2-Stage Examinations
Updated May 28, 2026
Most exams are designed to measure learning after it has happened. Two-stage examinations ask a different question: can the assessment moment itself help students learn?
Levy, Svoronos and Klinger examine a model in which students first answer exam questions individually and then work through the same or related questions in groups. The design keeps individual accountability, but adds a collaborative stage where students have to explain, challenge and revise their thinking while the material is still active.
That is why two-stage exams are interesting for higher education teams. They sit between assessment and teaching. Used well, they can reduce the distance between feedback and action because students encounter alternative reasoning immediately, not days or weeks later when the mark is returned.
What the study shows
The main value of the two-stage model is that it makes thinking visible. In a conventional exam, students submit answers and leave. In the group stage, they hear how others approached the same problem. They may discover that their answer was right for the wrong reason, or that a peer has a clearer way to reach the same conclusion.
This does not mean the group should replace individual assessment. The individual stage matters because it protects fairness and gives each student a reason to prepare. Without that, stronger students may carry the task while weaker students remain passive. The group stage works best as a second layer, not as a substitute for individual performance.
The model can also change how students experience exam pressure. Exams often isolate students at the point when they are most uncertain. A structured group stage gives them a chance to test their reasoning and learn from disagreement. That can make the exam feel less like a closed judgement and more like a final learning episode.
There are risks. Group dynamics can be uneven. Some students may defer too quickly to confident peers. Others may dominate. The design needs enough structure to make discussion productive, and staff need to decide how much the group stage contributes to the final mark.
What universities can do with this
Two-stage exams are most useful where reasoning matters. They work well for problem solving, interpretation, application and conceptual understanding. They are less useful if the assessment mainly tests recall.
Programme teams should start with a clear assessment purpose. If the aim is only to improve marks, the design may become a gimmick. If the aim is to help students compare reasoning, practise explanation and receive immediate peer feedback, the model has a stronger educational case.
The weighting also matters. A small group component can give students a reason to engage without making the whole result depend on group performance. Staff should explain this balance clearly, especially to students who are anxious about fairness or group work.
Student feedback should be collected soon after the exam. Useful questions include whether the group stage helped students understand mistakes, whether quieter students could contribute, whether the weighting felt fair, and whether the format changed how they prepared. Those comments can show whether the design is improving learning or simply adding pressure.
Limits of the evidence
Two-stage exams are not a universal fix for assessment. They require careful question design, room planning, timing and facilitation. They also depend on a cohort culture where students are willing to explain their reasoning to one another. The practical lesson is to pilot the format where the learning rationale is strongest, then use student comments and performance evidence together before scaling it.
FAQ
Q: Do two-stage exams make assessment less rigorous?
A: Not if the individual stage remains meaningful. The group stage adds a formative layer, but students still need to demonstrate their own understanding first.
Q: What is the main student experience benefit?
A: Students receive immediate exposure to other ways of thinking. That can make the exam itself more useful for learning, especially when the questions require reasoning rather than recall.
Q: What should staff watch for?
A: Watch for group imbalance, unclear weighting and poor question fit. If students feel the group stage is unfair or irrelevant, the design will weaken trust rather than improve learning.
References
[Source Paper] Levy, Dan, Svoronos, Theodore, and Klinger, Mae. "Two-stage Examinations: Can Examinations Be More Formative Experiences?" Active Learning in Higher Education (2018).
DOI: 10.1177/1469787418801668
[1] Herrmann, Kim J. "The Impact of Cooperative Learning on Student Engagement: Results from an Intervention." Active Learning in Higher Education 14.3 (2013).
DOI: 10.1177/1469787413498035
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround