Two-Stage (Collaborative) Testing in Science Teaching: Does It Improve Grades on Short-Answer Questions and Retention of Material?
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
Two-stage collaborative testing is an assessment strategy that involves students initially writing a test individually and then immediately afterward writing the same (or similar) test again in groups. Current evidence shows that two-stage testing improves performance on multiple-choice tests as well as short-term retention of material, but little is known about the effect on long-answer questions and retention across a longer time frame. The purpose of this study was to determine (a) if two-stage testing improves performance on both multiple-choice and long-answer questions, (b) if two-stage testing improves short-and longterm knowledge retention, and (c) whether there are differences in knowledge retention based on question type. A two-stage midterm with both question types was administered in two undergraduate science courses, followed by a short-term and long-term retention test. Performance on both question types improved, with comparable improvement on both question types. Two-stage testing also maintained knowledge retention from the original midterm for both question types in the short term, although the learning gains for long-term retention were less apparent.
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 | 0.056 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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