Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37089218›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2023

Collaborative Two-Stage Exams Benefit Students in a Biology Laboratory Course.

Clara L Meaders, Yalila Vega

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Characterization of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producingJournal of microbiology & biology education · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Exam reform: an opportunity for the redistribution of academic power.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Clara L MeadersDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4620-141X
Yalila VegaSchool of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
University of California San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaborative two-stage exams provide an effective mechanism to incorporate group work into summative course assessments. We implemented these exams in an upper-level biology laboratory course over two terms, one with online exams and one with in-person exams. We compared student exam performance and perceptions of two-stage exams and group work across terms and demographic groups. Quantitative analyses revealed that across three exams per term, students in groups outperformed students who took the exams individually, and on average the group exam benefited all students, in particular students from groups recognized as persons historically excluded from science because of their ethnicity or race (PEERs). Student responses to both closed and open-ended questions indicated overall positive perceptions of both two-stage exams and group work. We found no significant differences in student perceptions based on PEER student status, gender, or the number of exams helped by group exams, but we found differences related to term and group exam approaches. These findings build upon the literature supporting student learning and perceptions from two-stage exams and provide novel insights for a role of group work in decreasing inequities in course assessments.

Indexed as

collaborative examcollaborative learninggroup worktwo-stage exam

Identifiers

PMID37089218
PMCPMC10117066
OpenAlexW4310533519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.