Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-stage exams have gained traction in education as a means of creating collaborative active-learning experiences in the classroom in a manner that advances learning, positively increases student engagement, and reduces test anxiety. Published analyses have focused almost exclusively on the increase in student scores from the first individual stage to the second collaboration stage and have shown clear positive effects on gains in student scores. Missing from these analyses is a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of individual preparation, the characteristics of questions, and small group composition on the outcomes two-stage exams. I developed a simple quantitative framework that provides a flexible approach for estimating and evaluating the effects of individuals, questions, and groups on student performance. Additionally, the framework yields statistics appropriate for making inferences about productive collaboration, consensus-building, and counter-productive interaction that happens within small groups. Analyses of 12 exams across two courses and 2 years using the quantitative framework revealed considerable variation for all three of these effects within and among exams. Overall, the results highlight the value of quantitative estimation of two-stage exams for gaining perspective on the effects of individuals, questions, and groups on student performance, and facilitates data-driven revision of assessments, curricula, and teaching strategies towards achieving gains in students' collaborative skills.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.143 | 0.288 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".