James Bond, internet
memes and partying
penguins
(or, what happens when students
write their own assessment content)
Simon...
2
3
Overview
I. Motivation
II. Technology enabler: PeerWise
III. Use cases
IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
Overview
I. Motivation
II. Technology enabler: PeerWise
III. Use cases
IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
Overview
I. Motivation
II. Technology enabler: PeerWise
III. Use cases
IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
The University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, Scotland
5th
July, 2010
Paul Denny
PeerWise
bridging the gap between online learnin...
• Web-based Multiple Choice Question
repository built by students
• Students:
– develop new questions with
associated expl...
>100,000
>100,000
student contributors
>500,000>500,000unique questions
>10,000,000>10,000,000
answers
14
As a question author…..
15
16
19
As a question answerer …..
20
21
22
23
Overview
I. Motivation
II. Technology enabler: PeerWise
III. Use cases
IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
Timeline
2010-11: UoE pilot study
2011-12: Multi-institution, multi-course
2012-13: UBC PHYS 101
Coursera MOOC
25
Pilot year (2010-11) – replace single handin
PeerWise was introduced
in workshop sessions
in Week 5
Students worked throug...
An assessment was set for the end of
Week 6:
Minimum requirements:
• Write one question
• Answer 5
• Comment on & rate 3
C...
28
We were deliberately
hands off.
• No moderation
• No corrections
• No interventions at all
But we did observe…..
29
• JISC project – SGC4L
N (students) ~800
N (staff) ~10
Overview
I. Motivation
II. Technology enabler: PeerWise
III. Use cases
IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
Generally, students did
• Participate beyond minimum
requirements
• Engage in community learning,
correcting errors
• Crea...
35
Generally, students did not
• Contribute trivial or irrelevant questions
• Obviously plagiarise
• Participate much beyond ...
• Phys 101 uptake graph showing midterm
39
40
Overview
I. Motivation
II. Technology enabler: PeerWise
III. Use cases
IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
Correlation with end of course outcomes
Quartiles
Q4 – top 25%
Q3 – upper middle
Q2 – lower middle
Q1 – bottom 25%
22 students did not
take the FCI
1st
year Physics N=172
University of Edinburgh
1st
year Physics N=172
University of Edinburgh
Overview
I. Motivation
II. Technology enabler: PeerWise
III. Use cases
IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
Comprehensive categorisation of >50% of
repository for two successive academic years
Principal measures to define a ‘high ...
Category Description
6 Create (synthesise ideas)
5 Assess
4 Analyse (multi-step)
3 Apply (1-step calcs.)
2 Understand
1 Re...
Explanation
0 – Missing
1 – Inadequate
(e.g. wrong reasoning / answer, trivial, flippant, unhelpful)
2 – Minimal
(e.g. cor...
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Taxonomic Category
PercentageofSubmittedQuestions
First semesterFirs...
Results: Explanation Physics 1A 2010 and 2011
‘High quality’ question
1. At least 2/6 on cognitive level (“understand” and above)
2. At least 2/4 on explanation (“minim...
Results: Physics 1A 2010 and 2011
2 successive years of the same course (N=150, 350)
•‘High quality’ questions: 78%, 79%
•...
Literature
Bottomley & Denny Biochem and Mol Biol Educ. 39(5) 352-361 (2011)
•107 Year 2 biochem students
•56 / 35 / 9 % o...
• High general standard of engagement and student-
generated questions
• Relatively few basic knowledge questions
• Transf...
Acknowledgements
Physics 101 course team
Georg Rieger
Firas Moosvi
Emily Altiere UBC CWSEI
simon.bates@ubc.ca
@simonpbates...
Community: http://www.PeerWise-Community.org
JISC-funded multi institution study:https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SGC4L/H...
Question quality analysis (1st
year Physics University of Edinburgh)
Assessing the quality of a student-generated question...
Copyright2013GrahamFowell/TheHitman,re-producedwithpermission,EducationInChemistry,Vol50No1(2013)
Photo credits
Photo credits
Community: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kubina/471164507/
Screen grab from Mwensch ‘A vision o...
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content

