Aapt peer wise_bates

1,236 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,236
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
720
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Aapt peer wise_bates

  1. 1. Creatively engaged online: student-generated content in a non-majors introductory course Emily Altiere, Simon Bates, Firas Moosvi Department of Physics and Astronomy University of British Columbia AAPT Summer Meeting, July 2013, Portland OR Monday, 15 July, 13
  2. 2. Outline • Design and Methodology • Engagement • Question/Explanation Quality Monday, 15 July, 13
  3. 3. a"web&based"MCQ"repository"created"by"students" Monday, 15 July, 13
  4. 4. 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( Monday, 15 July, 13
  5. 5. Student'ownership'over' learning'resource' Student'familiarity'with' social'so7ware' Leveraging'student' energy'and'crea9vity' Monday, 15 July, 13
  6. 6. Design and Methodology 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, 791 students Monday, 15 July, 13
  7. 7. Design and Methodology TOCCLT'.' - QestIsct How 1o... q/t4osTer Submit ond onswer questions on topics in lhe torget region, just obove lhe physics you hove olreody mostered. Dislroclers ) l*"*"ò rNrrltng Ih s region corrk:ins llte plrysics knowledgo ond colrco¡ls you connol leorn yel becouse the louncalions crrc nol in plocc PHYSICS TOPICS IN YOUR TARG T REGION buo'5ot't1 'Den¡¡lu B¿:ovvì 1 J F: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.rrrçrJ On oblec'-t 5 õÞYJrnr cìü?À I in rtuiò. ü lrh'brot4ont eprç,e .I¡1enÀs crq den-s,{^ c>Ç c.,þ¡ec , cìo+ .*¿n:r oÇ Çtu,8, fr- btrrqon! $crCe c¿cs Àoc¡:'cr fr¿lt{e- r *hcrn ú? Trr¿e. $ììfifflsz hrrr: ¿lÕoolr-g lnnS (**= tcpo þ/rnl {otr-* qrÇ bq.:. 0" Ooz Physics knowledge ond conccpluol underslonding you lrove olrcody conslrucleC ¡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 Casteel http://www.littlefriendsphoto.com Permission to use agreed Introduced in tutorials Extensive scaffolding exercises Revisited in subsequent tutorials Tutorials delivered by 24 TAs Monday, 15 July, 13
  8. 8. Engagement with PeerWise Monday, 15 July, 13
  9. 9. Engagement with PeerWise PW1 PW2 Contributed and met minimum requirements Contributed but did not meet mininum requirements Did not participate 0.84 0.80 Total: 791 Monday, 15 July, 13
  10. 10. Engagement with PeerWise Number Multiplier Number Multiplier Questions 1105 [1.7] (1.4) 998 [1.6] (1.3) Answers 11393 [17.2] (14.4) 11807 [18.7] (15.0) Comment s 4901 [7.4] (6.2) 5509 [8.7] (5.0) PW 1PW 1 PW 2PW 2 Monday, 15 July, 13
  11. 11. Question/Explanation Quality Monday, 15 July, 13
  12. 12. 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. Monday, 15 July, 13
  13. 13. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 0 20 40 60 Numberofquestions Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Bloom's Taxonomy: Question Quality Textp>0.05, NS Monday, 15 July, 13
  14. 14. 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 Minimal Correct answer but with insufficient explanation/ justification/ Some aspects may be unclear/incorrect/ confused. 3 Good Clear and detailed exposition of correct method & answer. 4 Excellent Thorough description of relevant physics and solution strategy. Plausibility of all answers considered. Beyond normal expectation for a correct solution Monday, 15 July, 13
  15. 15. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 20 40 60 Numberofquestions Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Explanation Quality p=0.02 Monday, 15 July, 13
  16. 16. Conclusions Participation is generally well beyond the minimum requirements for course credit. Unlike similar studies with Physics majors*, non-majors in this study produced questions of lower overall quality. Evidence to suggest that question quality and detail of explanation improves with practice. *Bates, et al ‘Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository’ PRST-PER submitted Monday, 15 July, 13
  17. 17. References 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/ Monday, 15 July, 13

×