CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsMathematics Education and ProgramsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Two-Stage Collaborative Exams have Little Impact on Subsequent Exam Performance in Undergraduate Mathematics

Open access
Kinnear, George·2021·International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
DOI 10.1007/s40753-020-00121-w
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate whether two-stage exams aid learning in undergraduate mathematics, as measured by students’ performance on subsequent exams. In a two-stage exam, students complete the exam individually then form into groups to solve it again, with grades based on a combination of the two stages. Previous research in other disciplines has found mixed results about their effect on subsequent performance, and little is known about their use in undergraduate mathematics. Here, I report on three studies which investigate the use of two-stage exams in different undergraduate mathematics contexts. The first two studies replicate observational methods from previous research, and find indications of a positive impact from group collaboration. The third study is experimental and finds that, in a delayed post-test, there is no difference in performance between students who answered related questions in a two-stage exam format and a control group which had no collaborative second stage. The findings suggest that two-stage exams may have little impact on longer-term learning of mathematics, but instructors may still wish to use them to emphasise a collaborative classroom pedagogy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40753-020-00121-w

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • With less time available for the individual stage, instructors face constraints not only in the number and complexity of questions they can pose but also in the breadth of topics covered.

    “With less time available for the individual stage, instructors face constraints not only in the number and complexity of questions they can pose but also in the breadth of topics covered (Kinnear, 2021;Rieger & Heiner, 2014;Rieger & Rieger, 2020).”

    From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Kinnear, 2021

    The Method section describes a 25-minute individual stage with six questions, and Student Views reports that almost all free-text comments mentioned insufficient time to complete it. The General Discussion also notes reliance on a small number of questions. These passages support a time and question-count constraint, but they do not say that reduced individual-stage time limited instructors’ choice of question complexity or breadth of topics. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The benefits of two-stage exams can vary; not all studies have demonstrated significant long-term retention, and the effects may diminish over time.

    “However, these benefits can vary, as not all studies have demonstrated significant long-term retention, and the effects may diminish over time (Cao & Porter, 2017;Kinnear, 2021;Leight et al., 2012).”

    From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Kinnear, 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Alcock, L., Gilmore, C., Inglis, M. (2013). Experimental methods in mathematics education research. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 97-99.
  2. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. McGraw- Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
  3. Bjork, E.L., & Bjork, R.A. (2014). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Gernsbacher, M.A., & Pomerantz, J. (Eds.) Psychology and the real world. 2nd edn. (pp. 59-68). New York. Chap.
  4. Brame, C.J., & Biel, R. (2015). Test-enhanced learning: the potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 14:es4.
  5. Cao, Y., & Porter, L. (2017a). Evaluating student learning from collaborative group tests in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education -SIGCSE '17 (pp. 99-104). New York: ACM Press.
  6. Cao, Y., & Porter, L. (2017b). Impact of performance level and group composition on student learning dur- ing collaborative exams. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education -ITiCSE '17 (pp. 152-157). New York: ACM Press.
  7. Cortright, R.N., et al. (2003). Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education, 27(3), 102-108.
  8. Earl, L.M. (2004). Assessment as learning : using classroom assessment to maximize student learning, (p. 132). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
  9. Freeman, S. et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and math- ematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410-5.
  10. Garaschuk, K.M., & Cytrynbaum, E.N. (2019). Feasibility and effectiveness of group exams in mathemat- ics courses. PRIMUS, 29(10), 1061-1079.
  11. Gilley, B.H., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of college science teaching, 43(3), 83-91.
  12. Giuliodori, M.J., Lujan, H.L., DiCarlo, S.E. (2008). Collaborative group testing benefits high-and low- performing students. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education, 32(4), 274-278.
  13. Iannone, P., & Simpson, A. (2015). Students' preferences in undergraduate mathematics assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 40(6), 1046-1067.
  14. Iannone, P., & Simpson, A. (2012). A survey of current assessment practices. In Iannone, P., & Simpson, A. (Eds.) Mapping university mathematics assessment practices, Chap. 1 (pp. 3-15).
  15. Ives, J. (2014). Measuring the learning from Two-Stage collaborative group exams. In Physics education research conference 2014. PER Conference. Minneapolis, MN (pp. 123-126).
  16. Jang, H. et al. (2017). Collaborative exams: Cheating? Or learning? American Journal Of Physics, 85(3), 223-227.
  17. Jones, I. et al. (2019). Measuring conceptual understanding in randomised controlled trials: Can compar- ative judgement help? British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 662-680.
  18. Kapitanoff, S.H. (2009). Collaborative testing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 56-70.
  19. Leight, H. et al. (2012). Collaborative testing improves performance but not content retention in a large- enrollment introductory biology class. Cell Biology Education, 11(4), 392-401.
  20. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual, (p. 253). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
  21. Rieger, G.W., & Heiner, C.E. (2014). Examinations that support collaborative learning: The students' perspective. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 41-47.
  22. Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., Star, J.R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587-597.
  23. Sadler, D. (1989). Royce formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
  24. Sangwin, C.J., & Jones, I. (2017). Asymmetry in student achievement on multiple-choice and constructed- response items in reversible mathematics processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 205- 222.
  25. Smith, G. et al. (1996). Constructing mathematical examinations to assess a range of knowledge and skills. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27(1), 65-77.
  26. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment crite- ria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281-294.
  27. Wieman, C., & Gilbert, S. (2014). The teaching practices inventory: a new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 552-69.
  28. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and Consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment?. British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548.
  29. Wooldridge, C.L. et al. (2014). The testing effect with authentic educational materials: a cautionary note. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 214-221.
  30. Zipp, J.F. (2007). Learning by exams: The impact of two-stage cooperative tests. Teaching Sociology, 35(1), 62-76.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kinnear, G.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Kinnear, George
ORCID
Kinnear, George
Venue
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-09-17
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
33-60
ISSN
  • 2198-9745 (ISSN-L)
  • 2198-9753
DOI
10.1007/s40753-020-00121-w
OpenAlex
W3087245920
Cited by
16
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematics Education and Programs
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
cooperative learning, group work, undergraduate mathematics, exam performance, long-term learning, mathematics assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review