2
RATIONALE FOR COOPERATIVE EXAMS
I recognize that allowing students to work cooperatively on an examination takes getting
used to (it’s normally called cheating), especially if you have been testing students for years
in more usual ways. My premise is simple: if cooperation is advantageous (as
demonstrated in the text), and if group synergy is desirable, then a system of examination
that promotes both cooperation and synergy is not only philosophically justifiable, it should
be enthusiastically encouraged.
Response to Common Objections
I. Won‘t cooperating on a test allow loafers to obtain high grades without putting
in any effort to learn? This would be true if there were no accountability factor
in the testing. The cooperative form of testing has an individual accountability
factor. Students must demonstrate a minimum level of performance in order to
share in the fruits of group synergy. Typically, because the cooperative test is a
group exam, group members study together—a very effective way to learn
and to encourage the involvement of all group members.
II. Won‘t cooperative tests inflate student grades? Cooperative tests have been
used at Cabrillo College for more than two decades by numerous instructors in
more than 150 sections of courses. Grades on the group cooperative
exams tend to be slightly higher under the cooperative method of testing than
grades would be if the same exams were given on a standard individual basis.
Preliminary group scores almost always show a synergistic effect (a practical
lesson on the importance of working together effectively in a group), although
there have been instances of negative synergy in which the group worked
lamely together and produced a fiasco (group grades as low as 50%). Yet once
the accountability factor is figured in, individual grades often become deflated.
Class averages on cooperative tests (once individual accountability has been
factored in) have varied widely, from a low of 56 to a high of 85. We should
also note that high scores don’t necessarily mean the testing method was easy.
Sometimes high scores reflect excellent teaching, highly motivated and
intelligent students, and a testing method that encourages critical thinking.
Please also note that test anxiety is significantly reduced. Thus, students are
more likely to perform at their best.
NOTE: The difficulty of the cooperative exam can always be adjusted by asking tougher
questions if an instructor decides the scores are too high. The accountability factor can also
be adjusted (see explanation of procedure below).
III. Won‘t students learn less because they will rely on others to share the
burden of studying? On the contrary, motivated students do not want to risk
relying on others who may or may not know correct answers to test questions.