I wondered whether allowing multiple test attempts was an educational folly. But for 13 percent of the course points, I decided it was worth investigating patterns of student usage and performance before dismissing a new idea.

Of the 20 students enrolled in the course, multiple trials (at least two) were utilized by 13 (65 percent) in the first quiz, 12 (60 percent) in the second quiz, eight (40 percent) in the third quiz, and seven (35 percent) in the fourth quiz. When comparing the average first attempt to the average multiple trial score, I found variation in student performance. Students improved their scores by an average of .71 points (close to a full letter grade) with multiple attempts on the first quiz versus a negative result (-.03) on the third exam, and two smaller gains for quizzes 2 (+.23) and 3 (+.24).

The syllabus also gave students an option of stopping if they liked their scores on the first attempt. Using a 10 or 9 (the lowest A performance for the course) as a cutoff score, I found that nine (45 percent) students stopped with a “liked” score in the fourth quiz compared with three (15 percent) students in the first quiz. In the first quiz I glimpsed a gamesmanship strategy I found fascinating: a student who earned 8 points in the first attempt and scored the maximum in the second attempt. I thought the student would have “held” with an average score of 9. But the student used the third trial to score 10 points again, raising the average to 9.33. In the second and fourth quizzes, I saw a magnification of this effect: multiple 9/10/10 patterns. Rather than holding with a 9 “A-hand,” a student decided to draw two other quiz cards to move to a 9.67, a stronger A.

The final exam had been designed along a more traditional format: a onetime shot during a time limit of 90 minutes within an 11-hour window. After several polite student requests for an extended time because of multiple exams, I decided to use the same multiple-attempt format, allow an additional 30 minutes to take the exam, and lengthen the time window to 25 hours. I was pleased to find that students who requested additional time available took the exam within the extended testing window. As for multiple final exam attempts, only three (15 percent) students took advantage of the opportunity; they earned an average improvement of 6 points (half a letter grade).

I ultimately decided to allow multiple final exam trials when my inquiry toward the end of the course showed a spread in student performance. After the final, student performance variation continued. Five (25 percent) students who tested well (scored high and/or took advantage of multiple attempts) and submitted strong individual projects (55 percent of the grade) earned top grades. Of the other 15 students, I estimate 13 (87 percent) could have earned at least a half grade higher by taking advantage of multiple test trials. I was amazed at the many missed opportunities.

An interesting benefit came after the semester ended when a “grovel” email arrived from a student who requested rounding up her percentage to the next grade. In showing I was unable to replicate her higher percentage, I pointed out that of five testing situations in which she had multiple attempts available, she had taken advantage only two times. As I looked more closely at the student’s online pattern, I found an irregularity: the student had an open final exam first attempt with scores for second and third trials. I felt comfortable indicating that the student could have earned a better grade, but there were many lost opportunities. The biggest benefit of multiple testing attempts came when the course evaluation report showed high student ratings. The goodwill generated by the security of having additional testing opportunities available was viewed positively by students.

Despite my initial skepticism, my one-course investigation of student usage and performance provides compelling evidence for applying multiple attempts to some testing situations in the future. A final exam might not be the best option in some courses, but using multiple-trial testing worked well as an instructor-pacing method. Even if students decide not to take tests more than once, multiple test trials provide a learning opportunity.

Aimee J. Luebben, EdD, OTR, FAOTA is a professor of occupational therapy at the University of Southern Indiana.

Excerpted from Offering Multiple Test Trials: Educational Folly or Learning Opportunity? November 2008, Online Classroom.

During our exchange, I mentioned that I was teaching. From her expression, I could tell she was dubious. After all, she had come to my office door—how could I be sitting in my office teaching? Though no one would think of knocking on the door of a traditional (physical) classroom, teaching in a virtual classroom may not be afforded the same courtesy.

That interruption caused me to wonder anew about the physicality of teaching in the virtual world. In the past, I have used the spatiotemporal aspects of my office for online teaching. My workstation, which has undergone multiple ergonomic reinventions over the years, fits my body, habits, and routines. Although teaching elsewhere is an option, my workstation helps me prevent (or slow down) what I call “professor posture,” that is, head forward and shoulders rounded. And in my office I can disappear into time, emerging hours later with completed products. For faculty who wish to use their offices as online classrooms, I provide the following recommendations:

• Consider the end product—teaching—as similar, regardless of the process or delivery: traditional face-to-face, electronic, or integrated. Teaching, whether using a real or electronic blackboard, has physical aspects that include three-dimensional space. Virtual teaching, despite online location, originates in physical space.
• Specify time for online courses in official schedules. Most faculty post schedules on office doors, and provide them electronically to students and to administrators. Just as traditional courses are scheduled to meet for specified blocks of time in physical classrooms, online courses need uninterrupted teaching times.
• Enlighten administration about the realities of online teaching. Office hours are office hours: students are welcome! However, time scheduled for online teaching is not appropriate for student drop-ins, departmental meetings, or other interruptions. Be cautious about allowing displacement of time scheduled for online teaching. If diverting time that’s scheduled for an online class, make the variation a onetime event. Maintain the temporal consistency inherent in a traditional course.
• Utilize permanent “master” online courses, if available, rather than temporary registration-generated electronic courses. Master online courses remain in virtual space indefinitely, whereas electronic courses generated through registration systems become available just before the start of a school term and disappear after final grades. In a master course, the structure (much like the physical layout of a classroom) remains constant, providing a supporting framework (i.e., virtual room dividers) on which content is updated on an ongoing basis. Redesigning online classrooms (and copying content from an old temporary course to a newly generated distance education class) at the beginning of each school term is rather like rearranging furniture in physical classrooms before each semester starts.
• Document any administrative pledge of assistance, prior to and during the school term, for online teaching. Send reminders if promised support (including nonteaching personnel assistance) does not materialize.
• Put questions before faculty governance (e.g., faculty senate). Faculty who teach only traditional courses are often unaware of the nuances of electronic teaching. With the rapid rise of distance education in universities, faculty governance systems may need to revisit long-standing traditional teaching topics. Topics to deliberate include teaching load in terms of number of preparations, total number of courses, and maximum student enrollment. Discussion may be required to determine if there is disparity when teaching online classes, related to the need for traditional clerical staff and technological support. In addition, faculty may need to work with administration to discuss implementing a differential for teaching a combination of traditional and distance education courses or a blend of undergraduate and graduate online courses.

In summary, safeguard all spatiotemporal aspects of online teaching. Minimize interruptions by closing email systems, unplugging or turning off phones, and ignoring door knocks. Try posting a sign: Teaching (Online): Please Come Back Later. If all else fails, hide! Find a new virtual classroom, even one not ergonomically ideal, for teaching.

Aimee J. Luebben, EdD, OTR, FAOTA, is professor of occupational therapy at the University of Southern Indiana. Contact her at aluebben@usi.edu.