It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Two-stage collaborative exams are an increasingly popular form of formative assessment which have shown promising results in promoting student learning. While the benefit of two-stage collaborative exams is well researched, there is no clear consensus on the best way of implementing them—specifically with respect to forming student groups. In some studies students self-select their groups, and in others they are assigned by the instructor (either randomly or with a specific grouping algorithm). Research has shown that performance and satisfaction in group learning situations improves when faculty, not students, select the groups. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that students’ learning benefits from working in groups with diverse learning styles, abilities, gender, and race. In this study, we report on a controlled experiment conducted during a two-stage collaborative exam in an introductory physics course at Harvard University. For the group stage of the exam, half of the groups were formed by the instructor (based on balancing gender and performance on previous exams) and the other half were student selected. We compared performance on both the individual and group stage of the exam for the instructor-formed versus student-formed groups. We also surveyed students on their experiences during the group exam. We found that female students perform better on two-part collaborative exams when they are in student-formed groups. We also found that in the student-formed groups students (especially female students) felt more comfortable speaking up and felt that their groups were both “more effective and productive” and “more receptive to their ideas” than in the instructor-formed groups. This study provides important insights into best practice implementation of two-stage collaborative exams.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer





