Emeka, C. A., & Smith, D. H., & Zilles, C., & West, M., & Herman, G. L., & Bretl, T. (2023, June), Determining the Best Policies for  Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students  Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--43019

\bibitem{asee_peer_43019}
  Emeka, C. A., \& Smith, D. H., \& Zilles, C., \& West, M., \& Herman, G. L., \& Bretl, T. (2023, June), \emph{Determining the Best Policies for  Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students}
  Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland.
  10.18260/1-2--43019

Chinedu Alexander Emeka, David H. Smith IV, Craig Zilles, Matthew West, Geoffrey L. Herman, and Timothy Bretl.  "Determining the Best Policies for  Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students".  2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland, 2023, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2023.  https://peer.asee.org/43019 Internet.  20 Jan, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_43019}
  Chinedu Alexander Emeka, David H. Smith IV, Craig Zilles, Matthew West, Geoffrey L. Herman, and Timothy Bretl.
  "Determining the Best Policies for  Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students".
  \emph{2023 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland, 2023, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2023.
  https://peer.asee.org/43019 Internet.  20 Jan, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_43019
author = "Chinedu Alexander Emeka, David H. Smith IV, Craig Zilles, Matthew West, Geoffrey L. Herman, and Timothy Bretl"
title = "Determining the Best Policies for  Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students"
booktitle = "2023 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2023"
month = "June"
address = "Baltimore , Maryland"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/43019}
number = {10.18260/1-2--43019}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - In this 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 amount 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 and avoids some of the pitfalls of mastery learning. Second-chance testing provides students with an opportunity and incentive to remediate deficiencies. 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 conducted a quasi-experimental study to compare two second-chance testing grading policies and determine how they influenced students across multiple dimensions. Under the first policy, students could gain back a modest percentage of the points they lost on their first attempt, but they had insurance (i.e., their grades could not go down even if they scored worse on the retake). Under the second policy, students could gain back the vast majority of points they lost on their first attempt, but they did not have insurance (i.e. their grades could go down if they scored worse on the retake).

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 overall sentiment, studying habits, preparation and anxiety under the two grading policies. We also interviewed seven instructors who use second-chance testing in their courses to collect data on why they chose specific policies. Finally, we conducted structured interviews with some students (N = 11) to capture more nuance about students’ decision making processes under the different grading policies.  

Surprisingly, we found that the students’ preference between these two policies were almost perfectly split. Students that preferred the policy with insurance cited that this policy better addressed their test anxiety. Students that preferred the no-insurance policy with larger come-back potential indicated that this policy better encouraged them to study to remediate deficiencies before the second exam. 

We discuss implications for practice and conclude with recommendations on strategies for deploying second-chance testing in various contexts based on course demographics and instructors’ goals. 

AU  - Chinedu Alexander Emeka
AU  - David H. Smith IV
AU  - Craig Zilles
AU  - Matthew West
AU  - Geoffrey L. Herman
AU  - Timothy Bretl
CY  - Baltimore , Maryland
DA  - 2023/06/25
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Determining the Best Policies for  Second-Chance Tests for STEM Students
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/43019
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--43019
ER  -