Skip to main content

News about Scitation

In December 2016 Scitation will launch with a new design, enhanced navigation and a much improved user experience.

To ensure a smooth transition, from today, we are temporarily stopping new account registration and single article purchases. If you already have an account you can continue to use the site as normal.

For help or more information please visit our FAQs.

banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 627636 (1992), and P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 637–644 (1992). See also introduction and references in Gilley and Clarkston (Ref. 4).
2.For example, two-stage exams are not mentioned among the 24 research-based instructional strategies in a large-scale survey that examines the knowledge and practices of physics faculty: C. Henderson and M. Dancy, “Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009).
3.How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (National Academy Press, 2000).
4.B. Gilley and B. Clarkston, “Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach. (in press).
5.G. W. Rieger and C. E. Heiner, “Examinations that support collaborative learning: The students' perspective,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach. (in press).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



The two-stage exam is a relatively simple way to introduce collaborative learning and formative assessment into an exam. Their use is rapidly growing in the physics department at the University of British Columbia, as both students and faculty find them rewarding. In a two-stage exam students first complete and turn in the exam individually, and then, working in small groups, answer the exam questions again. During the second stage, the room is filled with spirited and effective debate with nearly every student participating. This provides students with immediate targeted feedback supplied by discussions with their peers. Furthermore, we see indications that the use of this exam format not only ensures consistency across interactive course components, but it also positively impacts how students approach the other collaborative course components. This is accomplished without losing the summative assessment of individual performance that is the expectation of exams for most instructors. In this paper we describe how to implement two-stage exams and provide arguments why they should be part of physics courses that use interactive engagement and social/collaborative learning methods.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd