CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Innovative Teaching MethodsStudent Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines

Callaghan, Kristina, Kestin, Gregory, Klales, Anna, McCarty, Logan, Deslauriers, Louis·2026·Active Learning in Higher Education
DOI 10.1177/14697874251344293
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two-stage exams, which pair a traditional individual exam with a subsequent collaborative exam, are widely popular with both students and faculty for fostering deep engagement, collaboration, and immediate feedback. Over the last decade, this assessment model has gained substantial traction in STEM college courses; however, holding both stages during class sessions often limits the full potential of two-stage exams, deterring many instructors from adopting them. To accommodate these constraints, instructors must either reduce the exam’s content depth and coverage, or hold evening, in-person exam sessions at fixed times, which can often be impractical for students and faculty with external commitments. In this paper, we introduce an alternative asynchronous approach that allows the collaborative portion to be completed unsupervised and outside of regular class hours, within 48 hr of the individual exam. This method not only eases logistical constraints but also allows more time for collaboration, potentially enhancing feedback quality. Our findings show that students equate their engagement, collaboration, and feedback quality during the asynchronous collaborative exam with that of standard in-class exams and show signs of retention of learning. This cost-effective approach requires no extra time or resources and could promote widespread adoption of this effective assessment method, especially in online-only and general STEM courses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/14697874251344293

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

1 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

8 of 43 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Two-stage exams promote collaboration.

    “promote collaboration (Leight et al., 2012;Levy et al., 2023;Yu, 2010)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Leight et al., 2012 source
    • cites Levy et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yu, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    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)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Garaschuk & Cytrynbaum, 2019 source
    • cites Gilley & Clarkston, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Leight et al., 2012 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The absence of observed increased cheating supports the notion that students are more focused on genuine collaboration during collaborative exams rather than searching for easy answers.

    “However, although we did not actively investigate the occurrence of academic dishonesty, we also did not observe any evidence of increased cheating, which supports the notion that students are more focused on genuine collaboration during collaborative exams rather than searching for easy answers (Hsu, 2021;Rieger & Heiner, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hsu, 2021 source

      In “Structure assessments carefully” (page unavailable), Hsu says two-stage exams allow group collaboration and suggests students might cheat less when they know they will have a chance to collaborate. Hsu also says they know of no work examining cheating in two-stage exams; the paper does not report an observed lack of increased cheating or establish that students favor genuine collaboration over easy answers. The citing authors’ observation is their own, not Hsu’s. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Rieger & Heiner, 2014 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The absence of observed cheating indicates that students are focused on genuine collaboration rather than searching for easy answers.
  • Premisecitation

    The literature suggests that even during open-book two-stage exams, students discuss the exam rather than search for answers.

    “While one might think students could use the easing of instructor oversight to search for solutions using outside resources during an asynchronous collaborative exam, the literature suggests that even during open-book two-stage exams, students discuss the exam rather than search for answers (Hsu, 2021;Rieger & Heiner, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hsu, 2021 source

      In “Structure assessments carefully” (page unavailable), Hsu says two-stage exams allow group collaboration but knows of no work examining their effect on cheating. The open-book-exams section suggests that open-book formats may reduce use of unauthorized resources, but does not report whether students discuss exam questions rather than search for answers. Neither passage establishes the attributed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Rieger & Heiner, 2014 source
  • Findingown data

    Students perceived the standard and asynchronous collaborative exams as equally effective.

    “The surveys assessed both satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes and indicate that students perceived the standard and asynchronous collaborative exams as equally effective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.
    • Rests on an assumption: The Likert-scale measures are valid and reliable indicators of the constructs (engagement, collaboration, feedback quality, anxiety).
  • May combine two claims. 36
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cao & Porter, 2017 source
    • cites Kinnear, 2021 source
    • cites Leight et al., 2012 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) says collaborative exam scores were higher, but content retention on the subsequent exam was no better; it also notes that other studies found different results. This supports the claim that benefits vary and that significant retention gains are not always found. The paper does not establish that an effect diminishes over time. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kinnear, 2021 source

      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
    • cites Rieger & Heiner, 2014 source
    • cites Rieger & Rieger, 2020 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This ease of collaboration is reflective of the students' proficiency with digital tools, a likely consequence of the widespread adoption of platforms like Zoom during the pandemic.

