Search

Alternative grading strategies are increasingly popular in higher education, but research into the outcomes of these strategies is limited. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the relevant research regarding alternative grading strategies in undergraduate STEM and identify gaps in the literature to inform future research. This scoping review was done using the stages as described by Arksey and O'Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32, 2005). The results of this review indicate there is a lack of consensus on the theoretical foundation for the benefits of alternative grading and, therefore, limited validated tools being used to capture these benefits. Additionally, we find that research into alternative grading methods tends to occur in both disciplinary and practice-based silos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students are expected to learn key-term definitions across many different grade levels and academic disciplines. Thus, investigating ways to promote understanding of key-term definitions is of critical importance for applied purposes. A recent survey showed that learners report engaging in collaborative practice testing when learning key-term definitions, with outcomes also shedding light on the way in which learners report engaging in collaborative testing in real-world contexts (Wissman & Rawson, 2016, Memory, 24, 223-239). However, no research has directly explored the effectiveness of engaging in collaborative testing under representative conditions. Accordingly, the current research evaluates the costs (with respect to efficiency) and the benefits (with respect to learning) of collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions. In three experiments ( ns = 94, 74, 95), learners individually studied key-term definitions and then completed retrieval practice, which occurred either individually or collaboratively (in dyads). Two days later, all learners completed a final individual test. Results from Experiments 1-2 showed a cost (with respect to efficiency) and no benefit (with respect to learning) of engaging in collaborative testing for key-term definitions. Experiment 3 evaluated a theoretical explanation for why collaborative benefits do not emerge under representative conditions. Collectively, outcomes indicate that collaborative testing versus individual testing is less effective and less efficient when learning key-term definitions under representative conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]