The Success of Multiple-Attempt Testing on Students Learning Outcomes Despite the Deliverance by Different Faculty in an Engineering Course: Dynamics Marino Nader, Qiushi Fu Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-2362 Abstract It seems that multiple-attempt testing has its effects and benefits on students learning outcomes from the perspective of those who designed their courses in that fashion. However, the question remains whether it works with some other instructors for the same course design. The Spring 2022 Dynamics class of 157 students involved in this study, was given in class once a week in blended M-mode by a different instructor than the one who originally designed it, with minor changes. Three attempts, with randomized questions were given for each of the three tests performed remotely using LockDown Browser, Proctor Hub and Respondus monitor to maintain testing integrity. All attempts were performed digitally within a week using CANVAS Learning Management System (LMS), each attempt was instantly graded, and the results were immediately released for the students to seek help, where needed. An increase in students' success improved with a minimum of 56% between the first and the third attempts. However, the overall success average students' success is 143%. This reflects higher students' learning outcomes. The three attempt testing decreases students' anxiety and prepares the students for a motivating scaffolded learning process with less stress than traditional methods. When comparing Spring semesters, 2022 to Spring 2021 delivered in class as Mixed mode and Virtually during COVID-19, respectively, the general trend of incremental improvement was consistent for all three attempts, be it in the number of students succeeding or the overall class average. Students were asked in class of their preference; they were all accord that the three-attempt testing was more agreeable than the one-attempt class test.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nader et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: