Two-stage collaborative group testing does not improve retention of anatomy among students studying medical radiation...

Two-stage collaborative group testing is an assessment format where students first complete a summative assessment independently, and then immediately convene in a small group to complete the same assessment again. Research on two-stage collaborative group testing has shown that it increases immediate learning, improves communication and teamwork, and can lead to enhanced retention of course material; the latter of which is especially important for basic anatomical concepts among health care professionals such as medical radiation technologists. However, such previous research has often employed quasi-experimental designs that may limit both internal and external validity.

Using a randomized crossover design with both quantitative and qualitative data analyses including robust intra-individual statistical comparisons, this research compared the educational impact of the two-stage collaborative group testing format (the COL condition) to traditional independent testing (the IND condition). Students (n=196) from two successive renditions of an introductory anatomy course were randomly assigned into groups of 3-5 students. Groups worked together throughout the term on various course elements, including three in-class, non-cumulative term tests (TTs). After practicing the collaborative format during TT1, during TT2 half the groups were assigned to the COL condition while the other half were assigned to the IND condition. Groups crossed over for TT3. All students completed a cumulative final examination independently, with performance data from that examination coded and extracted according to previous TT condition. Educational impact was evaluated as both immediate learning (by comparing IND and COL performance on the associated TT) as well as retention (by comparing final examination performance for topics previously IND tested versus previously COL tested). Students' qualitative reflections were coded into categories and juxtaposed against quantitative Likert-style feedback to comprehensively explore students' perception of the testing format for evidence of enjoyment, acceptability, and influence on relevant CAMRT professional competencies.

167 students (85%) consented to data inclusion, with a final course grade of 75.5 ± 10.0%. On average, TT performance was 13.6 ± 11.6% greater on the COL test (90.4 ± 7.6%) than the IND test (76.7 ± 14.3%) (p<0.01, r = 0.76), results that support immediate learning. Contrary to expectations, final examination performance specific to the two experimental conditions was similar, with students earning an average of 69.6 ± 18.3% on questions that pertained to material they were previously IND tested on, and 67.4 ± 19.1% on questions they were previously COL tested on (ns). Students' overall perceptions of the two-stage collaborative group testing format were overwhelmingly positive, with 84% indicating a belief that the format was a constructive learning opportunity and 74% recommending continued use. Written reflections revealed that students believed that collaborative testing enhanced their learning by both clarifying previous mistakes and reinforcing correct knowledge. Relevant CAMRT professional competencies included oral communication and interprofessional skills, capacity for productive teamwork, and collaborative practice.

Although the results of this study do not support the use of two-stage collaborative group testing for retention of course material, they simultaneously reveal how the testing structure may be uniquely beneficial to students studying within the field of medical radiation sciences while also presenting a pragmatic example of how to implement this unique testing format.