[LON-CAPA-cvs] cvs: modules /gerd/roleclicker description.aux description.tex
www
lon-capa-cvs@mail.lon-capa.org
Mon, 09 May 2005 21:42:48 -0000
This is a MIME encoded message
--www1115674968
Content-Type: text/plain
www Mon May 9 17:42:48 2005 EDT
Modified files:
/modules/gerd/roleclicker description.aux description.tex
Log:
Latest greatest
--www1115674968
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="www-20050509174248.txt"
Index: modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux
diff -u modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux:1.6 modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux:1.7
--- modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux:1.6 Mon May 9 16:37:31 2005
+++ modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux Mon May 9 17:42:48 2005
@@ -15,8 +15,6 @@
\citation{kashyd01}
\citation{steinberg}
\citation{redish}
-\citation{mcdermott}
-\citation{beichner}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Methodology}{3}}
\newlabel{method}{{2}{3}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.1}Establishment of Initial Conditions}{3}}
@@ -25,6 +23,8 @@
\newlabel{inventories}{{2.1.2}{3}}
\newlabel{subsec:problemcat}{{2.2}{3}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Problem Classification}{3}}
+\citation{mcdermott}
+\citation{beichner}
\citation{mazur96}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Example of two LON-CAPA problems addressing the same concepts. The problem on the left is a conventional short-numerical-answer problem, while the problem on the right is of type ``multiple-choice multiple-response."}}{4}}
\newlabel{threemasses}{{1}{4}}
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
\citation{kashyd01}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Influence of question types and features on discussions. The values indicate the percentage prominence of the discussion superclasses, types, and features (columns) for discussions associated with questions of a certain type or with certain features (rows). The values in brackets result from an analysis with ``chat'' excluded.}}{8}}
\newlabel{table:qtype}{{2}{8}}
+\citation{physlets}
\citation{lin}
\citation{pascarella02}
\citation{mref1}
@@ -81,6 +82,7 @@
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Materials Devolopment}{10}}
\newlabel{matdev}{{3}{10}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.1}Existing Material}{10}}
+\citation{physlets}
\citation{mref27}
\citation{bq1}
\citation{bq2}
@@ -95,25 +97,25 @@
\newlabel{loncapa}{{4.1.3}{11}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Web-rendering of the same LON-CAPA problem for two different students. }}{12}}
\newlabel{twoproblems}{{4}{12}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.2}Computer-Guided Group Formation}{12}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.3}Different Question Types}{12}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.4}Randomized Questions}{12}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Dissemination}{12}}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Computer-guided group formation. }}{13}}
-\newlabel{formation}{{5}{13}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Computer-guided group formation. }}{12}}
+\newlabel{formation}{{5}{12}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Rendering of a problem on PDA devices }}{13}}
\newlabel{pdaview}{{6}{13}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.2}Computer-Guided Group Formation}{13}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.3}Different Question Types}{13}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.4}Randomized Questions}{13}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Dissemination}{13}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Timeline}{13}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Proposed timeline by year and institution}}{14}}
\newlabel{timeline}{{3}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Timeline}{14}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.1}Year 1}{14}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.2}Year 2}{14}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.3}Year 3}{14}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Expertise and Responsibilites of the PIs}{14}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.1}Gerd Kortemeyer}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Guy Albertelli}{15}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Results from Prior NSF Support}{15}}
