Search for: All records

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. 

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.