PeerWise as a Vehicle for Uncertainty-resolution to Enhance Student Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i1.317Keywords:
PeerWise, uncertainty, student learning, peer feedback, dialogueAbstract
Previous studies of contributing student pedagogies (CSPs) have shown gains for students through increased summative grade and demonstration of deeper levels of learning. Resolution activities have been postulated by Draper (2009) as another way of enhancing students’ learning. In this paper, we show examples of learning occurring through resolution activities for students in higher education using PeerWise, a CSP tool, and we describe this as uncertainty-resolution that enhances learning. We then suggest a model through which this, and all learning in PeerWise, might take place. Finally, we anticipate that evidence of uncertainty-resolution will be seen in other PeerWise repositories; if this is so, we suggest that other educators using PeerWise should encourage and enhance their students’ learning by facilitating uncertainty-enhanced learning within PeerWise, and more broadly in other CSP activities.
References
Bates, S., Galloway, R., & McBride, K. (2012). Student-generated content: Using PeerWise to enhance engagement and outcomes in introductory physics courses. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 1413:123-26. AIP Publishing.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3680009
Bates, S., Galloway, R., Riise, J., & Homer. D. (2014). Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository. In Physical Review Physics Education Research 10(2).
doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020105
Bottomley, S, & Denny, P. (2011). A participatory learning approach to biochemistry using student authored and evaluated multiple-choice questions. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(5), 352–61.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20526
Denny, P. (2013). The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 763–72. CHI ’13. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470763
Denny, P., Hamer, J, Luxton-Reilly, A., & Purchase, H. (2008a). PeerWise. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computing Education Research, 109–12.
Denny, P., Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Purchase, H.. (2008b). PeerWise: Students Sharing Their Multiple Choice Questions. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, 51–58.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404526
Denny, P., Hanks, B., & Simon, B. (2010). Replication study of a student-collaborative self-testing web service in a U.S. setting. SIGCSE ’10 Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science, ACM New York, NY USA, 2010, 421-425.
Denny, P, Luxton-Reilly, A., & Hamer, J. (2008). The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education, 78, 69–74.
Draper, S. (2009). Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 285–93.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00920.x
Falchikov, N. (2004). Involving students in Assessment. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 102–8.
doi: https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2003.3.2.102
Feeley, M, & Parris, J. (2012). An assessment of the PeerWise student-contributed question system’s impact on learning outcomes: evidence from a large enrollment political science course. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2144375. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2144375.
Fellenz, M. (2004). Using assessment to support higher level learning: the multiple choice item development assignment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 703–19.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227245
Galloway, K., & Burns, S. (2014). Doing it for themselves: students creating a high quality peer-learning environment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00209A
Green, S, & Tang, K. (2013). PeerWise – experiences at University College London | PeerWise-Community.org. PeerWise-Community.org http://www.peerwise-community.org/2013/09/13/peerwise-experiences-at-university-college-london/.
Hamer, J, Cutts, Q., Jackova, J, Luxton-Reilly, A, McCartney, R, Purchase, H, Riedesel,, C., Saeli, M, Sanders, K., & Sheard, J. (2008). Contributing student pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), 194–212.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1473195.1473242
Howe, C, McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96(1), 67–93.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604X15527
Lutteroth, C., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2008). Flexible learning in CS2: a case study. In 21st Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ 2008). http://www.citrenz.ac.nz/conferences/2008/77.pdf.
Luxton-Reilly, A., Bertinshaw, D., Denny, P., Plimmer, B., & Sheehan, R. (2012). The Impact of Question Generation Activities on Performance. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 391–96.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157250
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–17.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–22.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Purchase, H., Hamer, J., Denny, P., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2010). The quality of a PeerWise MCQ repository. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education, 103, 137–46.
Rhodes, J. (2013). Using PeerWise to knowledge build and consolidate knowledge in nursing education. Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research. http://sitjar.sit.ac.nz/Pages/Publication.aspx?ID=120.
Ryan, B. (2013). Line up, line up: Uusing technology to align and enhance peer learning and assessment in a student centred foundation organic chemistry module. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2013/rp/c3rp20178c.
Sharp, A., & Sutherland, A. (2007). Learning gains…‘My (ARS)’: the impact of student empowerment using audience response systems technology on knowledge construction, student engagement and assessment. In The REAP International Online Conference on Assessment Design for Learner Responsibility, 29. http://www.reap.ac.uk/reap/reap07/Portals/2/CSL/t2%20-%20great%20designs%20for%20assessment/in-class%20vs%20out-of-class%20work/Learning_gains_my_ARS.pdf.
