Student Assessment: A Comparison of Solitary, Cooperative, and Competitive Testing
Saved in:
| Title: | Student Assessment: A Comparison of Solitary, Cooperative, and Competitive Testing |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Desrochers, Marcie N., Fink, Herbert C., Thomas, Andrea, Kimmerling, Joe, Tung, Wendy |
| Source: | International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2007 19(3):289-296. |
| Availability: | International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning. Web site: http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 8 |
| Publication Date: | 2007 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education |
| Descriptors: | Student Evaluation, Evaluation Methods, Alternative Assessment, Group Testing, Individual Testing, Comparative Analysis, Self Esteem, Knowledge Level, Cooperative Learning, Genetics, Multiple Choice Tests, Introductory Courses, Comparative Testing, Academic Achievement |
| Geographic Terms: | New York |
| ISSN: | 1812-9129 |
| Abstract: | Alternatives to a solitary testing format can involve students working in teams to arrive at the correct answer. We compared two group assessment methods, cooperative and competitive, to a solitary testing approach. In most comparisons examining the undergraduate respondents' (N = 77) performance, the two group-testing methods were equivalent. Both group methods were superior to the solitary testing format in determining students' knowledge of the course material and confidence in their answers. Moreover, rather than one person generating the team's answer, most team members actively participated in the decision-making. The cooperative group surpassed the solitary testing group in terms of preference for their format of assessment. (Contains 1 figure.) |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 27 |
| Entry Date: | 2010 |
| Accession Number: | EJ901301 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Alternatives to a solitary testing format can involve students working in teams to arrive at the correct answer. We compared two group assessment methods, cooperative and competitive, to a solitary testing approach. In most comparisons examining the undergraduate respondents' (N = 77) performance, the two group-testing methods were equivalent. Both group methods were superior to the solitary testing format in determining students' knowledge of the course material and confidence in their answers. Moreover, rather than one person generating the team's answer, most team members actively participated in the decision-making. The cooperative group surpassed the solitary testing group in terms of preference for their format of assessment. (Contains 1 figure.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1812-9129 |
