Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
James Bond, Monorail Cat and Partying penguins. What happens when you let student design their own assessment content
1. James Bond, internet
memes and partying
penguins
(or, what happens when students
write their own assessment content)
Simon Bates
Pearson Strategies for Success Workshop
Toronto, May 2013
11. The University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, Scotland
5th
July, 2010
Paul Denny
PeerWise
bridging the gap between online learning
and social media
Department of Computer Science
The University of Auckland
New Zealand
12. • 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
25. Timeline
2010-11: UoE pilot study
2011-12: Multi-institution, multi-course
2012-13: UBC PHYS 101
Coursera MOOC
25
26. Pilot year (2010-11) – replace single handin
PeerWise was introduced
in workshop sessions
in Week 5
Students worked through
structured example task
and devised own Qs in groups.
All these resources are available online (see final slide)
26
27. 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 27
34. Generally, students did
• Participate beyond minimum
requirements
• Engage in community learning,
correcting errors
• Create problems, not exercises
• Provide positive feedback
34
36. Generally, students did not
• Contribute trivial or irrelevant questions
• Obviously plagiarise
• Participate much beyond assessment
periods
• Didn’t all leave it to the last minute
36
51. Comprehensive categorisation of >50% of
repository for two successive academic years
Principal measures to define a ‘high quality
question’
- cognitive level of question
- explanation quality
- other binary criteria
56. ‘High quality’ question
1. At least 2/6 on cognitive level (“understand” and above)
2. At least 2/4 on explanation (“minimal” and above)
3. Clearly worded question (binary)
4. Feasible distractors (binary)
5. ‘Most likely’ correct (binary)
6. ‘Not obviously’ plagiarised (binary)
57. Results: Physics 1A 2010 and 2011
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.
58. Literature
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”
59. • High general standard of engagement and student-
generated questions
• Relatively few basic knowledge questions
• Transferable across disciplines / institutions
• We hypothesise scaffolding activities are critical for
high level cognitive engagement
Summary
60. Acknowledgements
Physics 101 course team
Georg Rieger
Firas Moosvi
Emily Altiere UBC CWSEI
simon.bates@ubc.ca
@simonpbates
Ross Galloway
Judy Hardy
Karon McBride
Alison Kay
Keith Brunton
Jonathan Riise
Danny Homer
Chemistry – Peter Kirsop
Biology – Heather McQueen
Physics – Morag Casey
Comp Sci – Paul Denny
61. Community: http://www.PeerWise-Community.org
JISC-funded multi institution study:https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SGC4L/Home
UoE Physics Pilot Study: AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3680069
RSC overview article
http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2013January/student-generated-assessment.asp
UoE Physics scaffolding resources http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/elearning/projects/peerwise/
Resources
62. Question quality analysis (1st
year Physics University of Edinburgh)
Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository, submitted to Phys
Rev, ST Phys Educ Res.
Multi-institution, multi-course study
Student-generated content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice
questions, submitted to International Journal of Science Education
Scaffolding Student Learning via Online Peer Learning, submitted to International
Journal of Science Education
Publications in preparation / review / press
65. 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
Editor's Notes
Socially constructed knowledge and understanding in an online environment.
There are measures for this – see later
All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
Can follow the author
All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
Scaffolding provided in terms of how to come up with material for good questions. The above handout (a blank version was also provided) encourages students to choose topics within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky), identify misconceptions or things they don’t understand and devise questions with a realistic context. Students got around 45 mins for this activity
Scaffolding provided in terms of how to come up with material for good questions. The above handout (a blank version was also provided) encourages students to choose topics within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky), identify misconceptions or things they don’t understand and devise questions with a realistic context. Students got around 45 mins for this activity
We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
We provided screencasts online to cover details of signing up, logging in, creating questions, finding questions to answer These are now hosted on the PW site. Creating most popular, viewed 170 times (not necessarily all from the 1A course) Assessment set due 9 days later
Aside from this being a very creative question, with a great diagram, and a good spread of answers it is also a nice example of peer-tutoring The author wrote the question and got the calculation wrong in the first version of the question This was picked up on, and corrected by, another student the same evening, and the version of the question replaced with the peer’s correct explanation We also placed one of the student generated questions on the exam (not this one).
This is typical of questions submitted by the highest performing students Focussed on quantitative problemsolving * Amusing context * Great care and attention with diags and maths The 4 images show question solutions sketch Solution maths Comment and author’s response.
All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.
Ross – placeholder for now, to be updated with accurate graphs after 14 th Dec exam
Force Concept Inventory score is out of 33 Black horizontal bar is the median FCI score for that quartile The blue box shows the middle 50% The whiskers show the highest score and the lowest score in that quartile except for outliers, which are plotted as small circles.
Ross – placeholder for now, to be updated with accurate graphs after 14 th Dec exam
A Pearson product-moment correlation was performed which showed that there was a statistically significant positive relationship between the CM score and the end-of-module examination mark (E) in all modules, with a small to moderate correlation rCME , see Table 5. First-order partial correlation was then conducted to explore this relationship, controlling for the pre-module test mark (P). The partial correlation rCME.P was found to be statistically significant, with values between 0.18 and 0.40 (see Table 5). This indicates that there was a positive relationship between the CM score and the end-of-module mark even when taking into account student ability, as measured by their pre-module test mark.
All (3 minutes) Introductions of each presenter. Who we are and the perspective that we bring.