Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

15
Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006

Transcript of Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Page 1: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Analysis of Online Discussions

MSU VIPP ProgramGerd Kortemeyer, July 2006

Page 2: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Problem

A bug that has a mass mb=4g walks from the center to the edge of a disk that is freely turning at 32rpm. The disk has a mass of md=11g. If the radius of the disk is R=29cm, what is the new rate of spinning in rpm?

Page 3: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Solution

No external torque, angular momentum is conserved

Bug is small compared to disk, can be seen as point mass

1

2mdR

2 + mb02 ⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎠ ⎟ω0 =

1

2mdR

2 + mbR2 ⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎠ ⎟ω

⇒ ω =md

md + 2mbω0

Page 4: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Student Discussion Student A: What is that bug doing on a disk? Boo to physics. Student B: OHH YEAH

ok this should work it worked for me Moments of inertia that are important.... OK first the Inertia of the particle is mr^2 and of a disk is .5mr^2 OK and angular momentum is conserved IW=IWo W=2pi/T then do this .5(mass of disk)(radius)^2(2*pi/T original)+ (mass of bug) (radius of bug=0)^2= (.5(mass of disk)(radius)^2(2pi/T))+ (mass of bug)(radius of bug)^2(2*pi/T) and solve for T

Page 5: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Student Discussion (continued) Student C: What is T exactly? And do I have to do anything to it to

get the final RPM? Student B: ok so T is the period... and apparently it works for some

and not others.... try to cancel out some of the things that are found on both sides of the equation to get a better equation that has less numbers in it

Student D: what did I do wrong?This is what I did. initial inertia x initial angular velocity = final inertia x final angular velocity. I=mr^2, angular velocity = w... so my I initial was (10g)(24 cm^2) and w=28 rpm. The number calculated was 161280 g *cm^2. Then I divided by final inertia to solve for the final angular speed. I found final Inertia by ( 10g +2g)(24 cm^2)=6912. I then found the new angular speed to be 23.3 rpm. This was wrong...what did I do incorrectly?

Page 6: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Student Discussion (continued)[…] Student H: :sigh: Wow. So, many, little things, can go wrong in

calculating this. Be careful.[…]

None of the students commented on Bug being point mass Result being independent of radius No unit conversions needed Several wondered about the “radius of the bug” Plug in numbers asap Nobody just posted the symbolic answer

Lots of unnecessary pain

Page 7: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Where Online Homework Fails

Online homework can give both students and faculty a false sense of security and accomplishment

Most students got this problem correct … but at what cost? … how much physics have they really

learned? This would not have remained undetected

in hand-graded homework

Page 8: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

… At the Same Time:

If you want to know how students really go about solving problems, this is the ideal tool: Every student has a different version, so the discussion

is not just an exchange of answers All discussions are automatically contextual Students transcribe their own discussion - compare this

to the cost of taping and transcribing verbal discussions Discussions are genuine, since the students have a

genuine interest in solving the problems in the way that they perceive to be the most efficient

Page 9: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Possibilities for Qualitative Research

Analyze students’ understanding of a certain concept

Find student misconceptions Identify certain problem solving strategies Evaluate online resources

Page 10: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Possibilities for Quantitative Research Classify student discussion contributions Types:

Emotional Surface Procedural Conceptual

Features: Unrelated Solution-Oriented Mathematical Physics

Page 11: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Classifying Discussions From Three Courses

Discussions from three introductory physics courses:

Page 12: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Quantitative Research: Classifying the Problems Classifying the problems by question type Multiple Choice (incl. Multiple Response) have the

highest percentage of solution-oriented discussions (“that one is right”), and the least number of physics discussions.

Physics discussions highest in ranking and click-on-image problems

Problems with representation-translation (reading a graph, etc): slightly less procedural discussions, more negative emotional discussion (complaints)

Page 13: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Influence of Degree of Difficulty

Harder than 0.6: more pain, no gain

Page 14: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Do Good Students Discuss Better?

Page 15: Analysis of Online Discussions MSU VIPP Program Gerd Kortemeyer, July 2006.

Conclusion A lot can be learned from online student

discussions in LON-CAPA Ideal setup for discourse analysis:

Direct exchange of answers impossible Discussions in context Immediately transcribed

Even if not for research, reading them can help with just-in-time teaching

At the very least, gives a “reality check”