Two-Stage Exams

Performance

Consistently, researchers find that performance increases, on average, from the individual stage to the group state (Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Rieger & Heiner, 2014; Vogler & Robinson, 2016; Levine et al., 2018; Levy et al., 2018; Chen & Kinniburgh, 2019; Cooke et al., 2019; Meaders & Vega, 2022).

Zipp (2007) hypothesized that the cooperative groupwork either reinforced students’ correct individual answers or provided clarifications and new learning for students whose performance on a particular question improved in the group stage of the exam.

In one study, with master’s degree students, aggregate performance on the group stage was approximately one standard deviation higher than on the individual stage, with about half of the groups exceeding the top individual student’s score and half the groups scoring below the top individual’s score (Levy et al., 2018). The researchers noted, however, that “groups did not manage to replicate the best responses among their members for every question,” indicating a potential need for stronger group collaboration, communication, and confidence with content (Levy at al, 2018, p. 8).

Koretsky et al. (2022) implemented two-stage exams in an engineering course and found that an emphasis on decision-making facilitated by the methodology increased the authenticity of the assessment.

Learning and Retention of Knowledge/Skills

There is a distinction between immediate performance on a test and retention of knowledge. Several studies have examined whether two-stage exams contribute to long-term learning or long-term transfer of learning, with mixed findings. Many variables may impact these results, from the design of the study to implementation choices including exam question types, how groups are formed and trained to work together, and length of duration between the two-stage exam and a successive diagnostic exam). More research is needed to draw absolute conclusions; however, there is positively encouraging evidence from studies of well-designed two-stage exams related to retention of learning.

Ives (2014) found that students showed retention of knowledge in an introductory Physics course for up to two weeks following a two-stage exam but that same knowledge was not retained after six- or seven-weeks.

One study showed that the learning gains on the group stage portion of the exam persisted three days later on a surprise individual quiz (Gilley & Clarkston, 2014). Another study using tests with only open-ended questions found that two-stage exams had a positive impact on retention of course content up to 23 days, with results affecting low- and mid-performing students (Cooke et al., 2019).

Given that feedback dialogue has a positive impact on student learning during two-stage exams (Rieger & Heiner, 2014; Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Levy et al., 2018), Nicol & Selvaetnam (2022) investigated how students translated the peer feedback to internal feedback, by having them respond to reflective, process-oriented questions throughout the two-stage exam process. They discovered that students indeed learn by comparing their own responses, uncertainties, gaps, and certainties with their groupmates’. Students identified areas where they could strengthen their responses through additional depth or detail. Students also noticed patterns in their errors or approach to exam-taking that led to errors. The researchers compared the self-generated feedback to instructor-generated feedback and discovered that students tended to go a step further than the instructor by identifying how to address improvements while the instructor tended to name strengths and weaknesses. This discovery of the internal feedback process students undertake when engaging in two-stage exams helps elucidate how learning occurs as a result of this form of assessment.

Student Perception

Students tend to express strong preference for two-stage exams. In two studies, students reported lower feelings of stress and text anxiety along with positive perceptions of immediate peer-based feedback and learning (Levy et al., 2018; Rempel et al., 2021). In another study, students reported equivalent levels of test anxiety but positive reports of collaboration with peers (Khong & Tanner, 2020).

Meaders & Vega (2022) found that students perceived two-stage exams as an overall positive experience, with impacts on cognitive, interpersonal/belonging, and affective aspects.

Equity Impact

According to Miller et al. (2022), female-identified students perform better during two-stage exams when the groups are student-formed (as opposed to instructor-formed); their male-identified peers are not negatively affected by working in student-formed groups.

Preparation

1. Communicate up front with students that two-stage exams will be used and explain why you are utilizing this method of assessment.
2. Take time early and often in the semester to build community amongst the students. Ensure that they know and can pronounce their classmates’ names. Use icebreakers to help students find commonalities and get comfortable talking with each other.
3. Be explicit about growth mindset and particularly the importance of seeing mistakes or failure as learning opportunities, not a reflection on personal limitations.
4. Ask students to self-select their groups.
5. Teach your students about productive small-group dynamics, including awareness of common group pitfalls including gender role stereotyping. Foster individual responsibility within the groups (which is shown to minimize free-riding), including the expectation that each student contribute to discussions.
6. Routinely practice the two-stage exam process during class. Set aside 15 minutes and ask students to answer a question individually along with relevant notes. Then, break students into their small groups to discuss the same questions and come to consensus on the answer. Finally, lead a whole-class discussion of the answer, surfacing rationales and questions from the student groups.

