Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The 21st Century Educator - students as partners in teaching and learning

834 views

Published on

Keynote given at BCIT Faculty of Nursing Scholarship Day, May 2016

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The 21st Century Educator - students as partners in teaching and learning

  1. 1. The 21st Century Educator Simon Bates simon.bates@ubc.ca @simonpbates bit.ly/batestalks Students as partners in learning & teaching
  2. 2. The 21st Century Educator Students as partners in learning & teaching “Anatomy” of skills and values Example driver of change: technology Case study example Deeper engagement with assessment, learning
  3. 3. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 https://flic.kr/p/2ZdABF
  4. 4. Technology - scale and pace Slide credit: Eric Grimson (MIT)
  5. 5. Technology - scale and pace Slide credit: Eric Grimson (MIT)
  6. 6. Technology - reach and unbundling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEq3xifCDw
  7. 7. Technology - disruptions Graph extracted from http://vikparuchuri.com/blog/on-the-automated-scoring-of-essays/
  8. 8. Technology - implications Changing the of many aspects of life, …and learning is included what, where, when, how, from whom and with whom
  9. 9. So what are the we need to embrace, develop and refine? skills, values and habits
  10. 10. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
  11. 11. Case study - students as partners “How can I get my students to engage more effectively with formative assessment opportunities in the course?”
  12. 12. a"web&based"MCQ"repository"created"by"students"
  13. 13. 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)
  14. 14. Student'ownership'over' learning'resource' Student'familiarity'with' social'so7ware' Leveraging'student' energy'and'crea9vity'
  15. 15. Badges' Points' Leaderboards'
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. Not so typical implementation 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 Writing original questions is a demanding activity Extensive scaffolding exercises Revisited in subsequent tutorials
  19. 19. Copyright 2013 Graham Fowell / The Hitman, re-producedwith permission, Educa&on In Chemistry, Vol 50 No 1 (2013)
  20. 20. Engagement with PeerWise Number Multiplier Number Multiplier Questions 1105 [1.7] 998 [1.6] Answers 11393 [17.2] 11807 [18.7] Comments 4901 [7.4] 5509 [8.7] PW 1 PW 2
  21. 21. Engagement with PeerWise
  22. 22. Engagement with PeerWise
  23. 23. Engagement with PeerWise
  24. 24. Engagement with PeerWise Generally, students did • Participate beyond minimum requirements • Engage in community learning, correcting errors • Create problems, not exercises • Provide positive feedback
  25. 25. Engagement with PeerWise Generally, students did not • Contribute trivial or irrelevant questions • Obviously plagiarize • Participate much beyond assessment periods • Leave it to the last minute (sort of….)
  26. 26. Engagement with PeerWise
  27. 27. Correlation with learning
  28. 28. Correlation with learning Quartiles Q4 – top 25% Q3 – upper middle Q2 – lower middle Q1 – bottom 25% 22 students did not take the FCI
  29. 29. Correlation with learning
  30. 30. Correlation with learning 1st year Chemistry N=172 University of Edinburgh
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Taxonomic Category PercentageofSubmittedQuestions First semester N = 350 Second semester N = 252
  33. 33. 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 & ans 4 Excellent Thorough description of relevant physics and solution strategy. Plausibility of all answers considered. Beyond normal expectation for a correct solution
  34. 34. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 20 40 60 Numberofquestions Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Explanation Quality
  35. 35. 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.
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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/

×