Running head: GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

Group Tests as a Motivational Factor in High School Biology

Bonnie Roach
University of Utah

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

2
INTRODUCTION

Why do I have to know this? I hear my students asking me. I have beaten my head against the wall
for the past eight months trying hard to figure out how to motivate students who live in a poor community
(15.5% of the students in Magna are in poverty) whose parents didnt even graduate high school (40% of the
community who attended Cyprus High School do not have a high school diploma). (Utah Graduation Rates,
n.d.). Why should they care about biology if they have no expectation of themselves or from their parents to
finish high school? I have students show up to school whose parents have told them that what they are learning
in biology is a bunch of bullshit. How am I supposed to undo what they have been taught by their parents?
How is coming to school to learn bullshit motivating? I have spoken to parents about their students
attendance problems and how this is affecting their grade in my class. Their responses have been similar. They
dont know what to do about their student and they arent going to help. These students are getting rewarded
with cars and phones and other material things if they attend all their classes for one week. What about the other
35 weeks of school?
Cyprus High School has a plague of indifference amongst its student body. Across all academic
subjects, students are not completing their assigned work, not doing homework and not studying for tests and
quizzes. This is likely due to the community and their views on life and education. The lack of student
preparation and lethargy appears to be an epidemic spanning Granite School Districts west side schools. Once
they leave school, they dont think about it again until their alarm goes off the next morning. Students in the
schools now want to succeed without having to work for it. They want to feel good and have assignments that
are quick and easy. They want their teachers to constantly entertain them and they dont realize that it is their
responsibility to actually learn the content from their classes. They dont understand that learning requires hard
work, practice and regular attendance (Mendler, 2000).
I wanted to find a way to encourage students to work hard and achieve a better grade in biology without
lowering my high expectations of them. All in-class learning and activities are collaboration based in my
classroom, and a group test in this setting would be a more authentic form of assessment. Do group tests have
the potential to motivate students learning in high school biology?

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Science is a demanding subject and Biology takes several difficult sciences, such as chemistry and
physics, and puts them all together into one discipline. Students can become discouraged due to the challenging
and abstract content and this can lead to academic disengagement. Disengaged students may disrupt classes and
even skip school, but even the students who are completing the assignments without any interest or concern are
just going through the motions (Newman, 1992). This is unfortunate because student engagement is directly
correlated to academic achievement; engaged students achieve more academically than disengaged students.
Engaged students learn more in classes, earn higher grades, and are likely to attend college (Sciarra & Seirup,
2008).
Researchers have found that lower performing high schools that cater to students who come from a
lower socioeconomic status (SES) are unlikely to provide students with the environment and experiences that
enhance and encourage student learning, growth academic excellence. Students who attend these schools
typically feel incompetent and emotionally disconnected and are unable to experience independence and selfefficacy (Park, Holloway, Arendtsz, Bempechat & Li, 2012). All students have psychological needs to feel
emotionally engaged; they need to feel autonomous, competent and emotionally connected to others (Niemiec
& Ryan, 2009). Researchers have found that secondary students working in groups for in-class activities gain
better sociability, reduced anxiety, and greater awareness of their different metacognitive levels (Cantwell &
Andrews, 2002). Another group found that students who worked in structured groups in a secondary setting
developed a strong sense of responsibility for each others learning (Gillies, 2004; Slavin, 1991). Students seem
to be motivated by their peers and I would like to see if group testing in the content area of biology improves
overall student engagement and motivation (Ryan, 2001). Will group testing in high school biology help
students to feel some of these psychological needs that are fulfilled by group work?

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

4
PLAN OF ACTION

The testing of the group exams were conducted using six different secondary biology classes with 189,
10 12th grade students.

