STUDENT RETENTION OF COURSE CONTENT IS IMPROVED BY COLLABORATIVE-GROUP TESTING
Abstract
We recently reported that collaborative testing (i.e., group test taking) increased student performance on quizzes. It is unknown, however, whether collaborative testing improves student retention of course content. Therefore, this study was designed to test the hypotheses that collaborative-group testing improves student retention of course content. To test this hypothesis, our undergraduate exercise physiology class of 38 students was randomly divided into two groups: group A ( n = 19) and group B ( n = 19). During exam 1, students from both groups answered questions in the traditional format as individuals. Immediately after completing the exam as individuals, students from group A answered a randomly selected subset of questions from exam 1 in groups of two (1 group had 3 students) to test the effectiveness of collaborative-group testing on test performance and level of student retention. On the next exam ( exam 2, 4 wk later), students from both groups answered questions in the traditional format as individuals and responded to the same subset of questions from exam 1. The subset of questions was analyzed to determine the level of retention of the original test material. In addition, immediately after completing the exam as individuals, students from group B answered a randomly selected subset of questions from exam 2 in groups of two (1 group had 3 students). Finally, on the next exam ( exam 3, 4 wk later), students from both groups answered questions in the traditional format as individuals and responded to the same subset of questions from exam 2. This protocol followed a randomized crossover design to control for time and order effects. Student retention of course content was reduced when students completed the original examinations individually. In sharp contrast, student retention was improved ( P < 0.05) when students completed the original examinations in groups. Results suggest that collaborative testing is an effective strategy to enhance learning and increase student retention of course content.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Two-stage exams generally support content retention, with some studies showing retention effects lasting up to 7 weeks.
“generally support content retention, with some studies showing retention effects lasting up to 7 weeks (D.Bloom, 2009;Cortright et al., 2003;Gilley & Clarkston, 2014;Ives, 2014)”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Cortright et al., 2003
The short- and medium-term benefits of collaborative exams, especially in promoting engagement, reducing anxiety, and supporting near-term learning, are consistently supported in the literature.
“Still, the short-and medium-term benefits of collaborative examsespecially in promoting engagement, reducing anxiety, and supporting near-term learning-are consistently supported in the literature (Cortright et al., 2003;Gilley & Clarkston, 2014;Ives, 2014).”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Cortright et al., 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Learning styles of medical students at Taibah University: Trends and implications
Guraya, S., Habib, F., Khoshhal, K., & Guraya, S. (2014) · Journal of Research in Medical Sciences · doi:10.4103/1735-1995.150455 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines
Callaghan, K., Kestin, G., Klales, A., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L. (2026) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874251344293 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Still, the short-and medium-term benefits of collaborative exams— especially in promoting engagement, reducing anxiety, and supporting near-term learning—are consistently supported in the literature (Cortright et al., 2003; Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Ives, 2014).”
Callaghan, K., Milbourne, T., Klales, A., Kestin, G., Arguelles, C., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L. (2026) · Journal of College Science Teaching · doi:10.1080/0047231x.2026.2620442 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…perception of the course (Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Leight et al., 2012; Schindler, 2004; Stearns, 1996; Yu et al., 2010; Zipp, 2007); improved students’ relationships with groupmates (Cortright et al., 2003; Sandahl, 2010; Zipp, 2007); and reduced class dropout rates (Bruno, 2017; Stearns, 1996).”
- Authors
- Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., Rodenbaugh, D. W., & DiCarlo, S. E.
- Affiliations
- East Carolina University (US)
- Wayne State University (US)
- ORCID
- DiCarlo, Stephen E.
- Venue
- Advances in Physiology Education
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 102-108
- ISSN
- 1043-4046 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1229
- OpenAlex
- W2150075335
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 17.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- AJP Advances in Physiology Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- collaborative testing, group testing, student retention, test performance, exercise physiology education, learning strategies
- MeSH terms
- Cooperative Behavior, Educational Measurement, Group Processes, Humans, Retention, Psychology, Students, Problem-Based Learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
