An official website of the United States government
This full research paper explores how second-chance testing can be used as a strategy for mitigating students’ test anxiety in STEM courses, thereby boosting students’ performance and experiences. Second-chance testing is a testing strategy where students are given an opportunity to take an assessment twice. We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore second-chance testing as a potential solution to test anxiety. First, we interviewed a diverse group of STEM students (N = 23) who had taken courses with second-chance testing to ask about the stress and anxiety associated with testing. We then administered a survey on test anxiety to STEM students in seven courses that offered second-chance tests at Midwestern University (N = 448). We found that second-chance testing led to a 30% reduction in students’ reported test anxiety. Students also reported reduced stress throughout the semester, even outside of testing windows, due to the availability of second-chance testing. Our study included an assortment of STEM courses where second-chance testing was deployed, which indicates that second-chance testing is a viable strategy for reducing anxiety in a variety of contexts. We also explored whether the resultant reduction in test anxiety led to student complacency, encouraged procrastination, or other suboptimal student behavior because of the extra chance provided. We found that the majority of students reported that they worked hard on their initial test attempts even when second-chance testing was available.
more »
« less
Determining the Best Policies for Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students
In this full research paper, we examine various grading policies for second-chance testing. Second-chance testing refers to giving students the opportunity to take a second version of a test for some form of grade replacement. Second-chance testing as a pedagogical strategy bears some similarities to mastery learning, but second-chance testing is less expensive to implement. Previous work has shown that second-chance testing is associated with improved performance, but there is still a lack of clarity regarding the optimal grading policies for this testing strategy. We interviewed seven instructors who use second-chance testing in their courses to collect data on why they chose specific policies. We then conducted structured interviews with some students (N = 11) to capture more nuance about students’ decision making processes under the different grading policies. Afterwards, we conducted a quasi-experimental study to compare two second-chance testing grading policies and determine how they influenced students across multiple dimensions. We varied the grading policies used in two similar sophomore-level engineering courses. We collected assessment data and administered a survey that queried students (N = 513) about their behavior and reactions to both grading policies. Surprisingly, we found that the students’ preference between these two policies were almost perfectly split. We conclude that there are likely many policies that perform well by being simple and encouraging serious attempts on both tests.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1915257
- PAR ID:
- 10434207
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)We explore how course policies affect students' studying and learning when a second-chance exam is offered. High-stakes, one-off exams remain a de facto standard for assessing student knowledge in STEM, despite compelling evidence that other assessment paradigms such as mastery learning can improve student learning. Unfortunately, mastery learning can be costly to implement. We explore the use of optional second-chance testing to sustainably reap the benefits of mastery-based learning at scale. Prior work has shown that course policies affect students' studying and learning but have not compared these effects within the same course context. We conducted a quasi-experimental study in a single course to compare the effect of two grading policies for second-chance exams and the effect of increasing the size of the range of dates for students taking asynchronous exams. The first grading policy, called 90-cap, allowed students to optionally take a second-chance exam that would fully replace their score on a first-chance exam except the second-chance exam would be capped at 90% credit. The second grading policy, called 90-10, combined students' first- and second-chance exam scores as a weighted average (90% max score + 10% min score). The 90-10 policy significantly increased the likelihood that marginally competent students would take the second-chance exam. Further, our data suggests that students learned more under the 90-10 policy, providing improved student learning outcomes at no cost to the instructor. Most students took exams on the last day an exam was available, regardless of how many days the exam was available.more » « less
-
This full research paper explores students’ attitudes toward second-chance testing and how second-chance testing influences students’ behavior. Second-chance testing refers to giving students the opportunity to take a second instance of each exam for some sort of grade replacement. Previous work has demonstrated that second-chance testing can lead to improved student outcomes in courses, but how to best structure second-chance testing to maximize its benefits remains an open question. We complement previous work by interviewing a diverse group of 23 students that have taken courses that use second-chance testing. From the interviews, we sought to gain insight into students’ views and use of second-chance testing. We found that second-chance testing was almost universally viewed positively by the students and was frequently cited as helping to reduce test takers’ anxiety and boost their confidence. Overall, we find that the majority of students prepare for second-chance exams in desirable ways, but we also note ways in which second-chance testing can potentially lead to undesirable behaviors including procrastination, over-reliance on memorization, and attempts to game the system. We identified emergent themes pertaining to various facets of second-chance test-taking, including: 1) concerns about the time commitment required for second-chance exams; 2) a belief that second-chance exams promoted fairness; and 3) how second-chance testing incentivized learning. This paper will provide instructors and other stakeholders with detailed insights into students’ behavior regarding second-chance testing, enabling instructors to develop better policies and avoid unintended consequences.more » « less
-
Specifications (specs) grading systems use a “checklist” approach to assessing students that asks them to demonstrate a high level of proficiency in course content, often coupled with multiple attempts at revision. Students also must demonstrate mastery in some specs to earn high letter grades. There have been several reports in lower division college chemistry courses that use specs grading systems (e.g., general and organic chemistries), but there remains a dearth of accounts of specs grading systems in upper division courses. In this manuscript, we report on the use of specs grading systems at a primarily undergraduate women’s college in four upper division chemistry courses: biochemistry, inorganic chemistry, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. The conceptual framework for designing specs tailored to upper division chemistry courses and their use to assess student understanding of course content are shared along with student outcomes and feedback. The upper division students generally had a positive view of the specs grading system with students viewing themselves as working hard on assessments that were tough but fair. Finally, instructor comments are presented in an effort to highlight the perceived benefits and challenges of specs grading to future adopters.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in nearly all universities transitioning their in-person courses to online instruction. Recent work from our research team conducted in Spring 2020 established that the immediate transition to online learning presented novel challenges for students with disabilities: students were unable to access previously established accommodations and there was a lack of information from Disability Resource Centers (DRCs) about adapting accommodations to online environments. In this study, we aimed to determine the extent to which these issues still were present 1 year later. In Spring 2021, we conducted a survey of 114 students with disabilities who were registered with the DRC and taking online science courses at a public research-intensive institution. We used our previous interviews with students to develop closed- and open-ended questions to assess the extent to which students with disabilities were being properly accommodated in their courses, document any new accommodations they were using, and elicit any recommendations they had for improving their experiences in online science courses. We used logistic regression to analyze the closed-ended data and inductive coding to analyze the open-ended data. We found that more than half of students with disabilities reported not being properly accommodated, and this was more likely to be reported by students who experienced new challenges related to online learning. When students were asked what accommodations they would have wanted, students often described accommodations that were being offered to some students but were not universally implemented. This study summarizes recommendations for making online science learning environments more inclusive for students with disabilities.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