-\newlabel{results}{{8}{15}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Guy Albertelli}{14}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Results from Prior NSF Support}{14}}
+\newlabel{results}{{8}{14}}
\bibcite{aapt}{1}
\bibcite{EBAPS}{2}
\bibcite{MPEX}{3}
@@ -128,87 +130,88 @@
\bibcite{beichner}{12}
\bibcite{mazur96}{13}
\bibcite{discpaper}{14}
-\bibcite{lin}{15}
-\bibcite{pascarella02}{16}
-\bibcite{mref1}{17}
-\bibcite{mref2}{18}
-\bibcite{mref3}{19}
-\bibcite{mref4}{20}
-\bibcite{mref5}{21}
-\bibcite{mref6}{22}
-\bibcite{mref7}{23}
-\bibcite{mref8}{24}
-\bibcite{mref9}{25}
-\bibcite{mref10}{26}
-\bibcite{mref13}{27}
-\bibcite{mref19}{28}
-\bibcite{mref20}{29}
-\bibcite{mref21}{30}
-\bibcite{mref22}{31}
-\bibcite{mref23}{32}
-\bibcite{mref27}{33}
-\bibcite{mref28}{34}
-\bibcite{bq1}{35}
-\bibcite{bq2}{36}
-\bibcite{features}{37}
-\bibcite{edutools}{38}
-\bibcite{chi}{39}
-\bibcite{schoenfeld}{40}
-\bibcite{foster}{41}
-\bibcite{kotas}{42}
-\bibcite{minaei}{43}
-\bibcite{wallace}{44}
-\bibcite{riffell1}{45}
-\bibcite{riffell2}{46}
-\bibcite{mref11}{47}
-\bibcite{mref12}{48}
-\bibcite{mref14}{49}
-\bibcite{mref15}{50}
-\bibcite{mref16}{51}
-\bibcite{mref17}{52}
-\bibcite{mref18}{53}
-\bibcite{mref24}{54}
-\bibcite{mref25}{55}
-\bibcite{mref26}{56}
-\bibcite{russell}{57}
-\bibcite{feynmanCharacter}{58}
-\bibcite{student}{59}
-\bibcite{heuvelen}{60}
-\bibcite{fuller}{61}
-\bibcite{bransford}{62}
-\bibcite{pellegrino}{63}
-\bibcite{arons}{64}
-\bibcite{mazur}{65}
-\bibcite{larkin}{66}
-\bibcite{reif}{67}
-\bibcite{hammer}{68}
-\bibcite{thoennessen}{69}
-\bibcite{kashy00}{70}
-\bibcite{hewitt}{71}
-\bibcite{tobias}{72}
-\bibcite{tobiasST}{73}
-\bibcite{torigoe}{74}
-\bibcite{breitenberger}{75}
-\bibcite{clement}{76}
-\bibcite{pasc04}{77}
-\bibcite{kashyda}{78}
-\bibcite{bonham}{79}
-\bibcite{kashyd01b}{80}
-\bibcite{novak}{81}
-\bibcite{feedback}{82}
-\bibcite{mcdermottprob}{83}
-\bibcite{galileo}{84}
-\bibcite{mazur1}{85}
-\bibcite{mazur2}{86}
-\bibcite{mazur3}{87}
-\bibcite{mazur4}{88}
-\bibcite{mazur5}{89}
-\bibcite{mazur6}{90}
-\bibcite{mazur7}{91}
-\bibcite{mazur8}{92}
-\bibcite{mazur9}{93}
-\bibcite{mazur10}{94}
-\bibcite{mazur11}{95}
-\bibcite{mazur12}{96}
-\bibcite{kashy03}{97}
-\bibcite{jitt}{98}
+\bibcite{physlets}{15}
+\bibcite{lin}{16}
+\bibcite{pascarella02}{17}
+\bibcite{mref1}{18}
+\bibcite{mref2}{19}
+\bibcite{mref3}{20}
+\bibcite{mref4}{21}
+\bibcite{mref5}{22}
+\bibcite{mref6}{23}
+\bibcite{mref7}{24}
+\bibcite{mref8}{25}
+\bibcite{mref9}{26}
+\bibcite{mref10}{27}
+\bibcite{mref13}{28}
+\bibcite{mref19}{29}
+\bibcite{mref20}{30}
+\bibcite{mref21}{31}
+\bibcite{mref22}{32}
+\bibcite{mref23}{33}
+\bibcite{mref27}{34}
+\bibcite{mref28}{35}
+\bibcite{bq1}{36}
+\bibcite{bq2}{37}
+\bibcite{features}{38}
+\bibcite{edutools}{39}
+\bibcite{chi}{40}
+\bibcite{schoenfeld}{41}
+\bibcite{foster}{42}
+\bibcite{kotas}{43}
+\bibcite{minaei}{44}
+\bibcite{wallace}{45}
+\bibcite{riffell1}{46}
+\bibcite{riffell2}{47}
+\bibcite{mref11}{48}
+\bibcite{mref12}{49}
+\bibcite{mref14}{50}
+\bibcite{mref15}{51}
+\bibcite{mref16}{52}
+\bibcite{mref17}{53}
+\bibcite{mref18}{54}
+\bibcite{mref24}{55}
+\bibcite{mref25}{56}
+\bibcite{mref26}{57}
+\bibcite{russell}{58}
+\bibcite{feynmanCharacter}{59}
+\bibcite{student}{60}
+\bibcite{heuvelen}{61}
+\bibcite{fuller}{62}
+\bibcite{bransford}{63}
+\bibcite{pellegrino}{64}
+\bibcite{arons}{65}
+\bibcite{mazur}{66}
+\bibcite{larkin}{67}
+\bibcite{reif}{68}
+\bibcite{hammer}{69}
+\bibcite{thoennessen}{70}
+\bibcite{kashy00}{71}
+\bibcite{hewitt}{72}
+\bibcite{tobias}{73}
+\bibcite{tobiasST}{74}
+\bibcite{torigoe}{75}
+\bibcite{breitenberger}{76}
+\bibcite{clement}{77}
+\bibcite{pasc04}{78}
+\bibcite{kashyda}{79}
+\bibcite{bonham}{80}
+\bibcite{kashyd01b}{81}
+\bibcite{novak}{82}
+\bibcite{feedback}{83}
+\bibcite{mcdermottprob}{84}
+\bibcite{galileo}{85}
+\bibcite{mazur1}{86}
+\bibcite{mazur2}{87}
+\bibcite{mazur3}{88}
+\bibcite{mazur4}{89}
+\bibcite{mazur5}{90}
+\bibcite{mazur6}{91}
+\bibcite{mazur7}{92}
+\bibcite{mazur8}{93}
+\bibcite{mazur9}{94}
+\bibcite{mazur10}{95}
+\bibcite{mazur11}{96}
+\bibcite{mazur12}{97}
+\bibcite{kashy03}{98}
+\bibcite{jitt}{99}
Index: modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex:1.11 modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex:1.12
--- modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex:1.11 Mon May 9 16:37:31 2005
+++ modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex Mon May 9 17:42:48 2005
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
