Group projects, presentations, and tests have become increasingly popular in all the classes I’ve taken. But why? Yes it makes sense that collaboration is an important skill, but why should it depend on someone else’s work, or more often, lack thereof. Projects where I pull the weight of the group and presentations where I feel like I have to force my group mates to participate are atrocious, but not the worst of them all. What is? Group testing.
A group test – taking a test (written, MCQ, or FRQ format) within a group of students rather than individually and all receiving the same grade. This foolish practice fails the understanding that testing shows how much students understand the given topic.
In a study by The National Library for Medicine (National Center for Biotechnology Information), a large introductory biology course was randomly sampled and experimented on to view different aspects of group testing. One expected result proved true: “students performed better on collaborative exams than on individual exams.” It makes sense that when randomly put into groups, grades will be higher. But, are grades high because students work harder and collaborate together or because a single student is forced to pull the weight for fear of a bad grade? Although the students responded well to the testing procedure in a self-reported survey, the evidence shows the grade is no longer correlated to their knowledge of a topic (defeating the entire point of testing). The study states “collaborative examinations did not increase retention of course materials.” The main goal of education – actually learning the material better – is disregarded to make students comfortable, less stressed, and inflate grades.
If group tests are the ultimate failure, how should testing be done in schools? Unfortunately, the answer is more testing. According to Andrew Huberman, professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford University School of Medicine, the answer – more – is easy to understand but harder to implement. In his podcast episode “Optimal Protocols For Studying & Learning,” Huberman explains important and effective ways for learning and testing (spoiler – a group test is never mentioned). Although almost no one is excited at the idea of more testing, Huberman explains how not all tests have to be impossible or worth a huge percentage of a grade. It’s as simple as reading material and immediately looking away and quizzing yourself on what was just learned. One of the key takeaways from Huberman’s podcast notes include, “students who studied longer had more confidence, but less success on tests in reality; students who tested more had less confidence, but more success on tests.” In simpler terms: “regular” studying methods (re-reading, note taking, etc) provide the basis for confidence, while in reality, do not help students truly understand and remember material. Instead, students who self tested and were not confident had a greater understanding of the topic and could perform higher under pressure.
Overall, group testing is a failure and disgrace to education. Instead of suffering through a test with peers that does not truly test one’s knowledge, students should increase self implemented tests to understand subjects to a deeper level and be able to perform when needed.