Measuring the Learning from Two-Stage Collaborative Group Exams
Open accessAbstract
A two-stage collaborative exam is one in which students first complete the exam individually, and then complete the same or similar exam in collaborative groups immediately afterward.To quantify the learning effect from the group component of these two-stage exams in an introductory Physics course, a randomized crossover design was used where each student participated in both the treatment and control groups.For each of the two two-stage collaborative group midterm exams, questions were designed to form matched near-transfer pairs with questions on an end-of-term diagnostic which was used as a learning test.For diagnostic test questions paired with questions from the first midterm, which took place six to seven weeks before the diagnostic test, an analysis using a mixed-effects logistic regression found no significant differences in diagnostic-test performance between the control and treatment group.For diagnostic test questions paired with questions from the second midterm, which took place one to two weeks prior to the diagnostic test, the treatment group performed significantly higher on the diagnostic-test than control.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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
“Still, the short-and medium-term benefits of collaborative exams— especially in promoting engagement, reducing anxiety, and supporting near-term learning—are consistently supported in the literature (Cortright et al., 2003; Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Ives, 2014).”
Callaghan, 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
“Other studies have shown that students remember more in the long term (3–4 weeks) (Cortright et al., 2003; Bloom, 2009; Ives, 2014; Newton et al., 2019), but the way the course was taught and the methodology used in these long-term studies appear to influence the measured retention of material…”
- Authors
- Ives, J.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Ives, Joss
- ORCID
- Ives, Joss
- Venue
- Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings
- Published
- 2015-04-24
- Pages
- 123-126
- ISSN
- 2377-2379
- OpenAlex
- W2319075669
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 6.87
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Physics Education Research Conference (PERC) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- The Physics Video Demonstration Database (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- peer learning, introductory physics education, learning assessment, diagnostic testing, crossover design, mixed-effects logistic regression, student performance
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