Students with three or more absences at the time of the test and all students with

Individual Education Plans (IEPs) were removed from the study. A total of 167 students with class averages
ranging from 50% - 78% were included in the study.
In Phase I, a control was established and students group membership was analyzed. For a control, an
individual test was given to assess how each student performs independently. Next, a group test with additional
individual test was taken. This combination of tests shows which students group test results were carried by the
students who knew the material. The students who scored low on the individual test, but high on the group test
were carried by the other students in the group. After this, group tests were given at the end of each unit. The
groups consisted of 2-3 students. The group members alternated between the students choosing their groups, and
me choosing their groups. Groups that were chosen by me were based on their average grade in the class, and
seating arrangement. The students who have similar grades are sitting next to each other in assigned seating. I
also chose members for groups based upon the students performance in class and overall work ethic. Students
with similar grades on homework and lab activities, and similar work ethics were selected to be in the same
testing groups. This alternation of group selection continued until a relationship between test scores and group
selection was conducted to see if there is a significant correlation between the two.
Phase II evolved when I found that the group tests did not seem to be motivating my students. Within
Phase I, motivation was measured by the students overall scores on the test and their demonstration of studying
through the completion of the related unit study guide. By this point my students were aware of the nature of my
tests. They are written to be a challenge, but at the same time doable for two to three brains who have studied to
do well. Students expressed a preference for the group test, but had some qualms with regards to being in a
group with someone who does not contribute. In Phase II, students needed to have all the work for the related
unit completed and turned in in order to take the test in a group.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Methods
Data collection for the group testing occurred in two different phases. In the first phase, data was
collected on the raw scores for group testing and group membership alternated between the groups being chosen
by the teacher and the students. In the second phase, the students who had completed all the work for the
particular unit the test was covering were the students that were able to take the test as a group. The students
with missing assignments took the test as individuals.
Phase I
Tests were administered as a group, or individually to six high school biology classes over the course of
three quarters. An individual test was given to students to be used as a control for the group testing. The
individual test was a short answer/fill in the blank exam on biochemistry written by me. Students were sitting in
rows all facing the front of the classroom. Two forms of the same tests were made to avoid students temptations
to cheat. They were identical tests except for the order of the questions, and the numerical data asked within the
questions. The tests alternated every other row, so that students who looked from their row to either neighboring
row did not have the same test.
Test 1 was a test on cell structure and function and was administered to all classes in quarter-one; Test 1
was comprised of two parts. The first part was a group test. Groups of two or three were chosen by me based on
the seating chart. Groups were chosen in this way to make the students feel comfortable. They were used to
working with these particular students for labs and other classroom activities and these groups felt familiar to
them. The second part was a multiple choice, individual test. This test was given to compare the data between
the group test and the individual tests to see which students test scores were being carried to a better grade by
working in a group.
Tests 2-4 were given in a similar method. The groups were chosen by me, or by the students, but all
students took the group test. Test 2 was a group test about cell transport. It was administered in all classes in
quarter 2. The groups of two to three were selected by the students. The students who had friends in the class
took the test with their friends; the students who did not have friends in the class took the test with students

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

6
sitting near them. Test 3 was a group test given in quarter 2. The test was on photosynthesis and cellular
respiration. The groups were chosen by me based on their work ethic and grade performance. Students with
similar grades and work ethics were placed together in groups of two or three. Test 4 was on Mitosis and
Meiosis and was administered at the end of quarter 2. This test was an open note test taken in pairs. The pairs
were chosen by the students.
Phase II
Test 5 on DNA replication, transcription and translation was given in quarter 3 and started Phase II of the
data collection. This test was taken in groups of two or three, or individually. Students who took the test in a
group were the students who had all work associated with the unit completed and turned in. The groups were
selected by me based on their performance in class and general grade. Students who did not complete and turn
in all assigned work took the exact same test as the groups, but they took the test individually. This testing
method was selected to try to motivate students to complete their work, and study. This way the students spent
more time with the material practicing and rewarded by being able to take the test in a group rather than alone.
The difficulty of all the group tests was written based upon the tests being taken by groups of students. I did not
want to create a less difficult test for the individuals because I didnt want the second test to interfere with the
motivation results of the group tests. I also did not want to positively reinforce students who didnt complete
their work with an easier test. The total points for the group and individual tests were the same and all scores
were collected and graded in the same way.
Test 6 was on genetics and was administered in the same method as Test 5. To work in a group, students
had to have all their work from the genetics unit completed and turned in. The groups members were chosen by
the students and the groups consisted of two to three students. A motivation questionnaire was given to five
classes before they were given the test. One class got the questionnaire at the end of the test by mistake.
However, this questionnaire was not used in any correlation calculations. The questionnaire was meant to
measure the students overall motivation by asking questions about their interest in the content, their anxiety
related to the test, their probability of success and their view of the test as a challenge. After the test results were

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

7
calculated, students answered an open-ended survey regarding their study habits. The methods for phases I & II
are summarized in figures 1 & 2.

