Two-stage exams, which pair a traditional individual exam with a subsequent collaborative exam, are widely popular with both students and faculty for fostering deep engagement, collaboration, and immediate feedback. Over the last decade, this assessment model has gained substantial traction in STEM college courses; however, holding both stages during class sessions often limits the full potential of two-stage exams, deterring many instructors from adopting them. To accommodate these constraints, instructors must either reduce the exam’s content depth and coverage, or hold evening, in-person exam sessions at fixed times, which can often be impractical for students and faculty with external commitments. In this paper, we introduce an alternative asynchronous approach that allows the collaborative portion to be completed unsupervised and outside of regular class hours, within 48 hr of the individual exam. This method not only eases logistical constraints but also allows more time for collaboration, potentially enhancing feedback quality. Our findings show that students equate their engagement, collaboration, and feedback quality during the asynchronous collaborative exam with that of standard in-class exams and show signs of retention of learning. This cost-effective approach requires no extra time or resources and could promote widespread adoption of this effective assessment method, especially in online-only and general STEM courses.
BeyerJ.StrobeltH.OppermannM.DeslauriersL.PfisterH. (2016, October23). Teaching visualization for large and diverse classes on campus and online [Pedagogy of Data Visualization Workshop (PDVW 2016)]. Baltimore, Maryland, Pedagogy Data Visualization, IEEE VIS Workshop, 2.
2.
BloomB. S.EngelhartM. D.FurstE. J.HillW. H.KrathwohlD. R. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives (Vol. 2). Longmans, Green.
3.
BloomD. (2009). Collaborative test taking: Benefits for learning and retention. College Teaching, 57(4), 216–220.
4.
BrunoB. C.EngelsJ.ItoG.Gillis-DavisJ.DulaiH.CarterG.FletcherC.Böttjer-WilsonD. (2017). Two-stage exams: A powerful tool for reducing the achievement gap in undergraduate oceanography and geology classes. Oceanography, 30(2), 198–208.
5.
CallaghanK.MilbourneT.KlalesA.KestinG.ArguellesC.McCartyL.DeslauriersL. (2025). Two-stage final exams: An assessment strategy for enhanced collaborative learning and reduced student stress. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04281. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.04281
6.
CaoY.PorterL. (2017, March8–11). Evaluating student learning from collaborative group tests in introductory computing [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on computer science education, Seattle, WA, United States. (pp. 99–104).
7.
CortrightR. N.CollinsH. L.RodenbaughD. W.DiCarloS. E. (2003). Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(3), 102–108.
8.
CrouchC. H.MazurE. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.
9.
DeslauriersL.McCartyL. S.MillerK.CallaghanK.KestinG. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 116(39), 19251–19257.
10.
DeslauriersL.SchelewE.WiemanC. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.
11.
DeslauriersL.WiemanC. (2011). Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 7(1), Article 010101.
12.
DunleavyS.KestinG.CallaghanK.McCartyL.DeslauriersL. (2022). Increased learning in a college physics course with timely use of short multimedia summaries. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(1), Article 010110.
13.
FournierK. A.CouretJ.RamsayJ. B.CaulkinsJ. L. (2017). Using collaborative two-stage examinations to address test anxiety in a large enrollment gateway course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(5), 409–422.
14.
FreemanS.EddyS. L.McDonoughM.SmithM. K.OkoroaforN.JordtH.WenderothM. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(23), 8410–8415.
15.
GaraschukK. M.CytrynbaumE. N. (2019). Feasibility and effectiveness of group exams in mathematics courses. Primus, 29(10), 1061–1079.
16.
GilleyB. H.ClarkstonB. (2014). Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 83–91.
17.
HellerP.HollabaughM. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637–644.
18.
HollisterB.NairP.Hill-LindsayS.ChukoskieL. (2022). Engagement in online learning: Student attitudes and behavior during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 851019.
19.
