Collaborative Testing and Achievement: Are Two Heads Really Better Than One?

By Haberyan, April; Barnett, Jerrold | Journal of Instructional Psychology, March 2010 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Collaborative Testing and Achievement: Are Two Heads Really Better Than One?


Haberyan, April, Barnett, Jerrold, Journal of Instructional Psychology


Two studies examined the impact of collaborative testing on exam scores for psychology students at a moderately selective Midwestern University. The first study was a replication of previous classroom research where students could choose to test with a partner or alone. No significant differences were found between those taking tests alone or with a partner. Students who scored high on extraversion and excitement seeking were more likely to choose collaborative testing. However, no significant differences were found between the students in each condition in anxiety, trust, and achievement striving. Following the classroom study, a laboratory study was conducted to tease apart the effects of studying with a partner and with testing with a partner. In Experiment 2, a strong testing effect was found, where students testing with a partner benefited, regardless of whether they studied with a partner or not.

**********

Although individual work is stressed in schools, the ability to collaborate with others is deemed to be an important ability in many diverse aspects of life, such as business, team sports, and scientific research. While cooperative learning in school settings has been popular for some time, and has been the subject of extensive research, collaborative test taking is a relatively new phenomenon. Recent studies have found that collaborative test taking improves exam performance and promotes positive student attitudes (Lambiotte, Dansereau, Rocklin, Fletcher, Hythecker, Larson, et al., 1987; Lusk & Conklin, 2003; Mitchell & Melton, 2003; Slusser & Erickson, 2006; Zimbardo, Butler, & Wolfe, 2003). In addition, some researchers maintain that collaborative testing encourages positive problem-solving, improves long-term retention of information, and reduces anxiety (Cassini, 1994; Helmericks, 1993; Mitchell & Melton; Zimbardo et al.). One purpose of the present studies was to replicate these collaborative testing effects with a different sample and in different subject areas.

A second issue addressed in this paper is the role of personality traits and collaborative testing. Traits such as extraversion/introversion may play a major role in student preference for testing alone or with a partner and in determining whether they benefit from their collaboration. To our knowledge, no such studies have been conducted to date. However, a recent critique of the cooperative education literature may prove helpful (Genovese, 2005). Commenting on why so many educational innovations (including cooperative education) cycle in and out of favor with the education community, Genovese argued that the lack of attention to individual differences dooms any innovation that promises universal success. For example, high achieving students often prefer to work alone rather than with a partner (Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000). Hutchinson and Gul (1997) found that the trait of introversion/extraversion played a role in student preferences for working alone or with a group, and Onwuegbuzie (2001) found that peer-oriented students fared better than students with other learning styles in a research methods course requiring cooperative learning. A second purpose of this research project was to test the impact of personality traits on collaborative testing.

While it seems intuitively obvious (at least to the students who participated in the first study) that "two heads are better than one" and that collaborative testing would improve grades, the group process literature is quite mixed (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). Many times, groups fail to live up to their potential. For example, productive groups tend to be cohesive, and collaborative testing appears to work best when students have the opportunity to learn about one another's competencies (Zimbardo et al, 2003). However, two students choosing to take a test together may not spend enough time together to realize the benefits that partners offer.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Collaborative Testing and Achievement: Are Two Heads Really Better Than One?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?