    “This ease of collaboration is reflective of the students' proficiency with digital tools (Hollister et al., 2022;Stoian et al., 2022), a likely consequence of the widespread adoption of platforms like Zoom during the pandemic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hollister et al., 2022 source

      The Teaching Implications section (page unavailable) reports that most surveyed students felt comfortable using Zoom chat and polling, supporting a narrower claim about comfort with particular digital tools. It does not establish general digital proficiency or that pandemic-era Zoom adoption caused it. The Social Interactions section (page unavailable) instead reports reduced peer interaction and difficulty conducting collaborative activities. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Stoian et al., 2022 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students' understanding and positive perceptions of the exam process remained consistent across all formats throughout the study period.

    “Importantly, students' understanding and positive perceptions of the exam process remained consistent across all formats throughout the study period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Students' self-reported understanding self-reflections accurately measure their actual understanding/learning.
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Asynchronous collaborative exams effectively sustain student engagement and enjoyment while providing meaningful feedback.

    “Furthermore, survey results confirm that asynchronous collaborative exams effectively sustain student engagement and enjoyment while providing meaningful feedback, as shown in Figure 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.
    • Rests on an assumption: The Likert-scale measures are valid and reliable indicators of the constructs (engagement, collaboration, feedback quality, anxiety).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Student comments reflect that this also occurred during the asynchronous exam and stated that groups spent the extra allowed time ensuring all group members agreed upon and understood each problem before moving on.

    “Student comments reflect that this also occurred during the asynchronous exam and stated that groups spent the extra allowed time ensuring all group members agreed upon and understood each problem before moving on.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In the post-understanding self-reflection, students reported their level of understanding as lower than immediately after the collaborative exam but significantly higher than after the individual exam.

    “Furthermore, in the postunderstanding self-reflection, students reported their level of understanding as lower than immediately after the collaborative exam but significantly higher than after the individual exam.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Collaborative exams resulted in both higher actual scores and higher reported understanding than after the individual exam alone, across all exam modalities: standard, asynchronous online, and asynchronous in-person.

    “The collaborative exams functioned as expected, resulting in both higher actual scores and higher reported understanding than after the individual exam alone, across all exam modalities: standard, asynchronous online, and asynchronous in-person.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students found it quite feasible to share and collaborate on multiple choice (4.47 ± 0.15) and long-answer questions (4.13 ± 0.17) online.

    “The results indicate that students found it quite feasible to share and collaborate on multiple choice (4.47 ± 0.15) and long-answer questions (4.13 ± 0.17), suggesting the type of question had minimal impact.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.
    • Rests on an assumption: The Likert-scale measures are valid and reliable indicators of the constructs (engagement, collaboration, feedback quality, anxiety).

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Student feedback remained consistently positive in UC Merced and Harvard courses, mirroring the satisfaction levels observed in this study.

    “Student feedback remained consistently positive, though, mirroring the satisfaction levels observed in this study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the asynchronous exam period, 2 out of 9 groups in the online cohort and 3 out of 10 in the in-person cohort reached out with questions.

    “During the asynchronous exam period, 2 out of 9 groups in the online cohort and 3 out of 10 in the in-person cohort reached out with questions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students in both asynchronous cohorts reported an increase in the quality of their collaborations and an overall decrease in exam anxiety.

    “Specifically, students in both asynchronous cohorts reported an increase in the quality of their collaborations and an overall decrease in exam anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.
    • Rests on an assumption: The Likert-scale measures are valid and reliable indicators of the constructs (engagement, collaboration, feedback quality, anxiety).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The nature of these questions mirrored typical standard, in-person collaborative exams and were primarily short, clarifying questions.

