Examinations That Support Collaborative Learning: The Students' Perspective
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Examinations That Support Collaborative Learning
Examinations That Support
Collaborative Learning:
The Students’ Perspective
By Georg W. Rieger and Cynthia E. Heiner
U
We used surveys and classroom niversity instructors in- Moreover, although individual
observations to examine student creasingly use interactive exams produce a uniquely intense
reactions to two-stage exams, engagement and social/ engagement with the material, that
where students first do the exam collaborative learning engagement provides little or no
individually and then redo it methods in their science classes to contribution to learning—defined as
collaboratively. Our results show achieve better learning outcomes acquiring new ideas—because of the
why both students and instructors (National Research Council, 2012). lack of timely and useful feedback
appreciate this examination Such methods result in deeper en- (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
format: Two-stage collaborative gagement by the students and in- The two-stage exam is a relatively
examinations are relatively easy to corporate more formative assess- simple way to solve these problems.
implement, have a high potential ment to support learning. A number In a two-stage exam, students first
for learning, and support the of research-based methods, such complete and turn in the exam indi-
collaborative learning approach as peer instruction (Mazur, 1997), vidually and then, working in small
used in many sciences classes. think-pair-share (Johnson, Johnson, groups, answer the exam questions
A look at survey data from an & Smith, 2011), and cooperative again. This makes the exam itself a
introductory physics class shows group problem solving (Heller & valuable learning experience while
that a vast majority of students Hollabaugh, 1992; Heller, Keith, & also sending a consistent message to
(76%) had a positive opinion of Anderson, 1992), share some basic the students as to the worth of col-
this exam format (expressed in features that are recognized to sup- laborative learning. We see indica-
236 comments) whereas only 10% port learning across a wide range of tions that the use of this exam format
expressed an overall negative contexts. These features include in- goes beyond ensuring consistency
opinion in 30 negative statements. tense engagement by students, col- across course components, in that it
Most of the positive comments laborative learning where students positively impacts how students ap-
relate to how this benefits learning. develop their thinking, and imme- proach the other collaborative com-
In this article, we describe how to diate feedback through the inter- ponents in the course. The two-stage
implement two-stage exams, discuss actions with their peers (National exam accomplishes this while still
advantages and disadvantages, and Research Council, 2012). In this ar- providing summative assessment of
present the students’ view. ticle we discuss an exam format— individual performance.
two-stage exams—that uses these Collaborative tests have been
same features. used for some time in a variety of
Frequently, collaborative learning formats (see summaries in Leight,
and formative assessment will be Saunders, Calkins, & Withers,
used in classroom instruction, but 2012; Zipp, 2007). The two-stage
the course exams will remain in the format discussed in this article
traditional format in which students (sometimes referred to as group test
solve problems in isolation and Cortright, Collins, Rodenbaugh, &
only receive feedback several days DiCarlo, 2003; or pyramid exam,
later. Exams send very powerful Cohen & Henle, 1995) has also
messages, and such an exam format been used in the past, in particular
does not support the message that in team-based learning as part of
collaborative learning is important. the readiness assurance process (see
Vol. 43, No. 4, 2014 41e.g., http//:www.teambasedlearn- free-riders (see discussion in Zipp, ing the time for discussions and
ing.org). This process, which uses 2007). Our survey results, however, agreeing on a solution.
scratch-and-win type testing cards indicate that this occurs only in a
during the group part to reveal small number of groups. As an example, the two-stage
the answers to all questions, fol- This article was inspired by see- exam given in our introductory phys-
lows up on the assigned reading, ing both the success of two-stage ics course (N = 178) had a total dura-
and provides a low-stakes way to exams and how popular they have tion of 90 minutes that was split as 55
ensure that students have the back- been with both students and instruc- minutes for individual effort (Stage
ground knowledge necessary for tors across the Faculty of Science at 1) and 30 minutes for group effort
the problem-solving activities that the University of British Columbia (Stage 2), with 5 minutes in between
follow. However, administering (UBC). This exam format was first for making the switch from Stage 1
high-stakes examinations such as introduced in the UBC Faculty of to Stage 2. During the switch, in-
midterm or final examinations in a Science 3 years ago and is now structors and teaching assistants first
two-stage format is still relatively being used in at least 20 science collected the individual exam copies,
rare. Stearns (1996), for example, courses. The faculty members value and then students were instructed to
mentions increased student per- the widespread intense engagement sit with their predetermined group
formance on the (individual) final by their students during the second members (3–4 students per group).
