Number
425
Name
Harnessing Peer Learning: Student Perspectives on One-Step Collaborative Testing as A Teaching Strategy in Organ-System Modules
Date & Time
Sunday, June 7, 2026, 5:30 PM - 7:00 PM
Location Name
Oglethorpe Ballroom
Speakers
Authors
Mohsin Syed, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Noor Akhter, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
David L. Davies, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Presentation Topic(s)
Instructional Methods
Description
PURPOSE
A transition in course leadership prompted a redesign of assessment and
instructional strategies in the Pulmonary and Gastrointestinal modules in the
third semester of the medical curriculum. One-step collaborative testing,
which is an approach in which students answer examination questions
collectively without an individual testing component, was introduced to
promote peer learning and reduce test anxiety. This evaluation examined
student satisfaction with the approach and their perceptions of its
educational value.
METHODS
Weekly two-hour collaborative testing sessions were implemented during each
module. Assessments consisted of clinical vignette–based multiple-choice
questions, and students were free to collaborate with any peers in the room.
Responses were submitted using an audience response system under timed
conditions. Student perceptions were collected through a voluntary, anonymous
online questionnaire containing ten Likert-scale items and one optional
open-ended prompt. Quantitative responses were summarized using descriptive
statistics, and qualitative comments were reviewed using inductive coding.
RESULTS
The survey response rate was 73% at the university’s central campus,
whereas participation at the remote regional campus was only 10%, likely
reflecting differing instructional conditions and attendance patterns. More
than 92% of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that collaborative
testing supported their understanding of course content, clarified
misconceptions, reduced test-related anxiety, and should be continued in
future courses. Interpretation of these findings is influenced by a
contextual factor: although participation in the activity was required,
physical attendance was not consistently mandated.
CONCLUSION
Students perceived one-step collaborative testing as an engaging learning
strategy that enhanced conceptual understanding and reduced anxiety. However,
limitations, including lack of individual accountability and absence of
independent performance data, restrict its use to a formative instructional
tool rather than a summative assessment method. The marked variation in
response rates between campuses warrants further investigation to ensure
equitable implementation.
A transition in course leadership prompted a redesign of assessment and
instructional strategies in the Pulmonary and Gastrointestinal modules in the
third semester of the medical curriculum. One-step collaborative testing,
which is an approach in which students answer examination questions
collectively without an individual testing component, was introduced to
promote peer learning and reduce test anxiety. This evaluation examined
student satisfaction with the approach and their perceptions of its
educational value.
METHODS
Weekly two-hour collaborative testing sessions were implemented during each
module. Assessments consisted of clinical vignette–based multiple-choice
questions, and students were free to collaborate with any peers in the room.
Responses were submitted using an audience response system under timed
conditions. Student perceptions were collected through a voluntary, anonymous
online questionnaire containing ten Likert-scale items and one optional
open-ended prompt. Quantitative responses were summarized using descriptive
statistics, and qualitative comments were reviewed using inductive coding.
RESULTS
The survey response rate was 73% at the university’s central campus,
whereas participation at the remote regional campus was only 10%, likely
reflecting differing instructional conditions and attendance patterns. More
than 92% of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that collaborative
testing supported their understanding of course content, clarified
misconceptions, reduced test-related anxiety, and should be continued in
future courses. Interpretation of these findings is influenced by a
contextual factor: although participation in the activity was required,
physical attendance was not consistently mandated.
CONCLUSION
Students perceived one-step collaborative testing as an engaging learning
strategy that enhanced conceptual understanding and reduced anxiety. However,
limitations, including lack of individual accountability and absence of
independent performance data, restrict its use to a formative instructional
tool rather than a summative assessment method. The marked variation in
response rates between campuses warrants further investigation to ensure
equitable implementation.