Can Student-Generated Content Enhance Learning in Introductory Physics?
â˘
1 gefällt mirâ˘2,015 views
Slides from invited talk given by Simon Bates at AAPT 2011 Summer Meeting in Omaha NE, 1st August 2011.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ăhnlich wie Can Student-Generated Content Enhance Learning in Introductory Physics?
Ăhnlich wie Can Student-Generated Content Enhance Learning in Introductory Physics? (20)
Mehr von Simon Bates
Mehr von Simon Bates (20)
KĂźrzlich hochgeladen
KĂźrzlich hochgeladen (20)
Can Student-Generated Content Enhance Learning in Introductory Physics?
- 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
- 2. 1.⯠Background and motivation 2.⯠About 3.⯠What we did in our courses 4.⯠What we found engagement, examples, effects 2
- 3. Background and motivation Time spent in self-study The inverted classroom The cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing 3
- 4. Background and motivation Time spent in self-study 1 2 3 4 5 4
- 5. Background and motivation Time spent in self-study 1 2 3 4 5 5
- 6. Background and motivation Time spent in self-study The inverted classroom The cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing 6
- 7. Background and motivation Time spent in self-study The inverted classroom The cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing 7
- 8. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland 5th July, 2010 PeerWise bridging the gap between online learning and social media Paul Denny Department of Computer Science The University of Auckland New Zealand
- 9. About PeerWise â˘âŻ Web-based MCQ repository built by students â˘âŻ Students: â⯠develop new questions with associated explanations â⯠answer existing questions and rate them for quality and difficulty â⯠take part in discussions â⯠collaborate in a community space
- 10. About PeerWise Student familiarity with Web 2.0 The energy and Student creativity of a generated large class questions
- 11. 11
- 12. 12
- 13. 13
- 14. 14
- 15. 15
- 16. 16
- 17. 17
- 18. 18
- 19. About PeerWise â˘âŻ To date â⯠77 institutions â⯠557 courses â⯠33757 students have contributed â⯠94207 questions have been written â⯠2308854 answers have been submitted
- 20. Implementation 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
- 21. Implementation An assessment was set for the end of Week 6: Minimum requirements: â˘âŻ Write one question â˘âŻ Answer 5 â˘âŻ Comment on & rate 3 Contributed ~3% to course assessment 21
- 22. 22
- 23. Implementation We were deliberately hands off. â˘âŻ No moderation â˘âŻ No corrections â˘âŻ No interventions at all But we did observeâŚ.. 23
- 24. Findings P1A in-course assessment (N=200) Workshop Live Due training 350 user-contributed questions in total ~3500 answers ~2000 comments 24
- 25. Findings 25
- 26. Findings 26
- 27. 27
- 28. 28
- 29. 29
- 30. Findings Generally, students did: â˘âŻ Participate beyond minimum requirements â˘âŻ Genuinely surprise us with the quality of submissions, creating problems not exercises â˘âŻ Engage in community learning, correcting errors â˘âŻ Provide positive feedback on using PeerWise 30
- 31. Findings Generally, students did not: â˘âŻ Contribute trivial / irrelevant questions â˘âŻ Submit questions with âbad physicsâ â˘âŻ Let mistakes or errors persist â˘âŻ Use it much beyond the assessment periods 31
- 32. Findings Does degree of PeerWise activity correlate with end of course performance? Yes, for the majority of students 32
- 33. Findings Defining activity: â˘âŻ Combined measure of number of questions, answers, comments and days of activity (Q,A,C & D) â˘âŻ Divide student score on each of 4 individual measures into deciles and award score 0 ď 10 33
- 34. Findings Defining activity: â˘âŻ CM scores from 0 ď 40 â˘âŻ Median split of cohort on the basis of CM scores into âHPAâ and âLPAâ. See Denny et al Proceeding of the 4th international workshop on Computing education research, 2008 51-58 for full details 34
- 35. Findings
- 36. Findings Quartiles Q1 â top 25% Q2 â upper middle Q3 â lower middle Q4 â bottom 25% 22 students did not take the FCI
- 38. Summary â˘âŻ Pilot use of PeerWise in two successive intro Physics courses â˘âŻ Clear evidence of student engagement, with high quality submissions and discussions â˘âŻ Use of system correlated with course outcome, and not just for the best students 38
- 39. Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge project grant support from the HEA Physical Sciences Centre and the support of Paul Denny, University of Auckland. 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 39