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
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
• 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. About PeerWise
Student
familiarity with
Web 2.0
The energy and Student
creativity of a generated
large class questions
19. About PeerWise
• To date
– 77 institutions
– 557 courses
– 33757 students have contributed
– 94207 questions have been written
– 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:
• Write one question
• Answer 5
• Comment on & rate 3
Contributed ~3% to course assessment
21
30. Findings
Generally, 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. Findings
Generally, 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. Findings
Does degree of PeerWise activity
correlate with end of course
performance?
Yes, for the majority of students
32
33. Findings
Defining 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. Findings
Defining 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
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. 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