Collaborative Testing and Reflection Papers as Supplementary Assessment Tools in a Clinical Physiology Course

Collaborative testing and reflection papers area are a novel way to supplement traditional assessments such as multiple‐choice exams. The course setting for implementing and studying these two supplementary assessments was Clinical Physiology I and II, a two‐course series in the Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology. Of the 30 students registered for the fall 2016 session of the course, 13 were undergraduates in physiology/biological sciences, 5 were graduate students in the biological sciences and 12 were doctor of Nursing practice (DNP) students in nursing anesthesia. Of the 30 students registered for the spring 2017 semester, 11 were undergraduates in physiology/biological sciences, 15 were graduate students in the biological sciences, 2 were post baccalaureate students, and 12 were DNP students. Students were assigned by the instructor to 1 of 5 groups in which students of different. disciplines were evenly divided among the groups. On the scheduled assessment day, students first completed a closed‐book, 40‐ question, multiple‐choice exam. After a short break, students gathered into their groups and re‐took a clean version of the same exam. Students discussed each question until they reached a consensus as to the correct answer. When all groups were finished, students were given an exam key and a reflective writing assignment. Students were instructed to pick three question that inspired a lot of discussion and to write a paragraph about the student thought process during the individual exam and the group exam. Reflection essays were due prior to the start of the next weekly class session. Group exam scores averaged about 7 points higher than individual exam scores and it was not unusual for the group exam score to be higher than any individual exam score within the group. Students reported the experience of the group exam was enjoyable and a helpful learning tool. Though writing about their thought process was difficult for the students, reflection papers were enlightening to both the students and the instructor. Student identified knowledge gaps, misconceptions, and logic errors. They also gained confidence in their critical thinking skills. The instructor learned which concepts continued to confound students and gained insight as to why certain multiple‐choice questions were poorly received. A major finding of this study is that assessments are powerful tools for teaching critical thinking. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .