RESEARCH
AND
TEACHING
Aligning Assessment to Instruction:
Collaborative Group Testing in LargeEnrollment Science Classes
By Marcelle A. Siegel, Tina M. Roberts, Sharyn K. Freyermuth, Stephen B. Witzig, and Kemal Izci
We describe a collaborative group-testing strategy implemented and
studied in undergraduate science classes. This project investigated how the
assessment strategy relates to student performance and perceptions about
collaboration and focused on two sections of an undergraduate biotechnology
course taught in separate semesters. We compared scores of 115 students on
paired individual and group test questions of related concepts during two
course exams. Interviews were conducted with students (n = 9) to identify
perceptions, and interviews were conducted with faculty (n = 6) to explore
instructors’ reactions to the assessment strategy. Interviewed instructors
included both those directly involved in the biotechnology course and others
at institutions that trialed the collaborative group-testing strategy within the
context of their science courses. Findings showed statistically significant
higher performance on the group portion of the test, implemented first, versus
the individual portion of the test, implemented second. Students reported
that the collaborative assessment strategy helped to (a) stimulate thinking,
(b) build ideas, (c) improve engagement, and (d) reduce test anxiety. Faculty
reported that (a) students learned through the process, (b) they gained an
appreciation of students’ collaborative skills, and (d) they found the strategy
particularly helpful for students with diverse abilities. College instructors who
use collaboration in the classroom should explore group assessment strategies
to improve alignment between instruction and assessment.
C
ollaboration is an essential aspect of the scientific
enterprise. It is required to
build on theories and advance science, to monitor and deliver
quality research, to share expensive
resources and instrument development, and to expand opportunities
for transdisciplinary innovations and
professional development. Working
together is seen as a 21st-century
skill that all professionals, especially scientists, require. Moreover,
collaborative group work is important to science teaching to help stu-
74
Journal of College Science Teaching
dents learn skills they will need for
future jobs. Instructors also aim to
design effective learning environments where students gain motivation and knowledge from each other.
Recent science education reform
documents recognize the importance
of collaboration and encourage it
within and among science disciplines (American Association for
the Advancement of Science, 2011;
National Research Council, 2012).
A major component of implementing this reformed view of instruction
is developing “skills to participate
in diverse working communities, as
well as the ability to take full advantage of their collaborators’ multiple
perspectives and skills” (American
Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2011, p. 15).
One overlooked aspect of science
reform is assessment. Instruction
becomes more innovative, but assessment practices often lag behind.
One innovative assessment strategy
is collaborative group testing. Group
testing is defined as a strategy that
encourages students to collaborate
and learn from each other while
completing a test or quiz (Cortright,
Collins, Rodenbaugh, & DiCarlo,
2003). It has been shown that group
testing (a) enhances learning and
increases student retention of course
content (Cortright et al., 2003; Eaton,
2009; Sandahl, 2010), (b) provides
the opportunity to collaborate and
to use critical-thinking skills (Lusk
& Conklin, 2003), and (c) provides
more positive and collaborative
relationships among students while
decreasing student test anxiety
(Kapitanoff, 2009; Sandahl, 2010).
However, although the benefits of
group testing are documented in
supporting student learning and
motivation, it has rarely been used
within science fields. Therefore, we
incorporated a group-testing strategy
into our science and society course
to enhance our students’ learning of
the course content.
To improve our assessment practices for science and society courses,
we examined our instruction and
asked, “How can we improve our
assessment to better align with
our instructional practices?” The
importance of aligning instruction
and assessment is discussed in the
National Research Council’s (2001)
report, Knowing What Students
Know, which describes cognition
(how students learn), observation
(how students are assessed), and
interpretation (how assessments are
scored/interpreted). In our largeenrollment, fixed-auditorium-seating
classes (that do not include laboratory or discussion sections), we
routinely conduct case studies and
other forms of activities (such as
debates and inquiries with simple
lab materials) that require students
to work in pairs or groups of four to
solve a problem together, consider
scientific concepts, and apply the
ideas to a real-world decision. Group
activities occur at least twice a week
and, along with individual activities
and mini-lectures, aid comprehension of the subject matter. We have
embedded assessments into these
activities over time (Rebello, Siegel,
Freyermuth, Witzig, & Izci, 2012;
Witzig, Freyermuth, Siegel, Izci, &
Pires, 2013). We have also developed
a biotechnology concept instrument
that we use as a formative preassessment to shape our instruction and as
a postassessment to gauge student
conceptual understanding throughout
the course (Witzig et al., 2014). The
next frontier was to reconceptualize
our testing practices. The course was
developed to have three traditional
exams and an optional final. In this
article, our purpose is to describe a
collaborative group-testing strategy
that we incorporated for a portion
of the exams. We detail how it was
implemented in courses at the University of Missouri and how faculty
and students viewed the benefits as
well as learning gains; we also briefly
offer perspectives from faculty at
three other universities.