Sykes, A, Denny, P. & Nicolson, L. (2011). PeerWise - the marmite of veterinary student learning. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on E-Learning, 820–30. Brighton UK: Academic Publishing Limited. http://academic-conferences.org/pdfs/ECEL_2011-Booklet.pdf.
Sykes, A. (2012). MCQ writing: a tricky business for students? | PeerWise-Community.org.” PeerWise-Community.org November 12. http://www.peerwise-community.org/2012/11/12/mcq-writing-a-tricky-business-for-students/.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–76.
doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3680009
Bates, S., Galloway, R., Riise, J., & Homer. D. (2014). Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository. In Physical Review Physics Education Research 10(2).
doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020105
Bottomley, S, & Denny, P. (2011). A participatory learning approach to biochemistry using student authored and evaluated multiple-choice questions. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(5), 352–61.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20526
Denny, P. (2013). The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 763–72. CHI ’13. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470763
Denny, P., Hamer, J, Luxton-Reilly, A., & Purchase, H. (2008a). PeerWise. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computing Education Research, 109–12.
Denny, P., Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Purchase, H.. (2008b). PeerWise: Students Sharing Their Multiple Choice Questions. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, 51–58.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404526
Denny, P., Hanks, B., & Simon, B. (2010). Replication study of a student-collaborative self-testing web service in a U.S. setting. SIGCSE ’10 Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science, ACM New York, NY USA, 2010, 421-425.
Denny, P, Luxton-Reilly, A., & Hamer, J. (2008). The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education, 78, 69–74.
Draper, S. (2009). Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 285–93.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00920.x
Falchikov, N. (2004). Involving students in Assessment. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 102–8.
doi: https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2003.3.2.102
Feeley, M, & Parris, J. (2012). An assessment of the PeerWise student-contributed question system’s impact on learning outcomes: evidence from a large enrollment political science course. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2144375. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2144375.
Fellenz, M. (2004). Using assessment to support higher level learning: the multiple choice item development assignment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 703–19.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227245
Galloway, K., & Burns, S. (2014). Doing it for themselves: students creating a high quality peer-learning environment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00209A
Green, S, & Tang, K. (2013). PeerWise – experiences at University College London | PeerWise-Community.org. PeerWise-Community.org http://www.peerwise-community.org/2013/09/13/peerwise-experiences-at-university-college-london/.
Hamer, J, Cutts, Q., Jackova, J, Luxton-Reilly, A, McCartney, R, Purchase, H, Riedesel,, C., Saeli, M, Sanders, K., & Sheard, J. (2008). Contributing student pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), 194–212.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1473195.1473242
Howe, C, McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96(1), 67–93.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604X15527
Lutteroth, C., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2008). Flexible learning in CS2: a case study. In 21st Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ 2008). http://www.citrenz.ac.nz/conferences/2008/77.pdf.
Luxton-Reilly, A., Bertinshaw, D., Denny, P., Plimmer, B., & Sheehan, R. (2012). The Impact of Question Generation Activities on Performance. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 391–96.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157250
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–17.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–22.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Purchase, H., Hamer, J., Denny, P., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2010). The quality of a PeerWise MCQ repository. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education, 103, 137–46.
Rhodes, J. (2013). Using PeerWise to knowledge build and consolidate knowledge in nursing education. Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research. http://sitjar.sit.ac.nz/Pages/Publication.aspx?ID=120.
Ryan, B. (2013). Line up, line up: Uusing technology to align and enhance peer learning and assessment in a student centred foundation organic chemistry module. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2013/rp/c3rp20178c.
Sharp, A., & Sutherland, A. (2007). Learning gains…‘My (ARS)’: the impact of student empowerment using audience response systems technology on knowledge construction, student engagement and assessment. In The REAP International Online Conference on Assessment Design for Learner Responsibility, 29. http://www.reap.ac.uk/reap/reap07/Portals/2/CSL/t2%20-%20great%20designs%20for%20assessment/in-class%20vs%20out-of-class%20work/Learning_gains_my_ARS.pdf.
Sykes, A, Denny, P. & Nicolson, L. (2011). PeerWise - the marmite of veterinary student learning. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on E-Learning, 820–30. Brighton UK: Academic Publishing Limited. http://academic-conferences.org/pdfs/ECEL_2011-Booklet.pdf.
Sykes, A. (2012). MCQ writing: a tricky business for students? | PeerWise-Community.org.” PeerWise-Community.org November 12. http://www.peerwise-community.org/2012/11/12/mcq-writing-a-tricky-business-for-students/.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–76.
doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Published
2018-04-24
Issue
Section
Original Research
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
