Retention following Two-Stage Collaborative Exams Depends on Timing and Student Performance

Abstract

Multistage collaborative exams are implemented to enhance learning and retention of course material. However, the effects of multistage collaborative exams on retention of course content are varied. These discrepancies may be due to a number of factors. To date, studies examining collaborative exams and content retention have used questions that all, or mostly, require students to select an answer, rather than generate one of their own. However, content retention can improve when students generate their own responses. Thus, we examined the effect of collaborative exams with open-ended questions on retention of course content. Retention was measured at two time periods; one relatively shortly (9 days) following a collaborative exam and another over a longer time period (23 days). Furthermore, we examined whether content retention differed for low-, mid-, or high-­performing students. Our results suggest that collaborative exams offer retention benefits at relatively long time periods between pre- and posttests, but not over shorter time periods. Retention varied across students in different performance categories. Our study, the first to use only open-ended questions, showed relatively small effects compared with studies using multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank format, but still suggest that collaborative exams can aid in content retention.

Online and Clicker Quizzing on Jargon Terms Enhances Definition-Focused but Not Conceptually Focused Biology Exam Performance

“…In some cases, practice quizzing even enhances learners’ ability to transfer learning to new contexts, such as when solving application questions (for a review, see Pan and Rickard, 2018). Moreover, quizzing benefits have been observed for educationally relevant materials and in classroom settings (e.g., McDaniel et al , 2007), including in biology courses (e.g., Bailey et al , 2017; Carpenter et al , 2017; Pape-Lindstrom et al , 2018; Cooke et al , 2019; Walck-Shannon et al , 2019), and with formats ranging from free recall (e.g., McDaniel et al , 2009) to cued recall (e.g., Pan et al , 2015) and multiple-choice tests (e.g., Little et al , 2012).…”

Two-stage Examinations in STEM: A Narrative Literature Review

“…Effect on improved learning: Cooke, Weir, and Clarkston (2019) made the point that comparing two-stage examination studies on whether they improve retention of material covered is difficult, as studies vary widely in their subject matter, implementation, and time span over which retention is tested. The studies included in this narrative review found benefits of two-stage examinations varied between the short and long term (Cooke et al, 2019;Vogler & Robinson, 2016) or between different cohorts of students (Cao & Porter, 2017) or between questions of different difficulty levels (Deng & Luo, 2018). Further studies in a variety of settings will be helpful in further elucidating the effects of two-stage examinations on learning.…”

Promoting Academic Integrity and Student Learning in Online Biology Courses

“…Instructors can also consider implementing alternate means of assessment, such as two-stage exams that allow group collaboration in the second part. Such two-stage exams have been shown to promote deeper learning and increased retention in biology classes ( 59 , 60 ). While there has been no work that I am aware of that examines the influence of two-stage exams on student cheating, it is possible that students will cheat less on such assessments, knowing they will be granted the chance to collaborate with their peers.…”