Facilitation

1. Determine whether the individual stage will be completed in-class or for homework.
2. Decide how soon students will take stage two after completing stage one (typically ranging from immediately to up to one week).
3. Ensure groups have sufficient time for problem-solving and consensus-building to reduce negative impacts from stress.

Grading

1. Consider how to weight the individual score against the group score.
2. Decide whether groups will submit a single consensus-driven answer sheet (and thus all group members will receive the same stage-two score) or whether each student will submit an individual answer sheet after conferring with their group.
3. Determine whether you will create an exception to the two-stage grade calculation for students who score better on the individual portion than the collaborative portion, allowing those students to keep their individual grade as the full score rather than factoring the two scores together. Some instructors believe this is fairest to students and others believe this disincentivizes high-achieving students from participating in their groups.

Sample syllabus language from Dr. Jeffrey Maloy, UCLA Genetics course:

You have two midterms and a final exam for this course. These midterms will be administered on the dates and times indicated in the course schedule. Because of the online nature of the course this quarter, our exams will be run differently to ensure equitable opportunities for all students to demonstrate their knowledge. Each exam will consist of two stages:

Individual stage: In the first stage of the exam, you will have a 24-hour window in which you can log in to CCLE and complete an exam module consisting of multiple choice or true/false questions. Although you can begin the exam any time within this window, after opening the exam you will have 2 hours to complete it and you should expect to do this in one sitting. You are expected to complete this exam on your own, without consulting with any of your peers, your notes, or other resources. You will not receive immediate feedback on correct versus incorrect answers after submitting your individual stage exam, but you will be able to review your own answers as often as you want after submission.

Group stage: After the 24 window passes for the individual stage of the exam, you will be randomly assigned a small group along with your classmates. You and your group will have a 24-hour window in which you can communicate with each other via Zoom (preferred) or chat about any aspect of the exam and your answers that you submitted during the individual stage.

After consulting with your group, you will each individually fill out a new copy of the exam, taking into account any of the changes you discussed with your group (this exam will be identical to the individual stage exam). You will also submit a document with your explanation for any answers you decided to change from your original answers. You will only receive credit for answers you changed if you explained your reasoning for the change.

During this stage of the exam, you will also be asked to describe how each member of your group contributed to your discussions. Any group member who is found to not have participated in group discussions will lose 10 points from their exam score.

Your grade on each exam will be determined by the average of your individual stage and group stage exam score. This should alleviate some of the pressure of the exam and hopefully make it a rewarding learning experience for you.

You must participate in the individual and group stage of the exams within the scheduled windows of time. In the event of extenuating circumstances that result in difficulty participating in the exams as described, you should contact your instructor as soon as is reasonably possible to determine an appropriate solution.

Material for the exams will be taken from lectures, the text, additional posted readings and videos, problems that have been posted on the CCLE course website, material from discussion sections, and worksheets or clicker questions/problem sets done during lecture. You will get a set of learning objectives every week that will help you figure out what you need to be able to do to succeed on an exam. Focus on mastering these learning objectives rather than trying to memorize all of the course material.

Each exam will cover all material through Wednesday of the exam week. The final exam will be cumulative. On the Fridays during the group phase of the exam, we will not have our normal class meeting, but you should use that time to communicate with your group members about the exam and complete your group phase exam.

Examples of questions taken from a two-stage exam for physics (Wieman et al., 2013):

Most questions will be the same for the individual and the group part. If questions are modified, it is usually to reduce the number of detailed calculations, which do not promote discussions, and replace with prompts to “explain your reasoning.” Additionally, one or two more challenging questions may be added.

Question: Assume you want to design a water fountain for your local park. The fountain is supposed to shoot water up to a height of 10.0 m above the exit nozzle, which is located 1.5 m above a pump that pumps water into a vertical tube of 5.0 cm diameter. The pump has a gauge pressure of 100 kPa.

Individual Stage: (a) Rank the pressures at points 1 (at the top), 2 (at the exit of the nozzle), and 3 (at the exit of the pump). (b) What is the diameter of the exit nozzle?

Group Stage (part b changed to ranking): (b) Rank the velocities at points 1, 2, and 3.

Question: You and your little sister are out in the snow on a sled that has a mass of 11 kg. Your sister, who weighs 29 kg, is sitting on the sled and you want to push her along. You start applying a horizontal force and initially the sled doesn’t move but you slowly increase your force until, suddenly, the sled does move. You maintain the same force that you were applying when the sled started moving for the next 5.0 s after which you let go. (Assume that the kinetic friction coefficient is mk = 0.02 and the static friction coefficient is ms = 0.08 in this case.)

Individual Stage: (a) How far do you have to run if you apply the force for 5.0 s? (b) What is your sister’s speed at t = 5.0 s? (c) After letting go, how far do your sister and her sled move until she is stationary again? (In case you could not solve part b, assume that her speed is v = 2.5 m/s at t = 5.0 s.)

Group Stage (converting calculation to reasoning and representation with graphs): (a) Draw a qualitative diagram that roughly shows the net force acting on the sled as a function of time. (Qualitative means that it explains the overall behavior without using exact numbers.) (b) Draw a second qualitative graph of the acceleration of the sled as a function of time. (c) Draw a third qualitative graph of the velocity of the sled as a function of time.

Chen, S., & Kinniburgh, S. (2019). A controlled experiment on two-stage exams in an introductory Statistics course. The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation, 26(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7920/CGP/v26i02/1-12

Cooke, J. E., Weir, L., & Clarkston, B. (2019). Retention following Two-Stage Collaborative Exams Depends on Timing and Student Performance. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0137

Gilley, B., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 043(03). https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst14_043_03_83

Ives, J. (2014). Measuring the learning from two-stage collaborative group exams. Paper presented at 2014 PERC Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN, July 30-31, 2014. doi:10.1119/perc.2014.pr.027.

Khong, M. L., & Tanner, J. A. (2021). A collaborative two-stage examination in biomedical sciences: Positive impact on feedback and peer collaboration. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 49(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21392

Koretsky, M. D., McColley, C. J., Gugel, J. L., & Ekstedt, T. W. (2022). Aligning classroom assessment with engineering practice: A design-based research study of a two-stage exam with authentic assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(1), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20436

Levine, R. E., Borges, N. J., Roman, B. J. B., Carchedi, L. R., Townsend, M. H., Cluver, J. S., Frank, J., Morey, O., Haidet, P., & Thompson, B. M. (2018). High-stakes collaborative testing: Why not? Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 30(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719

Levy, D., Svoronos, T., & Klinger, M. (2018). Two-stage examinations: Can examinations be more formative experiences? Active Learning in Higher Education, 1469787418801668. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801668

Meaders, C. L., & Vega, Y. (2022). Collaborative two-stage exams benefit students in a Biology laboratory course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 0(0), e00138-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00138-22

Miller, K., Kestin, G., & Miller, O. (2022). How gender composition and group formation impact the effectiveness of group work in two-stage collaborative exams. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(2), 020137. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020137

Nicol, D., & Selvaretnam, G. (2022). Making internal feedback explicit: Harnessing the comparisons students make during two-stage exams. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1934653

Rempel, B. P., Dirks, M. B., & McGinitie, E. G. (2021). Two-stage testing reduces student-perceived exam anxiety in introductory Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(8), 2527–2535. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00219

Rieger, G. W., & Heiner, C. E. (2014). Examinations that support collaborative learning: The students’ perspective. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst14_043_04_41

Vogler, J. S., & Robinson, D. H. (2016). Team-based testing improves individual learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1134420

Wieman, C. E., Rieger, G. W., & Heiner, C. E. (2014). Physics Exams that Promote Collaborative Learning. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4849159

Zipp, J. F. (2007). Learning by exams: The impact of two-stage cooperative tests. Teaching Sociology, 35(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0703500105