HsuJ. L. (2021). Promoting academic integrity and student learning in online biology courses. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1), 10–1128.
20.
IvesJ. (2014, July30–31). Measuring the learning from two-stage collaborative group exams [Conference session]. Physics Education Research Conference 2014 Part of the PER Conference series, Minneapolis, MN.
21.
JonesD. J.MadisonK. W.WiemanC. E. (2015). Transforming a fourth year modern optics course using a deliberate practice framework. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 11(2), Article 020108.
22.
KapitanoffS. H. (2009). Collaborative testing: Cognitive and interpersonal processes related to enhanced test performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 56–70.
23.
KinnearG. (2021). Two-stage collaborative exams have little impact on subsequent exam performance in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 7(1), 33–60.
24.
LeightH.SaundersC.CalkinsR.WithersM. (2012). Collaborative testing improves performance but not content retention in a large-enrollment introductory biology class. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 392–401.
25.
LevyD.SvoronosT.KlingerM. (2023). Two-stage examinations: Can examinations be more formative experiences?Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 79–94.
26.
McCartyL. S.DeslauriersL. (2020). Transforming a large university physics course to student-centered learning, without sacrificing content: A case study. In HoidnS.KlemenčičM. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 186–200). Routledge.
27.
MillerK.CallaghanK.McCartyL. S.DeslauriersL. (2021). Increasing the effectiveness of active learning using deliberate practice: A homework transformation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(1), Article 010129.
28.
NicolD.SelvaretnamG. (2021). Making internal feedback explicit: Harnessing the comparisons students make during two-stage exams. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 507–522.
29.
PandeyC.KapitanoffS. (2011). The influence of anxiety and quality of interaction on collaborative test performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 163–174.
30.
RempelB. P.DirksM. B.McGinitieE. G. (2021). Two-stage testing reduces student-perceived exam anxiety in introductory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(8), 2527–2535.
31.
RiegerG. W.HeinerC. E. (2014). Examinations that support collaborative learning: The students’ perspective. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 41–47.
32.
RiegerG. W.RiegerC. L. (2020). Collaborative assessment that supports learning. In MintzesJ. J.WalterE. M. (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice (pp. 821–837). Springer International Publishing.
33.
RivazM.MomennasabM.ShokrollahiP. (2015). Effect of collaborative testing on learning and retention of course content in nursing students. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 3(4), 178.
34.
SmithM. K.WoodW. B.AdamsW. K.WiemanC.KnightJ. K.GuildN.SuT. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.
35.
StearnsS. A. (1996). Collaborative exams as learning tools. College Teaching, 44(3), 111–112.
36.
StoianC. E.FărcașiuM. A.DragomirG. M.GherheșV. (2022). Transition from online to face-to-face education after COVID-19: The benefits of online education from students’ perspective. Sustainability, 14(19), 12812.
37.
TheobaldE. J.HillM. J.TranE.AgrawalS.ArroyoE. N.BehlingS.ChambweN.CintrónD. L.CooperJ. D.DunsterG.GrummerJ. A.HennesseyK.HsiaoJ.IranonN.JonesL.IIJordtH.KellerM.LaeyM. E.LittlefieldC. E.. . . FreemanS. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 117(12), 6476-6483.
Vázquez-GarcíaM. (2018). Collaborative-group testing improves learning and knowledge retention of human physiology topics in second-year medical students. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(2), 232–239.
40.
VoglerJ. S.RobinsonD. H. (2016). Team-based testing improves individual learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 787–803.
41.
WiemanC. E.RiegerG. W.HeinerC. E. (2014). Physics exams that promote collaborative learning. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 51–53.
42.
YuB.TsiknisG.AllenM. (2010, March10–13). Turning exams into a learning experience [Conference session]. 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, United States (pp. 336–340).
43.
ZippJ. F. (2007). Learning by exams: The impact of two-stage cooperative tests. Teaching Sociology, 35(1), 62–76.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
