CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Student Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsInnovative Teaching Methods

Two-Stage Final Exams: An Assessment Strategy for Enhanced Collaborative Learning and Reduced Student Stress

Open access
Callaghan, Kristina, Milbourne, Tim, Klales, Anna, Kestin, Greg, Arguelles, Carlso, McCarty, Logan, Deslauriers, Louis·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2504.04281arXiv 2504.04281
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Two-stage exams, which pair a traditional individual exam with a subsequent collaborative, group exam, have been shown to enhance learning, retention, and student attitudes in midterm settings. This study investigates whether these benefits extend to final exam settings, compares the traditional final exam experience with a two-stage variation, and explores using an asynchronous group component to maintain the exam comprehensive nature. Within introductory courses at two different institutions, two formats for two-stage exams were implemented: one with a 2-hour individual exam followed by a 1-hour synchronous group exam and another with a 3-hour individual exam followed by an untimed, asynchronous group exam completed within 36 hours. Survey data comparing student experiences with two-stage midterm and final exams showed consistently positive responses at both institutions. When comparing two-stage final exams to traditional (individual-only) final exams, students reported increased learning and retention, decreased anxiety, and an overwhelming preference for the two-stage format. These findings suggest that extending the benefits of two-stage midterms to the final exam is possible without compromising the evaluative purpose of a final exam while also maintaining high student motivation and engagement.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.04281

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bloom, D. (2009). Collaborative test taking: Benefits for learning and retention. College Teaching, 57(4), 216-220. https://doi.org/10.3200/ctch.57.4.216-220 · DOI
  3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
  4. Bruno, B. C., Engels, J., Ito, G., Gillis-Davis, J., Dulai, H., Carter, G., Fletcher, C., & Böttjer-Wilson, D. (2017). Two-stage exams: A powerful tool for reducing the achievement gap in undergraduate oceanog- raphy and geology classes. Oceanography, 30(2), 198-208. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2017.241 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Callaghan, K., Kestin, G., Klales, A., McCarty, L. S., & Deslauriers, L. (2024). Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving STEM assessments. arXiv preprint arXiv250201994. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2502.01994 · DOI
  6. Cooke, E. E., Barko, T. M., Cortright, R. N., & Collins, H. L. (2019). Collaborative testing and mixed-gender groups: Does gender influence performance? Journal of College Science Teaching, 48(4), 18-25.
  7. Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., Rodenbaugh, D. W., & Dicarlo, S. T. (2003). Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(1-4), 102-108. https://doi.org/ 10.1152/advan.00041.2002 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Deslauriers, L., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 7(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010101 · DOI
  9. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(39), 19251-19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dunleavy, S., Kestin, G., Callaghan, K., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L. (2022). Increased learning in a college physics course with timely use of short multimedia summaries. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(1), 010110. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.18.010110 · DOI
  12. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Gilley, B. H., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 83-91.
  14. Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2008). Collaborative group testing benefits high-and low performing students. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(4), 274-278. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00101.2007 · DOI
  15. Harris, R. B., Grunspan, D. Z., Pelch, M. A., Fernandes, G., Ramirez, G., & Freeman, S. (2019). Can test anx- iety interventions alleviate a gender gap in an undergraduate STEM course? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar35. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-05-0083 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ives, J. (2014). Measuring the learning from two-stage collaborative group exams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.6442. · arXiv
  18. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 528-558. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Leight, H., Saunders, C., Calkins, R., & Withers, M. (2012). Collaborative testing improves performance but not content retention in a large enrollment introductory biology class. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 392-401. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0048 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Levy, D., Svoronos, T., & Klinger, M. (2023). Two-stage examinations: Can examinations be more formative experiences? Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801668 · DOI
  21. Lusk, M., & Conklin, L. (2003). Collaborative testing to promote learning. The Journal of Nursing Education, 42(3), 121-124. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20030301-07 · DOI
  22. McCarty, L. S., & Deslauriers, L. (2020). Transforming a large university physics course to student-centered learning, without sacrificing content. In The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 186-200).
  23. Miller, K., Callaghan, K., McCarty, L. S., & Deslauriers, L. (2021). Increasing the effectiveness of active learning using deliberate practice: A homework transformation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(1), 010129. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.17.010129 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Newton, G., Rajakaruna, R., Kulak, V., Albabish, W., Gilley, B. H., & Ritchie, K. (2019). Two-stage (collaborative) testing in science teaching: Does it improve grades on short-answer questions and retention of material? Journal of College Science Teaching, 48(4), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst19_048_04_64 · DOI
  25. Rieger, G. W., & Heiner, C. E. (2014). Examinations that support collaborative learning: The students' perspec- tive. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst14_043_04_41 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Rieger, G. W., & Rieger, C. L. (2020). Collaborative assessment that supports learning. In J. J. Mintzes & E. M. Walter (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice (pp. 821-837). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_51 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x · DOI · Paper page
  28. Sandahl, S. S. (2010). Collaborative testing as a learning strategy in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(3), 142-147. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-33.5.340 · DOI
  29. Stearns, S. A. (1996). Collaborative exams as learning tools. College Teaching, 44(3), 111-112. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/87567555.1996.9925564 · DOI
  30. Talarico, J. M., LaBar, K. S., & Rubin, D. C. (2004). Emotional intensity predicts autobiographical memory expe- rience. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1118-1132. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196886 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(12), 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Wieman, C. E. (2012). Applying new research to improve science education. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(1), 47-78. https://issues.org/issue/29-1/#.X5yX6xptPkY.link
  33. Wieman, C. E. (2019). Expertise in university teaching & the implications for teaching effectiveness, evaluation & training. Daedalus, 148(4), 47-78. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01760 · DOI
  34. Wieman, C. E., Rieger, G. W., & Heiner, C. E. (2014). Physics exams that promote collaborative learning. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 51-53. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4849159 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Yuretich, R. F., Khan, S. A., Leckie, R. M., & Clement, J. J. (2001). Active-learning methods to improve student performance and scientific interest in a large introductory oceanography course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49(2), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-49.2.111 · DOI
  36. Zimbardo, P. G., Butler, L. D., & Wolfe, V. A. (2003). Cooperative college examinations: More gain, less pain when students share information and grades. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 101-125. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00220970309602059 · DOI
  37. Zipp, J. F. (2007). Learning by exams: The impact of two-stage cooperative tests. Teaching Sociology, 35(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x0703500105 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Callaghan, K., Milbourne, T., Klales, A., Kestin, G., Arguelles, C., McCarty, L., & Deslauriers, L.
Affiliations
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Deslauriers, Louis
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
115-124
ISSN
0047-231X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2504.04281
arXiv
2504.04281
OpenAlex
W7128310790
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
21.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The journal of college science teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
Keywords
final examinations, cooperative learning, asynchronous assessment, student stress, test anxiety, student attitudes, introductory course, assessment methods, student motivation

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