Making exams formative with two-stage exams

Discussion Leaders: 
Teddy Svoronos, PhD- Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, LInc Faculty Fellow 
Dan Levy, PhD - Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, LInc Faculty Fellow

Overview
In this session, Teddy Svoronos and Dan Levy will discuss their experience administering two-stage exams. Two-stage examinations consist of a first stage in which students work individually as they typically do in examinations (stage 1), followed by a second stage in which they work in groups to complete another examination (stage 2), which typically consists of a subset of the questions from the first examination. Dan and Teddy will share data from a study including several years of administering these exams, including a measure to assess the extent to which students were able to effectively collaborate. A short presentation will be followed by a discussion of the logistics of two-stage exams, alternative formats, and the advantages and disadvantages of this mode of assessment.

Discussion Facilitators:
Teddy Svoronos, LInc Faculty Affiliate and Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Dan Levy, LInc Faculty Fellow 2021-2022 and Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
 

TO DO 

Reading: 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 Link to article

Take Aways 
After the session on Making Exams Formative with Two-Stage Exams, the LInc Faculty Fellows left with the following key takeaways:

1. A Clear Understanding of Two-Stage Exams
   • Fellows grasped the mechanics of two-stage exams, including the individual and group stages, and how they differ from traditional exam formats.
2. Insights from Evidence-Based Research
   • Fellows gained an appreciation of the data and findings from several years of implementing two-stage exams, understanding how this approach supports effective student collaboration and learning outcomes.
3. Practical Guidance for Implementation
   • Fellows took away actionable steps and logistical considerations for incorporating two-stage exams into their own courses, including how to handle group formation, timing, and grading strategies.
4. Evaluation of Advantages and Challenges
   • Fellows critically assessed the benefits (e.g., fostering collaboration, deeper learning) and challenges (e.g., logistical complexity) of two-stage exams in their specific teaching contexts.
5. Ideas for Adaptation and Innovation
   • Fellows left with creative ideas for adapting two-stage exams or exploring alternative formative assessment methods that aligned with their course goals and disciplines.
6. Collegial Exchange of Perspectives
   • Fellows benefited from peer discussions, gaining new insights and strategies from their colleagues’ experiences and questions.
7. Reflection on Pedagogical Practices
   • Fellows reflected on how two-stage exams could align with broader pedagogical goals, such as promoting self-directed learning, collaboration, and critical thinking.