Can student-generated contentenhance learning in introductory           physics?       Simon Bates, Ross Galloway,        ...
1.  Background and motivation2.  About3.  What we did in our courses4.  What we found   engagement, examples, effects     ...
Background and motivationTime spent in self-studyThe inverted classroomThe cognitive demands of creating rather than just ...
Background and motivationTime spent in self-study             1      2      3   4    5   4
Background and motivationTime spent in self-study             1      2      3   4    5   5
Background and motivationTime spent in self-studyThe inverted classroomThe cognitive demands of creating rather than just ...
Background and motivationTime spent in self-studyThe inverted classroomThe cognitive demands of creating rather than just ...
The University of Edinburgh                                           Edinburgh, Scotland                                 ...
About PeerWise•  Web-based MCQ repository built by   students•  Students: –  develop new questions with    associated expl...
About PeerWise                        Student                     familiarity with                        Web 2.0The energ...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
About PeerWise•  To date  –    77 institutions  –    557 courses  –    33757 students have contributed  –    94207 questio...
ImplementationImplemented in 2 successive introductory  Physics courses (1A & 1B)P1A: workshop session inWeek 5Student gro...
ImplementationAn assessment was set for the end ofWeek 6:Minimum requirements:•  Write one question•  Answer 5•  Comment o...
22
ImplementationWe were deliberatelyhands off.•  No moderation•  No corrections•  No interventions at allBut we did observe…...
FindingsP1A in-courseassessment (N=200)                         Workshop   Live   Due                         training350 ...
Findings           25
Findings           26
27
28
29
FindingsGenerally, students did:•  Participate beyond minimum requirements•  Genuinely surprise us with the quality of   s...
FindingsGenerally, students did not:•  Contribute trivial / irrelevant questions•  Submit questions with ‘bad physics’•  L...
FindingsDoes degree of PeerWise activity correlate with end of course performance?Yes, for the majority of students       ...
FindingsDefining activity:•  Combined measure of number of   questions, answers, comments and   days of activity (Q,A,C & ...
FindingsDefining activity:•  CM scores from 0  40•  Median split of cohort on the basis of   CM scores into ‘HPA’ and ‘LP...
Findings
Findings           Quartiles           Q1 – top 25%           Q2 – upper middle           Q3 – lower middle           Q4 –...
FindingsP1A cohort
Summary•  Pilot use of PeerWise in two successive intro   Physics courses•  Clear evidence of student engagement, with   h...
Acknowledgements:We gratefully acknowledge project grant support from the HEA Physical  Sciences Centre and the support of...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Can Student-Generated Content Enhance Learning in Introductory Physics?

2,829 views

Published on

Slides from invited talk given by Simon Bates at AAPT 2011 Summer Meeting in Omaha NE, 1st August 2011.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,829
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
208
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Can Student-Generated Content Enhance Learning in Introductory Physics?

  1. 1. Can student-generated contentenhance 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. 2. 1.  Background and motivation2.  About3.  What we did in our courses4.  What we found engagement, examples, effects 2
  3. 3. Background and motivationTime spent in self-studyThe inverted classroomThe cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing 3
  4. 4. Background and motivationTime spent in self-study 1 2 3 4 5 4
  5. 5. Background and motivationTime spent in self-study 1 2 3 4 5 5
  6. 6. Background and motivationTime spent in self-studyThe inverted classroomThe cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing 6
  7. 7. Background and motivationTime spent in self-studyThe inverted classroomThe cognitive demands of creating rather than just doing 7
  8. 8. The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland 5th July, 2010 PeerWise bridging the gap between online learning and social mediaPaul DennyDepartment of Computer ScienceThe University of AucklandNew Zealand
  9. 9. About PeerWise•  Web-based MCQ 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 –  collaborate in a community space
  10. 10. About PeerWise Student familiarity with Web 2.0The energy and Student creativity of a generated large class questions
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13. 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. 15
  16. 16. 16
  17. 17. 17
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. About PeerWise•  To date –  77 institutions –  557 courses –  33757 students have contributed –  94207 questions have been written –  2308854 answers have been submitted
  20. 20. ImplementationImplemented in 2 successive introductory Physics courses (1A & 1B)P1A: workshop session inWeek 5Student groups workedThrough structuredExample & devised own Qs 20
  21. 21. ImplementationAn assessment was set for the end ofWeek 6:Minimum requirements:•  Write one question•  Answer 5•  Comment on & rate 3Contributed ~3% to course assessment 21
  22. 22. 22
  23. 23. ImplementationWe were deliberatelyhands off.•  No moderation•  No corrections•  No interventions at allBut we did observe….. 23
  24. 24. FindingsP1A in-courseassessment (N=200) Workshop Live Due training350 user-contributedquestions in total~3500 answers~2000 comments 24
  25. 25. Findings 25
  26. 26. Findings 26
  27. 27. 27
  28. 28. 28
  29. 29. 29
  30. 30. FindingsGenerally, students did:•  Participate beyond minimum requirements•  Genuinely surprise us with the quality of submissions, creating problems not exercises•  Engage in community learning, correcting errors•  Provide positive feedback on using PeerWise 30
  31. 31. FindingsGenerally, students did not:•  Contribute trivial / irrelevant questions•  Submit questions with ‘bad physics’•  Let mistakes or errors persist•  Use it much beyond the assessment periods 31
  32. 32. FindingsDoes degree of PeerWise activity correlate with end of course performance?Yes, for the majority of students 32
  33. 33. FindingsDefining activity:•  Combined measure of number of questions, answers, comments and days of activity (Q,A,C & D)•  Divide student score on each of 4 individual measures into deciles and award score 0  10 33
  34. 34. FindingsDefining activity:•  CM scores from 0  40•  Median split of cohort on the basis of CM scores into ‘HPA’ and ‘LPA’.See Denny et al Proceeding of the 4th international workshop on Computing education research, 2008 51-58 for full details 34
  35. 35. Findings
  36. 36. Findings Quartiles Q1 – top 25% Q2 – upper middle Q3 – lower middle Q4 – bottom 25% 22 students did not take the FCI
  37. 37. FindingsP1A cohort
  38. 38. Summary•  Pilot use of PeerWise in two successive intro Physics courses•  Clear evidence of student engagement, with high quality submissions and discussions•  Use of system correlated with course outcome, and not just for the best students 38
  39. 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 PERCEdPER group website bit.ly/EdPERTalk slides on Slideshare EdPER_talksS.P.Bates@ed.ac.uk Ross.Galloway@ed.ac.uk 39

×