Phase I Methods
Individual Test
(CONTROL)

Biochemistry

Topic
Date of Test
Number of classes
Students per group
Group Decision

Test 1
Group

Test 1
Individual

Cell Structure & Function

Quarter 1
6
1

Quarter 2
6
6
2-3
1
Teacher

Test 2 Group

Test 3 Group

Test 4 Group

Cell
Transport
Quarter 2
6
2-3
Students

Photosynthesis
& Respiration
Quarter 2
6
2-3
Teacher
Similar work
ethic and
overall grade

Mitosis &
Meiosis
Quarter 2
2
2
Students

Seating
chart

Group
Characteristics

Figure 1: Summary of Phase I methods.

Phase II Methods
Test 5 Group
Topic
Date of Test
Number of classes
Students per group
Group Decision
Group Characteristics

Test 5 Individual

DNA Replication, Transcription &

Translation
Quarter 3
6
6
2-3
1
Teacher
Teacher
Class performance,
Unit work
grade and all unit
incomplete
work completed

Test 6 Group

Test 6 Individual

Genetics
Quarter 3
6
2-3
Students

6
1
Teacher

Unit work
completed

Unit work
incomplete

Figure 2: Summary of Phase II methods

Data Analysis
Microsoft Excel 2010 was used to run the statistical analysis. The scores from all six classes were
combined and analyzed to increase the statistical relevance. Students with missing scores and students with
more than three absences when the test was taken were not counted in the raw data. Absenteeism is an issue at
Cyprus High School and the scores from these students may skew the data in a negative direction due to the vast

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

8
amount of hours and content missed by the frequently absent students. Special Education students with IEPs
that allow them extra time on the test, the test to be taken outside of the classroom, the test to be read to them,
and/or the use of notes on the test were also not part of the total calculation.
The raw data of actual test score percentages were analyzed for significance between the means using a
two-sample t-Test statistical analysis, assuming equal variances. The individual test scores were used as a
control and all other group tests were compared to the control to determine a difference between group test
scores and individual test scores. One group test to the other was also compared with a t-Test, to see if the
selection of the groups between each test made a significant difference in the outcomes of the students scores.
Bar graphs were created to show the overall means for each test and their significance.
Correlation constants between the four subcategories of anxiety, challenge, interest and probability of
success and the students test scores were also calculated for the Questionnaire for Current Motivation (QCM) for
Test 6. Correlation statistics were ran using Microsoft Excel 2010 and an online P value from Pearson (r)
calculator (http://www.socscistatistics.com/pvalues/pearsondistribution.aspx).

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

9
CONCLUSION

Phase I Results: Group Testing vs. Individual Testing

The results for Phase I show that students who took the tests in groups had significantly higher test
scores than the students who took the tests individually. This result was expected since you have three brains
working on one test compared to one brain. The overall results are shown below in figures 3 & 4.
Test 4 shows no significant difference. This may be because the students were all in pairs rather than
previous groups being three students. The statistics may be inaccurate because the total observations for Test 4

Individual Test verses Group Tests Statistics

Mean
# Observations
P( 0.05) one-tail

Individual
Test
(control)
63%
112

Test 1 - Group Test 2 - Group

72%
100
0.00037

75%
107
2.93E-06

Test 3 Group

Test 4 Pairs

76%
109
3.93E-07

67%
29
0.17

Figure 3: Shows the P values of the individual test (control) compared to the
various group tests. The significance is highlighted in yellow. P-values were
found using a two-tailed t-test, assuming equal variances.

