Learning by Exams: The Impact of Two-Stage Cooperative Tests

Abstract

Decades of research have documented the positive impacts of cooperative learning on student success: increased learning, retention through graduation, improved critical thinking, and intrinsic motivation. One cooperative teaching technique, however, has received relatively little attention. In the two-stage cooperative, group, or “pyramid” exam students first take an exam individually—as in traditional testing—and then take the same exam together with their learning group, with the exam grade being a weighted combination of their individual and group scores. This approach uses the exam itself not only for evaluation, but also as a learning tool. Although some researchers have studied group exams, they have not isolated the impact of group tests from individual achievement—an important omission. Using data from a mass lecture introductory sociology course, I found that holding individual achievement constant the group exam process significantly increased learning both for students who knew the material initially and for those who did not. This suggests that cooperative exams not only enhance learning but also allow for the process and form of testing to become more closely linked to the process and form of teaching and learning.

Successes With Two-Stage Exams in Mechanical Engineering

“…This finding has also been reported by others [4], [5]. Others have argued that two-stage exams increase student enjoyment [5], reduce student anxiety [6], and more closely link the process of testing with the process of learning [7].…”

Examinations That Support Collaborative Learning: The Students' Perspective

“…Only a few studies have attempted to measure the benefits of two-stage exams on learning in science: In a recent study, Gilley and Clarkston (2014) reported knowledge gains (increases in student learning, i.e., the original acquisition of knowledge by students) due to the collaborative part of the exam in a science course on natural disasters, whereas other studies in biology (Leight et al, 2012) and physiology (Cortright et al, 2003) have focused on the retention of content. A positive impact on student motivation, reduced test anxiety, increased collaborative skills, and improved perception of the course were also mentioned in a number of other studies (see references in Gilley & Clarkston, 2014;Leight et al, 2012;Zipp, 2007). Potential limitations of two-stage exams are a reduced number of questions on the tests (to make time for the group portion) and a slightly higher administrative effort.…”

“…Collaborative tests have been used for some time in a variety of formats (see summaries in Leight, Saunders, Calkins, & Withers, 2012;Zipp, 2007). The two-stage format discussed in this article (sometimes referred to as group test Cortright, Collins, Rodenbaugh, & DiCarlo, 2003;or pyramid exam, Cohen & Henle, 1995) has also been used in the past, in particular in team-based learning as part of the readiness assurance process (see e.g., http//:www.teambasedlearning.org).…”

Collaborative Testing: Evidence of Learning in a Controlled In-Class Study of Undergraduate Students

“…An alternative to this traditional format is the collaborative test, in which students work together in small groups to answer test questions. In the two-stage exam, perhaps the most common method of collaborative testing, students independently complete a test and then immediately complete the same, or similar, test again in groups of four; a proportion of each student's grade is assigned to the independent-and group-test sections (Cortright, Collins, Rodenbaugh, & DiCarlo, 2003;Stearns, 1996;Yuretich, Khan, Leckie, & Clement, 2001; see Leight, Saunders, Calkins, &Withers, 2012, andZipp, 2007, for summaries of select collaborative testing literature). For recommendations on the use of two-stage exams in the classroom, see Appendix 1 (available at http://www.nsta.org/college/ connections.aspx).…”