Physics Exams that Promote Collaborative Learning
Open accessAbstract
The two-stage exam is a relatively simple way to introduce collaborative learning and formative assessment into an exam. Their use is rapidly growing in the physics department at the University of British Columbia, as both students and faculty find them rewarding. In a two-stage exam students first complete and turn in the exam individually, and then, working in small groups, answer the exam questions again. During the second stage, the room is filled with spirited and effective debate with nearly every student participating. This provides students with immediate targeted feedback supplied by discussions with their peers. Furthermore, we see indications that the use of this exam format not only ensures consistency across interactive course components, but it also positively impacts how students approach the other collaborative course components. This is accomplished without losing the summative assessment of individual performance that is the expectation of exams for most instructors. In this paper we describe how to implement two-stage exams and provide arguments why they should be part of physics courses that use interactive engagement and social/collaborative learning methods.
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?
This preparation is crucial for enhancing their participation in the subsequent collaborative discussions.
“This preparation is crucial for enhancing their participation in the subsequent collaborative discussions (Wieman et al., 2014).”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Wieman et al., 2014
The 80% individual and 20% group partition is a common weighting scheme and reflects standard practices in the field.
“This 80% individual and 20% group partition is a common weighting scheme and reflects standard practices in the field (Rieger & Rieger, 2020;Wieman et al., 2014).”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Wieman et al., 2014
Adequate time during the individual stage allows students to engage deeply with the material, enabling them to think critically about and commit to their solutions.
“Furthermore, adequate time during the individual stage allows students to engage deeply with the material, enabling them to think critically about and commit to their solutions.”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Wieman et al., 2014
Two-stage exams create intense engagement among students.
“Past studies demonstrate that two-stage exams create intense engagement among students (Rieger & Heiner, 2014;Wieman et al., 2014)”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Wieman et al., 2014
According to the literature, two-stage exams excel for two primary reasons: (i) exams are high-stakes assessments and (ii) students are well-prepared to engage in group work after the time spent studying for the exam and after thinking carefully and committing to answers during the individual stage.
“According to the literature (Rieger & Heiner, 2014;Wieman et al., 2014), two-stage exams excel for two primary reasons: (i) exams are high-stakes assessments and (ii) students are well-prepared to engage in group work after the time spent studying for the exam and after thinking carefully and committing to answers during the individual stage.”
From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Wieman et al., 2014
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
“Past studies demonstrate that two-stage exams create intense engagement among students (Rieger & Heiner, 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 &…”
InfluentialCallaghan, K., Milbourne, T., Klales, A., Kestin, G., Arguelles, C., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L. (2026) · Journal of College Science Teaching · doi:10.1080/0047231x.2026.2620442 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“These types of assessments, which include both formative and summative elements, are often referred to as two-stage exams and consist of a traditional individual exam paired with a group component (Wieman et al., 2014; Rieger & Heiner, 2014).”
- Authors
- Wieman, C. E., Rieger, G. W., & Heiner, C. E.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- The Physics Teacher
- Published
- 2014-01-01
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-53
- ISSN
- 0031-921X (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4928
- OpenAlex
- W2057277282
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 11.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Physics Teacher (publishedVersion)
- Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion)
- Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, formative assessment, peer feedback, physics education, interactive engagement, summative 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
