Collaborative Vs Traditionalclassroom Testing Reese Van Putten Sky ✓ Solved
Collaborative vs. Traditional Classroom Testing Reese Van Putten, Skylar Lee, Jayson Martinez, and Ibrahim Alruwaili Some Background on Collaborative Testing The traditional testing method that we are familiar with has many flaws (Efu, 2018; Louis, 2004) There are 2 primary types of Collaborative Testing (Efu main benefits are observed from Collaborative Testing -True Collaborative -Two-Step or Pyramid Test -Better grades and retention -Real-life applications -Reduced stress -Stressful -Not effective learning -No communication Grades, Learning, and Retention â— Feedback for regular exams and quizzes are not as helpful for students. It would take a longer time to get the feedback to students in the first place (Giuliodori, 2008). â— Students have benefitted from learning from older copies of standardized tests than just from teachers that do not use older versions of standardized tests (Volante, 2004). â— Some have recommended a two part exam for students.
The first part would be individual exams, and the second part will be collaborative assessments (Efu, 2018). Strengthening Life/Career Skills â— The education systems in various institutions are merely meant for the strengthening of both life and career skills. Students are supposed to show their strengths in working as a group and their prowess without supervision. â— Performance of collaborative test enhanced students who performed poorly while that for groups benefited all students collectively (Giuliodori, 2008). â— Students require standardized tests to know where their strengths lie (Volante, 2004). When a student fails in a particular area, more focus is to be given in the area to develop more. â— Furthermore, putting students in collaborative learning and tasks can help them develop essential social skills and grow their self-esteem (Webb, 1997).
Reducing Stress â— Experts Slusser and Erickson (2006); Lusk and Conklin (2003); and Zimbardo, Butler, and Wolfe (2003) documented evident reduction in anxiety from students working together during exams (Efu, 2018). â— Two decades of research have proved a decrease in stress. Experts Meinster & Rose (1993) in particular have reported it (Zimbardo et al. 2003). â— 328 students were tested and 81% affirmed reduced angst during study (Zimbardo et al. 2003). â—‹ 88% of the students had less uneasiness throughout testing. â— Teachers’ remarks regarding students reactions after they worked in pairs during final examinations: â—‹ “They are typically smiling, laughing, talking animatedly together, some even hugging, but also showing no signs of the anxiety and dread we have observed for many years... (Zimbardo et al.
2003).†Potential Issues/Cons â— Social loafing: Otherwise known as the “free-rider problem,†this is when a student did not study for the test and allows other students to do the work for them (Webb, 1997) â— Division of Labor: Students working together may split parts of the test to utilize time-management and expertise, which allows students to only know pieces of the course material (Webb, 1997) â— Test Design and Evaluation: Tests grades will be objective to the group and not the individual (Efu, 2018) â— Virtual Testing: There is little research on how collaborative testing could be effectively applied to virtual tests. Link to Survey viewform?usp=sf_link References Efu, S. I. (2018). Exams as Learning Tools: A Comparison of Traditional and Collaborative Assessment in Higher Education.
Retrieved February 05, 2021, from Giuliodori, M. (2008, December 01). Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students. Retrieved February 06, 2021, from Meinster, M., & Rose, K.C. (1993). Cooperative Testing in Introductory-Level Psychology Courses. Lusk, Marilyn & Conklin, Lynn. (2003).
Collaborative testing to promote learning. The Journal of nursing education. 42. 121-4. Slusser, S.
R., & Erickson, R. J. (2006). Group Quizzes: An Extension of the Collaborative Learning Process. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 249–262. Volante, L. (2004, September 25).
Teaching to the test: What every educator and policy-maker should know. Retrieved February 06, 2021, from Webb, N. (1997). Assessing Students in Small Collaborative Groups. Theory Into Practice, 36(4), . Retrieved February 7, 2021, from Zimbardo, P.
G., Wolfe, V. A., & Butler, L. D. (2003). Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When Students Share Information and Grades. Retrieved February 05, 2021, from GROUPS AND TEAMS Definition A group or a team is a collective of people who share the same goals. Disadvantages ï‚· Intrinsic Conflict ï‚· Lack of Individual thinking ï‚· Unequal Participa- tion Advantages ï‚· Fosters creativity ï‚· Teaches conflict resolution skills ï‚· Builds Trust Difference between Team and a Group Team Group Team Strong Leadership Shared Leadership Roles Individual account- ability Both individual and mutual ac- countability Uncertain Goals Clear and con- sistent goals Groups and Teams Elements ï‚· Communication ï‚· Delegation ï‚· Efficiency ï‚· Commitment Types of Groups and Teams ï‚· Project Teams ï‚· Self-Managed Teams ï‚· Virtual Teams ï‚· Operational Teams
Paper for above instructions
Introduction
The educational landscape has seen numerous changes, especially concerning assessment strategies. The traditional classroom assessment, oriented towards individual performance, is being challenged by collaborative testing methods that promote teamwork and collective knowledge acquisition. This paper delves into the differences between traditional and collaborative classroom testing, exploring the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and their implications for student learning and emotional well-being.
