Learning by Exams: The Impact of Two-Stage Cooperative Tests

Decades of research have documented the positive impacts of cooperative learning on student success: increased learning, retention through graduation, improved critical thinking, and intrinsic motivation. One cooperative teaching technique, however, has received relatively little attention. In the two-stage cooperative, group, or “pyramid” exam students first take an exam individually—as in traditional testing—and then take the same exam together with their learning group, with the exam grade being a weighted combination of their individual and group scores. This approach uses the exam itself not only for evaluation, but also as a learning tool. Although some researchers have studied group exams, they have not isolated the impact of group tests from individual achievement—an important omission. Using data from a mass lecture introductory sociology course, I found that holding individual achievement constant the group exam process significantly increased learning both for students who knew the material initially and for those who did not. This suggests that cooperative exams not only enhance learning but also allow for the process and form of testing to become more closely linked to the process and form of teaching and learning.

[1]  David Nicol,et al.  Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers , 1994 .

[2]  The Impact of Social Structure on Mate Selection: An Empirical Evaluation of an Active-Learning Exercise. , 2002 .

[3]  K. Schwirian,et al.  Sociology for the Twenty-First Century , 1996 .

[4]  B. Bloom Taxonomy of educational objectives , 1956 .

[5]  A. Astin What matters in college? : four critical years revisited , 1994 .

[6]  R. Slavin Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice , 1990 .

[7]  Steven G. Helmericks Collaborative Testing in Social Statistics: Toward Gemeinstat , 1993 .

[8]  P. Gurney Changing Children's Overt Behaviour Related to Self‐esteem by the Use of Behaviour Modification , 1987 .

[9]  B. Davis Tools for Teaching , 1993 .

[10]  N. Webb Collaborative Group Versus Individual Assessment in Mathematics: Processes and Outcomes , 1993 .

[11]  A JOURNEY TOWARD HUMANISTIC TESTING , 1987 .

[12]  R. Yuretich,et al.  Active-Learning Methods to Improve Student Performance and Scientific Interest in a Large Introductory Oceanography Course , 2001 .

[13]  R. Yuretich,et al.  Encouraging Critical Thinking: Measuring Skills in Large Introductory Science Classes , 2003 .

[14]  I. Winfield,et al.  Collaborative Testing and Test Anxiety , 2004 .

[15]  Vernon A. Quarstein,et al.  Assessment of Cooperative Learning: A Goal-Criterion Approach , 2001 .

[16]  J. C. Ory,et al.  Tips For Improving Testing And Grading , 1993 .

[17]  S. Stearns Collaborative Exams as Learning Tools , 1996 .

[18]  S. DiCarlo,et al.  Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. , 2003, Advances in physiology education.

[19]  J. Murry,et al.  Better Testing for Better Learning , 1990 .

[20]  Antonio Russo,et al.  Collaborative Test Taking , 1999 .

[21]  Roza Leikin,et al.  Cooperative Learning in Mathematics. , 1999 .

[22]  Howard R. Pollio,et al.  Making sense of college grades , 1986 .

[23]  Lisa D. Butler,et al.  Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When Students Share Information and Grades , 2003 .

[24]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research , 1989 .

[25]  Barbara J. Millis,et al.  Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty , 1997 .

[26]  I. Winfield,et al.  Collaborative Testing and Test Performance , 2004 .

[27]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom , 2006 .