1,595 views
1,602 views

Published on

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,595
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Socially constructed knowledge and understanding in an online environment.
  • There are measures for this – see later
  • All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
  • All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
  • Can follow the author
  • All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
  • Scaffolding provided in terms of how to come up with material for good questions. The above handout (a blank version was also provided) encourages students to choose topics within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky), identify misconceptions or things they don’t understand and devise questions with a realistic context. Students got around 45 mins for this activity
  • Scaffolding provided in terms of how to come up with material for good questions. The above handout (a blank version was also provided) encourages students to choose topics within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky), identify misconceptions or things they don’t understand and devise questions with a realistic context. Students got around 45 mins for this activity
  • We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
  • We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
  • All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
  • We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
  • We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
  • We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
  • Aside from this being a very creative question, with a great diagram, and a good spread of answers it is also a nice example of peer-tutoring The author wrote the question and got the calculation wrong in the first version of the question This was picked up on, and corrected by, another student the same evening, and the version of the question replaced with the peer’s correct explanation We also placed one of the student generated questions on the exam (not this one).
  • This is typical of questions submitted by the highest performing students Focussed on quantitative problemsolving * Amusing context * Great care and attention with diags and maths The 4 images show question solutions sketch Solution maths Comment and author’s response.
  • All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
  • Ross – placeholder for now, to be updated with accurate graphs after 14 th Dec exam
  • Force Concept Inventory score is out of 33 Black horizontal bar is the median FCI score for that quartile The blue box shows the middle 50% The whiskers show the highest score and the lowest score in that quartile except for outliers, which are plotted as small circles.
  • Ross – placeholder for now, to be updated with accurate graphs after 14 th Dec exam
  • A Pearson product-moment correlation was performed which showed that there was a statistically significant positive relationship between the CM score and the end-of-module examination mark (E) in all modules, with a small to moderate correlation rCME , see Table 5. First-order partial correlation was then conducted to explore this relationship, controlling for the pre-module test mark (P). The partial correlation rCME.P was found to be statistically significant, with values between 0.18 and 0.40 (see Table 5). This indicates that there was a positive relationship between the CM score and the end-of-module mark even when taking into account student ability, as measured by their pre-module test mark.
  • All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
  • James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content

