Measuring the Learning from Two-Stage Collaborative Group Exams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-stage collaborative exam is one in which students first complete the exam individually, and then complete the same or similar exam in collaborative groups immediately afterward. To quantify the learning effect from the group component of these two-stage exams in an introductory Physics course, a randomized crossover design was used where each student participated in both the treatment and control groups. For each of the two two-stage collaborative group midterm exams, questions were designed to form matched near-transfer pairs with questions on an end-of-term diagnostic which was used as a learning test. For diagnostic test questions paired with questions from the first midterm, which took place six to seven weeks before the diagnostic test, an analysis using a mixed-effects logistic regression found no significant differences in diagnostic-test performance between the control and treatment group. For diagnostic test questions paired with questions from the second midterm, which took place one to two weeks prior to the diagnostic test, the treatment group performed significantly higher on the diagnostic-test than control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it