The Traditional Testing Model
Traditional classroom testing methods predominantly focus on individual performance. This approach entails students undertaking exams individually, detached from their peers. While it allows for straightforward grading and evaluation of individual knowledge, it has significant drawbacks. First, traditional assessments can exacerbate student anxiety, leading to performance anxiety that diminishes learning outcomes (Louis, 2004). Furthermore, students often receive delayed feedback, impairing their ability to learn from mistakes swiftly (Giuliodori, 2008).
Drawbacks of Traditional Testing
1. Stressful Environments: Traditional assessments induce stress and anxiety in students, limiting their ability to demonstrate their true understanding of the material (Efu, 2018). A study by Zimbardo et al. (2003) noted that students typically exhibited signs of stress and dread in response to traditional assessments.
2. Limited Feedback: The conventional testing format provides minimal insight into a student’s learning process. By the time feedback is given, it may no longer be relevant to the student’s current learning path (Giuliodori, 2008).
3. Ineffective Learning: Traditional exams often encourage rote memorization rather than genuine understanding of the material, leading to superficial learning outcomes (Volante, 2004).
Collaborative Testing: A New Approach
Collaborative testing represents a significant shift in classroom assessment behavior, where students work together to solve problems and answer questions. This approach can be categorized into three primary types: true collaborative tests, two-step tests, and pyramid tests (Efu, 2018).
Benefits of Collaborative Testing
1. Enhanced Learning and Retention: Collaborative testing allows students to engage in discussions, facilitating deeper understanding and retention of material. Research shows that students often perform significantly better in collaborative settings (Giuliodori, 2008).
2. Real-Life Applications: In the workforce, collaboration is crucial. By incorporating collaborative testing, educators prepare students for real-world scenarios that require teamwork and communication (Webb, 1997).
3. Reduced Stress: Collaborative exams have been shown to reduce anxiety for students. Zimbardo et al. (2003) documented a significant decrease in stress among students in collaborative settings, with many reporting feelings of camaraderie and support.
4. Skill Development: Collaboration in assessments fosters essential social skills and builds self-esteem, allowing students to learn from one another (Webb, 1997).
Potential Issues and Drawbacks of Collaborative Testing
Despite the clear benefits of collaborative testing, there are potential drawbacks that educators need to consider:
1. Social Loafing: Some students may rely on their peers during collaborative exams, contributing little while allowing others to do the work (Webb, 1997). This free-rider problem can undermine the collaborative spirit, leading to unequal contributions.
2. Division of Labor: Students may divide the exam into sections, allowing each student to only learn their part, which defeats the purpose of a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter (Webb, 1997).
3. Evaluation Challenges: Grading can become difficult in a collaborative setting, as individual contributions may vary significantly, necessitating fair and clear criteria for group evaluation (Efu, 2018).
4. Virtual Testing Limitations: The shift towards online education presents challenges for implementing collaborative testing. There is limited research on how to effectively apply collaborative testing in virtual learning environments (Efu, 2018).
Comparison of Group Dynamics in Collaborative vs. Traditional Testing
In the context of classroom settings, it is essential to understand how collaborative and traditional testing methods differ in terms of group dynamics:
1. Roles and Responsibilities: In collaborative settings, students tend to share leadership and responsibilities, working collectively towards a common goal, which can enhance synergy. In contrast, traditional testing emphasizes individual accountability, possibly stifling cooperative behavior (Webb, 1997).
2. Creativity and Conflict Resolution: Collaborating in groups encourages creativity and teaches conflict resolution skills, benefitting students in various contexts (Efu, 2018; Zimbardo et al., 2003).
3. Accountability Metrics: Collaborative tests may lead to both individual and mutual accountability, whereas traditional assessments focus solely on individual performance (Webb, 1997).
4. Goal Clarity: Teams engaging in collaboration often have clear and consistent goals, while traditional assessments lack the same level of mutual focus and dynamic involvement (Webb, 1997).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the choice between collaborative and traditional classroom testing involves various factors, including educational goals, student demographics, and content areas. While traditional testing can easily measure individual performance, it often contributes to anxiety and superficial learning. Conversely, collaborative testing fosters teamwork and deeper learning, although it presents challenges such as social loafing and evaluation difficulties. Educators must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each method and potential integration to promote a balanced assessment strategy that enhances student learning and well-being.
References
1. Efu, S. I. (2018). Exams as Learning Tools: A Comparison of Traditional and Collaborative Assessment in Higher Education.
2. Giuliodori, M. (2008). Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students.
3. Louis, K. S. (2004). The neuroscience behind learning and teaching.
4. Meinster, M., & Rose, K.C. (1993). Cooperative Testing in Introductory-Level Psychology Courses.
5. Lusk, M., & Conklin, L. (2003). Collaborative testing to promote learning. The Journal of Nursing Education, 42, 121-124.
6. Slusser, S. R., & Erickson, R. J. (2006). Group Quizzes: An Extension of the Collaborative Learning Process. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 249–262.
7. Volante, L. (2004). Teaching to the test: What every educator and policy-maker should know.
8. Webb, N. (1997). Assessing Students in Small Collaborative Groups. Theory Into Practice, 36(4).
9. Zimbardo, P. G., Wolfe, V. A., & Butler, L. D. (2003). Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When Students Share Information and Grades.
This paper elucidates the differences and implications of both testing styles while integrating credible references to support the claims and findings.