[LON-CAPA-cvs] cvs: modules /gerd/discussions/paper discussions.bib discussions.tex

[www]

This is a MIME encoded message

--www1114530200
Content-Type: text/plain

www		Tue Apr 26 11:43:20 2005 EDT

  Modified files:              
    /modules/gerd/discussions/paper	discussions.bib discussions.tex 
  Log:
  Almost there.
  
  
--www1114530200
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="www-20050426114320.txt"

Index: modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.bib
diff -u modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.bib:1.6 modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.bib:1.7
--- modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.bib:1.6	Tue Apr 26 09:59:44 2005
+++ modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.bib	Tue Apr 26 11:43:19 2005
@@ -42,6 +42,14 @@
    title = "Online learning in higher education: a review of research on interactions among teachers and students"
 }
 
+@ARTICLE{kashy03,
+   author = "Deborah A. Kashy and Guy Albertelli and Wolfgang Bauer and Edwin Kashy and Michael Thoennessen",
+   year = "2003",
+   journal = "Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks",
+   volume = "7",
+   pages = "31-36",
+   title = "Influence of non-moderated and moderated discussion sites on student success"
+}
 
 @BOOK{redish,
    author = "Edward F. (Joe) Redish",
@@ -87,3 +95,12 @@
    pages = "151-157",
    title = "Learning physics vs. passing courses"
 }
+
+@ARTICLE{chi,
+   author = "Michelle T. H. Chi and Paul J. Feltovich and Robert Glaser",
+   year = "1981",
+   journal = "Cognitive Science",
+   volume = "5",
+   pages = "121-152",
+   title = "Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices"
+}
Index: modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.17 modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.18
--- modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.17	Tue Apr 26 09:59:44 2005
+++ modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex	Tue Apr 26 11:43:19 2005
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 
 %\preprint{APS/123-QED}
 
-\title{An Analysis of\\Non-Moderated Asynchronous Online Homework Discussions\\in Introductory Physics Courses}% Force line breaks with \\
+\title{An Analysis of\\Asynchronous Online Homework Discussions\\in Introductory Physics Courses}% Force line breaks with \\
 
 \author{Gerd Kortemeyer}
 \email{korte@lite.msu.edu}
@@ -66,7 +66,9 @@
 are attached directly to the bottom of every online resource.
 For the purposes of this project, it is thus possible
 to establish a one-to-one association between an online problems and discussions.
-Students can post anonymously or using a screenname, however, the full name is always visible to the instructor.
+
+Students can post anonymously or using a screenname, however, the full name is always visible to the instructors (students know this). Also, occasionally, instructors are posting to the discussion. 
+Over time, competing discussion sites developed outside of LON-CAPA, which are completely anonymous and not visited by instructors. Kashy~\cite{kashy03} found that the use of the internal discussion sites is positively correlated to course grades and FCI scores, while the use of the external sites is negatively correlated to these scores.
 
 In addition, LON-CAPA keeps statistical data for every problem, which allows to associate problems with their 
 degree of difficulty.
@@ -288,7 +290,8 @@
 \subsection{Grade-Dependence of Discussion Contributions\label{subsec:gradedep}} 
 The average grade in the course was $3.21\pm0.05$, with men and women achieving equally high grades (men: $3.29\pm0.08$; women: $3.17\pm0.05$). 
 No correlation could be found between the average number of discussion postings and the grade in the course --- in terms of absolute 
-numbers, within statistical errors, students with high and low grades in the course participated equally in the discussions.
+numbers, within statistical errors, students with high and low grades in the course participated equally in the discussions. The positive correlation between participation in the
+this ``moderated'' discussion forum and course grades~\cite{kashy03} could not be confirmed in this study.
 \begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=86mm]{gradecorrel}% Here is how to import EPS art
 \caption{\label{fig:gradecorrel}Prominance of discussion superclasses by grade.}
@@ -313,8 +316,7 @@
  
 \section{Results of Analysis by Question\label{sec:question}}
 \subsection{Influence of Question Difficulty}
-Each question was classified according to the types and features described in subsection~\ref{subsec:problemcat}.
-Each associated discussion contribution was classified according to the types and features described in 
+Each discussion contribution associated with a question was classified according to the types and features described in 
 subsection~\ref{subsec:disccat}. As a measure of the prominence of a class in a given discussion, 
 the number of contributions belonging to it is divided by the total number of contributions. The discussion characteristics of the problems were binned by their 
 difficulty index and the average percentage plotted in figure~\ref{fig:diff}. Only superclasses are
@@ -355,6 +357,8 @@
 \end{figure}
 
 \subsection{\label{subsec:qtype}Influence of Question Types}
+Each question was classified according to the types and features described in subsection~\ref{subsec:problemcat}, and each associated discussion entry according to~\ref{subsec:disccat}. As a measure of the prominence of a class in a given discussion, 
+the number of contributions belonging to it is divided by the total number of contributions. 
 Table~\ref{table:qtype} shows the percentage prominence of discussion contributions with a certain type or with certain features in the discussions associated with questions
 that are of a certain type or have certain features. 
 \begin{table*}
@@ -394,7 +398,7 @@
 
