Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing

Autores
Giuliodori, Mauricio Javier; Lujan, H. D.; DiCarlo, S. E.
Año de publicación
2009
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
We used collaborative testing in a veterinary physiology course (65 students) to answer the following questions: 1) do students with individual correct responses or students with individual incorrect responses change their answers during group testing? and 2) do high-performing students make the decisions, that is, are low-performing students carried by high-performing peers? To address these questions, students first completed the exam in the traditional format as individuals. After completing the exam as individuals, students completed the same exam in groups of two. Finally, the same questions were discussed by the instructor and students (instructor feedback). We found that students with individual incorrect responses changed their answers during group testing more often than students with individual correct responses (odds ratio: 7.58, P , 0.01). Furthermore, student feedback was more beneficial when group members had different individual answers than when they had same individual answers (P , 0.05). In addition, when group members had different individual answers, more answers were changed to correct responses than to incorrect responses (77% vs. 23%, P , 0.01). It was more important to have the correct answer than to be the high-performing student, because the student with the correct response (being either the high- or low-performing student) generally prevailed (; 80% of the time, P 5 0.5). Finally, the positive effects of group testing (77% of total effects, P , 0.05) were due to students who changed their individual answer to the correct response after discussion with peers with the correct response and also with the incorrect individual response.
Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias
Materia
Educación
student feedback
peer instruction
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Repositorio
SEDICI (UNLP)
Institución
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
OAI Identificador
oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/190447

id SEDICI_7b12899505a4bab920573b753bbf16a7
oai_identifier_str oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/190447
network_acronym_str SEDICI
repository_id_str 1329
network_name_str SEDICI (UNLP)
spelling Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testingGiuliodori, Mauricio JavierLujan, H. D.DiCarlo, S. E.Educaciónstudent feedbackpeer instructionWe used collaborative testing in a veterinary physiology course (65 students) to answer the following questions: 1) do students with individual correct responses or students with individual incorrect responses change their answers during group testing? and 2) do high-performing students make the decisions, that is, are low-performing students carried by high-performing peers? To address these questions, students first completed the exam in the traditional format as individuals. After completing the exam as individuals, students completed the same exam in groups of two. Finally, the same questions were discussed by the instructor and students (instructor feedback). We found that students with individual incorrect responses changed their answers during group testing more often than students with individual correct responses (odds ratio: 7.58, P , 0.01). Furthermore, student feedback was more beneficial when group members had different individual answers than when they had same individual answers (P , 0.05). In addition, when group members had different individual answers, more answers were changed to correct responses than to incorrect responses (77% vs. 23%, P , 0.01). It was more important to have the correct answer than to be the high-performing student, because the student with the correct response (being either the high- or low-performing student) generally prevailed (; 80% of the time, P 5 0.5). Finally, the positive effects of group testing (77% of total effects, P , 0.05) were due to students who changed their individual answer to the correct response after discussion with peers with the correct response and also with the incorrect individual response.Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias2009info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArticulohttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdf24-29http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/190447enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/issn/1043-4046info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1152/advan.90161.2008info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)instname:Universidad Nacional de La Platainstacron:UNLP2026-02-26T11:39:52Zoai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/190447Institucionalhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/Universidad públicaNo correspondehttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/oai/snrdalira@sedici.unlp.edu.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:13292026-02-26 11:39:52.796SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Platafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
title Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
spellingShingle Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
Giuliodori, Mauricio Javier
Educación
student feedback
peer instruction
title_short Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
title_full Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
title_fullStr Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
title_full_unstemmed Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
title_sort Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Giuliodori, Mauricio Javier
Lujan, H. D.
DiCarlo, S. E.
author Giuliodori, Mauricio Javier
author_facet Giuliodori, Mauricio Javier
Lujan, H. D.
DiCarlo, S. E.
author_role author
author2 Lujan, H. D.
DiCarlo, S. E.
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Educación
student feedback
peer instruction
topic Educación
student feedback
peer instruction
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv We used collaborative testing in a veterinary physiology course (65 students) to answer the following questions: 1) do students with individual correct responses or students with individual incorrect responses change their answers during group testing? and 2) do high-performing students make the decisions, that is, are low-performing students carried by high-performing peers? To address these questions, students first completed the exam in the traditional format as individuals. After completing the exam as individuals, students completed the same exam in groups of two. Finally, the same questions were discussed by the instructor and students (instructor feedback). We found that students with individual incorrect responses changed their answers during group testing more often than students with individual correct responses (odds ratio: 7.58, P , 0.01). Furthermore, student feedback was more beneficial when group members had different individual answers than when they had same individual answers (P , 0.05). In addition, when group members had different individual answers, more answers were changed to correct responses than to incorrect responses (77% vs. 23%, P , 0.01). It was more important to have the correct answer than to be the high-performing student, because the student with the correct response (being either the high- or low-performing student) generally prevailed (; 80% of the time, P 5 0.5). Finally, the positive effects of group testing (77% of total effects, P , 0.05) were due to students who changed their individual answer to the correct response after discussion with peers with the correct response and also with the incorrect individual response.
Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias
description We used collaborative testing in a veterinary physiology course (65 students) to answer the following questions: 1) do students with individual correct responses or students with individual incorrect responses change their answers during group testing? and 2) do high-performing students make the decisions, that is, are low-performing students carried by high-performing peers? To address these questions, students first completed the exam in the traditional format as individuals. After completing the exam as individuals, students completed the same exam in groups of two. Finally, the same questions were discussed by the instructor and students (instructor feedback). We found that students with individual incorrect responses changed their answers during group testing more often than students with individual correct responses (odds ratio: 7.58, P , 0.01). Furthermore, student feedback was more beneficial when group members had different individual answers than when they had same individual answers (P , 0.05). In addition, when group members had different individual answers, more answers were changed to correct responses than to incorrect responses (77% vs. 23%, P , 0.01). It was more important to have the correct answer than to be the high-performing student, because the student with the correct response (being either the high- or low-performing student) generally prevailed (; 80% of the time, P 5 0.5). Finally, the positive effects of group testing (77% of total effects, P , 0.05) were due to students who changed their individual answer to the correct response after discussion with peers with the correct response and also with the incorrect individual response.
publishDate 2009
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2009
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Articulo
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/190447
url http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/190447
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/issn/1043-4046
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1152/advan.90161.2008
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
24-29
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)
instname:Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron:UNLP
reponame_str SEDICI (UNLP)
collection SEDICI (UNLP)
instname_str Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron_str UNLP
institution UNLP
repository.name.fl_str_mv SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Plata
repository.mail.fl_str_mv alira@sedici.unlp.edu.ar
_version_ 1858282595411820544
score 12.665996