Examinations That Support Collaborative Learning: The Students' Perspective

The source of motivation for the final group exam is likely a combination of immediate feedback on the individual exam and the significant portion of the exam score attributed to the group exam (20% of overall exam score at both institutions).

“The source of motivation is likely a combination of immediate feedback on the individual exam and the significant portion of the exam score attributed to the group exam, which accounted for 20% of the overall exam score at both institutions”

A typical two-stage exam allocates up to three-quarters of the available exam time to the individual stage and the remaining time to the collaborative stage.

“A typical two-stage exam allocates up to three-quarters of the available exam time to the individual stage and the remaining time to the collaborative stage (Rieger & Heiner, 2014;Rieger & Rieger, 2020).”

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).”

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)”

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).”

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).”

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).”

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.”