title: A comparison of the efficacy of test-driven learning versus self-assessment learning.
abstract: Objective : We compared self-assessment and test-driven learning in two groups of students who studied the same subject. Methods : This was a randomized comparative experimental study. The subjects were 259 first-quarter students who were divided into a test group and a self-assessment group based on the methods they used for their learning assessments. We measured the scores and difficulty levels of 3 formal written exams. Students' attitudes toward self-assessment or test-driven learning were surveyed. Results : The mean scores of exam 1, exam 2, and a summative exam were 34 (±6), 32 (±8), and 44 (±6) for the self-assessment group, respectively, with corresponding scores of 33 (±6), 33 (±7), 43 (±6) for the test group. There were no significant differences in the mean scores on all 3 tests between the two groups (p > .05). Of the students in the self-assessment group, 64% scored at least 90%, whereas 47% of students in the test group answered at least 90% of the questions correctly (p < .001). For the survey, students expressed a positive attitude toward both learning strategies. Conclusion : Both self-assessment and tests could have a significant impact on students' learning, but each offers different strengths and weaknesses.
authors: Xiaohua
authors: X
authors: He
authors: Anne
authors: A
authors: Canty
references: Br Dent J. 2004 Sep;Suppl:11-4
references: 15359296
references: Mem Cognit. 2006 Mar;34(2):268-76
references: 16752591
references: Med Teach. 2005 Aug;27(5):445-9
references: 16147799
references: J Chiropr Educ. 2012 Spring;26(1):24-31
references: 22778527
references: Psychol Sci. 2006 Mar;17(3):249-55
references: 16507066
references: Med Educ. 2008 Oct;42(10):959-66
references: 18823514
references: Med Educ. 2004 Sep;38(9):974-9
references: 15327679
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Apr;14(2):200-6
references: 17694901
references: Mem Cognit. 1992 Nov;20(6):633-42
references: 1435266
references: Med Educ. 2009 Dec;43(12):1182-7
references: 19930509