exam in a research method and stage of the exam, and as discussed In some courses, these groups are
statistics class after taking the mid- below, students see them as valuable preformed (e.g., same as collab-
term exams in a two-stage format, learning experiences. Next, we de- orative groups in class or groups put
as well as decreased dropout rates, scribe how to implement two-stage together by the instructor), whereas
higher enjoyment of the course, exams, discuss their benefits, and in other courses, students are free to
and increased collaborative skills. present the students’ view. choose their groups. Once the groups
Only a few studies have attempted were assembled, the second part of
to measure the benefits of two-stage Implementation of two- the exam was distributed. Generally
exams on learning in science: In a stage exams the switch can be done in less than
recent study, Gilley and Clarkston The particular format of the two- 5 minutes—even in large classes,
(2014) reported knowledge gains stage exam we use is relatively easy if there is at least one instructor or
(increases in student learning, i.e., to implement and has worked well teaching assistant for 50 students.
the original acquisition of knowl- in UBC science courses. A two-stage exam in a 50-minute
edge by students) due to the collab- lecture time slot is doable, but hav-
orative part of the exam in a science • Stage 1 (individual, between 3/4 ing a 90-minute time slot is easier.
course on natural disasters, whereas and 2/3 of the examination time): In some courses, instructors have
other studies in biology (Leight et This is a standard formal exami- replaced their 50-minute in-class
al., 2012) and physiology (Cortright nation students complete work- midterm exams with 90-minute eve-
et al., 2003) have focused on the ing alone. ning exams, so that similar content
retention of content. A positive im- • Stage 2 (small groups, remainder can be covered. Concerns about the
pact on student motivation, reduced of the examination time): The length of an exam can be addressed
test anxiety, increased collaborative group portion begins after all by repeating only the conceptual
skills, and improved perception of individual exams are collected. questions of the individual part in
the course were also mentioned in a Students work in groups of three the group portion and/or by turning
number of other studies (see refer- or four students on (mostly) the short-answer questions of the indi-
ences in Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; same problems as in the individ- vidual part into multiple choice or
Leight et al., 2012; Zipp, 2007). ual portion (Figure 1). They must ranking tasks in the group portion;
Potential limitations of two-stage come to a consensus on the an- see Figure 1 for examples.
exams are a reduced number of swers and hand in one copy with Grades from the individual and
questions on the tests (to make time the names and student ID num- the group portion are combined for
for the group portion) and a slightly bers of all group members. Be- the total examination mark, weight-
higher administrative effort. In addi- cause students have already seen ed between 75% to 90% for the
tion, differences in group composi- each problem during Stage 1, individual portion and 25% to 10%,
tion may limit the effectiveness of solving the same problems again respectively, for the group portion.
this approach in groups with one in Stage 2 usually takes much The group exam score has no effect
dominant student or in groups with less time than in Stage 1, includ- on the differentiation between stu-
42 Journal of College Science TeachingExaminations That Support Collaborative Learning
dents (i.e., a student’s performance resulted in an average increase of the 0.5% from the midterm and 0.7% for
relative to the class), yet even the midterm mark due to the group por- the final exam, where the standard
small weight of the group portion tion of 3.3% and an average increase deviation of course grade distribu-
provides sufficient motivation for in the final exam score due to the tion was 9.7%.
students to take this part seriously. group portion of 1.6 %. The resulting On the basis of the collective ex-
For example, an 85/15 (individual/ impact on the average course grade perience at UBC across the science
group) split used in our physics class of the group part of the exams was disciplines of physics, chemistry,
FIGURE 1
Examples of questions taken from a two-stage exam for physics.
Most questions will be the same for the individual and the group part. If questions are modified, it is usually to reduce the number
of detailed calculations, which do not promote discussions, and replace with prompts to “explain your reasoning.” Additionally,
one or two more challenging questions may be added.
INDIVIDUAL PART GROUP PART
A train is approaching the train station at velocity v0 = 15 m/s (Changed to ranking) A train is approaching the train station at
relative to the ground in still air. The train operator sounds the velocity v0 relative to the ground in still air. The train operator
train whistle, which emits a note with frequency f0 = 2500 Hz. sounds the train whistle, which emits a note with frequency f0.
The sound of the whistle is heard by different observers: The sound of the whistle is heard by different observers:
The train operator hears a frequency fA; The train operator hears a frequency fA;
a person standing on the station platform watching the train a person standing on the station platform watching the train
approach hears a frequency fB; approach hears a frequency fB;
the operator of a second train approaching the station from the the operator of a second train approaching the station from the
other direction with velocity v2 = 10 m/s hears a frequency fC. other direction with velocity v2 hears a frequency fC;
What are the frequencies fA, fB, and fC? a passenger traveling on a slower train that has just been over-
taken by the first train (and sees the first train move farther
away) hears frequency fD.