 Finally, when it comes to conceptual discussions, their prominence is significantly lower in single-response multiple-choice and numerical problems than in the other problem types. In the 
 earlier study by Kashy~\cite{kashyd01}, it was also found that mastery of these same question types does not predict overall performance on the final exam as well as other question types. 
-Multiple-choice problems that do not involve numbers are frequently called ``conceptual'' questions, but in this study it was found that they do not lead to conceptual discussions.
+Multiple-choice problems that do not involve numbers are frequently called ``conceptual'' questions, but in this study, it was found that they do not necessarily lead to conceptual discussions.
 
 It is a surprising result that the only significant difference between ``conventional'' and representation-translation problems is that students discuss slightly less procedure in favor of 
 more complaints, and that differences disappear when ``chat'' is excluded from the analysis. McDermott~\cite{mcdermott} and Beichner~\cite{beichner} on the other hand found that students have unexpected difficulties in translating for example data presented as graphs, so a stronger effect of this feature was expected. In additon, Kashy~\cite{kashyd01} found that mastery of representation-translation problems 
@@ -402,8 +406,7 @@
 Discussion behavior and final exam performance are clearly different measurements for the influence of problem types and do not necessarily need to correlate, but a connection between 
 individual discussion behavior and performance in the course clearly exists (see subsection~\ref{subsec:gradedep}).
 It should be noted that the earlier study dealt with a relatively small set of
-representation-translation problems, some of which involved non-static time-evolving simulations as data-source, while in this study, only problems that involved the interpretation of a 
-static graph were considered ``representation translation,'' and none of the simulation-based problems were assigned. A future study may need to consider the interpretation of time-evolving 
+representation-translation problems, some of which involved non-static time-evolving simulations as data-source, while in this study, none of the simulation-based problems were assigned. A future study may need to consider the interpretation of time-evolving 
 simulations as a separate feature, once that more problems of this type exist in the resource pool.
 \subsection{Influence of course}
 Few significant differences could be found between the algebra-based and the calculus-based course:
@@ -411,10 +414,10 @@
 \item discussions in the algebra-based course had a significantly higher emotional
 climate (6$\pm$1 versus 2$\pm$1)
 \item the algebra-based course had a higher prominence of ``chat'' (21$\pm$2\% versus 11$\pm$1\% (first semester) and 14$\pm$2\% (second semester))
-\item physics-related discussion were significantly higher in the calculus-based course (28$\pm$2\% (first semester) and 23$\pm$2\% (second semester) versus 17$\pm$2\% in the algebra-based course.
-\item conceptual-discussions were significantly higher in the first semester of the calculus-based course (12$\pm$2\% versus 6$\pm$2\%), but this difference vanished in the second semester (7$\pm$1\%).
+\item physics-related discussion were significantly higher in the calculus-based course (28$\pm$2\% (first semester) and 23$\pm$2\% (second semester)) versus 17$\pm$2\% in the algebra-based course.
+\item conceptual-discussions were significantly higher in the first semester of the calculus-based course (12$\pm$2\% (calculus, first semester) versus 6$\pm$2\% (algebra)), but this difference vanished in the second semester (7$\pm$1\% (calculus, second semester)).
 \end{itemize}  
-Especially the last observation is discouraging, since as the student in the calculus-based course progressed further into their study of physics, the degree to which they were discussing concepts
+Especially the last observation is discouraging, since as the students in the calculus-based course progressed further into their study of physics, the degree to which they were discussing concepts
 decreased. This might partly be due to the different subject matter (electricity and magnetism versus mechanics), but also due to the lack of reward for conceptual considerations in solving standard
 homework problems~\cite{lin}. 
 \subsection{Qualitative Observations}
@@ -422,7 +425,7 @@
 When assigning homework, instructors usually have an instructional goal in mind, for example, they would like the students to grapple with a certain concept or work through a specific strategy of problem 
 solving. Until the ``reality check,'' the fact that a specific problem only serves this purpose when being approached with an expert mindset is under-appreciated. An even deeper misconception is the
 assumption that solving the problem correctly is a reliable indicator of the concept or problem solving strategy being successfully communicated. What the (expert) instructor had in mind, and what the
-(novice) learner actually does, is worlds apart~\cite{lin}. Students are going through reasoning processes and steps that are hardly imaginable to the instructor, and more often than not do several times more work
+(novice) learner actually does, can be worlds apart~\cite{lin,chi}. Students are going through reasoning processes and steps that are hardly imaginable to the instructor, and more often than not do several times more work
 than necessary. The situation that they get a problem right for the wrong reasons is rare, but the instances that they get the problem correct with the same (minimal) amount of steps that an expert 
 would are equally rare --- in the end, the concept that was meant to be communicated is lost.
 

--www1114530200--