“Three Heads are Better than One”
A Mixed Methods Study Describing Nursing Students’
Experiences with Collaborative Testing
Dr. Donna Martin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Nursing; Eunice Friesen, Associate Director Educational Innovations,
Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning; Antonina De Pau, Graduate Nursing Student
background
Collaborative testing (CT) is an educational strategy
that engages groups of students in formative
assessments designed to foster deeper learning and
refine students’ teamwork skills. Studies about CT
have been implemented in higher education over
several decades with consistent reports of positive
student and faculty experiences. Inconsistent
findings include CT outcomes such as test scores,
test anxiety and retention of learning. Divergent
research designs and methods of implementing CT
create difficulties in discerning the evidence.
study’s purpose
description of the sample
Convenience sample; n=70 out of 110 students
enrolled in 2 sections of the same course; Most
participants - female (60 female; 8 male; 2
unanswered); Most students were < 30 years of
age (approx. 63% 20-24 years); Almost 83% had
completed 2 years of course work in nursing;
14% had previous degree; Participants from both
sections were similar; Student population in this
program is culturally diverse – although cultural
heritage was not measured by the demographic
survey, this sample was representative of the
target population.
The overall purpose of the study was to describe
results
nursing students’ experiences of CT versus
1.
Is
there
a
statistically
significant
traditional test taking (TT). Research questions
difference
b/w
CT
versus
traditional
were:
test-taking
scores?
YES!
1. Is there a statiscally significant difference •Using cross-over analysis - the treatment effect
between test scores of CT and TT?
(CT) was highly significant; CT scores were on
2. Does CT enhance retention of course content?
average 7.99 units higher than traditional testing
3. What are the experiences of students
scores (5.21 – 10.77, p value <0.0001) when the
participating in CT?
test was allocated a score out of 100.
mixed methods using cross- •Because formative tests were allocated a total
over design & focus groups score of 15, overall course grades increased by an
average of 1.2 points/100 by participating in CT.
Approval from the university’s ERB, Recruitment
•Period effect was not significant (p value = 0.9721),
began via email + in-class presentation from the
indicating that students did not perform better on
research assistant; Informed consent obtained;
the 2nd test
Demographic surveys completed; Subjects
randomly assigned into Group A or B; Prior to
2. Does CT enhance retention of
test, subjects randomly assigned to groups of 3; CT course material? NO!
written in 1 room; Non-participants and subjects
CT, TT, and final exam groups were similar in their
assigned to traditional testing wrote in a separate
rates of responses to specific test questions. Test
room; Each small group submitted 1answer sheet.
questions that received higher levels of incorrect
2 hours provided to write 2 formative tests. [test
answers on formative tests were repeated on the
= 45 questions (MCQ and short answer) worth
final exam. Rates of responses to these questions
15%]; All students wrote final exam individually; CT were compared between CT, TT, and final exam
subjects completed CT Testing Evaluation Survey
groups to determine retention of course content.
(14-items rated on a 5-point Likert Scale) at the
Using Chi-Square, no statistically significant
completion of formative test; 2 focus groups (n=3, difference existed between CT, TT, and final exam
n= 9) conducted at term end (Note: instructor kept rates of responses.
“blind”).
Studying more - studying differently
“I found I was more motivated
to study for the CT.”
Confidence
“It strengthens your knowledge coming out
[of the CT] that you felt good that you
knew your material down pat because
someone else knew that too.”
3. What are
the students’
experiences?
“Three heads are
better
than one!”
It Stuck in My Head Better
“I feel like I learned a lot better when I discuss
things or talk them out and then they
stick in my head better.”
Practicing how to Share
Knowledge/Negotiate
“You need to understand the materials
in order to communicate and you need
to be able to communicate that.
So in a way, it’s a good strategy for
team working to be able to get
everybody’s input, take it all apart,
and put it all back together and
make sure that you have
the right answer...”
Cognitive Collectivism
“I feel when others are dependent on me,
I would want to be able to
provide the answer.”
discussion/conclusion
CT produced statistically significant higher test scores. Because formative tests were weighted
appropriately, students participating in CT scored an average of 1.2/100 higher than the traditional
testing group in the overall course grade. Similar to findings from a previous study by Sandahl
(2010), CT was as an enjoyable educational experience. “Three heads are better than one” was the
major theme. Focus groups identified that CT provided participants with more confidence in their
learning. Additionally, participants identified that they studied more and differently to prepare for
CT. CT was perceived to enhance learning as “it stuck in my head better.” However, there were no
statistically significant differences between CT, TT and final exam groups in their rates of correct
responses to repeated, challenging questions. More importantly, CT provided a venue to practice
cognitive collectivism, share knowledge, and negotiate. Longitudinal studies are recommended to
test whether CT contributes to longer retention of course material. Future studies evaluating CT
with culturally diverse students are warranted.
The study was funded by the Professional Foundations Research Fund from the Manitoba Centre for Nursing & Health Research via the Nursing Endowment Fund.