The 21st Century EducatorAnatomy & a case study from introductory science

Simon Bates simon.bates@ubc.ca @simonpbates bit.ly/batestalks

Symposium for Effective Teaching & Learning in the Sciences — UOIT — Sept 1 2016

2

A talk in two parts

“Anatomy” of skills and values

Example driver of change: technology

Case study example

Deeper engagement with assessment,

learning

CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 https://flic.kr/p/2ZdABF

4

Technology - scale and pace

Slide credit: Eric Grimson (MIT)

5

Technology - scale and pace

Slide credit: Eric Grimson (MIT)

6

7

Technology - reach and unbundling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEq3xifCDw

8

Technology - disruptions

Graph extracted from http://vikparuchuri.com/blog/on-the-automated-scoring-of-essays/

9

Technology - implications

Changing the

of many aspects of life, …and learning is included

what, where, when, how, from whom and with whom

10

So what are the

we need to embrace, develop and refine?

skills, values and habits

Your suggestions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Case study - students as producers

“How can I get my students to engage more effectively with formative assessment opportunities in the course?”

a"web&based"MCQ"repository"created"by"students"

Ins$tu$ons((signing(up(per(year:(!

2009:! ! !22(2010:! ! !66(2011:! ! !204(2012:! ! !266(2013!(Jan,Jun):! !214(

Growing(content(repository:(!Courses:! !2,500(Logins/month:! !75,000(Ques<ons:! !600,000(Answers:! !12,000,000(

Answers (20,000,000)

Questions (1,000,000)

Student'ownership'over'learning'resource'

Student'familiarity'with'social'so7ware'

Leveraging'student'energy'and'crea9vity'

Badges' Points' Leaderboards'

Selected results & analysis

Engagement - how do students use the system?

Benefits - what is the impact on learning?

Question quality - how good is what students produce?

Relevant publications:

Scaffolding student engagement via online peer learning - European Journal of Physics 35 (4), 045002 (2014)

Student-Generated Content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education, 1-15 (2014).

Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository - Phys Rev ST PER (2014) 10, 020105

Student-generated assessment - Education in Chemistry (2013) 13 1

Typical implementation

Minimum participation requirements for each of two assessment exercises (PW1, PW2)

Write 1 Answer 5 Rate / comment 3

5% course credit

Physics 101, Energy & Waves Winter Semester: 3 sections, ~800 students

Not so typical implementationTOCCLT'.' -

Qest\I\sct

How 1o...

q/t4osTer

Submit ond onswer questionson topics in lhe torget region,just obove lhe physicsyou hove olreody mostered.

Dislroclers

) l*"*"ò

rNrrltngIh s region corrk:ins llte

plrysics knowledgo ond colrco¡lsyou connol leorn yel

becouse the louncalionscrrc nol in plocc

PHYSICS TOPICS IN YOUR TARG T REGION

buo'5ot't1 'Den¡¡lu

B¿:o\v\vì 1 JF:rcq - YOUR CHOSEN TOPIC

à..\auC'q^ x@bôo'osro

pn ro, d logroo, \o 9tS

COMMON MISCONCEPÎIONS AND ERRORS(Sec hHÞ:/jÞhy¡.udofo¡.cdu/CJP/trêconcoÞllo¡t.pdt

tor o llil ol common mhconcepllons)

¿K N(,qht %cce Açxs no\ exi¡þ, c.rrrçr\J On oblec'-t \5 õÞYJrnr cìü?ÀI in rtuiò. ü

lrh'brot4ont eprç,e .I¡1enÀs crqden-s,\{^ c>Ç c.,þ¡ec\ , cìo+ .\*¿n:r

oÇ Çtu,8,fr- btrrqon! $crCe c¿c\s Àoc¡:'cr

fr¿lt{e- r *hcrn ú?

