IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0250143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The retention benefits of cumulative versus non-cumulative midterms in introductory biology may depend on students’ reasoning skills

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth G Bailey
  • Rebeka F Greenall
  • Madeleine M Tullis
  • Kurt R Williams

Abstract

Assessment has long played an important role as a measurement tool of student mastery over course content. However, testing has also been shown to be an effective learning tool. Cumulative testing, in which all material from the entire learning period is covered, has been assumed to be effective, yet few studies have explicitly tested its effectiveness compared to non-cumulative testing. Studies in psychology and mathematics courses suggest that cumulative final exams increase long-term retention of information, and cumulative testing during the semester can increase cumulative final exam performance and long-term retention. Because frequent testing has also been shown to increase student learning, the purpose of this quasi-experimental study is to investigate the effects of cumulative versus non-cumulative midterms on student learning in a course that uses frequent assessment. In this study, one section of an introductory biology course for non-majors was given seven cumulative midterms, with about half of the questions drawn from previous units and the rest covering the current unit. The other section was given seven non-cumulative midterms that focused on current material while other course characteristics were held constant. Student performance on a common, cumulative final exam and a retention exam five months later were compared. Midterm format had no effect on final exam performance, contradicting the few studies done in psychology and mathematics courses. Thus, there may be no additional benefit of cumulative testing if exams are given frequently. Cumulative midterms appeared to increase retention after five months, but only for students who entered the course with low reasoning skills. Interestingly, students with high reasoning skills appeared to retain more from the course if they were given non-cumulative midterms. Possible explanations and ideas for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth G Bailey & Rebeka F Greenall & Madeleine M Tullis & Kurt R Williams, 2021. "The retention benefits of cumulative versus non-cumulative midterms in introductory biology may depend on students’ reasoning skills," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-25, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250143
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250143
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250143&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0250143?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.