NTU Innovations in Teaching Seminar - students as co creators
46
NTU Singapore — Innovations in Teaching Seminar Expert-guided, crowdsourced learning content advancing knowledge co-creation & peer learning [email protected] @simonpbates
-
Upload
simon-bates -
Category
Education
-
view
291 -
download
0
Transcript of NTU Innovations in Teaching Seminar - students as co creators
NTU Singapore — Innovations in Teaching Seminar
Expert-guided, crowdsourced learning content advancing knowledge co-creation & peer learning
[email protected]@simonpbates
2
3
Overview
❖ Principles: ownership, how learning works, effective practices
❖ A story in two parts
❖ PeerWise - an online space for student generated MCQ assessments
❖ Learning objects - going beyond MCQs.
• 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
10
As a question author…..
11
12
Badges' Points' Leaderboards'
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
Implementation - scaffolding TOCCLT'.' -
Qest\I\sct
How 1o...
q/t4osTer
Submit ond onswer questionson topics in lhe torget region,just obove lhe physicsyou hove olreody mostered.
Dislroclers
) l*"*"ò
rNrrltngIh s region corrk:ins llte
plrysics knowledgo ond colrco¡lsyou connol leorn yel
becouse the louncalionscrrc nol in plocc
PHYSICS TOPICS IN YOUR TARG T REGION
buo'5ot't1 'Den¡¡lu
B¿:o\v\vì 1 JF: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.rrrçr\J On oblec'-t \5 õÞYJrnr cìü?ÀI in rtuiò. ü
lrh'brot4ont eprç,e .I¡1enÀs crqden-s,\{^ c>Ç c.,þ¡ec\ , cìo+ .\*¿n:r
oÇ Çtu,8,fr- btrrqon! $crCe c¿c\s Àoc¡:'cr
fr¿lt{e- r *hcrn ú?
Trr¿e. $ììfifflsz hrrr: ¿lÕoolr-g lnnS
(**= tcpo þ/rnl {otr-* qrÇ bq.\\:. 0" Ooz
Physics knowledgeond conccpluol underslonding
you lrove olrcodyconslrucleC ¡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 Casteelhttp://www.littlefriendsphoto.comPermission to use agreed
Writing original questions is a demanding activity
Extensive scaffolding exercises
Revisited in subsequent tutorials
All scaffolding materials available on the PeerWise Community website: www.PeerWise-Community.org
Selected results and analysisEngagement - 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
Engagement • Generally, students did:
– Participate beyond minimum requirements
– Engage in community learning, correcting errors
– Create problems, not exercises
– Provide positive feedback
Correlation with learning outcomes
Quality of student authored content
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
Question quality
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Taxonomic Category
Per
cent
age
of S
ubm
itte
d Q
uest
ions
First semester N = 350
Second semester N = 252
Explanation quality
0 Missing No explanation provided or explanation incoherent/irrelevant
1 Inadequate Wrong reasoning and/or answer; trivial or flippant
2 MinimalCorrect answer but with insufficient explanation/justification/ Some aspects may be unclear/incorrect/confused.
3 Good Clear and detailed exposition of correct method & answer.
4 ExcellentThorough description of relevant physics and solution strategy. Plausibility of all answers considered. Beyond normal expectation for a correct solution
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
Num
ber o
f que
stio
ns
Assessment 1 Assessment 2
Explanation Quality
Question quality summary (UoE 2011)
2 successive years of the same course (N=150, 350)
‘High quality’ questions: 78%, 79%
Over 90% (most likely) correct, and majority 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.
That’s not commonBottomley & 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”
Beyond MCQs
Why not short answer Qs?
Why not …. anything?
Beyond MCQs
Why not short answer Qs?
Why not …. anything? LEARNING OBJECTS
Adaptive Comparative Judgement
PHYS101: Energy and Waves
Implementation logistics Cohort split into 4 groups
Each week one group tasked with creating LOs
Each submission counts for 2.5% of final grade
Repeat cycle twice per Semester
Students can submit >2 LOs & receive grade for best 2
Short survey on submission
Students encouraged to apply CC licenses
Results: engagement0 100 200 300
LO 1
LO 2
LO 3
LO 4
LO 5
LO 6
LO 7
LO 8
Number of students
AssignedOptional
Results: time on task
0 100 200 300 400
Less than 0.5h
0.5 to 1 h
1 to 2h
2 to 3h
3 to 4h
4 to 5h
More than 5h
Number of students
Results: self-reported change in understanding
0 200 400 600 800
None
Little
Moderate
Good
Excellent
Number of students
0200400600800
Number of students
before creating it after creating it How much did you understand the topic your LO was based on
Sample 2 - Standing Wave in a bowl
Sample 3 - Colour Loss Underwater
Student generated exam content
before creating it after creating it How much did you understand the topic your LO was based on
In summary
technology-enabledpeer learning,
as authentic assessment
Not quite the whole story• Despite these outstanding examples, many students
didn’t like the LO assessment
• difficulty level vs other assessed components of the course
• credit weighting
• Students dropped these assessments more than other coursework
• Strange ‘phase transition’ for LO vs exam grades
NTU Singapore — Innovations in Teaching Seminar
Expert-guided, crowdsourced learning content advancing knowledge co-creation & peer learning
[email protected]@simonpbatesbit.ly/batestalks
Copyrig
ht 2013 Graham
Fow
ell / The
Hitm
an, re-‐prod
uced
with
permission, Edu
catio
n In Chemistry, Vo
l 50 No 1 (201
3)
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
