1. Ismaila Odogba Department of Geography and Geology The Impact of Collaborative Testing on Student Learning in an Introductory Level Geography Course INTRODUCTION Instructors in most disciplines usually assign students to teams/groups to work on projects and assignments. Studies show that Team-Based Exams (TBEs) enhance student performance (Leight at el, 2012; Cortright et al, 2003), the development of positive attitude towards testing (Haberyan and Barnett, 2010; Revere et al., 2008; Zimbardo et al 2003), encourage comprehension, problem solving, and the long- term retention of knowledge (Revere, 2003; Mitchell and Melton, 2003; Rao et al, 2002). This study examines the impact of collaborative testing on student performance and critical thinking. METHODS Design In order to examine the impact of collaborative testing on student learning, two sections of Geography 113: World Regional Geography, were used during the Fall semester of 2013. GEOG 113 is an undergraduate level course that introduces students to the world’s major region. It explores the flows and linkages between regions and the patterns of human-land relationships at the global and local level (Tables 1 & 2). Course and subjects The design of this study enables it to test the hypothesis that collaboration testing, specifically, TBEs enhances student learning. To test this hypothesis (Fig. 1), each section of the course took both a traditional exam (TE) and TBE. Evidence of student learning involved a comparison of TE and TBEs for differences in performance and critical thinking by analyzing exam scores and responses to complex application questions. Figure 1: Research design. GEOG 113-1 (n = 43; 14 groups) and GEOG 113-2 (n=41; 13 groups). Exam 2 occurred five weeks after exam 1. The team-based learning activities lasted five weeks for each section prior to the TBE. DISCUSSION Analysis To determine if collaborative testing increased student performance, a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used to compare scores when the students sat for an exam in the traditional format with the scores obtained when the same students took another exam questions in teams (Fig. 2). Also, a independent sample t-test was used to compare TBEs scores for both sections (Fig 3). To determine if collaborative testing facilitated critical thinking, the proportion of correct answers on Higher-Level Thinking (HLT) multiple choice questions was compared (Table 3). HLT question require the students to use judgment and critical thinking to answer them correctly. RESULTS Figure 2: Comparison of Traditional and Team-Based exam performances. The mean scores of the Team-Based Exams were significantly higher than the mean scores of the Traditional Exam. For GEOG 113-1, the mean group score (74.7 + 1.3) was significantly higher than the mean score for the individual exam (59.2 + 1.1). Likewise for GEOG 113-2, the mean group score (74.5 + 1.1) was significantly higher than the mean score for the individual exam (59.8 + 1.8). Values are Mean + SE; *P < 0.0001. Figure 3: Comparison of Team-Based Exam performances. Average Team-Based Exam scores for GEOG 113-1 (74.7 + 1.3) was not significantly different from average Team-Based Exam scores for GEOG 113-2 (74.5 + 1.1). Values are Mean + SE; P = 0.947. Table 3: Performance on Higher-Level Thinking Questions. Scores were greater on the HLT questions for the Team-Based Exam as opposed to the Traditional Exam. Exams 1 and 2 both contained 5 HLT questions. each. Overall the TBE performances were greater on the HLT questions compared to the same questions on the TE. Based on the analysis of test scores, there is statistically significant evidence that collaborative testing does improve student performance. This confirms previous studies which indicate that student performance on TBEs is significantly higher than that on TE. Improvement proportions indicate that 91% and 83% of the students in GEOG 113-1 and GEOG 113-2 respectively experienced a positive change in their test scores when comparing performance on the TE and TBE. Analysis indicates that TBE enhances critical thinking. However, the fact that less than 70% of students that selected the right choice (Table 3) failed to provide a reasonable explanation is puzzling. This might have to do with the fact that critical thinking requires content domain knowledge, the ability to recall this knowledge, and then deploy it in problem solving (Willingham, 2007). Overall, based on preliminary inquiry, the majority of the students believed that collaborative testing improved their higher-level cognitive skills and enhanced understanding of the course material. This perception of improved cognitive skills is collaborated to some extent by the results of the HLT question analysis. CONCLUSION Based on this study, collaborative testing does improve student learning in an introductory level geography course. Evidence regarding critical thinking, in this case, the ability to exercise reasoned judgments is not definitive as indicative of the initial analysis. REFERENCES Cortright, R., Collins, H., Rodenbaugh, D., & DiCarlo, S. (2003). Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 3 (27) 102–108. Leight, H., Saunders, C., Calkins, R., & Withers, M. (2012). Collaborative testing improves performance but not content retention in a large enrollment introductory biology class. Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 392-401. Haberyan, A., & Barnett, J. (2010). Collaborative testing and achievement: are two heads really better than one? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 32-41. Mitchell, N., & Melton, S. (2003). Collaborative testing: an innovative approach to test taking. Nurse Educator, 28(2), 95-97. Rao, S. P., Collins, H.L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2002). Collaborative testing enhances student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(1), 37-41. Revere, L. (2003). An Approach to improving student performance, assessment, and satisfaction. Southwest Business Administration Journal, 3(1), 70-76. Revere, L., Elden, M., & Bartsch, R. (2008). Designing group examinations to decrease social loafing and increase learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1). Willingham, D. 2007. Critical thinking, why is it so hard to teach? America Educator, Summer 2007, 8 -19. Zimbardo, P.G., Bulter, L.D., & Wolfe, V. A. (2003). Cooperative college examinations: more gain, less pain when students share information and grades. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 101-125. Special thanks to the Office of Professional and Instructional Development (OPID), Office of the Provost, UW-Stevens Point, and the Department of Geography and Geology, UW-Stevens Point for their support of this study.