Student Perceptions of Two-Stage Testing in an Undergraduate General Chemistry Course: For Whom is the Experience Good and Bad?
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 exams are a collaborative learning practice in which students complete part of a summative assessment in a learning team. We investigated what students like and dislike about two-stage quizzes and midterm exams using an open-ended survey to identify key themes and analyzed the relative frequencies of these themes and compared the frequency of responses based on participants’ gender, race/ethnicity, or access to learning accommodations. Overall, we found students overwhelmingly prefer the two-stage assessment, a feeling driven by positive feelings toward the team portion of the exam. Given that historically underrepresented student groups (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, socioeconomic status, etc.) traditionally face achievement gaps in chemistry education, we were also motivated to learn if two-stage exams were viewed as an equitable teaching practice by students. Comparisons of the proportions of participants giving thematic responses according to Gender, Race/Ethnicity, or Learning Accommodations status revealed no significant ( p < 0.05) differences between populations, except for strong evidence that students who accessed accommodations were more likely to report the two-stage exam helped their grades ( p = 0.018). Additional results suggest there may be some minor differences in how students experience two-stage exams based on their demographic profiles, but further research is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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