Trr¿e. $ììfifflsz hrrr: ¿lÕoolr-g lnnS

(**= tcpo þ/rnl {otr-* qrÇ bq.\\:. 0" Ooz

Physics knowledgeond conccpluol underslonding

you lrove olrcodyconslrucleC ¡n your heod

¡,<'t.lerJ rt)\^,¿z! Þ.rrp \r- \rr't\¡ ,l?

Chcck lhol yovr on3Íêr ¡t rêo!ànoblê ðnd potrlble

\'f<,,cc\

Photo by Seth Casteelhttp://www.littlefriendsphoto.comPermission to use agreed

Writing original questions is a demanding activity

Extensive scaffolding exercises

Revisited in subsequent tutorials

Engagement with PeerWise

Number Multiplier Number MultiplierQuestions 1105 [1.7] 998 [1.6]

Answers 11393 [17.2] 11807 [18.7]

Comments 4901 [7.4] 5509 [8.7]

PW 1 PW 2

Engagement with PeerWise

Engagement with PeerWise

Engagement with PeerWise

Engagement with PeerWiseGenerally, students did

• Participate beyond minimum requirements • Engage in community learning, correcting errors • Create problems, not exercises • Provide positive feedback

Generally, students did not

• Contribute trivial or irrelevant questions • Obviously plagiarize • Participate much beyond assessment periods • Leave it to the last minute (sort of….)

30

Correlation with learning

31

Correlation with learningQuartiles Q4 – top 25%

Q3 – upper middle

Q2 – lower middle

Q1 – bottom 25%

22 students did not take the FCI

32

Correlation with learning

33

1st year Chemistry N=172 University of Edinburgh

34

Question/Explanation QualityBloom’s Taxonomy of levels in the cognitive domain

Score Level Description

1 Remember Factual knowledge, trivial plugging in of numbers

2 Understand Basic understanding of content

3 Apply Implement, calculate / determine. Typically one-stage problem

4 Analyze Typical multi-step problem; requires identification of strategy

Evaluate Compare & assess various option possibilities; often conceptual

Synthesize Ideas and topics from disparate course sections combined. Significantly challenging problem.

35

Textp>0.05, NS

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Taxonomic Category

Per

cent

age

of S

ubm

itte

d Q

uest

ions

First semester N = 350

Second semester N = 252

36

Question/Explanation QualityScore Level Description

0 Missing No explanation provided or explanation incoherent/irrelevant

1 Inadequate Wrong reasoning and/or answer; trivial or flippant

2 MinimalCorrect answer but with insufficient explanation/justification/ Some aspects may be unclear/incorrect/confused.

3 Good Clear and detailed exposition of correct method & answer.

4 ExcellentThorough description of relevant physics and solution strategy. Plausibility of all answers considered. Beyond normal expectation for a correct solution

370 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60

Num

ber o

f que

stio

ns

Assessment 1 Assessment 2

Explanation Quality

38

Results (UoE 2010-11)2 successive years of the same course (N=150, 350)

‘High quality’ questions: 78%, 79%

Over 90% (most likely) correct, and 3/5 of those wrong were

identified by students.

69% (2010) and 55% (2011) rated 3 or 4 for explanations

Only 2% (2010) and 4% (2011) rated 1/ 6 for taxonomic level.

39

Bottomley & Denny Biochem and Mol Biol Educ. 39(5) 352-361 (2011)

107 Year 2 biochem students 56 / 35 / 9 % of questions in lowest 3 levels.

Momsen et al CBE-Life Sci Educ 9, 436-440 (2010)

“9,713 assessment items submitted by 50 instructors in the United States reported that 93% of the questions asked on examinations in introductory biology courses were at the lowest two levels of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy”

Comparison with literature

40

41

42

43

Resources

Student-facing system http://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/

All the research studies referenced and scaffolding materials referred to are accessible through the PeerWise community site http://www.peerwise-

community.org/

Beyond MCQs

Why not short answer Qs?

Why not …. anything?

Beyond MCQs

Why not short answer Qs?

Why not …. anything? LEARNING OBJECTS

Adaptive Comparative Judgement