unit exams individually. The mean sum of both the quiz scores and examination scores were compared. RESULTS: While the two groups differed (Wilks' lambda = 0.211; F = 53.541; df = 10,143; p < .05), no pattern was evident among the assessments (ie, one group did not differ significantly on all quizzes or examinations). In overall quiz performance, the randomized groupings scored significantly higher than the student-selected groups (F = 112.252; df = 1152; p < .05) while no difference was noted relative to overall exam scores (F = 2.672; df = 1152; p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: While the collaborative testing paradigm has been shown to be a valuable learning tool, no differences are apparent in the course performance between students in randomly assigned groups compared to those in student-selected groups. The very nature of random groups may have encouraged students to be proficient in all of the material, whereas students who were allowed to choose their groups may have divided the material among themselves and not become individually proficient in all concepts.
Keywords:
Decision Making; Educational Assessment; Group Process; Teaching