The Anatomy of a 21st Century Educator
-
Upload
simon-bates -
Category
Education
-
view
825 -
download
3
Transcript of The Anatomy of a 21st Century Educator
The Anatomy of a
21st Century Educator
Simon Bates [email protected] @simonpbates bit.ly/batestalks
(an incomplete guided tour)
Academic transformation Faculty Development
Online + Blended Assessment of Learning
Evaluating Technology Based Innovation
CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 https://flic.kr/p/2ZdABF
Technology - scale and pace
Slide credit: Eric Grimson (MIT)
Technology - scale and pace
Slide credit: Eric Grimson (MIT)
Technology - reach and unbundling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEq3xifCDw
Technology - reach and unbundling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEq3xifCDw
Technology - disruptions
Graph extracted from http://vikparuchuri.com/blog/on-the-automated-scoring-of-essays/
Technology - implications
Changing the
of many aspects of life, …and learning is included
what, where, when, how, from whom and with whom
So what are the
we need to embrace, develop and refine?
skills, values and habits
On any web-enabled device
m.socrative.com
room number ubc1
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'
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
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
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 PeerWise
Engagement with PeerWise
Generally, students did
• Participate beyond minimum requirements • Engage in community learning, correcting errors • Create problems, not exercises • Provide positive feedback
Engagement with PeerWise
Generally, students did not
• Contribute trivial or irrelevant questions • Obviously plagiarize • Participate much beyond assessment periods • Didn’t all leave it to the last minute
Engagement with PeerWise
Correlation with learning
Correlation with learning
Quartiles Q4 – top 25%
Q3 – upper middle
Q2 – lower middle
Q1 – bottom 25%
22 students did not take the FCI
Correlation with learning
Correlation with learning
1st year Chemistry N=172 University of Edinburgh
Question/Explanation Quality
Bloom’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.
Text
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
Num
ber o
f que
stio
ns
Assessment 1 Assessment 2
Bloom's Taxonomy: Question Quality
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
\
Question/Explanation Quality
Description of explanation quality
Score 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
0 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
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.
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
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/