Collaborative student-to-student communication during Team-Based Learning test-taking

ABSTRACT

This study explores teams engaged in student-to-student collaborative test-taking. Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in 16-week Team-Based Learning (TBL) course who completed the Readiness Assurance Process four times throughout the semester. A mixed-methods approach incorporated the transcription of intragroup dialogue coded to measure the amount of verbal communication, nonevidence, evidence, and process dialogue to then quantitatively analyze how student ability influenced students’ collaborative test-taking interactions. Results demonstrate high-ability members’ contributions in talk time, evidence, and nonevidence to team conversation. Low-ability members’ offered similar contributions to test functionality process dialogue. Findings suggest intragroup communication plays a vital role in TBL, particularly in terms of how member ability enhances and detracts from discourse and accountability. The implications indicate that team members must feel empowered to communicate with peers to enhance team decision-making, and educators play a critical role in framing team discussions for collaborative test-taking when using TBL.

KEYWORDS:

• Student-to-student communication
• collaborative test-taking
• reasoned argumentation
• Readiness Assurance Process
• Team-Based Learning

Notes

1 Wilbert J. McKeachie, Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1993).

2 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith, “Cooperative Learning: Improving University Instruction by Basing Practice on Validated Theory,” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 25, no. 3–4 (2014): 85–118.

3 L. Dee Fink, “Beyond Small Groups: Harnessing the Extraordinary Power of Learning Teams,” in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2004), 3–26.

4 Jim Sibley and Peter Ostafichuk, Getting Started with Team-Based Learning (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2014).

5 Elizabeth Swanson et al., “The Effect of Team-Based Learning on Content Knowledge: A Meta-Analysis,” Active Learning in Higher Education 20, no. 1 (2019): 39–50.

6 Michael Sweet and Larry K. Michaelsen, “Critical Thinking and Engagement: Creating Cognitive Apprenticeships with Team-Based Learning,” in Team-Based Learning in the Social Sciences and Humanities, ed. Michael Sweet and Larry K. Michaelsen (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2012), 5–32.

7 Richard P. Phelps, “The Effect of Testing on Student Achievement, 1910–2010,” International Journal of Testing 12, no. 1 (2012): 21–43.

8 Lynn S. Fuchs, Stanley L. Deno, and Phyllis K. Mirkin, “The Effects of Frequent Curriculum-Based Measurement and Evaluation on Pedagogy, Student Achievement, and Student Awareness of Learning,” American Educational Research Journal 21, no. 2 (1984): 449–60.

9 Larry K. Michaelsen, “Getting Started with Team-Based Learning.” In Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2004), 27–50.

10 Dennis D. Stewart and Garold Strasser, “Expert Role Assignment and Information Sampling During Collective Recall and Decision Making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, no. 4 (1995): 619–28.

11 Larry K. Michaelsen and Michael Sweet, “The Essential Elements of Team-Based Learning,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 116 (2008): 7–27.

12 Sweet and Michaelsen, “Critical Thinking and Engagement: Creating Cognitive Apprenticeships with Team-Based Learning.”

13 Jim Sibley and Peter Ostafichuk, “Readiness Assurance Process,” In Getting Started with Team-Based Learning, ed. Jim Sibley and Peter Ostafichuk (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2014), 74–113.

14 Sibly and Ostafichuk, “Readiness Assurance Process.”

15 Luke LeFebvre, “Team-Based Learning for the Basic Communication Course: A Transformative Pedagogical Approach,” Review of Communication 16, no. 2–3 (2016): 192–212.

16 Michael L. Epstein, Beth B. Epstein, and Gary M. Brosvic, “Immediate Feedback During Academic Testing,” Psychological Reports 88, no. 3 (2001): 889–94.

17 Michael L. Epstein et al., “Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique Promotes Learning and Corrects Inaccurate First Responses,” Psychological Record 52 (2002): 187–201.

18 Susan A. Stearns, “Collaborative Exams as Learning Tools,” College Teaching 44, no. 3 (1996): 111–2.

19 Davida Bloom, “Collaborative Test Taking: Benefits for Learning and Retention,” College Teaching 57, no. 4 (2009): 216–20.

20 Susan H. Kapitanoff, “Collaborative Test: Cognitive and Interpersonal Processes Related to Enhanced Test Performance,” Active Learning in Higher Education 10, no. 1 (2009): 56–70.

