[LON-CAPA-cvs] cvs: modules /gerd/correlpaper correlations.tex

[www]

This is a MIME encoded message

--www1164383770
Content-Type: text/plain

www		Fri Nov 24 10:56:10 2006 EDT

  Modified files:              
    /modules/gerd/correlpaper	correlations.tex 
  Log:
  Is this it?
  
  
--www1164383770
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="www-20061124105610.txt"

Index: modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex:1.16 modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex:1.17
--- modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex:1.16	Tue Nov 21 17:04:36 2006
+++ modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex	Fri Nov 24 10:56:08 2006
@@ -65,9 +65,13 @@
 \section{\label{intro}Introduction}
 In the study of student learning, epistemological beliefs are defined as beliefs and views about how knowledge is constructed and evaluated. Typical dimensions along which these are evaluated include measures of independence in learning (taking responsibility versus relying on authority (instructors, books)), coherence (actively attempting to integrate new knowledge into a coherent framework versus seeing each piece of knowledge as a standalone entity), and emphasis on concepts (e.g., attempting to understand formulas versus memorizing them).
 
-A traditional way of assessing these beliefs and views is the deployment of surveys, for example the Maryland Physics Expectations Survey (MPEX)~\cite{mpex}, the Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science (EBAPS)~\cite{ebaps}, or the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS)~\cite{adams04}, or through structured interviews (see for example~\cite{hammer94,hogan99}). While these instruments take different approaches and have different philosophies behind their designs, they do have in common that the students need to react to statements outside of the normal course activity, and that they need to self-report their responses.
+Most physicists would readily acknowledge that these beliefs and views are important factors in the learning and application of physics, and oftentimes refer to ``the physics-way of thinking about the world and solving problems.'' Unfortunately, these beliefs are not very tangible: it appears almost impossible to teach them, and extremely hard to measure and assess them.
 
-The MPEX makes the limitations of this approach very explicit in their ``Product Warning Label''~\cite{mpexwarning}: ``students often think that they function in one fashion and actually behave differently. For the diagnosis of the difficulties of individual students more detailed observation is required.'' Online student discussions associated with online physics problems are different in that they are generated within the real context of the course, and students have a vested interest in making these discussions as productive as possible, given their understanding of how physics is done and their approach to it. They could thus be a ``reality check'' of students' beliefs, attitudes, and expectations. 
+Traditional ways of assessing these beliefs include observations, guided interviews, and the deployment of surveys. Observation techniques, for example of groups of students solving problems, are not very scalable due to the need of setting up recording equipment and subsequent transcription. Also, students are aware of being observed, and may act differently than in unobserved scenarios. Guided interviews share the same limitations in terms of scalability and are possibly even more strongly influenced by efforts to make a good impression or please the interviewer.
+
+Surveys, on the other hand, are very scalable and thus used most frequently. Examples are the Maryland Physics Expectations Survey (MPEX)~\cite{mpex}, the Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science (EBAPS)~\cite{ebaps}, or the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS)~\cite{adams04}, or through structured interviews (see for example~\cite{hammer94,hogan99}). While these instruments take different approaches and have different philosophies behind their designs, they do have in common that the students need to react to statements outside of the normal course activity, and that they need to self-report their responses.
+
+The MPEX makes the limitations of this approach very explicit in their ``Product Warning Label''~\cite{mpexwarning}: ``students often think that they function in one fashion and actually behave differently. For the diagnosis of the difficulties of individual students more detailed observation is required.'' Online student discussions associated with online physics problems are different in that they are generated within the real context of the course, and students have a vested interest in making these discussions as productive as possible, given their understanding of how physics is done and their approach to it. Online discussions however are still scalable, since the students self-transcribe their contributions, and they are happening on a large enough scale that the awareness of being observed wears off. They could thus be a ``reality check'' of students' beliefs, attitudes, and expectations. 
 
 The MPEX ``Product Warning Label'' continues, that ``this survey is primarily intended to evaluate the impact of one or more semesters of instruction on an overall class''~\cite{mpexwarning}, and recommends using the outcomes, in combination with evaluations of student learning of content, as a means to improve overall course instruction. In this paper, we are asking the question if the evaluation of  student online discussion behavior can be used as a means to assess the attitudes and beliefs of an individual student, and if in turn, these can be used to predict the success of an individual student in the learning of physics content. An obvious application would be the early detection of students at risk.
 
@@ -87,10 +91,7 @@
 
 Online discussions take place within the regular course context and over its complete duration. They are a rich source of feedback to the instructor~\cite{kortemeyer05feedback}, and their quality and character was found to be correlated with the type and difficulty of the associated problems~\cite{kortemeyer05ana}, i.e., data exists regarding the influence of {\it problem} characteristics on associated discussions. Unfortunately, less data exists on the correlation between {\it student} characteristics and discussion behavior, because usually only very few student characteristics are known, with the exception of the students' overall performance in the course. Thus, one of the few findings was the fact that certain discussion behavior, most prominently exhibited on ``non-sanctioned'' discussion sites external to the course, is negatively correlated with performance in the course~\cite{kashy03,kortemeyer05ana}.
 