The proposed project has three phases:
\begin{enumerate}
-\item Formal analysis of peer-discussion behavior using currently available techniques
+\item Formal analysis of peer-discussion behavior using currently available techniques, in parallel with systems and content integration
\item Introduction of technology-mediated extensions to the current techniques and analysis of their impact on discussion behavior
and traditional outcome measures
\item Commoditizing and dissemination of successful techniques
@@ -202,8 +202,8 @@
Table~\ref{table:examples} shows examples of contributions from the study on online discussions~\cite{discpaper} and their classification.
\begin{table}
\caption{Examples of discussion contribution types and features~\cite{discpaper}.\label{table:examples}}
-\small
-\begin{tabular}{l|p{3.9cm}|p{3.9cm}|p{3.9cm}|p{3.9cm}}
+\footnotesize
+\begin{tabular}{l|p{3.2cm}|p{3.2cm}|p{3.2cm}|p{3.2cm}}
&Unrelated&Solution&Math&Physics\\\hline
Emotional&
Why is it that homeworks are getting longer and longer?
@@ -274,11 +274,11 @@
features in students' cummulative contributions over the semester was analyzed. The individual percentage (relative) prominances were then averaged by grade. Figure~\ref{fig:gradecorrel}
shows the outcome of this study by discussion superclass. As an example, the figure is to be interpreted this way: within the indicated errors,
55 percent of a 3.0 student's discussion contributions were solution-oriented. The lines represent second-order polynomial fits to the data.
-
-The relative prominance of solution-oriented discussion contributions varies most strongly with grade, from 75 percent for a 2.0 student to 45 percent for a 4.0 student.
-The relative prominance of physics-related and conceptual discussion contributions on the other hand increases with grade.
-The relative prominance of procedural discussions does not vary significantly with grades and is consistent with 42 percent promimance across grades and gender, except for the 23 female 4.0 students, where it is $68\pm7$ percent --- the 22 male 4.0 students, by comparison, average $34\pm8$ percent procedural discussions.
-
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The relative prominance of solution-oriented discussion contributions varies most strongly with grade, from 75 percent for a 2.0 student to 45 percent for a 4.0 student.
+\item The relative prominance of physics-related and conceptual discussion contributions on the other hand increases with grade.
+\item The relative prominance of procedural discussions does not vary significantly with grades and is consistent with 42 percent promimance across grades and gender, except for the 23 female 4.0 students, where it is $68\pm7$ percent --- the 22 male 4.0 students, by comparison, average $34\pm8$ percent procedural discussions.
+\end{itemize}
Except for the exceptionally high prominance of procedural discussion among the best female students, the results are not surprising, but verify the validity
of the classification approach.
@@ -286,14 +286,12 @@
particular attention needs to be paid to question properties that elicit either the desirable or undesirable discussion behavioral patterns.
\item[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.
+the number of contributions belonging to it is divided by the total number of contributions (table~\ref{table:qtype}).
\begin{table}
\caption{Influence of question types and features on discussions.
The values indicate the percentage prominence of the discussion superclasses, types, and features (columns) for discussions associated with questions of a certain
type or with certain features (rows). The values in brackets result from an analysis with ``chat'' excluded.\label{table:qtype}}
-\small
+\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
&Emot. Clim.&Procedural&Solution&Math&Physics&Conceptual\\
Multiple Choice&-5$\pm$3&28$\pm$7 (29$\pm$8)&66$\pm$7 (74$\pm$7)&9$\pm$6 (9$\pm$6)&16$\pm$5 (17$\pm$5)&6$\pm$3 (7$\pm$3)\\
@@ -317,7 +315,7 @@
Solution-oriented contributions are significantly higher for multiple-choice and multiple-choice-multiple-response problems than for the other problem types with the exception
of formula-response questions, where error-boundaries overlap. In spite of the randomization provided, in discussion entries, students frequently reverse-engineered the complete randomization space by copying their correct answer screens into the discussions
-(see the example for a surface-level solution-oriented discussion entry in Table~\ref{table:examples}).
