High-Stakes Collaborative Testing

Why Not?

Ruth Levine, Nicole J. Borges, Brenda J.B. Roman, Lisa R. Carchedi, Mark H. Townsend, Jeffrey S. Cluver, Julia Frank, Oma Morey, Paul Haidet, Britta M. Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Phenomenon: Studies of high-stakes collaborative testing remain sparse, especially in medical education. We explored high-stakes collaborative testing in medical education, looking specifically at the experiences of students in established and newly formed teams. Approach: Third-year psychiatry students at 5 medical schools across 6 sites participated, with 4 participating as established team sites and 2 as comparison team sites. For the collaborative test, we used the National Board of Medical Examiners Psychiatry subject test, administering it via a 2-stage process. Students at all sites were randomly selected to participate in a focus group, with 8–10 students per site (N = 49). We also examined quantitative data for additional triangulation. Findings: Students described a range of heightened emotions around the collaborative test yet perceived it as valuable regardless if they were in established or newly formed teams. Students described learning about the subject matter, themselves, others, and interpersonal dynamics during collaborative testing. Triangulation of these results via quantitative data supported these themes. Insights: Despite student concerns, high-stakes collaborative tests may be both valuable and feasible. The data suggest that high-stakes tests (tests of learning or summative evaluation) could also become tests for learning or formative evaluation. The paucity of research into this methodology in medical education suggests more research is needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)133-140
Number of pages8
JournalTeaching and Learning in Medicine
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 3 2018

Fingerprint

student
triangulation
psychiatry
learning
test subject
education
medical examiner
evaluation
emotion
methodology
school
experience
Group

Keywords

  • academic performance
  • collaborative testing
  • emotional intelligence
  • team-based learning
  • teamwork

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Levine, R., Borges, N. J., Roman, B. J. B., Carchedi, L. R., Townsend, M. H., Cluver, J. S., ... Thompson, B. M. (2018). High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not? Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 30(2), 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719

High-Stakes Collaborative Testing : Why Not? / Levine, Ruth; Borges, Nicole J.; Roman, Brenda J.B.; Carchedi, Lisa R.; Townsend, Mark H.; Cluver, Jeffrey S.; Frank, Julia; Morey, Oma; Haidet, Paul; Thompson, Britta M.

In: Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Vol. 30, No. 2, 03.04.2018, p. 133-140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Levine, R, Borges, NJ, Roman, BJB, Carchedi, LR, Townsend, MH, Cluver, JS, Frank, J, Morey, O, Haidet, P & Thompson, BM 2018, 'High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not?', Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719
Levine R, Borges NJ, Roman BJB, Carchedi LR, Townsend MH, Cluver JS et al. High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not? Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2018 Apr 3;30(2):133-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719
Levine, Ruth ; Borges, Nicole J. ; Roman, Brenda J.B. ; Carchedi, Lisa R. ; Townsend, Mark H. ; Cluver, Jeffrey S. ; Frank, Julia ; Morey, Oma ; Haidet, Paul ; Thompson, Britta M. / High-Stakes Collaborative Testing : Why Not?. In: Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 133-140.
@article{c71e9fb14f024fdbbacab137a01252c3,
title = "High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not?",
abstract = "Phenomenon: Studies of high-stakes collaborative testing remain sparse, especially in medical education. We explored high-stakes collaborative testing in medical education, looking specifically at the experiences of students in established and newly formed teams. Approach: Third-year psychiatry students at 5 medical schools across 6 sites participated, with 4 participating as established team sites and 2 as comparison team sites. For the collaborative test, we used the National Board of Medical Examiners Psychiatry subject test, administering it via a 2-stage process. Students at all sites were randomly selected to participate in a focus group, with 8–10 students per site (N = 49). We also examined quantitative data for additional triangulation. Findings: Students described a range of heightened emotions around the collaborative test yet perceived it as valuable regardless if they were in established or newly formed teams. Students described learning about the subject matter, themselves, others, and interpersonal dynamics during collaborative testing. Triangulation of these results via quantitative data supported these themes. Insights: Despite student concerns, high-stakes collaborative tests may be both valuable and feasible. The data suggest that high-stakes tests (tests of learning or summative evaluation) could also become tests for learning or formative evaluation. The paucity of research into this methodology in medical education suggests more research is needed.",
keywords = "academic performance, collaborative testing, emotional intelligence, team-based learning, teamwork",
author = "Ruth Levine and Borges, {Nicole J.} and Roman, {Brenda J.B.} and Carchedi, {Lisa R.} and Townsend, {Mark H.} and Cluver, {Jeffrey S.} and Julia Frank and Oma Morey and Paul Haidet and Thompson, {Britta M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "133--140",
journal = "Teaching and Learning in Medicine",
issn = "1040-1334",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - High-Stakes Collaborative Testing

T2 - Why Not?

AU - Levine, Ruth

AU - Borges, Nicole J.

AU - Roman, Brenda J.B.

AU - Carchedi, Lisa R.

AU - Townsend, Mark H.

AU - Cluver, Jeffrey S.

AU - Frank, Julia

AU - Morey, Oma

AU - Haidet, Paul

AU - Thompson, Britta M.

PY - 2018/4/3

Y1 - 2018/4/3

N2 - Phenomenon: Studies of high-stakes collaborative testing remain sparse, especially in medical education. We explored high-stakes collaborative testing in medical education, looking specifically at the experiences of students in established and newly formed teams. Approach: Third-year psychiatry students at 5 medical schools across 6 sites participated, with 4 participating as established team sites and 2 as comparison team sites. For the collaborative test, we used the National Board of Medical Examiners Psychiatry subject test, administering it via a 2-stage process. Students at all sites were randomly selected to participate in a focus group, with 8–10 students per site (N = 49). We also examined quantitative data for additional triangulation. Findings: Students described a range of heightened emotions around the collaborative test yet perceived it as valuable regardless if they were in established or newly formed teams. Students described learning about the subject matter, themselves, others, and interpersonal dynamics during collaborative testing. Triangulation of these results via quantitative data supported these themes. Insights: Despite student concerns, high-stakes collaborative tests may be both valuable and feasible. The data suggest that high-stakes tests (tests of learning or summative evaluation) could also become tests for learning or formative evaluation. The paucity of research into this methodology in medical education suggests more research is needed.

AB - Phenomenon: Studies of high-stakes collaborative testing remain sparse, especially in medical education. We explored high-stakes collaborative testing in medical education, looking specifically at the experiences of students in established and newly formed teams. Approach: Third-year psychiatry students at 5 medical schools across 6 sites participated, with 4 participating as established team sites and 2 as comparison team sites. For the collaborative test, we used the National Board of Medical Examiners Psychiatry subject test, administering it via a 2-stage process. Students at all sites were randomly selected to participate in a focus group, with 8–10 students per site (N = 49). We also examined quantitative data for additional triangulation. Findings: Students described a range of heightened emotions around the collaborative test yet perceived it as valuable regardless if they were in established or newly formed teams. Students described learning about the subject matter, themselves, others, and interpersonal dynamics during collaborative testing. Triangulation of these results via quantitative data supported these themes. Insights: Despite student concerns, high-stakes collaborative tests may be both valuable and feasible. The data suggest that high-stakes tests (tests of learning or summative evaluation) could also become tests for learning or formative evaluation. The paucity of research into this methodology in medical education suggests more research is needed.

KW - academic performance

KW - collaborative testing

KW - emotional intelligence

KW - team-based learning

KW - teamwork

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044238300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044238300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719

DO - 10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 133

EP - 140

JO - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

JF - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

SN - 1040-1334

IS - 2

ER -