    “The nature of these questions mirrored typical standard, inperson collaborative exams and were primarily short, clarifying questions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Responses regarding the role of instructor availability were moderately neutral, suggesting that the unsupervised nature of the asynchronous exam did not critically undermine its effectiveness (online: 3.8 ± 0.2 vs. in-person: 3.6 ± 0.2, p < .4).

    “Regarding the role of instructor availability, responses were moderately neutral, suggesting that the unsupervised nature of the asynchronous exam did not critically undermine its effectiveness (online: 3.8 ± 0.2 vs. in-person: 3.6 ± 0.2, p < .4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.
    • Rests on an assumption: The Likert-scale measures are valid and reliable indicators of the constructs (engagement, collaboration, feedback quality, anxiety).

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Allotting 80% of the overall score based on a student's individual performance increases individual accountability and lessens the likelihood of any issues of free-loading.

    “Allotting 80% of the overall score based on a student's individual performance also increases individual accountability and lessens the likelihood of any issues of free-loading, a possible but uncommon occurrence during collaborative exams (Callaghan et al., 2025;Levy et al., 2023;Rieger & Heiner, 2014;Zipp, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Callaghan et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Levy et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Rieger & Heiner, 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Research-based educational strategies that promote engagement and collaboration among peers substantially enhance both learning outcomes and student attitudes.

    “It is now widely recognized that research-based educational strategies that promote engagement and collaboration among peers substantially enhance both learning outcomes and student attitudes (Crouch & Mazur, 2001;Deslauriers et al., 2011Deslauriers et al., , 2019;;Freeman et al., 2014;Smith et al., 2009;Theobald et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Crouch & Mazur, 2001 source
    • cites Deslauriers et al., 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Freeman et al., 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The asynchronous method eases logistical constraints and allows more time for collaboration, potentially enhancing feedback quality.

    “This method not only eases logistical constraints but also allows more time for collaboration, potentially enhancing feedback quality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    These challenges are compounded in settings with large class enrollments and are especially pronounced in universities that have a high number of commuter students or those working outside of school.

    “These challenges are compounded in settings with large class enrollments and are especially pronounced in universities that have a high number of commuter students or those working outside of school, adding a significant administrative burden in the management of make-up exams.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Two-stage exams generally support content retention, with some studies showing retention effects lasting up to 7 weeks.

    “generally support content retention, with some studies showing retention effects lasting up to 7 weeks (D.Bloom, 2009;Cortright et al., 2003;Gilley & Clarkston, 2014;Ives, 2014)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites D.Bloom, 2009 source
    • cites Cortright et al., 2003 source
    • cites Gilley & Clarkston, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rieger & Rieger, 2020 source
    • cites Wieman et al., 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The asynchronous format preserves the educational benefits of two-stage exams-deep engagement, positive student experiences, and enhanced learning retention-without requiring additional in-person class time.

    “Our findings suggest that the asynchronous format preserves the educational benefits of two-stage exams-deep engagement, positive student experiences, and enhanced learning retention-without requiring additional in-person class time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Students' self-reported understanding self-reflections accurately measure their actual understanding/learning.
    • Rests on an assumption: The two midterm exams are comparable in difficulty and content, so differences between Midterm 1 and Midterm 2 can be attributed to the collaborative exam format.
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.
    • Rests on an assumption: The findings from this single quantum mechanics course at Harvard generalize to other disciplines, institutions, and online courses.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Self-selected groups from Midterm 1 were randomly assigned to either collaborate via Zoom or meet physically.

    “the self-selected groups from Midterm 1 were randomly assigned to either collaborate via Zoom (”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Students had just worked through each exam problem in a structured review before rating their understanding, making these self-assessments grounded in actual problem-solving rather than vague perceptions.

    “Students had just worked through each exam problem in a structured review before rating their understanding, making these self-assessments grounded in actual problem-solving rather than vague perceptions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Every student enrolled in the course (N = 55) participated in the surveys.

    “Every student enrolled in the course (N = 55) participated in the surveys.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The asynchronous format is robust and effective across various educational environments and student demographics, thereby enhancing its potential for wider adoption.