+(see the example for a surface-level solution-oriented discussion entry in Table~\ref{table:examples}). The same behaviour is to be expected in in-class discussions.
The prominence of mathematical discussion contributions is the highest for formula-response questions, approximately equal for numerical and single-response multiple-choice questions, and the lowest for multiple-choice-multiple-response, ranking, and click-on-image questions.
@@ -333,9 +331,9 @@
is the best predictor of final exam scores, even when controlling for ACT, cumulative GPA, and force-concept inventory pretests.
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.
+
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, 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.
+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. Within this project, we aim to deploy Physlets~\cite{physlets} in the classroom, and expect statistically more significant data regarding their impact.
\item[Influence of course]
Few significant differences could be found between the algebra-based and the calculus-based course:
\begin{itemize}
@@ -440,7 +438,7 @@
\subsection{Porting of Content}
The current library of ConcepTests will be translated into LON-CAPA format, such that baseline data can be obtained across different implementations and institutions.
-
+In addition, Physlets~\cite{physlets} will be incorporated into the LON-CAPA content pool, and questions developed around them.
\section{Implementation}
@@ -478,13 +476,13 @@
Over the years, the system added a learning content management system and standard course management features, such as communications, gradebook, etc., which are comparable to commercial course management systems, such as BlackBoard, WebCT, or ANGEL. See
Refs.~\cite{features,edutools} for an overview of features, and comparisons to other systems.
-In addition to standard features, the LON-CAPA delivery and course management layer is designed around STEM education, for example: support for mathematical typesetting throughout (\LaTeX\ inside of XML) Ð-- formulas are rendered on-the-fly, and can be algorithmically modified through the use of variables inside formulas; integrated GNUplot support, such that graphs can be rendered on-the-fly, and allowing additional layered labeling of graphs and images; support for multi-dimensional symbolic math answers; and full support of physical units.
+In addition to standard features, the LON-CAPA delivery and course management layer is designed around STEM education, for example: support for mathematical typesetting throughout (\LaTeX\ inside of XML) -- formulas are rendered on-the-fly, and can be algorithmically modified through the use of variables inside formulas; integrated GNUplot support, such that graphs can be rendered on-the-fly, and allowing additional layered labeling of graphs and images; support for multi-dimensional symbolic math answers; and full support of physical units.
As an outcome of the NSF ITR grant Investigation of a Model for Online Resource Creation and Sharing in Educational Settings
(\#0085921, \$2,055,000, September 15, 2000 through July 31, 2005), LON-CAPA developed into a content sharing network of more than 15 institutions of higher education including community colleges and four-year institutions, as well as over 15 middle and high schools. In addition, LON-CAPA houses commercial textbook content from seven major publishing companies, and a commercial service company was established around the product at the end of 2004.
\subsection{Computer-Guided Group Formation}
\begin{figure}
-\includegraphics[width=6.5in]{seatfig.eps}
+\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{seatfig.eps}
\caption{Computer-guided group formation.\label{formation}
}
\end{figure}
@@ -523,9 +521,9 @@
\begin{table}
\caption{Proposed timeline by year and institution\label{timeline}}
\small
-\begin{tabular}{|r|p{4cm}|p{4cm}|p{4cm}|}
+\begin{tabular}{|r|p{4.3cm}|p{4.3cm}|p{4.3cm}|}
\hline
-Year&Harvard&MSU&Erskine\\
+Year&Harvard&MSU&Erskine\\\hline
Year 1&System Integration\newline
Baseline data collection
&System Integration\newline
@@ -605,9 +603,11 @@
\bibitem{beichner}
Robert J. Beichner, {\it Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs},
Am. J. Phys., 62, 750-762 (1994)
+
+
\bibitem{mazur96} Eric Mazur, {\it The Problem with Problems}, Optics and Photonics News {\bf 6}, 59-60 (1996)
\bibitem{discpaper} Gerd Kortemeyer, {\it An Analysis of Asynchronous Online Homework Discussions in Introductory Physics Courses}, submitted.
-
+\bibitem{physlets} Wolfgang Christian et al., {\it Physlets}, http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/Applets.html
\bibitem{lin}
Herbert Lin, {\it Learning physics vs. passing courses}
--www1115674968--