Post on 05-Dec-2014
description
1
Can student-generated content enhance learning in introductory
physics?
Simon Bates, Ross Galloway, Karon McBride
Physics Education Research Group, University of Edinburgh, UK
AAPT Summer Meeting 2011, Omaha NE, Aug 2011
1. Background and motivation
2. About
3. What we did in our courses
4. What we found engagement, examples, effects
2
Background and motivation
3
Time spent in self-study
The inverted classroom
The cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing
Background and motivation
4
Time spent in self-study
1 2 3 4 5
Background and motivation
5
Time spent in self-study
1 2 3 4 5
Background and motivation
6
Time spent in self-study
The inverted classroom
The cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing
Background and motivation
7
Time spent in self-study
The inverted classroom
The cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing
The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland
5th July, 2010
Paul Denny
PeerWise bridging the gap between online learning and social media
Department of Computer Science The University of Auckland New Zealand
• Web-based MCQ repository built by students
• Students: – develop new questions with
associated explanations – answer existing questions and
rate them for quality and difficulty – take part in discussions – collaborate in a community
space
About PeerWise
Student familiarity with
Web 2.0 The energy and
creativity of a large class
Student generated questions
About PeerWise
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
• To date
– 77 institutions
– 557 courses
– 33757 students have contributed
– 94207 questions have been written
– 2308854 answers have been submitted
About PeerWise
Implemented in 2 successive introductory Physics courses (1A & 1B)
P1A: workshop session in Week 5
Student groups worked Through structured Example & devised own Qs
20
Implementation
An assessment was set for the end of Week 6:
Minimum requirements:
• Write one question • Answer 5 • Comment on & rate 3
Contributed ~3% to course assessment 21
Implementation
22
We were deliberately hands off.
• No moderation • No corrections • No interventions at all
But we did observe…..
23
Implementation
P1A in-course assessment (N=200)
350 user-contributed questions in total
~3500 answers ~2000 comments
24
Workshop training
Live Due
Findings
25
Findings
26
Findings
27
28
29
Generally, students did:
• Participate beyond minimum requirements
• Genuinely surprise us with the quality of submissions, creating problems not exercises
• Engage in community learning, correcting errors
• Provide positive feedback on using PeerWise 30
Findings
Generally, students did not:
• Contribute trivial / irrelevant questions
• Submit questions with ‘bad physics’
• Let mistakes or errors persist
• Use it much beyond the assessment periods
31
Findings
Does degree of PeerWise activity correlate with end of course performance?
Yes, for the majority of students
32
Findings
Defining activity:
• Combined measure of number of questions, answers, comments and days of activity (Q,A,C & D)
• Divide student score on each of 4 individual measures into deciles and award score 0 10
33
Findings
Defining activity:
• CM scores from 0 40
• Median split of cohort on the basis of CM scores into ‘HPA’ and ‘LPA’.
See Denny et al Proceeding of the 4th international workshop on Computing education research, 2008 51-58 for full details
34
Findings
Findings
Quartiles Q1 – top 25%
Q2 – upper middle
Q3 – lower middle
Q4 – bottom 25%
22 students did not take the FCI
Findings
Findings
P1A cohort
Summary
• Pilot use of PeerWise in two successive intro Physics courses
• Clear evidence of student engagement, with high quality submissions and discussions
• Use of system correlated with course outcome, and not just for the best students
38
39
Poster at PERC
EdPER group website bit.ly/EdPER
Talk slides on Slideshare EdPER_talks
S.P.Bates@ed.ac.uk Ross.Galloway@ed.ac.uk
Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge project grant support from the HEA Physical
Sciences Centre and the support of Paul Denny, University of Auckland.