    “These findings suggest that the asynchronous format is robust and effective across various educational environments and student demographics, thereby enhancing its potential for wider adoption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Positive satisfaction feedback from UC Merced and Harvard courses is representative of broader student populations and educational environments.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rieger & Heiner, 2014 source
    • cites Wieman et al., 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study was conducted under the guidance of Harvard University's Committee on the Use of Human Subjects and was determined to be exempt from formal IRB review under institutional policy.

    “This study was conducted under the guidance of Harvard University's Committee on the Use of Human Subjects.Because it involved standard educational practices within normal classroom settings, with no collection of identifiable data and no deviation from routine instruction, it was determined to be exempt from formal IRB review under institutional policy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    For all Likert-scale questions reported in Figures 2 to 4, the distributions of responses were approximately normal, with no extreme skewness or outliers.

    “For all Likert-scale questions reported in Figures 2 to 4, the distributions of responses were approximately normal, with no extreme skewness or outliers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The self-reflection measures are not objective post-tests.

    “While these self-reflection measures are not objective post-tests, they go well beyond general impressions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The asynchronous model allows instructors to fully utilize class time for individual assessments and gives students the freedom to engage more deeply and thoughtfully in group discussions, which can alleviate anxiety and enhance learning.

    “Moreover, the asynchronous model also allows instructors to fully utilize class time for individual assessments and gives students the freedom to engage more deeply and thoughtfully in group discussions, which can alleviate anxiety and enhance learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The flexibility in asynchronous format makes two-stage exams more accessible across a wider array of STEM courses and easier to implement, leading to rapidly increasing adoption of asynchronous two-stage exams.

    “This flexibility in asynchronous format not only makes two-stage exams more accessible across a wider array of STEM courses but also easier to implement, leading to the rapidly increasing adoption of asynchronous two-stage exams.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Students who completed the asynchronous online exam were able to collaborate and share work effectively, suggesting they possessed a digital fluency and resiliency that makes an online asynchronous exam possible without losing the previously reported benefits of two-stage exams.

    “Lastly, the students who completed the asynchronous online exam were able to collaborate and share work effectively, suggesting they possessed a digital fluency and resiliency that makes an online asynchronous exam possible without losing the previously reported benefits of two-stage exams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The reduced direct supervision in asynchronous settings can raise concerns about potential academic dishonesty.

    “The reduced direct supervision in asynchronous settings can raise concerns about potential academic dishonesty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The self-reflection question was self-calibrated by asking the same question on three separate occasions.

    “were self-calibrated by asking this same question on three separate occasions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participation in surveys and self-reflection activities was voluntary, and students were informed that their responses could be used for research.

    “Participation in surveys and self-reflection activities was voluntary, and students were informed that their responses could be used for research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The binary scale, either confident or not for each problem, reduces ambiguity and provides a more definitive measure than typical subjective perceptions.

    “Comparing student responses immediately following the individual stage to the actual exam averages shows that while students slightly underestimate their scores, they demonstrate their understanding on a binary scale-either confident or not, for each problem-which reduces ambiguity and provides a more definitive measure than typical subjective perceptions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The type of asynchronous implementation, whether in-person or online, appears to be a secondary consideration, as students overwhelmingly favor the flexibility of asynchronous exams.

    “The type of asynchronous implementation-whether in-person or online-appears to be a secondary consideration, as students overwhelmingly favor the flexibility of asynchronous exams.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The high satisfaction observed in the fully online course demonstrates that online asynchronous group exams are robust, effectively engaging students even without prior in-person collaborative exam experience.

    “Notably, the high satisfaction observed in the fully online course demonstrates that online asynchronous group exams are robust, effectively engaging students even without prior in-person collaborative exam experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    No identifying information was collected, and participation had no impact on course grades or standing.

    “No identifying information was collected, and participation had no impact on course grades or standing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The asynchronous format maintained these conditions without any alteration to the exam's core structure and only removed the constraints of specified time and physical location.

    “Our asynchronous format maintained these conditions without any alteration to the exam's core structure and only removed the constraints of specified time and physical location.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The uniformly positive feedback received suggests that the successes of the asynchronous exam are valid across different student populations and are not contingent on prior experience with in-person standard group exams.