Implementation of group
testing
Context
Our class context for group testing at the University of Missouri
was a Biotechnology and Society
course. The course was offered by
the Biochemistry Department and
is intended for nonbiochemistry
majors. Typical enrollments were
120 students per semester and were
comprised mainly of students from
majors within the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
(with majors such as agriculture,
agricultural journalism, hotel and
restaurant management, plant sciences, animal sciences). For each
of the three course exams, students
worked together for the first third of
the exam on a collaborative problem,
then completed the remainder of the
exam on their own. The individual
portion of the exam had questions
that probed students’ understanding
of the concept on the group portion
(see Figure 1). Similarly, class time
during instruction included both individual and group activities, using
a mixture of assigned group seating
and open seating. The conceptually
linked questions examined for this
article typically included open-ended
questions on the group portion and a
mix of open-ended and closed-ended
(e.g., multiple choice) questions on
the individual portion.
Our partner schools included a
state community college, a private
liberal arts college, and an out-ofstate research university that have
mirrored our assessment strategy in
their contexts. These courses included
nonmajors biology courses, majors
biology courses, and majors chemistry courses.
Logistics
The students were prepared beginning on the first day of class for
group testing because of the environment that we created in the classroom. The class was apportioned
in groups through assigned seating,
and groups worked together on multiple in-class activities prior to the
first test. In one of our classes, the
groups were randomly assigned and
changed approximately every 2 to
3 weeks. Heterogeneous grouping
through random assignment displays
fairness and is typical of most group
situations students will face in careers (Crowe & Hill, 2006). In the
other class, students were purposely
assigned to base groups to include
a mix of majors and genders. Most
activities were done in base groups
to encourage students to form a familiar, collaborative team for the semester. Base groups are intentionally
formed to enhance a sense of belonging—an important condition for college classrooms (Johnson, Johnson,
& Smith, 1998; Smith, 2000). However, seating was open the remainder
of the time to accommodate student
preferences. For both of the Biotechnology and Society classes, test days
involved new, random group assignments so the students did not know
beforehand who would be in their
testing group.
In our auditorium-style classroom, students were given a handout
as they came into class to help orient
them to their assigned seat. On one
side was the list of students with their
seat assignments. On the other side
was a map of the desks in the classroom with seat numbers and groups
Vol. 44, No. 6, 2015
75
RESEARCH
AND
TEACHING
indicated. By the date of the first test,
students were accustomed to finding
their seats from the map because we
practiced it beforehand during other
group activities. Finding the correct
seat and group did not seem to be a
particularly stressful activity for the
students, and the instructors and undergraduate teaching assistants were
ready to help as necessary.
Before the test was distributed,
instructors reminded the class about
the logistics of the test. The group
test was handed out and each student received his or her own copy.
Students were given 15 minutes to
work together with their group to
answer the questions on the test.
Each student responded individually
in writing. Students could choose to
incorporate group-consensus answers
for the group-testing questions, or
they could develop their own answers
if they did not agree with what the
group discussed. After 15 minutes,
the class was told that there would be
no more talking and no more working in groups. At this point, the individual part of the test was distributed.
Students kept their group tests and
could continue working on them by
themselves if they chose. At the end
of the 50-minute class, each student
turned in both the group test and the
individual test.
members did not necessarily earn
the same grade on the group test as
other members of their group. Additionally, to ensure grading consistency, we used scoring guides for
the open-ended questions and met
as a group to discuss and agree on
how to score borderline responses.
Grading
Impact of group testing
Student reactions
Although members of the group
could assist each other during the
test, each individual was accountable for his or her own written responses. The group tests for each
group were graded at the same time
so the grader was aware of each
group member’s answers to the
questions. This was to ensure that
the grading within the group was
consistent. However, each student
was graded on his or her own answers. In some cases, the answers
were not the same, or some were
more complete than others. Group
Although initial reactions to group
testing can be skeptical, once students have the opportunity to try it,
they become overwhelmingly positive. Students perceived more benefits than drawbacks to collaborative
group testing, as discussed next. We
found this previously on surveys of
one cohort of 115 students (reported
in Roberts et al., 2011) as well as
from the data reported here from an
additional cohort—interviews with
9 participants. Students were sorted
into three performance levels on the
basis of scores from the first and
TABLE 1
Representative student responses to group testing.
76
Stimulates thinking
Building on ideas
Engagement
Test anxiety
“On this last test I almost had
a mental block and it was
nice to start out with having
people almost just get me
going. You can bounce ideas
off of other people.”
“If you are in a group then
you can hear other people’s
ideas. And if you think
someone is right then you
can bring up their point
about it and trigger someone
else’s memory.”
“I’ve never been in a group
assignment or group testing
situation where everybody
didn’t have an idea, or an
opinion, or an answer in the
group.”
“It helps because if I can
hear it and talk to the other
person in that first ten
minutes then that kind of
ultimately helps me with the
rest of the test. . . . It kind of
gets you thinking about the
subject.”
“It was interesting how the
thought processes varied
within our small group.”
“Yes, we all contributed
ideas, which helped to better
understand the questions
asked, and helped form an
answer.”
“I felt everyone contributed.
It wasn’t necessarily an equal
contribution, but everyone
did help in some way.”
“I think that we all knew the
answers already, so it was
just us reassuring each other
that we put everything down
that was necessary.”
“I knew much of what was
being asked of us but being
able to bounce it off my
group members allowed me
to construct my answers in a
more systematic way.”
“Each group member was
able to put their input in
and then listen to the other
person’s input to collaborate
for a final answer.”
“It was really good. I think
it was a little hard to hear
because it was so many
people talking at one time. ”
“I am a poor test taker.
Having a group-testing
setting calms me down and
allows me to think out loud.”
Journal of College Science Teaching
second exams. Students from each
performance level were randomly
selected for a 60-minute semistructured interview as a result of their
scores and included high- (n = 2),
average- (n = 4), and low-scoring
students (n = 3). These three groups
also included both science and
nonscience major students. After
transcribing the interviews, themes
were developed by analytic induction with consideration of differences between achievement groups
(Patton, 2002).
We identified four specific benefits that students discussed: stimulating thinking, building ideas, improving engagement, and reducing
test anxiety (Table 1). Students found
that working in a group helped them
when they were stuck and stimulated
thinking by allowing them to bounce
ideas off other students. Second, students reported that the group-testing
format helped them to build understanding by clarifying their thoughts
and learning from each other. This
was also supported by Likert surveys: Most students (85%) said that
the group discussions enhanced understanding and helped them answer
the questions on the group portion of
the test (Roberts et al., 2011). Third,
we discovered that students found the
test more engaging than an individual
test. They enjoyed the interaction and
recommended group testing for their
other classes. A final benefit students
discussed was reducing test anxiety.
Students reported that group testing relaxed them before taking the
individual portion of the test. They
appreciated being able to receive
peer feedback, and it increased their
confidence before the remainder of
the test. This is useful for faculty to
know, as those instructors who might
not want to use group testing for a
grade might be interested in having
a warm-up period before the test in
which students discuss questions
in groups. Overall, once students
completed the group test twice, they
recognized benefits for their learning
and motivation. One student summarized that it was “almost like a
little bitty study session before you
take the test.”
We also found two main drawbacks that students identified. First,
students recognized that some groups
were stronger than others in terms
of knowledge and collaborations.