Rank the frequencies heard by the observers (fA, fB, fC, fD) in order
from the highest to the lowest frequency.
The graph shows the velocity vs. time graph of a harmonic (Replace part c)
oscillator. a) same
b) same
c) Sketch the potential energy curve as a function of time. As-
sume that we have a horizontal harmonic oscillator.
Determine
a) the angular frequency
b) the maximum displacement
c) the phase constant and the equation describing the position
as a function of time.
Vol. 43, No. 4, 2014 43biology, math, statistics, Earth and
FIGURE 2
ocean sciences, computer science,
and land and food systems, we would Percentage of students with generally positive, negative, or neutral
further recommend the following: opinions about two-stage exams (N = 123 students). General positive
means students found the exam format to be good or helpful for
• Students are told on the first day learning. Neutral/other means that students did not express a clear
of classes that examinations will positive or negative opinion, or commented on other things. General
negative means that student had overall negative comments about the
be conducted in this format and,
exam format.
more important, why this is done
in this way.
• A policy is implemented that
the group score cannot be lower
than the individual mark. This
will address concerns about fair-
ness. In practice, it affects only
a few high-performing students
as groups perform equal or bet-
ter than individual students in al-
most all cases.
• Clear instructions are given dur-
ing the individual-to-group tran-
sition. For example, students
should remain seated while their
individual exam copies are col-
lected. Remind and check that all
names and student numbers are
listed on the group exam.
• Students are discouraged from
working on their own during the add a few observations from several exam? Even a casual observation of
group portion and all members science classes at UBC. the two situations reveals the differ-
are encouraged to be involved in During the high-stakes environ- ence: We routinely see nearly 100%
discussing every problem. Teach- ment of an examination, students are engagement during the group part
ing assistants and instructors can heavily invested in figuring out the of the exams, presumably because
help with forming groups and correct answers. After the individual of the high-stakes situation of an
encouraging collaborative work, portion, all students are well pre- examination. As confirmed through
but this is seldom needed. pared to discuss their approach in a both observations and student self-
group. In these discussions, students reports, most groups discuss the
Overall, it does not take much ef- get immediate feedback on their questions until all members agree on
fort to run a two-stage exam. From solutions from their peers, which an answer; even during open-book,
our experience, creating the group might help them clarify their think- two-stage exams, it was very unusual
portion of the exam is easy because it ing (Cortright et al., 2003, Gilley & to see students looking through the
is largely identical to the individual Clarkston, 2014, Rao, Collins, & Di- book to find the answers instead of
exam, and the additional marking Carlo, 2002). Weaker students could discussing them and figuring them
time of the group copies is minor be- benefit from the explanation that is out themselves. Those students who
cause most solutions are correct. To targeted to their difficulties, higher are usually too shy to speak up dur-
our knowledge, no instructor at our achieving students might benefit ing in-class activities will defend
institution who has tried two-stage from explaining concepts to others, their answers vigorously during
exams has abandoned this approach. and everyone may well benefit from the second stage of the exam. By
critically evaluating others’ ideas. comparison, the discussions during
Benefits of two-stage exams One may argue that these same normal in-class activities, such as
Here we offer some thoughts on benefits are also present in “nor- clicker question discussions, do not
why collaborative exams can in- mal” in-class collaborative learn- have nearly the same intensity. This
crease learning and retention and ing activities; so why do this on an is probably because the stakes are
44 Journal of College Science TeachingExaminations That Support Collaborative Learning
lower, and it is not necessary for stu- In our introductory physics class, Impact on student opinions
dents to reach an agreement because we noted an additional beneficial For illustrative purposes, we exam-
they usually submit their own (indi- effect of a two-stage midterm exam: ine in detail how two-stage exams
vidual) answers. The students also It increased the engagement during impacted student opinions in one
know that they will receive expert in-class collaborative activities fol- course; however, these results are
feedback from the instructor fol- lowing the examination. Although similar to what has been seen in
lowing the discussion, so they don’t students regularly participated in other science courses.
