I had been feeling uneasy about the level of engagement in my EDKP 447 Motor Control course (Kinesiology and Physical Ed). The previous cohort (Fall 2024), despite doing reasonably well, hadn’t seemed fully connected to the learning experience. When the Fall 2025 term began, I knew I wanted to try something different—something that would help students interact more actively with the material, and with each other.
In collaboration with María Orjuela-Laverde, an Educational Developer at Teaching and Academic Programs (TAP), and Clara Guedes, a former student I hired as a student-partner, I began to rethink the structure of my midterm assessments. My original plan was to incorporate more in‑class activities, but in one of our early conversations, Clara mentioned that the classes themselves had felt meaningful and engaging when she took the course—the challenge, from her perspective, had been the midterms.
Her insight was the nudge I needed to shift my focus. If the assessments were the barrier, then that was where redesign work needed to happen.
Discovering the two-stage exam strategy
During a meeting with María, I learned about the two-stage exam strategy. At its core, this strategy combines an individual assessment with a collaborative group component. Students answer the exam individually first and then come together in small groups to discuss and respond to some of the same questions. The goal isn’t simply to check for correctness; it’s to provide a structured opportunity for discussion, collective reasoning, and peer learning during the exam itself. Here are examples and descriptions of two-stage exams among McGill instructors.
Most of the examples I found regarding the two-stage exam strategy involved multiple choice questions, but my midterm included a mix of formats: several multiple-choice items and three open-ended questions. We decided that the open-ended ones would form the basis of the group portion. I was curious—and admittedly nervous—to see how this would play out.
How I organized the exam
After the two‑hour individual portion and a 15‑minute break, students returned for the group stage. I had pre‑assigned groups (posted on myCourses), and I would make the same choice again; what I found challenging was the room and wayfinding. The auditorium‑style space—new to me—wasn’t ideal for group work, and without a clear seating plan, it took time for students to locate one another. In a 90+ student class, that slowdown adds up, especially when some students haven’t checked their group assignment in advance. In the future, I’ll provide a simple seating map and in‑room markers to make the transition quicker and calmer.
Working with SAA and supporting all students
Since several students were registered with the Student Accessibility and Achievement (SAA) office, María consulted with SAA on how to implement the two-stage exam while ensuring accommodations were upheld.
The exam was scheduled for 5:35 p.m which meant students using SAA services could begin earlier and still finish their individual attempt in time to rejoin the rest of the class for the group portion. At SAA, students need to finish at 7:30 pm. SAA staff make students start earlier accordingly. The built-in 15-minute break for SAA enrolled students also facilitated movement back to the classroom, ensuring equitable participation.
Feeling nervous—and supported
I won’t pretend I wasn’t nervous. Managing this type of assessment with 92 students felt logistically daunting. But I wasn’t doing it alone. My TA, my student-partner Clara, and María formed a true support team. In the moments leading up to the exam, knowing I had their help made all the difference.
When I explained the two-stage format in the class prior to the midterm, several students expressed worry. Some students were skeptic and concerned of not having their voices heard. A few thought it was going to be chaotic or unfair. I reassured them that the goal was to promote learning—and that I was open to feedback afterward.
What I observed—and what students told me
During the group portion, I walked around the room and was struck by the energy. The classroom was noisy, vibrant, and filled with genuine discussion. Students debated interpretations, questioned one another, justified their thinking, and came to consensus.
I received some emails of concern right after the exam, but when I spoke with those students a few days later, many had already shifted their perspective. The novelty of the format created some initial resistance, adding stress on top of the exam itself. Yet afterward, several of the same students who had expressed concerns approached me to say they had actually enjoyed the experience. They hadn’t expected an exam to feel collaborative or energizing.
Later in the term, María led a midterm feedback session to gather structured input. Students’ comments about the two-stage exam were overwhelmingly positive. They appreciated the chance to talk through open-ended questions with classmates—something they rarely get to do during a formal assessment.
For grading, students’ marks combined two components: the individual multiple-choice portion and the group portion of the open-ended questions. While students also answered the open-ended questions individually, those responses were read for insight but not counted toward the final grade. This structure allowed students to be assessed on their individual understanding while still benefiting from the deeper reasoning and peer discussion that emerged during the collaborative stage. I also compared individual and group responses informally and noticed that the group answers tended to be more thoughtful and nuanced.
The main piece of constructive feedback from students was related to group size. Because a few students did not attend the exam, some groups ended up with only three members instead of the planned five, and these students felt at a disadvantage compared to groups that were fully staffed. I understand why this felt inequitable and will adjust my grouping process next time.
What I will do differently next time
A few things I plan to adjust:
- Clarify expectations even more clearly beforehand. Some students were nervous simply because the format was unfamiliar.
- Refine the timing and logistics. Particularly with a large class, even small adjustments can smooth the process.
- Use a simple seating map and room markers to ease the transition from individual to group work.
Although I had planned to repeat the two-stage approach for the second midterm, the STM strike made scheduling the exam at 5:30–6:00 p.m. impossible. Instead, I assigned a take-home assessment. I’m hoping to revisit the two-stage format in future iterations of the course.
Final reflections
This experience brought a level of discussion, collaboration, and relationship-building I hadn’t seen in previous cohorts of my EDKP 447 Motor Control course. The two-stage exam didn’t just assess student learning—it created learning.
And I’m deeply grateful to my student-partner Clara Guedes for her thoughtful insights, and to María Orjuela-Laverde for her guidance and encouragement throughout this process. Their collaboration made this redesign possible.
To learn more about the student-partnership framework, I recommend these excellent resources. I would also be very happy to share more about my experience if you would like to contact me.
Professor Caroline Paquette is an Associate Professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education and Associate Dean (Administration) in the Faculty of Education. If you would like to learn more about her work, you can reach her at caroline.paquette@mcgill.ca. If you are interested in having a midterm course evaluation conducted in your course, feel free to contact TAP at tap@mcgill.ca.
Header photo credit: www.freepik.com
