Double Testing: A Student Perspective

Abstract

EVALUATION IN NURSING EDUCATION SHOULD BE USED NOT ONLY TO EVALUATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT, BUT TO SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING AS WELL (NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR NURSING, 2012). Double testing allows the instructor to evaluate student learning while reinforcing information, promoting collaboration, and decreasing student anxiety in testing situations. This study used a survey to examine how accelerated nursing students experienced double testing in a medical-surgical course. The study was designed to determine the stress level students experienced with double testing, their satisfaction with the method, and the advantages and disadvantages they perceived. Open-ended questions in the survey instrument provided more information as to the students' thoughts and feelings regarding double testing.With double testing, students take an examination as individuals and then retake the same examination as part of a group. This approach promotes active dialogue, allowing students to address complex care issues and problems regarding the nursing care of patients while in a testing situation. It offers an opportunity to use critical thinking, reinforce learning, and collaborate with peer professionals (Sandahl, 2009), an expectation in health care delivery, education, and research. Students have reported less anxiety when double testing is used as an opportunity for collaboration (Sandahl). This evaluation method provides assessment and evaluation data while fostering group communication skills (Michaelson & Sweet, 2011; Wotring, Alpers, Brown, & Jarrell, 2009).Method A convenience sample of 15 students in a medical-surgical course completed questionnaires after being told that their responses would remain anonymous. Permission was obtained from the university institutional review board prior to surveying the accelerated nursing students.The students (14 were women), completed a medical-surgical exam individually during a specified period of time. The exams and answer sheets were then collected and students were randomly assigned to a four-member group to retake the exam collaboratively. The students were able to discuss the questions and the rationales for their answers in their assigned groups. After the discussion period, the students decided whether to keep their original answers or to change some answers. The students then completed a second answer sheet, and the higher of the two scores was used for the grade calculation. This process was utilized for each unit exam.The survey was conducted on the last day of the course. Students completed five Likert-type scale questions and three open-ended questions regarding their opinions and perceptions of double testing. All students completed the survey.Results using a five-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 5 (very likely) to 1 (definitely not), 93.3 percent of the students indicated they would recommend double testing for use in a course. They were very likely (66.7 percent) to see advantages when double testing was used. And most (66.7 percent) believed double testing very likely enhanced their learning. Overall, the students rated their acceptance and potential for recommendation of double testing at above average levels. No students were unlikely to recommend double testing.Students also used a Likert scale to estimate their stress level when testing individually and during double testing. With scores ranging from 5 (very high stress) to 1 (no stress), 40 percent rated their stress level as very high and 33.3 percent rated their stress level as high. With double testing, no students reporting having a very high stress level; 53.3 percent reported mild stress.Learning, communication, and collaboration were threads throughout the responses to the open-ended questions. Several students commented on reinforcing learning through discussion, and one student pointed to the opportunity to discuss rationales for selecting answers. Another student wrote, Since nursing is a collaborative profession double testing is more like real-life nursing. …