Tab-Meta Key: A Model for Exam Review

References

• Adam, N. R., Kufryk, G., & Mekondo, J. P. (2020). Biology student participation and review sessions: Improving success in freshman biology. Journal of Instructional Research, 9, 34–43.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2002). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Questions about questions. Cell Biology Education, 1(3), 63–94. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-07-0021
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Atamturktur, S. S., Lee, K., & Tian, R. (2015). Assessment of a technology-enhanced review workshop before final exams in an undergraduate human anatomy and physiology course. HETS Online Journal, 5(2). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A469314968/AONE?u=anon∼810ce4ba&sid=googleScholar&xid=c5619aea
   Google Scholar
• Balch, W. R. (1998). Practice versus review exams and final exam performance. Teaching of Psychology, 25(3), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2503_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, O. P., O’Sullivan, E., & McCarthy, M. (2015). Periodic review sessions contribute to student learning across the disciplines in pharmacology. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i1.12984
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006a). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2121753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006b). Question-driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In E. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases issue (pp. 96–115). Idea Group.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, A., & Makela, C. J. (2010). Collaborative test reviews: Student performance. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 102(2), 23–26.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. Longmans Green.
   Google Scholar
• Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970109600653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2007). Students’ adaptation of study strategies when preparing for classroom tests. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 401–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9025-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, S., & Muzyka, J. (2002). Chemistry game shows. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(4), 458. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capps, K. (2008). Chemistry taboo: An active learning game for the general chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(4), 518. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chasteen, S. (2023, January 12). How can I help students feel intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to engage in active learning? https://www.physport.org/recommendations/Entry.cfm?ID=101220
   Google Scholar
• Deavor, J. P. (2001). Who wants to be a (chemical) millionaire? Journal of Chemical Education, 78(4), 467. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desrochers, M. F., Hein, G., Raber, M., & Wright, D. (2003, June 22–25). Fun and games … in the classroom? [Paper presentation]. ASEE 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, TN, United States. https://peer.asee.org/12529
   Google Scholar
• DeWitt, C. M. (2005). How students benefit by attending formal review sessions before taking written examinations. Essays in Education, 15(1), 6.
   Google Scholar
• Faust, J. L., & Paulson, D. R. (1998). Active learning in the college classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 9(2), 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Favero, T. G. (2011). Active review sessions can advance student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(3), 247–248. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00040.2011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favero, T. G., & Hendricks, N. (2016). Student exam analysis (debriefing) promotes positive changes in exam preparation and learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(3), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00060.2016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick, J. B., Jr., Norris, C., Dalton, A. R., & Kreahling, W. (2010, March 10–13). 24/7 lectures as an exam review technique [Paper presentation]. 41st Association for Computer Machinery Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734416
   Google Scholar
• Frisch, E. H., Bhatter, P., Grimaud, L. W., Tiourin, E., Youm, J. H., & Greenberg, M. L. (2020). A preference for peers over faculty: Implementation and evaluation of medical student-led physiology exam review tutorials. Advances in Physiology Education, 44(4), 520–524. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00084.2020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinias, J. P. (2017). Making a game out of it: Using web-based competitive quizzes for quantitative analysis content review. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(9), 1363–1366. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurung, R. A. (2005). How do students really study (and does it matter). Education, 39, 323–340.
   Google Scholar
• Gurung, R. A. R., & Bord, D. (2008). Enhancing learning and exam preparation: The review session. The Association of Psychological Science Observer, 21(1), 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gurung, R. A. R., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. (2010). Focusing on how students study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Hackathorn, J., Cornell, K., Garczynski, A. M., Solomon, E. D., Blankmeyer, K. E., & Tennial, R. E. (2012). Examining exam reviews: A comparison of exam scores and attitudes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 78–87.
   Google Scholar
• Hulsizer, H. (2016). Student-produced videos for exam review in mathematics courses. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.46577
   Google Scholar
• Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using Kahoot™ on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keck, M. V. (2000). A final exam review activity based on the Jeopardy format. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(4), 483. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, D. (2010). Redesigning the preexam review session. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2), 88–96.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, J. K., & Brame, C. J. (2018). Peer instruction. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-02-0025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschmider, A., & Buschfeld, D. (2016). Shifting the process of exam preparation towards active learning: A crowdsourcing based approach. Informatik, 259, 1017–1022.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, K. M. (2006). Using exam review sessions as an opportunity for learning, teaching, and assessment. Assessment Update, 18(5), 7–8.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, A. P., Brown, S. A., & Johnston, J. D. (2005). Teaching tip: It’s all fun and games … until students learn. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(1), 9–14.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, L., & Mullally, M. (2016). Research and teaching: Teaching students how to check their work while solving problems in genetics. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(1), 68–75.
   Google Scholar
• Moryl, R. L., Gabriele, F., & Desvira, J. (2019). HeadsUp! econ: Making exam review sessions fun and effective. The Journal of Economic Education, 50(4), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2019.1654953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Association of Colleges and Employers. (n.d.). What is career readiness? https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nowosielski, D. A. (2007). Use of a concentration game for environmental chemistry class review. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(2), 239. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, M. T., & Tanner, K. D. (2017). Teaching as brain changing: Exploring connections between neuroscience and innovative teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-01-0005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pate, A., Lafitte, E. M., Ramachandran, S., & Caldwell, D. J. (2019). The use of exam wrappers to promote metacognition. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(5), 492–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.02.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patil, S. S., & Dharwadkar, N. V. (2020). Improving students engagement through active learning strategies: Case study–based active review sessions and skillathon. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 33, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2020/v33i0/150186
   Google Scholar
• Paul, S. T., Hollis, A. M., & Messina, J. A. (2006). A technology classroom review tool for general psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 33(4), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3304_8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, D. H., & Moore, J. A. (2016). Using review sessions to promote student learning in an animal reproduction course. NACTA Journal, 60(2), 202–206.
   Google Scholar
• Qureshi, A., Cozine, C., & Rizvi, F. (2013). Combination of didactic lectures and review sessions in endocrinology leads to improvement in student performance as measured by assessments. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 89–92. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00068.2012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisig, M. D., & DeJong, C. (2005). Using GRE scores and prior GPA to predict academic performance among criminal justice graduate students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051125042000333451
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebesta, A. J., & Speth, E. B. (2017). How should I study for the exam? Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-09-0269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stachowski, A. A., & Hamilton, K. L. (2019). Comparison of three “gamified” exam review activities. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(4), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000154
   Google Scholar
• Stringfield, T. W., & Kramer, E. F. (2014). Benefits of a game-based review module in chemistry courses for nonmajors. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(1), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300678f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion. (2018). Final report to the President of the United States. https://www.dol.gov/general/delete
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, C., Sanchez, J., Smith, M., Costello, J., Madabushi, A., Schuh-Nuhfer, N., Miranda, R., Gaines, B., Kennedy, K., Tangrea, M., & Rivers, D. (2018). Improving undergraduate life science education for the biosciences workforce: Overcoming the disconnect between educators and industry. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-03-0047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underwood, S. M., & Kararo, A. T. (2020). Using memes in the classroom as a final exam review activity. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(5), 1381–1386. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisskirch, R. S. (2006). An analysis of instructor-created crossword puzzles for student review. College Teaching, 54(1), 198–201. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.54.1.198-201
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, K. J., Brickman, P., & Brame, C. J. (2018). Group work. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014). Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers & Education, 71, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar