Cited by 12Innovative Teaching MethodsMathematics Education and ProgramsInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Group Exams in Mathematics Courses

Garaschuk, Kseniya M., Cytrynbaum, Eric N.·2019·PRIMUS

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

Crossref · 10.1080/10511970.2018.1472684

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garaschuk, K. M., & Cytrynbaum, E. N.
Affiliations
University of the Fraser Valley (CA)
Corresponding author
Garaschuk, Kseniya M.
Venue
PRIMUS
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