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

[www]

This is a MIME encoded message

--www1136475527
Content-Type: text/plain

www		Thu Jan  5 10:38:47 2006 EDT

  Modified files:              
    /modules/gerd/discussions/paper	discussions.tex 
  Log:
  Spell check
  
  
--www1136475527
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="www-20060105103847.txt"

Index: modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.33 modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.34
--- modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.33	Wed Jan  4 22:19:16 2006
+++ modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex	Thu Jan  5 10:38:45 2006
@@ -467,23 +467,23 @@
 this ``moderated'' discussion forum and the student course grade, as it was found in~\cite{kashy03}, could not be confirmed in this study.
 \begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=86mm]{KortemeyerFig5}% Here is how to import EPS art
-\caption{\label{fig:gradecorrel}Prominance of discussion superclasses by grade.}
+\caption{\label{fig:gradecorrel}Prominence of discussion superclasses by grade.}
 \end{figure}
 
 While the {\it number} of postings is uncorrelated to course grade, their {\it classification} 
 (subsection~\ref{subsec:disccat}) is correlated. 
-In this analysis, the percentage of prominance of certain classes
-in students' cummulative contributions over the semester was analyzed. The individual percentage (relative) prominances were then averaged by grade. 
-Note that the outcome is independent of the absolute number of postings a student made, e.g., the discussion behaviour of the student who made 66 contributions is weighed 
+In this analysis, the percentage of prominence of certain classes
+in students' cumulative contributions over the semester was analyzed. The individual percentage (relative) prominences were then averaged by grade. 
+Note that the outcome is independent of the absolute number of postings a student made, e.g., the discussion behavior of the student who made 66 contributions is weighed 
 equally to that of a student having made only the average 5 contributions. 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.
+The relative prominence 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 prominence of physics-related and conceptual discussion contributions on the other hand increases with grade.
+The relative prominence of procedural discussions does not vary significantly with grades and is consistent with 42 percent prominence 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.
 
-Except for the exceptionally high prominance of procedural discussion among the best female students, the results are not surprising, but verify the validity
+Except for the exceptionally high prominence of procedural discussion among the best female students, the results are not surprising, but verify the validity
 of the classification approach.
 
 At the same time, the results confirm that conceptual and physics-related discussions are positively correlated with success in the course, while solution-oriented discussion contributions are strongly negatively correlated. While cause and effect may be arguable, in the following 
@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@
 at a difficulty index of 7. Only six problems had a difficulty index of 9, and --- surprisingly --- none of these had
 associated emotional comments.
 
-For difficulty indizes beyond 3, the prominence of conceptual discussions increases. Surprisingly, it also increases for easier
+For difficulty indexes beyond 3, the prominence of conceptual discussions increases. Surprisingly, it also increases for easier
 problems. This may be attributed to students feeling more confident discussing easier problems on a conceptual level, or simply
 in there being less of a need of procedural discussions.
 Overall, the prominence of conceptual discussions is disappointingly low, as it varies between 5 and 16 percent.
@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@
 
 In figure~\ref{fig:diffnochat} the same analysis was carried out, but this time excluding all ``chat" contributions 
 (subsection~\ref{subsec:problemcat}), i.e., only related non-emotional contributions were considered. The relative prominence of procedural and conceptual discussions systematically 
-increases, but all observations from the full analysis remain valid. ``Chat'' mostly provides a constant background across all difficulty indices. 
+increases, but all observations from the full analysis remain valid. ``Chat'' mostly provides a constant background across all difficulty indexes. 
 \begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=92mm]{KortemeyerFig7}% Here is how to import EPS art
 \caption{\label{fig:diffnochat}Discussion characteristics as a function of problem difficulty, no considering ``chat."
@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@
 Multiple-choice problems that do not involve numbers are frequently called ``conceptual'' problems, 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 
+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 addition, Kashy~\cite{kashyd01} found that mastery of representation-translation problems 
 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 (see subsection~\ref{subsec:gradedep}).
@@ -629,18 +629,19 @@
 Many of these shortcomings may be correctable through early detection, and closely following the online student discussions prior to lecture, particularly around the assigned reading problems, may be a valid extension of the Just-in-Time Teaching~\cite{jitt} technique.
 \subsection{Comparison to other research approaches}
 The presented method to gain insight into student problem solving behavior is comparable to the more traditional ``thinking out loud'' or group discussion observations. 
-However, in the former method, the subjects are keely aware of the observer, which may influence their behavior: in most any course, appropriate problem solving
-techniques would have been discussed, and while in reality, students might find them ``ineffective" or ``slow"~\cite{lin}, they might try hard to exhibit them in the research setting. The latter method, observation of student discussions, is
-likely closer to the behavior students would exhibit when not observed. However, groups are smaller and in most studies interact around problems less complex than the average homework problem.
+However, in the former method, the subjects are keenly aware of the observer, which may influence their behavior: in most any course, appropriate problem solving
+techniques would have been discussed, and while in reality, students might find them ``inefficient" or ``slow"~\cite{lin}, they might try hard to exhibit them in the research setting. The latter method, observation of student discussions, is
+likely closer to the behavior students would exhibit when not observed, since would aim to solve the homework in the way they believe is most efficient. However, groups are smaller and in most studies interact around problems less complex than the average homework problem.
 
-An advantage for the researcher is the ready availability of the online discussions --- there is no need for transcription, since the discussions are already in textual form.
+An advantage for the researcher is the ready availability of the online discussions --- there is no need for transcription, since the discussions are already in textual form. In addition, since written student
+discussions contain less spurious verbiage and slang, and tend to exhibit better grammar and more complete sentences than the spoken word, evaluation is easier.
 The large number of discussion contributions allows for statistically significant results.
 
 In the current study, a general classification scheme was deployed across physics topics and concepts. However, since the discussions are associated with certain problems, they can be used to study student
 understanding of certain topics.  
   
 \section{Conclusions}
-Online student discussions are a rich source of insight into student problem solving behavior. It was verified that indeed conceptual and physics-related discussion contributions are characteristics of students who are successful in the course, while the prominance of solution-oriented
+Online student discussions are a rich source of insight into student problem solving behavior. It was verified that indeed conceptual and physics-related discussion contributions are characteristics of students who are successful in the course, while the prominence of solution-oriented
 discussion contributions is strongly negatively correlated with success in the course.
 
 Different discussion patterns ensue around different problem characteristics:
@@ -648,7 +649,7 @@
 \item[Difficulty] Very easy problems can elicit a high level conceptual discussions,
 and so can problems of mid-range difficulty. As problems become more difficult, there is no significant gain in conceptual discussions.
 \item[Problem Types] Different problem types result in different association discussion patterns. Discussions on a procedural level are more prominent for numerical problems than for any other problem type. Solution-oriented discussions are more prominent for multiple-choice style problems in an effort to short-circuit the conceptual reasoning.
-Discussions around single-response multiple choice problems and numerical problems have a significantly lower prominance of conceptual discussions than other problem types.
+Discussions around single-response multiple choice problems and numerical problems have a significantly lower prominence of conceptual discussions than other problem types.
 Ranking problems show very favorable discussion patterns, but their sample size has been too small to make definitive statements. 
 \end{description}
 Analyzing online discussions around problems has been found to provide valuable insights into student problem-solving strategies.

--www1136475527--