8/11/2019 Peer evaluation of student generated content
1/2
Peer Evaluation of Student Generated Content
Jared TritzUniversity of Michigan
Department of PhysicsAnn Arbor, MI [email protected]
Nicole MichelottiUniversity of Michigan
Department of PhysicsAnn Arbor, [email protected]
Ginger ShultzUniversity of Michigan
Department of ChemistryAnn Arbor, [email protected]
Tim McKay
University of MichiganDepartment of Physics
Ann Arbor, [email protected]
Barsaa MohapatraUniversity of Michigan
Department of Ind. Oper. Eng.Ann Arbor, MI
[email protected]
ABSTRACTWe will present three similar studies that examine
onlinepeer evaluation of student-generated explanations for
missedexam problems in introductory physics. In the rst
study,students created video solutions using YouTube and in
thesecond two studies, they created written solutions usingGoogle
documents. All peer evaluations were performedusing a tournament
module as part of the interactive on-line coaching system called E
2 Coach[4] at the University of Michigan. With the theme of LAK
2014 being intersectionof learning analytics research, theory and
practice, we thinkthis poster will provide an accessible example
that combinesa classroom experiment with rigorous analysis to
understandoutcomes.
Categories and Subject Descriptors10010405.10010489 [Applied
computing ]: Education
General Termspeer evaluation, tournaments, videos, google docs,
blendedlearning
1. INTRODUCTIONFirst inspired by ubiquitous screen capture
technology, weconducted an experiment that encourages students to
createvideo solutions to an exam problem they got wrong. Know-ing
that there would probably be a wide range of qualityin the content
produced we also wanted to provide an effi-cient means of ltering
the content using a student poweredpeer review system. To
accomplish these, we implemented aprocess whereby students were
assigned a problem they got
Developer and presenterPrinciple Investigator of E 2 Coach
project
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this
work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided
that copies arenot made or distributed for prot or commercial
advantage and that copiesbear this notice and the full citation on
the rst page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work
must be honored. For all other uses, contactthe
Owner/Author.Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). LAK 14 , Mar
24-28 2014, Indianapolis, IN, USA ACM 978-1-4503-2664-3/14/03.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567598
wrong and asked to submit their redo solution to a tourna-ment
style peer review process. Borrowing techniques fromcognitive
psychology [5] to stimulate learning in the hardsciences and
measuring the effect is becoming an open areaof exploration[2]. To
activate meta-cognitive reection, stu-dents were asked to emphasize
any mistake(s) they made onthe exam in their solution
explanation.
For the rst study (Table: 1) in Physics 240 (Electricity
andMagnetism for Engineers), students had only one chance tomake a
video solution and participate in peer review forthe second
midterm. In the later parallel studies in thePhysics 135 (Mechanics
for Life Scientists) and 235 (Elec-tricity and Magnetism for Life
Scientists), we altered thesubmission requirement to use written
Google documentsinstead of videos. The study was also expanded to
includeall midterms in order to explore student participation
andlearning effects over time.
Course Term Mode Students Chances SubmitsPhys 240 W12 video 352
1 206Phys 135 F13 doc 396 3 647Phys 235 F13 doc 222 3 284
Table 1: Description of three similar studies
In all studies, students were given extra credit equivalent
toone exam question (5% = 1/20 questions) for each chancethey
participated, where participation meant creating a so-lution and
reviewing two assigned solutions to select the onethey thought was
better. Appropriately, the extra credit is
not included in the exam data analysis.
2. PROBLEM ASSIGNMENTWe wanted individual students to revisit
problems that weremost salient to them, therefore, most students
were assignedthe easiest problem they got wrong. This was to help
en-sure the best opportunity for learning and reection at
theboundary of their understanding. We had to balance thiswith the
somewhat arbitrary goal of assigning each probleman equal number of
times. For voting, we tried to assignstudents the second easiest
problem they go wrong again inan attempt to make the process most
useful for them.