have to evaluate as carefully what peer discussions of clicker questions We gave both the midterm and
their colleagues are saying. Finally, and worksheet problems before the final exams in a two-stage format in
students are better prepared to carry midterm and the instructors ex- the aforementioned calculus-based
out peer discussions in a two-stage plained the benefits of collaborative introductory physics course. The
exam than they are during lecture learning, it appears that the two-stage students filled out a 20-question
because (a) they have studied for the exam convinced the students (more) online survey after the final exam;
exam, and (b) each student is forced of the value of peer discussions. It is four questions probed their views on
to think deeply about the questions also possible that, after the midterm the exams. Of the 179 students, 123
during the individual portion of the exam, students think of the in-class completed the survey. Eighty-seven
exam before the discussion starts in activities as more directly related to percent supported the use of the
the group portion. exams. two-stage exam format for midterms,
TABLE 1
Coding scheme and results as applied to students’ written comments regarding their experience with two-
stage exams in Physics 101.
No. of times
Overall Detailed mentioned
code code Description of code (N = 123 students)
General G-E Good, enjoy, benefit, great, liked, useful, OK, interesting 56
positive
(Total: 236) H Helpful 30
C Increased confidence 9
LE Good learning experience, good way to review exam 21
LE-D Learning from: discussions with others, hearing other approaches, comparing 48
with others, explaining yourself, collaborating
IF Immediate feedback: good to know if right or wrong 34
IF-LM Immediate feedback: learning from mistakes 16
GD-pos Positive mention of group working together, group members, meeting
friends, group preparation, cooperation, and references to grade boost 22
Neutral/ Misc Random comments not fitting into the above categories as well as 15
other suggestions
General NEG-gen Negative mention of group not working so well together, not everyone
negative pulling their own weight, hard to explain to others, and concerns about unfair 15
grade boost to weaker student, not fair for the individual
NEG-em Dislike, frustrating, not helpful, feeling sad or depressed, less confident 15
Vol. 43, No. 4, 2014 45whereas 74% supported the use for
FIGURE 3
both midterm and final exams. A
possible reason for the difference Student survey results on group decision making (N = 123). Students
could be that students view the mid- were asked: “During the group exam, my group usually____.” Full
term as being part of learning and answer choices (left to right): “discussed EACH question until ALL
perhaps feedback on their studying, members agreed on an answer and explanation,” “took a VOTE and
whereas they see the final exam as if unanimous moved on, otherwise discussed the question until all
members agreed on an answer,” “took a VOTE and used the MAJORITY
a kind of “certification,” similar to
to determine the answer,” “USED the answers from the ONE PERSON in
many instructors. Many students see
the group who knew the most physics.”
this course as their final exposure to
physics, so although students may
see the second-stage feedback on
what they did wrong for the mid-
terms as productive, they may not
appreciate it as much for the final,
where there is no hope of using the
feedback for future improvement. To
explore this further, one would need
to conduct interviews with students.
The survey included a question
in which students were asked to
describe their experience with the
group exam in one or two sentences.
All students who completed the
survey answered this question. As
shown in Figure 2, most students had
a generally positive opinion.
The detailed analysis and coding
scheme we developed for classifying
the comments is shown in Table 1. always commented why I chose These comments give us insight
Many students’ responses fell into the answer that I did and our into why students generally value
multiple categories; from the 123 group would discuss it. I think two-stage exams: they felt it was
students, we coded 283 comments. I was also very lucky to meet a good learning experience, and a
The comments were coded inde- kind people during lecture.” (H; good way of reviewing the exam,
pendently by each researcher and MISC; LE-D; GD-pos) they learned from discussing with
then compared. The interrater reli- • Student C: “It was sort of de- other students and hearing other
ability for the comments was 95%, pressing to know what you got students’ approaches, they enjoyed
with differences in the coding being wrong right after writing the working together, and they valued
discussed until an agreement was exam. I think it ends up being the immediate feedback in the group
reached. A few examples of student worth it, though, because you part.
comments and coding are as follows: learn from your mistakes and the Students also expressed concerns
way classmates explain things about the exam format in 30 negative
• Student A: “It was a good experi- could be easier to understand at comments, half relating to group work
ence since going over the exam times than the way it’s explained and the other half to the emotional im-
with my peers reassured me in the textbook.” (NEG-em G-E; pact of getting immediate feedback.
about my answers. As well, I was IF-LM; LE-D) However, of the 15 students who
able to learn from my mistakes • Student D: “The group exam criticized the group work, only six
through the group exam.” (G-E; was interesting and a good op- students rated their overall experience
C; IF-LM) portunity to go over the answers on the two-stage exam as negative.
