Collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions: Efficiency costs and no learning benefits
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 23, 2026

Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking
Published on: August 29, 2018
Kathryn T Wissman1,2, Katherine A Rawson3
1Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA. kwissman@skidmore.edu.
Abstract:
Students are expected to learn key-term definitions across many different grade levels and academic disciplines. Thus, investigating ways to promote understanding of key-term definitions is of critical importance for applied purposes. A recent survey showed that learners report engaging in collaborative practice testing when learning key-term definitions, with outcomes also shedding light on the way in which learners report engaging in collaborative testing in real-world contexts (Wissman & Rawson, 2016, Memory, 24, 223-239). However, no research has directly explored the effectiveness of engaging in collaborative testing under representative conditions. Accordingly, the current research evaluates the costs (with respect to efficiency) and the benefits (with respect to learning) of collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions. In three experiments (ns = 94, 74, 95), learners individually studied key-term definitions and then completed retrieval practice, which occurred either individually or collaboratively (in dyads). Two days later, all learners completed a final individual test. Results from Experiments 1-2 showed a cost (with respect to efficiency) and no benefit (with respect to learning) of engaging in collaborative testing for key-term definitions. Experiment 3 evaluated a theoretical explanation for why collaborative benefits do not emerge under representative conditions. Collectively, outcomes indicate that collaborative testing versus individual testing is less effective and less efficient when learning key-term definitions under representative conditions.
Related Concept Videos
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Errors In Hypothesis Tests
Column Efficiency: Rate Theory
During elution, a solute molecule experiences numerous transitions between stationary and mobile phases, exhibiting irregular residence times in...
Significance Testing: Overview
Statistical Hypothesis Testing
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
Types of Hypothesis Testing
When the null and alternative hypotheses are stated, it is observed that the null hypothesis is a neutral statement against which the alternative hypothesis is tested. The alternative hypothesis is a claim that instead has a certain direction. If the null hypothesis claims that p = 0.5, the alternative hypothesis would be an opposing statement to this and can be put either p > 0.5, p < 0.5, or p...
