DOES TWO-STAGE COLLABORATIVE TESTING IMPROVE RECALL AND RETENTION OF ANATOMICAL CONCEPTS?

Danielle C. Bentley, PhDDiv. of Anat. University of Torontodanielle.bentley@utoronto.ca

James Faul, BScHMBUniversity of Toronto

Tamara M. Rosner, PhDCTSIUniversity of Toronto

Leonor Separi, BScDept. of Mol. Gen.University of Toronto

INTRODUCTION

Retaining basic anatomy knowledge is imperative to all health care professionals. Two-stage collaborative testing has been previously shown to enhance student learning, as demonstrated through both short-term recall of course material and long-term retention of course material. Two-stage Collaborative Testing = complete test as individual, then complete same test in group.

However, previous research on two-stage collaborative testing has generally compared separate cohorts of students; a research design that fails to control for between-student variance.

Primary Research Aim: to determine the educational impact of two-stage collaborative testing on student recall / retention using a blocked-randomized cross-over design to control variance.

Participants: ANAT1110 is an introductory anatomy course for students in the Radiation Science program at UofT/Michener. The 2019 cohort included 97 students; 84 of which provided end-of-term informed consent. Almost half (45%) of students had very limited previous anatomy experience, despite the majority (81%) having completed a university degree.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Block-randomized, groups of 3-4 students

Term Test 1 (TT1)

Term Test 2 (TT2)*

Term Test 3 (TT3)*

FINAL EXAM

TT1 material

TT2 material *

TT3 material *

Groups A-O

Groups P-AD

Recall Quiz 2* Recall Quiz 3*Recall Quiz 1

(*experimental conditions)

collaborationpractice

collaborationpractice

collaborative!

collaborative!

-25-20-15-10-505

101520

Term Test Two Term Test Three

Per

cent

age

(on

reca

ll qu

iz)

Recall

AtoOPtoAD

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

Term Test Two Material Term Test Three Materal

Per

cent

age

(on

stra

tifie

d te

rm te

st

ques

tions

)

Retention

AtoOPtoAD

collaborative

collaborative

collaborative

collaborative

independent

independent

independent

independent

AnatomyGroup

AnatomyGroup

Material

A-OP-AD

A-OP-AD

TWO-STAGE COLLABORATIVE TESTING

IMPROVES RECALL BY 6.3% (ns)

TWO-STAGE COLLABORATIVE TESTING

IMPROVES RETENTION BY 1.6% (ns)

NEGATIVE STUDENT FEEDBACK

share ideas

learn to collaboratereal-worldcommunication

practice

“grade-boost”

discussions

immediate feedback

stigma

“majority wins”

studentsforcefully

persuading others

negativegroup

dynamics

Positive group dynamics frustration arguments

Students who wrote TT2 collaboratively experienced a “boost” of 2.6 ± 2.1 % on that test

= “boost” of 0.53% in the course

Students who wrote TT3 collaboratively experienced a “boost” of 3.9 ± 2.9 % on that test

= “boost” of 0.79% in the course

Q: “DOESN’T COLLABORATIVE TESTING ARTIFICIALLY BOOST MARKS” ??

A: VERY MINIMALLY

Q: “DON’T STUDENTS STUDY LESS WHEN COLLABORATIVELY TESTED” ??

A: NOPE

60

65

70

75

80

85

Term Test Two Term Test Three

% (o

n T

erm

Tes

t)

Individual Performance

Entire Class Collaborative Condition Individual Condition

Q: “WILL YOU CONTINUE COLLABORATIVE TESTING IN YOUR COURSE ??

A: ABSOLUTELY !

Fall 2019 cohort: To 1) demonstrate repeatability of results and 2) enhance statistical power

POSITIVE STUDENT FEEDBACK