    “The uniformly positive feedback received suggests that the successes of the asynchronous exam are valid across different student populations and are not contingent on prior experience with in-person standard group exams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Positive satisfaction feedback from UC Merced and Harvard courses is representative of broader student populations and educational environments.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The self-reflection measures go well beyond general impressions.

    “While these self-reflection measures are not objective post-tests, they go well beyond general impressions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Corrections for multiple comparisons were not applied.

    “Given the focus of this study on pre-planned comparisons, corrections for multiple comparisons were not applied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
43 of 43

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students' self-reported understanding self-reflections accurately measure their actual understanding/learning.

    “understanding selfreflections”
    “Overall, students' self-reported understanding of the exam questions was consistent with their actual exam scores following the individual and group exams, for both midterms and all types of group exams.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two midterm exams are comparable in difficulty and content, so differences between Midterm 1 and Midterm 2 can be attributed to the collaborative exam format.

    “Midterm 1 served as the control condition with an in-person collaborative exam to ensure all students had experienced the standard two-stage exam format.”
    “In contrast, Midterm 2 introduced the experimental condition by varying the collaborative stage format”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The survey responses accurately reflect students' true perceptions and experiences.

    “surveys assessing students' perceptions, attitudes, and preferences were conducted after each collaborative exam to evaluate the impact of the different exam formats.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The findings from this single quantum mechanics course at Harvard generalize to other disciplines, institutions, and online courses.

    “These results are particularly relevant for instructors of online courses and those dealing with logistical or administrative constraints when implementing two-stage exams.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Likert-scale measures are valid and reliable indicators of the constructs (engagement, collaboration, feedback quality, anxiety).

    “Figure 2 illustrates students' perceptions of the collaborative exam, measuring their enjoyment, perceived learning, mental engagement, and the usefulness of the feedback.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Self-reported understanding is a valid proxy for actual student learning.

    “This consistent understanding self-report across both asynchronous modalities and midterms underscores the effectiveness of the asynchronous format in potentially enhancing student learning outcomes.”
    “While these self-reflection measures are not objective post-tests, they go well beyond general impressions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The absence of observed cheating indicates that students are focused on genuine collaboration rather than searching for easy answers.

    “However, although we did not actively investigate the occurrence of academic dishonesty, we also did not observe any evidence of increased cheating, which supports the notion that students are more focused on genuine collaboration during collaborative exams rather than searching for easy answers (Hsu, 2021;Rieger & Heiner, 2014).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Positive satisfaction feedback from UC Merced and Harvard courses is representative of broader student populations and educational environments.

    “The uniformly positive feedback received suggests that the successes of the asynchronous exam are valid across different student populations and are not contingent on prior experience with in-person standard group exams.”
    “These findings suggest that the asynchronous format is robust and effective across various educational environments and student demographics, thereby enhancing its potential for wider adoption.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Asking the same self-reflection question on three separate occasions self-calibrates the measure.

    “were self-calibrated by asking this same question on three separate occasions.”
9 of 9

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t(53) = 2.08, p < .04

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .04 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .042 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .042

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(53) = 2.08reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .042

    “t(53) = 2.08, p < .04”

1 of 1

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Beyer J., Strobelt H., Oppermann M., Deslauriers L., Pfister H. (2016, October 23). Teaching visualization for large and diverse classes on campus and online [Pedagogy of Data Visualization Workshop (PDVW 2016)]. Baltimore, Maryland, Pedagogy Data Visualization, IEEE VIS Workshop, 2.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Callaghan, K., Kestin, G., Klales, A., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L.
Affiliations
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • Harvard University, USA
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Deslauriers, Louis
ORCID
Venue
Active Learning in Higher Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2025-06-13
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
349-365
ISSN
  • 1469-7874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2625
DOI
10.1177/14697874251344293
OpenAlex
W4411260972
Cited by
2
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Active Learning in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
asynchronous assessment, active learning, assessment design, feedback quality, student engagement, learning retention, STEM education, online courses, flexible 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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