the 21st century educator - students as partners in teaching and learning
TRANSCRIPT
The
21st Century Educator
Simon Bates [email protected]
@simonpbates bit.ly/batestalks
Students as partners in learning & teaching
The
21st Century EducatorStudents as partners in learning & teaching
“Anatomy” of skills and values
Example driver of change: technology
Case study example
Deeper engagement with assessment,
learning
Technology - reach and unbundling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEq3xifCDw
Technology - disruptions
Graph extracted from http://vikparuchuri.com/blog/on-the-automated-scoring-of-essays/
Technology - implications
Changing the
of many aspects of life, …and learning is included
what, where, when, how, from whom and with whom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Case study - students as partners
“How can I get my students to engage more effectively with formative assessment opportunities in the course?”
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)
Student'ownership'over'learning'resource'
Student'familiarity'with'social'so7ware'
Leveraging'student'energy'and'crea9vity'
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
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
Not so typical implementationTOCCLT'.' -
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
Copyrig
ht2013Graham
Fow
ell/The
Hitm
an,re-prod
uced
with
permission,Edu
ca&o
nInChemistry,Vo
l50No1(201
3)
Engagement with PeerWise
Number Multiplier Number MultiplierQuestions 1105 [1.7] 998 [1.6]
Answers 11393 [17.2] 11807 [18.7]
Comments 4901 [7.4] 5509 [8.7]
PW 1 PW 2
Engagement with PeerWise
Generally, students did
• Participate beyond minimum requirements • Engage in community learning, correcting errors • Create problems, not exercises • Provide positive feedback
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….)
Correlation with learning
Quartiles Q4 – top 25%
Q3 – upper middle
Q2 – lower middle
Q1 – bottom 25%
22 students did not take the FCI
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
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
Num
ber o
f que
stio
ns
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
Per
cent
age
of S
ubm
itte
d Q
uest
ions
First semester N = 350
Second semester N = 252
\
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 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
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.
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
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/