Participatory Learning actively engages students in every stage of the problem lifecycle (including crafting problems for peers, providing solutions, peer grading, and disputes involving self-assessment). This brief motivates and describes the emerging Participatory Learning approach. The discussion then focuses on several issues concerning motivating students, guiding them in conducting the various problem lifecycle tasks, and evaluating participation and learning

Bieber, Michael

English

Montclair State University Digital Commons

The Emerging Learning Design Journal Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 6 February 2018 Deeper Learning by Putting Students in Charge of the Problem Lifecycle Michael Bieber New Jersey Institute of Technology Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/eldj  Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Bieber, Michael (2018) "Deeper Learning by Putting Students in Charge of the Problem Lifecycle," The Emerging Learning Design Journal: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/eldj/vol4/iss1/6 This Brief is brought to you for free and open access by Montclair State University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Emerging Learning Design Journal by an authorized editor of Montclair State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@montclair.edu. 	Deeper	Learning	by	Putting	Students	in	Charge	of	the	Problem	Lifecycle:	Bieber	 	 	 														32	eld.j Emerging	Learning	Design	Journal http://eldj.montclair.edu	ISSN	2474-8218 Volume	4	(2017)	pp.	32-36 Briefs		Deeper Learning by Putting Students in Charge of the Problem Lifecycle Michael Bieber Informatics Department, New Jersey Institute of Technology, University Heights, Newark NJ 07102 bieber@njit.edu April 29, 2017  	ABSTRACT Participatory Learning actively engages students in every stage of the problem lifecycle (including crafting problems for peers, providing solutions, peer grading, and disputes involving self-assessment).  This brief motivates and describes the emerging Participatory Learning approach.  The discussion then focuses on several issues concerning motivating students, guiding them in conducting the various problem lifecycle tasks, and evaluating participation and learning. Keywords: participatory learning, active participation, peer assessment, student empowerment  PL FRAMEWORK PL (Participatory Learning) is an emerging constructivist (Piaget, 1928; Vygotsky, 1978) approach, deepening learning through active participation by students in every problem lifecycle stage for assignments, quizzes and other course activities.  Researchers have studied, and many instructors utilize individual PL stages.  PL uniquely combines these stages into a comprehensive framework for deeper learning.  PL stages include (see Figure 1): 1. Each student creates a problem ((De Jesus, Teixeira-Dias, & Watts, 2003; Foos, Mora, & Tkacz, 1994; Hargreaves, 1997; Hutchinson, Wells, & others, 2013; Palmer & Devitt, 2006); similar to inquiry- or problem-based learning (Barrett, Moore, & others, 2010; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Koschmann, Kelson, Feltovich, & Barrows, 1996; Polman, 2000)) 2. Instructor optionally edits the problem (ensures quality) 3. Another student solves the problem 4. Two students grade the solution, including the problem creator (peer assessment (Cho & Schunn, 2003; Hersam, Luna, & Light, 2004; E. Z. F. Liu, Lin, & Yuan, 2002; J. Lu & Law, 2012; Richards, Adsit, & Ford, 2012; Sadler & Good, 2006; Topping, 1998; Wiswall & Srogi, 1995; Yu, 2011))  5. If grades diverge, another student resolves the grade 6. Optionally, the problem solver can dispute the grade with justification (self assessment (Klenowski, 1995; E. Z.-F. Liu, Lin, Chiu, & Yuan, 2001)) 7. Instructor resolves disputes (ensures quality) 8. Students can read everything peers have done (learning by example (Cho & Schunn, 2003; Van Gog & Rummel, 2010)) All stages are anonymous to minimize potential bias (R. Lu & Bol, 2007) and provide a more welcoming environment so students can constructively critique others (Yu & Liu, 2009)(Chen, 2010). Instructors provide instructions and rubrics for stages as appropriate. Actively engaging students in every lifecycle stage empowers them to take ownership of their own learning, increases satisfaction and persistence in learning (Joo, Lim, & Kim, 2011) and motivates students (Guthrie, 2004; Holocher-Ertl, Kunzmann, Müller, Rivera-Pelayo, & Schmidt, 2013; Jones, 2009; Sircar & Tandon, 1999) to achieve deeper or higher learning outcomes (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001; Bloom, Englehart, Furst, & Hill, 1956; Felder & Brent, 2004).  