21 N. Sharon Hill, Jae Hyeung Kang, and Myeong-Gu Seo, “The Interactive Effect of Leader-Member Exchange and Electronic Communication on Employee Psychological Empowerment and Work Outcomes,” The Leadership Quarterly 25, no. 4 (2014): 772–83.

22 Tom L. Roberts, Paul B. Lowry, and P.D. Sweeney, “An Evaluation of the Impact of Social Presence Through Group Size and the Use of Collaborative Software on Group Member ‘Voice’ in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Task Groups,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 49, no. 1 (2006): 28–43.

23 Ronald N. Cortright et al., “Student Retention of Course Content is Improved by Collaborative-Group Testing,” Advances in Physiology Education 27, no. 3 (2003): 102–8; Murry Jenson, Randy Moore, and Jay Hatch, “Cooperative Learning: Part I: Cooperative Quizzes,” The American Biology Teacher 64, no. 1 (2002): 29–34; Sumangala P. Rao, Heidi L. Collins, and Stephen E. DiCarlo, “Collaborative Testing Enhances Student Learning,” Advances in Physiology Education 26, no. 1 (2002): 37–41; Ronald L. Skidmore and Lola Aagaard, “The Relationship Between Testing Condition and Student Test Scores,” Journal of Instructional Psychology 31, no. 4 (2004): 304–13.

24 Renée A. Meyers, “Persuasive Arguments Theory: A Test of Assumptions,” Human Communication Research 15, no. 3 (1989): 357–79; Renée A. Meyers and David R. Seibold, “Perspectives on Group Argument: A Critical Review of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an Alternative Structurational View,” Communication Yearbook 13 (1990): 268–302.

25 Amiram Vinokur and Eugene Burnstein, “Effects of Partially Shared Persuasive Arguments on Group Induced Shifts: A Group Problem-Solving Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29, no. 3 (1974): 305–15.

26 Burnstein, “Persuasion as Argument Processing.”

27 Meyers, “Persuasive Arguments Theory: A Test of Assumptions.”

28 Eugene Burnstein, “Persuasion as Argument Processing.” In Group Decision Making, eds. Hermann Brandstatter, James H. Davis, and Gisela Stocke-Kreichgauer (New York: Academic Press, 1982), 103–24; Eugene Burnstein and Amiram Vinokur, “Testing Two Classes of Theories About Group Induced Shifts in Individual Choice,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9, no. 2 (1973): 123–37.

29 Amiram Vinokur, Yaacov Trope, and Eugene Burnstein, “A Decision-Making Analysis of Persuasive Argumentation and the Choice-Shirt Effect,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11, no. 2 (1975): 127–48.

30 Eugene Burnstein and Keith Sentis, “Attitude Polarization in Groups.” In Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, ed. Richard Petty, Thomas M. Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock (New York: Psychology Press, 1982), 197–216.

31 Vinokur, Trope, and Burnstein, “A Decision-Making Analysis of Persuasive Argumentation and the Choice-Shirt Effect”; Amiram Vinokur and Eugene Burnstein, “Depolarization of Attitudes in Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, no. 8 (1978): 872–85; Amiram Vinokur and Eugene Burnstein, “Novel Argumentation and Attitude Change: The Case of Polarization Following Group Discussion,” European Journal of Social Psychology 8, no. 3 (1978): 335–48.

32 Ivan D. Steiner, Group Processes and Productivity (New York: Academic Press, 1972).

33 Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams, “Understanding Individual Motivation in Groups: The Collective Effort Model,” In Groups at work: Advances in Theory and Research, ed. Marlene E. Turner (New York: Psychology Press, 2001), 113–42.

34 Bernhard Weber and Guido Hertel, “Motivation Gains of Inferior Group Members: A Meta-Analytical Review,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, no. 6 (2007): 973–93.

35 Scott A. Yost, Derek R. Lane, and George Blandford, “RATS: Students Working in Teams, Do They Really Benefit?” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Southeastern Section Conference, 2006.

36 Larry K. Michaelsen, Warren E. Watson, and Robert H. Black, “A Realistic Test of Individual Versus Group Consensus Decision Making,” Journal of Applied Psychology 74, no. 5 (1989): 834–9.

37 Renée A. Meyers and Dale E. Brashers, “Argument in Group Decision Making: Explicating a Process Model and Investigating the Argument Outcome Link,” Communication Monographs 65, no. 4 (1998): 261–81; Jennifer R. Considine, Renée A. Meyers, and C. Erik Timmerman, “Evidence Use in Group Quiz Discussions: How Do Students Support Preferred Choices?” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 17, no. 3 (2006): 65–89; Leah E. LeFebvre et al., “Argumentative Communication in Cooperative Learning Groups: Member’s Use of Evidence and Non-Evidence,” Communication Teacher 34, no. 1 (2019): 68–86.