are much lower because only two classes were graded as opposed to six. With Test 4 students were able to use
their class notes on the exam. This test took longer than all other tests, yet the mean scores were comparable to
the control. It was like they had taken the test individually. It may be possible that students lacked confidence in
their own knowledge of the material and they felt they had to look up every question in their notes to get the
correct answer. The use of notes may have distracted the students from analyzing the higher order questions;
they may have been expecting to find the answers in their notes.
The data within Phase I also showed that the group selection was not a significant factor in the students
overall test scores. Whether I chose the groups or the students chose the groups the test means were relatively
the same. Test 4 also showed a difference in this set of data. This may also be due to the fact that there were less
students contributing to the test answers on Test 4 compared to Tests 1-3 who were mostly in groups of three.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

10
The mean for Test 4 is closer to the control test in terms of percentage than the means for the group tests. The
data for these comparisons are shown in Figure 4.

Between Tests Comparisons

Test 1 Group vs.
Test 1 Individual
Mean
Observations
P( 0.05) one-tail

72%
100

Test 1 Group vs.

Test 2 Group

73%
100
0.28

72%
100

Test 2 Group vs.

Test 3- Group

75%
107
0.10

75%
107

76%
109
0.26

Test 3 Group vs.

Test 4 Pair

76%
67%
109
29
0.009

Figure 4: Compares the means between tests. This was done to see if
group selection was a significant factor within the test. Between Test 3
and Test 4, students did better in groups of 3 without the option of notes.

The data shown in Phase I reveals that regardless of the composition of the groupings, students score
better when taking the tests in groups rather than individually. However, it doesnt show whether or not the
students are motivated to take the test as a group.
Phase II Results: Motivation for Group Testing
In Phase II, the students who completed and turned in all the work for the unit being tested got to take
the test for the unit as a group. The data in Phase II revealed a significant difference in test scores between the
students who took the test in a group verses the students who took the test alone. Those students who took the
test in a group received a C to a C- grade on average, while the students who took the test alone failed. The
means on the group tests for Tests 5 and 6 are similar means to Tests 1-3 from Phase I.

Group Tests verses Individual Tests Statistics

Mean
Observations
P ( 0.05) one-tail

Test 5 - Individual
45%
59
5.74E-17

Test 5 - Group
75%
68

Test 6 - Individual
31%
75
6.65E-18

Test 6 - Group
72%
36

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

11
Figure 5: Table shows the statistical significance between the group testing for students who finished
their unit work and for students who took the test alone due to incomplete unit work. Figure 6 shows
the graphic representation of this table.

DNA Unit Test Means

75%

45%

Test 5 - Individual

Test 5 - Group

With the attendance problems and the rapid rate of changing matriculation at Cyprus High School, the
number of students who participated in the group tests between Phases I and II are not comparable. With this in
mind, I took the percentage of homework turned in during Phase I compared to the percent of the homework
turned in during Phase II (shown in Figure 7). There was a significantly higher number of homework turned in
during Phase II than there was in Phase I. This infers that the group tests are a motivator for student
performance. Students who wanted to take the test in a group completed and turned in missing homework
increasing the homework percentage by 10%.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

12

Homework Statistics
0.74

72%

0.72
0.7
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
Homework Turned-in (% )

62%

0.6
0.58
0.56

The results for Test 6 were similar to Test 5. The means for the students that took the test in a group
were in the C- range and the means for the students that took the test individually resulted in failing grades. The
failing grades were much lower in percentage with Test 6 compared to the failing grade means for Test 5. This
could be due to the fact that in Test 5 students that there may have been a greater buy in for students wanting to
take the test in the group in Test 6 after their initial results from Test 5. This would leave many of the lower
performing students to take Test 6 alone.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

13

Genetics Unit Test Means

72%

31%

Test 6 - Individual

Test 6 - Group

A Questionnaire of Current Motivation (QCM) was given to five out of six classes before taking Test 6.
Correlation statistics for the QCM were conducted for all students who completed the questionnaire and Test 6.
Correlation tests were also conducted two different subgroups of students: students who passed, and students
who failed. According to the correlation constants, both students who passed and students who failed were
motivated on this test based on their interest in the test topic, genetics. Students who passed didnt seem to be
motivated by any of the remaining three subcategories. However, students who failed did feel motivation based
on their feelings of challenge toward Test 6. The QCM only gives us a glimpse into the brains of the students
and what they were thinking before the test began. It shows us what was motivating them before the test based
on their scores, but the correlation constants (r) are rather low even though they are statistically significant. The
results are shown below.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

14

QCM CORRELATION RESULTS

Anxiety
Interest
Probability of Success
Challenge

Students who Failed

r
p
0.116
0.318
0.274
0.017
0.177
0.126
0.226
0.021

Students who Passed

r
p
0.283
0.145
-0.501
0.007
0.324
0.093
0.13
0.51

Overall Results
Group testing alone does not motivate students to learn and participate in extracurricular studying. This
is based upon the percentages of homework turned in quarter 2 from students who took the group test compared
to quarter 3 where all unit work had to be completed in order to take the test as a group. Students turned in a
significantly higher percentage of homework in quarter 3 than they did in quarter 2. This implies that students
do want to take their biology tests as a group rather than alone. Group tests are a motivator to learn as long as
there is a requirement for all unit work to be completed before in order to qualify for the group test. The group
test becomes a reward for the hard work they have done in the unit to get all their work completed and turned in.
The students arent just getting the privilege to take the group test just because they are in the class; they actually
have to earn it. This is consistent with the findings of Carol Dweck. She found that praising students for their
innate qualities resulted in students who give up easily, however, praising students for their hard work
encourages students to be challenged and persevere. Just giving them a group test without the effort isnt
teaching them to endure and challenge themselves.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

15
DISCUSSION

Group work isnt for everyone. Some students do very well in a group setting and others do not. I have
found many of my anxious students who arent as sociable do not like working in groups. This is supported by
the findings in Cantwell & Andrews, 2002 study. They surveyed secondary students and found that the students
that enjoyed group work were the sociable students, while the students that dont enjoy the group work tend to
be less social and have much higher levels of anxiety.
Some researchers have found that during cooperative learning, students feel responsible for the grade of
their groupmates, and this grade is important to them (Slavin, 1991). I think this depends upon the
demographics. I found that my students at Cyprus High School didnt feel any responsibility toward their
groupmates grades. It was more of a gamble for them; they hoped they would be in a group with someone who
studied so they could benefit from that persons efforts. When tests were passed back after they had been graded
the group members tended to ridicule their friends if a question was incorrect that the friend had answered. This
does not make students feel safe, and autonomous, or socially fulfilled as Niemiec & Ryan, 2009 found students
need to be successful. Slavin, 1991 also states that cooperative learning works best if there is a reward. Those
rewards are listed as praise, recognition and grades. This is also something that did not fit with my students.
They bragged about getting Fs on the tests. They bragged about having the most Fs when report cards where
passed out. Academic achievement is not a reward for these students. I have found that if I have candy, students
respond just like a dog when you have treats; they will perform their tricks for an extrinsic motivator. If we are
discussing sex, students will participate. The latter is relatively often due to the fact that biology is all about
mating and getting your DNA out into the gene pool. Group testing is not enough of a motivator for students
who have a considerable amount of apathy toward school, as well as life.
I also found that students in groups cheat. Researchers have found that collaborative learning is one of
the best ways for students to grasp the material (Slavin, 1991). I have found that I may have 6-12 students that
can work collaboratively and respectfully while the rest of my students are copying from the smartest kid on
their table and absorbing nothing. These are the same students that bring nothing to the table when it is time for
a group test, and the same students that turn nothing in. Sadly, this is a large fraction of the student body at

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

Cyprus.