For example, referring to one of his
groups, a student stated, “We didn’t
help each other very much.” Another
pattern of comments was that there
was a lesser advantage for students
who already knew the material.
Student performance
We examined scores of 115 students
on paired individual and group test
FIGURE 1
Example of matched group and individual assessment questions from
Exam 2.
Group test:
Frederick Griffith accidentally discovered transformation when attempting to develop
a vaccine for pneumonia. He injected mice with samples from S‐strain (smooth,
virulent) and/or R‐strain (rough, nonvirulent) pneumococci bacteria (Streptococcus
pneumoniae).
Which of the following results is consistent with Griffith’s experiments?
_____ A) injected S‐strain; mouse lives.
_____ B) injected R‐strain; mouse dies.
_____ C) injected heat‐killed S‐strain; mouse lives.
_____ D) injected mixture of heat‐killed S‐strain and live R‐strain; mouse lives.
_____ E) injected mixture of heat‐killed R‐strain and live S‐strain; mouse lives.
How do the results of the Griffith experiment illustrate whether or not DNA is alive?
How do the results of the Griffith experiment relate to the information flow within an
organism that is shown by the central dogma?
Individual test:
The Griffith experiment was important because it showed:
a) That heat does not kill bacteria.
b) That when a cell dies, the genetic information in it dies.
c) That genetic information is retained outside of a living cell.
d) That dead bacteria can come back to life if they are injected into a live animal.
The central dogma explains:
a) the theory of evolution
b) cell theory
c) the importance of both structure and function in biochemistry
d) the flow of genetic information within and between cells
e) all of the above
True or False: ______ If a cell dies, the DNA in it loses its information.
Briefly explain:
Vol. 44, No. 6, 2015
77
RESEARCH
AND
TEACHING
questions of related concepts during
the second and third course exams.
The exams took place during one se-
mester of one course (we planned to
include Exam 1 also, but the questions were not linked conceptually
FIGURE 2
Mean group and individual scores of students (+/-) SEM on
conceptually related questions on Exam 2. Differences between
group and individual scores were not significant for high-performing
students (N = 38) but were statistically significant for medianperforming (N = 39) and low-performing (N = 34) students (p < .01).
FIGURE 3
Mean group and individual scores of students (+/-) SEM on
conceptually related questions on Exam 3. Differences between group
and individual scores were significant for high-performing (N = 38,
p < .05), median-performing (N = 39, p < .01), and low-performing
students (N = 34, p < .01).
78
Journal of College Science Teaching
so we did not include them in the
data analysis; we subsequently improved wording of linked questions
on Exams 2 and 3). We found that
student test averages for conceptually related items were higher on
the group portion of the exam than
on the individual portion. Student
scores for the group portion of Exams 2 and 3 averaged (±SEM) 90%
(±1.67%) and 83.32% (±1.30%), respectively, and student scores for the
individual portion of Exams 2 and 3
averaged (±SEM) 73.18% (±1.33%)
and 68.81% (±1.48%), respectively.
This is similar to other studies (Eaton, 2009), yet the more important
question is if the group portion of
the exam is educative and if it helps
all levels of students or only low
performers. One could expect only
low performers to benefit from collaboration because they would learn
from the more knowledgeable students. However, another hypothesis
is that all students gain, perhaps because the group discussion clarifies
understanding for high performers or
because the best way to learn something well is to teach it to another.
Group and individual conceptually related questions were scored
for Exams 2 and 3, and student data
were separated into three categories
on the basis of the average score of
the three course exams: high performers (80%–100%, N = 38), median
performers (70%–80%, N = 39) , and
low performers (<70%, N = 34). An
example of group and individual questions that are conceptually related is
shown in Figure 1.
T-tests were performed using Excel to determine whether statistically
significant differences were observed
in student performance on the group
and individually answered questions
on Exam 2 (Figure 2) and Exam 3
(Figure 3). Our analysis of Exam 2
showed that high-performing students
did not score significantly differently
on the two portions of the exam, but
the median- and low-performers’
scores were significantly different (p <
.01). Analysis of Exam 3 showed that
the high-performers’ scores were significantly different (p < .05), and the
median- and low-performers scores
were significantly different (p < .01).