38 Gavriel Salomon and Tamar Globerson, “When Teams Do Not Function the Way They Ought To,” International Journal of Educational Research 13, no. 1 (1989): 89–99.

39 Frederic M. Lord, “A Paradox in the Interpretation of Group Comparisons,” Psychological Bulletin 68, no. 5 (1967): 304–5.

40 Considine, Meyers, and Timmerman, “Evidence Use in Group Quiz Discussions: How Do Students Support Preferred Choices?”

41 Meyers and Brashers, “Argument in Group Decision Making: Explicating a Process Model and Investigating the Argument Outcome Link.”

42  

43 LeFebvre, Yilmaz, LeFebvre, and Allen, “Argumentative Communication in Cooperative Learning Groups: Member’s Use of Evidence and Non-Evidence.”

44 Considine, Meyers, and Timmerman, “Evidence Use in Group Quiz Discussions: How do Students Support Preferred Choices?”; LeFebvre, Yilmaz, LeFebvre, and Allen, “Argumentative Communication in Cooperative Learning Groups: Member’s Use of Evidence and Non-Evidence.”

45 Renée A. Meyers, David R. Seibold, and Dale Brashers, “Argument in Initial Group Decision Making Discussions: Refinement of a Coding Scheme and a Descriptive Quantitative Analysis,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 55, no. 1 (1991): 47–68.

46 Yan Xiao et al., “Team Communication Patterns as Measures of Team Processes: Exploring the Effects of Task Urgency and Shared Team Experience,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47, no. 12 (2003): 1502–6.

47 LeFebvre, “Team-Based Learning for the Basic Communication Course: A Transformative Pedagogical Approach.”

48 Jim Sibley and Peter Ostafichuk, “Using Teams Effectively,” in Getting Started with Team-Based Learning, ed. Jim Sibley and Peter Ostafichuk (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2014), 65–73.

49 Michaelsen, “Getting Started with Team-Based Learning”; Sibley and Ostafichuk, “Using Teams Effectively.”

50 Virginia P. Richmond, Jason S. Wrench, and James C. McCroskey, Communication, Apprehension, Avoidance, and Effectiveness (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2012).

51 Lauren R. Brannan and Hannah D. Szatkowski, “Exploring the Effects of Team-Based Learning in a Preservice Reading Methods Course,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 16, no. 3 (2022): Article 8.

52 The same operationalization was done for each iRAT based on the same percentage as the cumulative iRAT score. Each iRAT was worth a total of 25 points. Those students who earned 13 or more points were considered a high-ability member and those who earned 12 or fewer points were categorized as a low-ability member. See Table 1 for high- and low-ability members associated with each individual test for each team.

53 Considine, Meyers, and Timmerman, “Evidence Use in Group Quiz Discussions: How do Students Support Preferred Choices?”; LeFebvre et al., “Argumentative Communication in Cooperative Learning Groups: Member’s Use of Evidence and Non-Evidence.”

54 LeFebvre et al., “Argumentative Communication in Cooperative Learning Groups: Member’s Use of Evidence and Non-Evidence.”

55 Andrew F. Hayes and Klaus Krippendorff, “Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data,” Communication Methods and Measures 1, no. 1 (2007): 77–89.

56 Michaelsen and Sweet, “The Essential Elements of Team-Based Learning.”

57 Meyers and Brashers, “Argument in Group Decision Making: Explicating a Process Model and Investigating the Argument Outcome Link”; Considine, Meyers, and Timmerman, “Evidence Use in Group Quiz Discussions: How do Students Support Preferred Choices?”; LeFebvre et al., “Argumentative Communication in Cooperative Learning Groups: Member’s Use of Evidence and Non-Evidence.”

58 Juanjuan Chen et al., “The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research 88, no. 6 (2018): 799–843.

59 Enwei Xu, Wei Wang, and QingxiaWang, “The Effectiveness of Collaborative Problem Solving in Promoting Students’ Critical Thinking: A Meta-Analysis Based on Empirical Literature,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10, no. 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1.

60 Meyers and Seibold, “Perspectives on Group Argument: A Critical Review of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an Alternative Structurational View.”

61 Sibly and Ostafichuk, “Readiness Assurance Process.”