In this post, Patricia Castro Sánchez explains a research project that trialled the two-stage exam and included students in the research process. Patricia is a Teaching Lecturer at the Institute of Immunology and Infection Research. This post belongs to the Student Partnership Agreement 2025 series.
“If you ask someone else for help on a problem in an exam you are cheating, but if you don’t ask someone for help on a problem in the real world, you are a fool.” Professor Dan Schwartz, Stanford Graduate School of Education.
I think this sentence summarises brilliantly how traditional exams do not reflect the social nature of learning, working and living in the real world. Given the importance of communicating and collaborating with others, could we include these aspects in exams? Could exams be not just tools to grade individual students, but also opportunities for learning collaboratively?
Two-stage exams
A way to do this is to use two-stage exams. In two-stage exams, students complete an exam first individually, then again in a small group. The final mark is a combination of the individual and the group mark. The possibility of obtaining instant feedback from peers and of increasing performance provides a strong motivation to engage in discussions in the group stage. Previous studies have shown that students perceive this exam format as less stressful and more useful for learning than a traditional exam, with some studies also showing increased learning as a result (see Levy, Svoronos & Klinger, 2018, for a great summary of the literature).
How the project started
In December 2024, we implemented a two-stage exam in the third year Biology course: Pathogen Biology 3. As course organisers (COs), we made a bunch of decisions:
- Students would not know who was in their group in advance;
- The groups would be made by matriculation number;
- There would be three students per group;
- We would allocate one hour for the individual stage and 30 min for the group stage;
- The exam would be a multiple answer test.
As we were making all these decisions, I started to think that actually, students who have already experienced the two-stage exam would be in a much better position to decide these aspects. Therefore, we formed a research group with six student volunteers (Emma Curry, Zoe Dearness, Grace Holtom, Linzhi Huang, Abigail Strath and Priscilla Wong) and the two COs (Prof Achim Schanufer and myself) to work together to design surveys, run focus groups, analyse results and design the exam for future years. We applied to the Student Partnership Agreement (SPA) small project fund to do this work, and we got the funding!
Students’ perspectives on the two-stage exam experience
We gathered feedback through a survey, and we were very pleased to see that most students felt that participating in the group phase helped consolidate their understanding, and that the two-stage exam was more helpful for learning than a traditional exam. However, only a minority of students found the two-stage exam less stressful than a traditional exam. Further investigating this through the answers to open questions and a focus group, we identified two main causes: (1) the multiple answer question format without partial marking; and (2) the stress caused by insecurity and disagreements during the group phase. While students did not think it was necessary to know who would be in their group in advance, they did want more opportunities to practice that type of group work during the semester. In addition, students were happy with the time allocated for each stage and with the way the groups were created, however they would have preferred groups of four students instead of three.
The changes to implement
The team analysed the project results and decided on several action points for next year:
- The exam will have a mix of single and multiple answer questions
- Group work will be integrated in the course bioinformatic workshops, with tasks completed in groups of four.
- We will do a full mock exam in the last week of teaching.
- We will allocate four students per group in the exam.
- We will keep the same time allocation and system to create groups.
My experience…
….of the two-stage exam
There were definitely more logistics involved in organising a two-stage exam than I had anticipated. In particular, planning for students with adjustments or making contingency plans in case our planned groups and sitting arrangement had to be altered due to some students not sitting the exam. And what if the exam was too easy and no one bothered to discuss? Having an enthusiastic and supportive team was essential to get over these difficulties (thanks to Achim and to Grace Lavender, course administrator, for being great!).
There were two key moments when I felt that the extra work had been worth it. Firstly, when, during the exam group stage, I saw my class of 50 students all engaged in conversations. Secondly, when, after marking the exams, it became clear that the group stage had increased every student’s grade. Even those who did very well in the individual stage increased their mark in the group stage. I hope that really made students realise how valuable working with others is.
…of working with students in the SPA project
Working with the students was really interesting and enjoyable. They brought their own perspectives to every step of the research, from the questions to ask in the survey and how to ask them, to generating action points for next year’s exam. It felt great to work with the students as colleagues. It took us some time to get into this new dynamic of partnership, though; at the beginning I felt that the students were expecting me to direct every step and make every decision, and it was difficult to get them to express their opinions. With time, I think we got there.
An interesting aspect was working through the tension between students’ and teachers’ interest that became apparent: while students were pushing for the exam to be easier in future years, the teachers wanted to keep the exam challenging, to ensure high motivation for, and benefit of, discussion in the group stage. I think we reached a compromise in the end, and I am excited to see how the changes we have designed together impact students’ experience of the exam next year.
The (idealistic) bigger picture
The action points that come out of this project mean that next year, the course will offer more opportunities for collaborative learning that will culminate with the two-stage exam. I would like to think that by placing more emphasis on collaboration and sharing knowledge, rather than on being individualistic and competitive, we are somehow helping create a fairer, more compassionate society for the future. Studying for the Pathogen Biology 3 exam is not just about you, so you can get a higher mark; it is also about giving and receiving help, so everyone can do better. Isn’t that what society should be about?
References
Levy, D., Svoronos, T., & Klinger, M. (2018). Two-stage examinations: Can examinations be more formative experiences? Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801668
Read more about the two-stage exam: Assessment for learning: The two-part assessment
Patricia Castro Sánchez
Patricia Castro Sánchez is a Teaching Lecturer at the Institute of Immunology and Infection Research and a FHEA. She teaches mainly third- and fourth-year Biology students and is interested in collaborative learning, co-creation and relational pedagogies. She co-organises the College of Science and Engineering Teaching Community, a network that brings together colleagues interested in learning and teaching across the College to foster collaboration and peer-support.
