TY - JOUR
T1 - Determining the Best Policies for Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students
AU - Emeka, Chinedu Alexander
AU - Smith, David H.
AU - Zilles, Craig
AU - West, Matthew
AU - Herman, Geoffrey L.
AU - Bretl, Timothy
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Society for Engineering Education, 2023.
PY - 2023/6/25
Y1 - 2023/6/25
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85172150549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85172150549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Conference article
AN - SCOPUS:85172150549
SN - 2153-5965
JO - ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
JF - ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
T2 - 2023 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition - The Harbor of Engineering: Education for 130 Years, ASEE 2023
Y2 - 25 June 2023 through 28 June 2023
ER -