English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Two-stage testing (TST) involves individual testing followed by taking the same test in teams. Previously, Vogler and Robinson ( The Journal of Experimental Education ,  84 (4), 787–803, 2016) found that TST facilitated individual performance. The present study addressed methodological limitations in the Vogler and Robinson study in two replications along with isolating the components of TST in a laboratory study. In Experiments 1 and 2, where undergraduates remained in testing conditions (individual or TST) for the entire semester, no TST advantages were found. Experiment 3 controlled for the effects of initial test format [short answer (SA) versus multiple choice (MC)], mode (individual vs. group), and repetition (once vs. twice) on new and old (appeared on previous tests) MC and SA items. Two weeks after watching a lecture and being tested once or twice individually or in teams, students were tested once more individually. Results revealed effects for repetition (taking an initial test twice was better than once—confirming test-enhanced learning) and format (taking an initial SA test was better than MC—confirming the superiority of supply over recognition tests). However, taking an initial team test was no better than taking an individual test. TST alone may not lead to individual learning gains.

Does Two-Stage Testing Promote Long-Term Individual Learning?