For Exam 2, it appears that the concepts were well enough understood
that the high performers did not need
the group interaction to answer the
related questions. The data (shown
in Figure 2) suggests that median
students in particular benefited from
the group interaction, as the group
scores were significantly higher
than individual scores on the related
questions. The low performers also
received a significant benefit on the
group portion but still showed a lack
of understanding on that portion and
were not able to apply the knowledge
on the individual portion of the exam.
Overall, the analysis shows a relative
difference of scores based on student
level. All groups could gain from the
group portion of the test, but we found
that the low- and median-performers’
gains were significant on Exam 2.
For Exam 3, the average scores
dropped for all three groups. The
high- and median-performers’ scores
were lower on both portions of the
exams. However, the low-performing
group scores were slightly higher
(65% compared with 61%), whereas
the scores for the individual portion
were much lower (23% compared
with 42%), resulting in an overall
decrease. On the basis of discussions
with long-term instructors of the
course, we know that the third exam
was typically the most difficult and
often had the lowest scores. We thus
believe the reason for the drop was
that the content was more challenging
to all students. Alternatively, if students were relying on group scores to
improve their overall score, we would
have expected a drop in scores earlier
in the semester. A control group would
help provide clarity for this statement,
but all sections of this course (only
one per semester) are assessed in this
way; it would require a substantial
shift in teaching and assessment
philosophy to create such a section,
especially when we feel that it would
be a disservice to student learning.
On Exam 3, all levels of students
appeared to gain understanding
by working together in groups but
showed an incomplete understanding
on the subsequent individual portion
of the exam. The gap between the
level of understanding that appeared
to be present in the group portion and
the individual portion of the exam
widened as the level of performance
decreased, suggesting that low-performing students gained more benefit
on the group portion of the exam.
Overall, the data suggest that for
exams that might be conceptually
easier, low- and median-performing
students gain a benefit from group
testing, but high-performing students do not see the same benefits.
Conversely, when the exam concepts
are challenging for all students, then
everyone, including high performers, appear to gain from the group
interaction. We would also like to see
improved responses on the individual
conceptually linked questions, based
on learning during collaboration. The
group-test effect implies that although
TABLE 2
Faculty perceptions of group testing.
Faculty comment
Type of institution
“I think the group testing is a very educative activity since the kids clean up little things by talking to
each other. Especially the kids involved at the center of this activity gained more.”
Research university
“Group testing helps students learn. That’s why I keep doing it.”
Research university
“I used group testing for the first time. The whole test was collaborating with a group. The students
loved it. I could see them helping each other and light bulbs going off. I will definitely try this again.”
Liberal arts college
“It lets you know who is a team player and who isn’t cooperative. Team work is a really important
attribute in the real world that I instill in my students to prepare them.”
Community college
“I have some ADA [diverse abilities] students, and it definitely makes them more comfortable.”
Community college
“My ADA [diverse abilities] students do not want to take the test with Disability Services because they
would rather have peers to discuss the content with in a group.”
Research university
“I definitely believe group testing is great but it takes time and space and I do not know how to do that
well.”
Research university
Vol. 44, No. 6, 2015
79
RESEARCH
AND
TEACHING
collaboration among students aids
learning, individuals need further
support to fully understand and express the concepts. Future research
could focus on additional ways to
examine student learning beyond test
performance.
Faculty reactions
Instructors at our university and
three institutions have carried out
the group-testing strategy described
in this article. We collected their
reactions to the strategy through informal interviews (that were either
audiotaped and transcribed or quoted as they spoke). We interviewed
six faculty members who implemented the group-testing strategy
at least one time. Representative
quotes are shown in Table 2. We
were not probing particular issues,
but we noticed three themes that
could be explored through further
research: (a) instructors thought
students learned through the process and were supportive of it, (b)
instructors gained an appreciation
of students’ collaborative skills, and
(c) instructors found the strategy
helpful for students with diverse
abilities. Faculty also mentioned the
need for more resources to support
them in learning to implement this
strategy in their courses.
Discussion
Although collaborative testing is
growing in professional and clinical sciences (e.g., Cortright et al.,
2003; Giuliodori, Lujan, & DiCarlo, 2008), little change has been
accomplished in science fields.
Group-testing innovations are also
rare in undergraduate courses, especially large-enrollment courses. Our
partners at our institution and others
have implemented group testing in
a variety of contexts, from a small
community college and liberal arts
classrooms to large, diverse universities. Different structures for group
testing have certain advantages and
disadvantages. On the basis of our
experiences, we briefly offer ideas
in Table 3 to encourage exploration
of these strategies.
To help with implementation of
group testing in your context, we
have found the following items to
be helpful to consider. First decide
how the groups are going to be determined (by the students or by the
instructor). To prepare the class for
group testing, particularly in large
classes, it is helpful to get the students used to finding their assigned
seats and working in groups on class
activities. While in groups, have
TABLE 3
Examples of variations of group testing.
80
Variations
Potential benefits
Divide students into multiability groups.
Use of varied groups encourages student learning and
promotes interdependence. Reduces problems from
students choosing friends (such as students feel compelled
to team with certain people, students do not have a group,
etc.).
Students take the individual test first, then the group test.
Provide an incentive for peer learning, such as a bonus point
if you are correct on Part 1, but wrong on Part 2.
This “jackpot effect” (Eaton, 2009) removes any potential
penalty from knowing the right answer, but being dissuaded
by the later group discussion.
Group is replaced with open discussion with anyone.
Students are not stuck with one group, but they can move
around the classroom and discuss with anyone they like,
thus perhaps enhancing learning. (Might be better suited to
smaller classes or those without fixed seating.)
Students answer on one group test.
Group must come to consensus. Less scoring time for
teacher.
After the group portion of the test, instructor joins the
discussion and provides feedback before the individual
portion.
Students receive immediate feedback to improve their
understanding and confidence in responses, potentially
enhancing learning.
The first half of the test allows students to work in any
manner they prefer: using books, internet, group discussion.
Next, instructors collect papers, and the students take the
last half of the test individually.
The idea is that this aids a particular group of students who
will have a remarkable learning experience, while the ones
who know it well or are lost will not benefit much.
Journal of College Science Teaching
the students do one or more sample
group quizzes as class assignments
before the first test. When preparing
the test, make sure the questions
align with group activities performed
earlier in class. It can be helpful to
incorporate at least one question on
the individual portion of the test that
probes similar concepts as the grouptest questions. During the test, keep
track of time and make sure to stop
the group-testing portion of the class
so that students have enough time
to complete the individual portion
of the test.
Our project may serve as an
example of considering assessment
during course design and aligning
learning goals, instructional activities, and assessment tasks. Further,
assessment can act as a useful driver
of course reform. For example, Wiggins and McTighe (2006) explained
that good design begins with choosing assessments that will display
the enduring understanding students
have developed. Once assessments
are determined, instruction can be
planned to build understandings
toward that end goal.
The evidence provided here indicates that collaborative group testing is a useful assessment strategy
to improve student skills such as
learning to work collaboratively,
stimulating student thinking and
engagement, and decreasing test
anxiety. These can all be achieved
with minimal classroom disruption
if properly planned and implemented
throughout the semester. Students in
our study, particularly the medianand low-performing students, scored
better on the group portion of the
test than on the conceptually related
individual questions. Although Eaton
(2009) found that group testing after
individual testing on multiple-choice
exams enhanced all students’ perfor-
mance on the group portion, even
when divided into three performance
groups (low, middle, high), our design focused on the same conceptual
questions on both exams, with the
group portion first. Our data suggest
that if the topic is challenging, the
group strategy will be significantly
helpful for all levels of students,
but if it is not, the lower performing
students still benefit. Our findings
to date, along with the findings of
others who have used similar strategies, indicate the need for additional
research to refine our understanding
of collaborative group testing and
how it can be used to increase student
performance and, more important,
enhance student learning. ■
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to student and faculty
participants, as well as the members of
the DIAL-B research group, particularly
Carina Rebello. This material is based on
work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 0837021.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation.
References
American Association for the
Advancement of Science. (2011).
Vision and change in introductory
biology education: A call to action.
Washington, DC: Author.
Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L.,
Rodenbaugh, D. W., & DiCarlo,
S. E. (2003). Student retention
of course content is improved by
course collaborative group testing.
Advanced Physiology Education,
24, 102–108.
Crowe, M., & Hill, C. (2006). Setting
the stage for good group dynamics
in semester-long projects in the
sciences. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 35(4), 32–35.
Eaton, T. T. (2009). Engaging students
and evaluating learning progress
using collaborative exams in
introductory courses. Journal of
Geoscience Education, 57(2),
113–120.
Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., &
DiCarlo, S. E. (2008). Collaborative
group testing benefits high- and lowperforming students. Advances in
Physiology Education, 32, 274–278.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., &
Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative
learning returns to college: What
evidence is there that it works?
Change, 30(4), 26–35.
Kapitanoff, S. H. (2009). Collaborative
testing: Cognitive and interpersonal
processes related to enhanced test
performance. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 10, 56–70.
Lusk, M., & Conklin, L. (2003).
Collaborative testing to promote
learning. Journal of Nursing
Education, 42(3), 121–124.
National Research Council. (2001).
Knowing what students know: The
science and design of educational
assessment. In J. Pellegrino, N.
Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.),
Committee on the foundations
of assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
National Research Council.
(2012) A framework for K–12
science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core
ideas. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative
research and evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rebello, C. M., Siegel, M. A.,
Freyermuth S. K., Witzig S. B., &
Izci, K. (2012). Development of
embedded assessments for learning
Vol. 44, No. 6, 2015
81
RESEARCH
AND
TEACHING
in biotechnology: Results and
design process for dissemination.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 40(2), 82–88.
Roberts, T. M., Rebello, C. M., Witzig,
S. B., Siegel, M. A., Freyermuth,
S. K., & Izci, K. (2011). The effect
of collaborative group testing on
the performance and perceptions of
students in a biotechnology course
for non-majors. Proceedings of the
Annual Meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Orlando, FL.
Sandahl, S. S. (2010). Collaborative
testing as a learning strategy
in nursing education. Nursing
Education Perspectives, 11, 143–147.
Smith, K. A. (2000). Going deeper:
Formal small-group learning in large
classes. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 2000(81), 25–46.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006).
Examining the teaching life.
Educational Leadership, 63(6),
26–29.
Witzig, S. B., Freyermuth, S. K.,
Siegel, M. A., Izci, K., & Pires, J.
C. (2013). Is DNA alive? A study of
conceptual change through targeted
instruction. Research in Science
Education, 43, 1361–1375. Witzig, S. B., Rebello, C. M., Siegel,
M. A., Freyermuth, S. K., Izci,
K., & McClure, B. A. (2014).
Building the BIKE: Development
and testing of the Biotechnology
Instrument for Knowledge Elicitation
(BIKE). Research in Science
Education, 44, 675–698. Ready for
Your Next
Move?
Free online job search
NSTA CAREER CENTER
Job search agent
CAREER ADVANCEMENT MADE EASY
The NSTA Career Center is the ideal place to be seen
by employers who are specifically looking for science
teaching professionals.
The NSTA Career Center makes
finding the perfect job easy.
http://careers.nsta.org
82
Marcelle A. Siegel (siegelm@missouri.
edu) is an associate professor in the
Departments of Learning, Teaching &
Curriculum and Biochemistry; Tina M.
Roberts is an instructor and NEP laboratory supervisor in the Department
of Nutrition & Exercise Physiology; and
Sharyn K. Freyermuth is an associate teaching professor in the Department of Biochemistry, all at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Stephen B.
Witzig is an assistant professor in
the Department of STEM Education &
Teacher Development at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Kemal Izci is an assistant professor in the
Department of Educational Sciences,
Eregli College of Education, Necmettin
Erbakan University in Konya, Turkey.
Journal of College Science Teaching
All job-seeker functions are available at no charge.
Confidential resume posting
Make your resume available to employers, and release
your contact information only when you are ready.
Create a password-protected account and receive
automatic email notification of new jobs that match
your search criteria.
Saved jobs capability
Save up to 100 jobs to a folder in your account so you
come back to apply when you are ready.