• Student B: “It was surprisingly and talk about the questions. Just Three of the six students mentioned
very helpful. I would say I con- did not like when some members concerns about “weak students un-
tributed as much as I could. did not do anything.” (G-E, LE, fairly gaining marks.” Nine students
When I got a different answer I NEG-gen) were critical of the group work but
46 Journal of College Science TeachingExaminations That Support Collaborative Learning
still had an overall positive experience the overall coherence of any course 1: Group versus individual problem
(as Student C). Fifteen students com- that is using techniques of collabor- solving. American Journal of
mented that it was “sad” or “depress- ative learning and formative assess- Physics, 60, 627–636.
ing” to learn about their mistakes, ment, as well as allowing students Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., &
but nine students still had an overall to learn while completing the exam. Smith, K. A. (2011). Lecturing
positive view. We therefore highly recommend with informal cooperative learning
In the survey students were this exam format to any instructor groups. In J. Cooper & P. Robinson
specifically asked about how their looking to add a formative element (Eds.), Small group learning in
group reached consensus. The to their summative assessments. n higher education: Research and
results are presented in Figure 3. practice (p. 46). Oklahoma City,
Clearly, most students worked on Acknowledgments OK: New Forums Press.
the group exam in the intended col- The authors gratefully acknowledge the Leight, H., Saunders, C., Calkins,
laborative way. Only three students, Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative R., & Withers, M. (2012).
two of whom commented about bad (CWSEI) for funding and support. We Collaborative testing improves
dynamics in their group, claimed to thank Carl Wieman for assistance with the performance but not content
have “used the answers from the one preparation of the manuscript. We also retention in a large-enrollment
person in the group who knew the thank all the CWSEI Science Teaching introductory biology class. CBE—
most physics.” These responses sup- and Learning Fellows for providing Life Sciences Education, 11,
port our observations of classwide information on their experiences with 392–401.
participation in the second stage of two-stage exams, in particular Brett Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A
the exam and the intensity of the Gilley and Bridgette Clarkston. user’s manual. Upper Saddle River,
physics discussions that ensue. NJ: Prentice Hall.
References National Research Council. (2012).
Summary Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Discipline-based education
Two-stage exams are valuable in- Assessment and classroom research: Understanding
structional tools that offer a com- learning. Assessment in Education: and improving learning in
bination of formative learning and Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, undergraduate science and
assessment. They can easily be 7–74. engineering. Washington, DC:
implemented in many courses and Cohen, D., & Henle, J. (1995, July). National Academies Press.
are popular with students and fac- The pyramid exam. UME Trends, Available at http://www.nap.edu/
ulty members who use them. Sur- 10, 2, 15. catalog.php?record_id=13362
veys show that this exam format is Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., Rao, S. P., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo,
popular with students for the right Rodenbaugh D. W., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2002). Collaborative
reasons—students recognize the S. T. (2003). Student retention testing enhances student learning.
value of immediate feedback that of course content is improved Advances in Physiology Education,
takes place and the learning that by collaborative‐group testing. 26, 37–41.
results. The exam format is similar Advances in Physiology Education, Stearns, S. A. (1996). Collaborative
to the collaborative in-class activi- 27, 102–108. exams as learning tools. College
ties and therefore strengthens the Gilley, B. H., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Teaching, 44(3), 111–112.
link between exams and the peer Collaborative testing: Evidence of Zipp, J. F. (2007). The impact of two-
instruction activities in class. We learning in a controlled in-class stage cooperative tests. Teaching
have noted an increase in engage- study of undergraduate students. Sociology, 35, 62–76.
ment during in-class peer activities Journal of College Science
after a group midterm exam. Fur- Teaching, 43(3), 83–91. Georg W. Rieger (rieger@phas.ubc.ca) is
ther studies are necessary to estab- Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). an instructor 1 in the Department of Phys-
lish that this is mainly a result of Teaching problem-solving ics and Astronomy and a member of the
the two-stage exam. It would also through cooperative grouping. Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative
be interesting to find out if students Part 2: Designing problems and (CWSEI), University of British Columbia
acquire better group skills through structuring groups. American (UBC), British Columbia, Vancouver, Cana-
participation in the group part of Journal of Physics, 60, 637–644. da. Cynthia E. Heiner was a teaching and
the exam. The experience in our Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. learning fellow in the CWSEI at UBC at the
science faculty has shown that the (1992). Teaching problem solving time the article was written and is now at
two-stage approach contributes to through cooperative grouping. Part the Free University Berlin in Germany.
Vol. 43, No. 4, 2014 47You can also read