16

Studies have suggested that the best way to motivate students is to get them engaged in the content
(Sciarra & Seirup, 2008). In the many observations I have had from administrators, district mentors, other
teachers and my advisor from the University of Utah, they have all found that I have an ability to engage
students. My engagement is rarely ever below 80%. If my students are engaged, why arent their test scores
reflecting this? Why arent they motivated to continue work at home and complete their assigned homework?
Why arent they engaged enough to study the material?
At a recent professional development I attended over spring break, the biology teachers from Granite
School Districts west side got together to discuss ways we can teach students biology that work. One of the
teachers running the show mentioned that our students are used to being tested when it doesnt count. She was
referring to the State Test (SAGE) and how it doesnt affect their grade. How might this be contributing to their
lack of motivation about school? If it doesnt count, what is the point for them? Are they developmentally in a
place to care that their performances on these tests determine their school funding and their teachers? A law in
Utah has been passed recently that doesnt allow SAGE to determine the efficacy and the retention of the
teachers. They have found that since the SAGE scores dont count for or against them personally, the students
are less engaged, and actually miss questions on purpose so that the test doesnt get harder (Dail, 2016). They
dont care about the score and they arent jazzed about taking 2-4 day long tests in all their core classes. With all
this mandatory testing that counts for nothing and means nothing to the students, is this affecting other tests as
well? Are they caring less because they see tests as a joke?
I think much of their apathy relating to school has to do with their home lives, but some comes from
their school. My students have never been in a classroom where No Child Left Behind (NCLB) hasnt been a
factor. If they fail the 4th grade, no problem, well just send them on to 5th grade. You cant read or write? No
problem you just keep moving on. Now these students are in high school. They went from having everything
they didnt know how to do make no difference in their lives to suddenly it matters. If they cant read or write
they are going to fail their core classes. They have been taught academic apathy, and now we want them to
perform. A Scientific American article examined the ways parents should be praising their children to encourage

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

17
the intellectual development of their brains. The article stated that praising a child on their existence leads to
students who easily give up when things dont come naturally to them. However, if you praise your children
based on their hard work and effort on something, they are students who try hard and endure (Dweck, 2015).
NCLB is like the parent who praises their child just for existing. They get to school and when it gets hard and
there are actual expectations of them, they give up. They arent motivated because they dont know how to
believe in themselves. NCLB has damaged our students and group testing is not going to overcome that.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

SHORTCOMINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

18

The student body population between various schools may be a factor in terms of what is needed in
addition to a group test to inspire motivation. Though the literature suggests that group work for students is
effective, the way in which the group work is done may vary with the student population. The students at
Cyprus come from low income families, and this population of students requires various caveats regarding the
group tests that must be in place in order to be effective. This leads to the recommendation that different student
populations need to be studied for the group testing to see what attachments to the test they need in order to be
motivated and succeed.

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

19

REFERENCES
Cantwell, R. H. & Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary students
feeling towards group work. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology, 22(1), 75-91.
Dail, P. (2016, March 11). Law passes removing SAGE test scores from teacher evaluations | St George News.
Retrieved May 02, 2016, from https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2016/03/11/pdd-law-passesremoving-sage-test-scores-from-teacher-evaluations/#.VyftGvkrJhE
Dweck, C. S. (2015, January 1). The Secret to Raising Smart Kids. Scientific American. Retrieved March 25,
2016, from Dweck, C. S. (2015, January 1). The Secret to Raising Smart Kids. Retrieved March 26,
2016, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids1/
Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group
learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 197-213.
Mendler, A. N. (2000). Motivating students who don't care: Successful techniques for educators. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying selfdetermination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144.
Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Park, S., Holloway, S. D., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Jin, L. (2012). What makes students engaged in
learning? A time-use study of within- and between-individual predictors of emotional engagement in
low-performing high schools. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 41, 390-401.
Ryan, A.M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and
achievement. Child Development, 72(4).
Sciarra, D. T., & Seirup, H. J. (2008). The multidimensionality of school engagement and math achievement
among racial groups. Professional School Counseling, 11, 218-228.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Group rewards make groupwork work. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

GROUP TESTING AS A MOTIVATOR

Development.

20

Utah Graduation Rates. (n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2016, from

http://www.utaheducationfacts.com/index.php/get-the-facts/graduation-and-college/234-graduationrates-by-high-school