-Few studies exist on the correlation between beliefs data gathered in research settings and actual discussion behavior in the course. For example, Hogan~\cite{hogan99} assessed eight graders' epistemological frameworks through interviews and then analyzed their discussion behavior in a science course with a particular focus on collaboration, finding a number of correlations. In the interviews, students were ask to articulate views about themselves, about how they learn, and about the subject area. It was found that students' views on learning most strongly correlated with their peer-discussion behavior, for example, students who exhibited a constructivist view of learning were also most strongly engaged in the peer-discussions and collaborative knowledge building. 
-
-The author used the analysis of online student discussions as a means to identify characteristics of physics problems which elicit desirable problem solving strategies in an earlier study~\cite{kortemeyer05ana}. The analysis of online student discussions is similar to observational techniques, yet it does not take place in artificial research settings and, since it is self-documenting, does not suffer the same scalability problems. 
-
+Few studies exist on the correlation between beliefs data gathered in research settings and actual discussion behavior in the course. For example, Hogan~\cite{hogan99} assessed eight graders' epistemological frameworks through interviews and then analyzed their discussion behavior in a science course with a particular focus on collaboration, finding a number of correlations. In the interviews, students were ask to articulate views about themselves, about how they learn, and about the subject area. It was found that students' views on learning most strongly correlated with their peer-discussion behavior, for example, students who exhibited a constructivist view of learning were also most strongly engaged in the peer-discussions and collaborative knowledge building. In this paper, we investigate if similar correlations exist between online peer-discussions and epistemological beliefs, and if those in turn are correlated with measures of student learning.
 \section{\label{setting}Setting}
 The project was carried out in an introductory calculus-based physics course with initially 214 students. Most of the students in this course plan on pursuing a career in a medical field. The course had three traditional lectures per week. It did not use a textbook, instead, all course materials were available online. Topics were introductory mechanics, as well as sound and thermodynamics. There was twice-weekly online homework: one small set as reading problems due before the topic was dealt with in class (implementing JiTT~\cite{jitt}), and a larger set of traditional end-of-the-chapter style homework at the end of each topic. The online problems in the course were randomized using the LON-CAPA system, i.e., different students would receive different versions of the same problem (different graphs, numbers, images, options, formulas, etc)~\cite{loncapa,kashyd01}. The students had weekly recitation sessions, and a traditional lab was offered in parallel. The course grade was determined from the students' performance on biweekly quizzes, the final exam, the recitation grades, and the homework performance.
 
@@ -104,7 +105,7 @@
 
 
 The author analyzed the online student discussions that were associated with the online homework given in his course, using the scheme first suggested in Ref.~\cite{kortemeyer05ana}.  The student names were not available during classification in order to avoid bias.
-There were a total of 2405 such online discussion contributions over the course of the semester, where one posting counts as one contribution.
+There were a total of 2405 such online discussion contributions over the course of the semester, where one posting counts as one contribution. A particular contribution can receive more than one classification.
 
 The following list shows the classifications taken into consideration, as well as illustrative examples that would receive the respective classification.
 \begin{itemize}
@@ -119,6 +120,9 @@
 \begin{quote}
 - what do d and g stand for?
 \end{quote}
+\begin{quote}
+- ``e'' for this equation is equal to one because it is a black body ... hope this helps.
+\end{quote}
 \item {\it Procedural} contributions describe or inquire about mechanisms
 of solving a problem without mentioning the underlying concepts or
 reasoning. 
@@ -136,6 +140,7 @@
 (67)=10.23 and that was wrong so then i did T=52.41/2cos(33.5) = 31.4 which 
 was also wrong... why am i so wrong?! please help!!!
 \end{quote}
+
 \item {\it Conceptual} contributions deal with the underlying concepts of
 the problem.
 \begin{quote}
@@ -160,6 +165,9 @@
 completely ignore the mass of the truck and just use the
 mass of the car.
 \end{quote}
+\begin{quote}
+- I have the correct answer, but I don't understand why it is correct. Why would there be an acceleration at the ball's highest point? Why wouldn't it be zero?
+\end{quote}
 \item {\it Solution-oriented} -- the goal of the contribution is to arrive at
 the correct answer without mentioning or dealing with the mathematics or
 physics of the problem.
@@ -175,7 +183,9 @@
 
 And theres your answer.  I hope that helps!
 \end{quote}
-
+\begin{quote}
+- Use this formula: T(final)=(m1c1T1+m2c2T2)/(m1c1+m2c2). Convert temp to Kelvin and then for your final answer convert back to Cel.
+\end{quote}
 \item {\it Mathematical} -- the contribution deals mostly with the
 mathematical aspects of the problem.
 \begin{quote}
@@ -183,7 +193,9 @@
 scalar product which means you must add the product of 
 each component.
 \end{quote}
-
+\begin{quote}
+- What's an arctan?
+\end{quote}
 \item {\it Physics} -- the contribution deals with the physics-related aspects
 of the problem.
 \begin{quote}

--www1164383770--