    1. 1. James Bond, internet memes and partying penguins (or, what happens when students write their own assessment content) Simon Bates Pearson Strategies for Success Workshop Toronto, May 2013
    2. 2. 2
    3. 3. 3
    4. 4. Overview I. Motivation II. Technology enabler: PeerWise III. Use cases IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
    5. 5. Overview I. Motivation II. Technology enabler: PeerWise III. Use cases IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
    6. 6. Overview I. Motivation II. Technology enabler: PeerWise III. Use cases IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
    7. 7. 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
    8. 8. • Web-based Multiple Choice Question 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 – can follow other authors peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz
    9. 9. >100,000 >100,000 student contributors >500,000>500,000unique questions >10,000,000>10,000,000 answers
    10. 10. 14 As a question author…..
    11. 11. 15
    12. 12. 16
    13. 13. 19 As a question answerer …..
    14. 14. 20
    15. 15. 21
    16. 16. 22
    17. 17. 23
    18. 18. Overview I. Motivation II. Technology enabler: PeerWise III. Use cases IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
    19. 19. Timeline 2010-11: UoE pilot study 2011-12: Multi-institution, multi-course 2012-13: UBC PHYS 101 Coursera MOOC 25
    20. 20. Pilot year (2010-11) – replace single handin PeerWise was introduced in workshop sessions in Week 5 Students worked through structured example task and devised own Qs in groups. All these resources are available online (see final slide) 26
    21. 21. 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 27
    22. 22. 28
    23. 23. We were deliberately hands off. • No moderation • No corrections • No interventions at all But we did observe….. 29
    24. 24. • JISC project – SGC4L
    25. 25. N (students) ~800 N (staff) ~10
    26. 26. Overview I. Motivation II. Technology enabler: PeerWise III. Use cases IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
    27. 27. Generally, students did • Participate beyond minimum requirements • Engage in community learning, correcting errors • Create problems, not exercises • Provide positive feedback 34
    28. 28. 35
    29. 29. Generally, students did not • Contribute trivial or irrelevant questions • Obviously plagiarise • Participate much beyond assessment periods • Didn’t all leave it to the last minute 36
    30. 30. • Phys 101 uptake graph showing midterm
    31. 31. 39
    32. 32. 40
    33. 33. Overview I. Motivation II. Technology enabler: PeerWise III. Use cases IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
    34. 34. Correlation with end of course outcomes
    35. 35. Quartiles Q4 – top 25% Q3 – upper middle Q2 – lower middle Q1 – bottom 25% 22 students did not take the FCI
    36. 36. 1st year Physics N=172 University of Edinburgh
    37. 37. 1st year Physics N=172 University of Edinburgh
    38. 38. Overview I. Motivation II. Technology enabler: PeerWise III. Use cases IV. Engagement, learning, question quality?
    39. 39. Comprehensive categorisation of >50% of repository for two successive academic years Principal measures to define a ‘high quality question’ - cognitive level of question - explanation quality - other binary criteria
    40. 40. Category Description 6 Create (synthesise ideas) 5 Assess 4 Analyse (multi-step) 3 Apply (1-step calcs.) 2 Understand 1 Remember Cognitive level of question
    41. 41. Explanation 0 – Missing 1 – Inadequate (e.g. wrong reasoning / answer, trivial, flippant, unhelpful) 2 – Minimal (e.g. correct answer, but with insufficient explanation or justification, aspects may be unclear) 3 – Good/Detailed (e.g. clear and sufficiently detailed exposition of correct method and answer) 4 – Excellent (e.g. Describes physics thoroughly, remarks on plausibility of answer, use of appropriate diagrams, perhaps explains reasoning for distractors)
    42. 42. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Taxonomic Category PercentageofSubmittedQuestions First semesterFirst semester N = 350N = 350 Second semester N = 252Second semester N = 252 Results: Question level Physics 1A / 1B 2011
    43. 43. Results: Explanation Physics 1A 2010 and 2011
    44. 44. ‘High quality’ question 1. At least 2/6 on cognitive level (“understand” and above) 2. At least 2/4 on explanation (“minimal” and above) 3. Clearly worded question (binary) 4. Feasible distractors (binary) 5. ‘Most likely’ correct (binary) 6. ‘Not obviously’ plagiarised (binary)
    45. 45. Results: Physics 1A 2010 and 2011 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.
    46. 46. Literature 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”
    47. 47. • High general standard of engagement and student- generated questions • Relatively few basic knowledge questions • Transferable across disciplines / institutions • We hypothesise scaffolding activities are critical for high level cognitive engagement Summary
    48. 48. Acknowledgements Physics 101 course team Georg Rieger Firas Moosvi Emily Altiere UBC CWSEI simon.bates@ubc.ca @simonpbates Ross Galloway Judy Hardy Karon McBride Alison Kay Keith Brunton Jonathan Riise Danny Homer Chemistry – Peter Kirsop Biology – Heather McQueen Physics – Morag Casey Comp Sci – Paul Denny
    49. 49. Community: http://www.PeerWise-Community.org JISC-funded multi institution study:https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SGC4L/Home UoE Physics Pilot Study: AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3680069 RSC overview article http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2013January/student-generated-assessment.asp UoE Physics scaffolding resources http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/elearning/projects/peerwise/ Resources
    50. 50. Question quality analysis (1st year Physics University of Edinburgh) Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository, submitted to Phys Rev, ST Phys Educ Res. Multi-institution, multi-course study Student-generated content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions, submitted to International Journal of Science Education Scaffolding Student Learning via Online Peer Learning, submitted to International Journal of Science Education Publications in preparation / review / press
    51. 51. Copyright2013GrahamFowell/TheHitman,re-producedwithpermission,EducationInChemistry,Vol50No1(2013)
    52. 52. Photo credits Photo credits Community: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kubina/471164507/ Screen grab from Mwensch ‘A vision of students today’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o 65

    ×