02065nam a22001817a 450000500170000000800410001702200140005810000240007224500840009626000550018030000140023544000710024950500650032052013370038565000860172270000250180885600500183320240108102153.0240108b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  a0022-0973  aWalker, Joshua D.    aDoes Two-Stage Testing Promote Long-Term Individual Learning? (Journal Article)  aUSA :: Taylor and Francis Groupc, September 2023  a431-449p.  aThe Journal of Experimental Educationv, Volume 91: Number 3, 2023  a***______{For Hard Copy, Please visit Library.}________***

  aAbstract: 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.  aCollaborative| desirable difficulty| retrieval practice| testing| two-stage exams  aRobinson, Daniel H.   uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2022.2059750