Feasibility and Effectiveness of Group Exams in Mathematics Courses
Abstract
Active learning techniques, such as peer instruction and group work, have been gaining a lot of traction in universities. Taking a natural next step in re-evaluating current practices, many institutions recently started experimenting student-centred group exams. In order to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of collaborative assessments, we implemented a study that focuses on lower-level and intermediate-level mathematics courses with large student populations. We collected and analyzed data relating to student material retention, their perceptions of the format, as well as the effects of the group composition (in terms of the strength of its individual members) and question types (multiple choice versus short answer) on the exam success. Although we establish that long-term learning is not strongly influenced by the group exams, students find them useful and enjoyable, with the majority of students preferring group exams to individual ones. Examining group composition and question type results, we conclude that multiple choice questions are more suitable for group exams. We also comment on the format in view of limited people and time resources available for test creation, administration, and marking. Finally, we consider instructor perspectives on the process.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Two-stage exams provide immediate feedback following an exam.
“provide immediate feedback following an exam (Garaschuk & Cytrynbaum, 2019;Gilley & Clarkston, 2014;Leight et al., 2012;Nicol & Selvaretnam, 2021;Rieger & Rieger, 2020;Rivaz et al., 2015;Vázquez-García, 2018;Vogler & Robinson, 2016)”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Garaschuk & Cytrynbaum, 2019
Cites
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.17118 · Cited by 726 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines
Callaghan, K., Kestin, G., Klales, A., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L. (2026) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874251344293 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“…2014; Wieman et al., 2014), promote collaboration (Leight et al., 2012; Levy et al., 2023; Yu, 2010), provide immediate feedback following an exam (Garaschuk & Cytrynbaum, 2019; Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Leight et al., 2012; Nicol & Selvaretnam, 2021; Rieger & Rieger, 2020; Rivaz et al., 2015;…”
Influential
- Authors
- Garaschuk, K. M., & Cytrynbaum, E. N.
- Affiliations
- University of the Fraser Valley (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Garaschuk, Kseniya M.
- ORCID
- Cytrynbaum, Eric N.
- Venue
- PRIMUS
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-05-29
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1061-1079
- ISSN
- 1051-1970 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-4053
- OpenAlex
- W2808111581
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 3.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PRIMUS (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of British Columbia
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematics Education and Programs
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- collaborative assessment, mathematics education, active learning, peer instruction, student perceptions, group composition, multiple-choice questions, short-answer questions, long-term retention, large classes
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