For example, when designing problems, students must organize and synthesize their ideas and learn to recognize the domain’s important concepts, resulting in “deep” learning(Hargreaves 1997)(Entwistle 2000; Keane, Keane, and Blicblau 2014). Through rubrics, instructors make expectations and evaluation criteria explicit, which also facilitates feedback and self-	Deeper	Learning	by	Putting	Students	in	Charge	of	the	Problem	Lifecycle:	Bieber	 	 	 														33	eld.j Emerging	Learning	Design	Journal http://eldj.montclair.edu	ISSN	2474-8218 Volume	4	(2017)	pp.	32-36 Briefs	assessment, further promoting learning (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007). We recently developed a software prototype on the Web that implements and facilitates the PL framework for both on-campus and e-learning environments, focuses participants on the task at hand, and streamlines management of courses and assignments for instructors (including automatically allocating students to tasks). PRIOR PL RESEARCH Initial PL research focused on exam problems, before developing the software prototype to streamline and guide the process (thus initially requiring much instructor overhead) (Shen, Bieber, & Hiltz, 2005; Shen, Hiltz, & Bieber, 2008; Wu, Hiltz, & Bieber, 2010).   These prior studies are based on the widespread Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989)—the most widely used model in Information Systems (Lee, Kozar, & Larsen, 2003)—and its extension, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003) for learning supported by an online infrastructure.  This model focused on perceived learning and acceptance of the approach, although not actual learning.   Results were very encouraging.  Frequency distributions of survey results for our three major prior research model constructs (in italics) showed:  • 59.5% agreed or strongly agreed that they experienced Perceived Enjoyment  (5 point Likert scale, construct measured with 3 questions, N > 220),  • 65.6% experienced high levels of Perceived Learning (7 questions), and  • 60.8% Recommended PL for future classes (1 question).    We also conducted other data, reliability and validity assessments, yielding generally favorable results (Wu et al., 2010).  This encouraged us to develop the supporting prototype, and to focus future PL research towards potential widespread use to deepen learning, and investigate several very interesting issues.  Figure 1. Participatory Learning (PL) Framework (color-coded by types of learning). ISSUES EMERGING WITH PL Motivation and Trust Issues • In many traditional problems, only the solution is evaluated (graded).   Which other lifecycle tasks could be evaluated, such as the quality of the problem created or the quality of the grading process.   Would evaluating these cause students to take their tasks more seriously, trust other students to put in a more good-faith effort, and learn more deeply? • Does anonymity foster trust when students solve each other’s problems and evaluating peers? • Do students develop interest in subjects that they may otherwise find uninteresting or overly challenging because they understand these subjects more deeply through participatory learning or because it engages them and causes them to take more ownership of the subject?  Would PL encourage articulation or students to continue on for higher levels of education? Guidance Issues • Which types of guidelines and rubrics will help students conduct and learn from each type of problem lifecycle task?  Would students take more ownership of the process if instructors involved them in developing the overall problem structure, guidelines and rubrics? 	Deeper	Learning	by	Putting	Students	in	Charge	of	the	Problem	Lifecycle:	Bieber	 	 	 														34	eld.j Emerging	Learning	Design	Journal http://eldj.montclair.edu	ISSN	2474-8218 Volume	4	(2017)	pp.	32-36 Briefs	• How can we help students make better arguments when solving problems and justifying evaluations (grading)? • What software features (scaffolds) would most effectively support active participation and learning in each problem lifecycle stage? Issues Surrounding the PL Framework and Evaluating its Effectiveness • Which active participation tasks and other aspects most deepen learning and engender participant acceptance? • Which subject areas and types of problems would most benefit from participatory learning?    Would it work effectively with writing assignments, science labs, computer programming, etc.?   • Which aspects and tasks work best when done by individuals and which would also foster deeper learning with groups? • Which educational levels could effectively take advantage of participatory learning (primary, secondary, post-secondary, adult education, training and development)?   • Would it be an effective approach for MOOCs?   Would it be an effective approach for hackathons and other forms of informal learning? • Could participatory learning be used as an authentic assessment approach? • To what extent do students gain interpersonal and workforce skills from different aspects of participatory learning? • How do instructors ensure that all students (and instructors) do their tasks on-time, so other students waiting on their input are not delayed?  What processes should be put in place to facilitate reallocating students to tasks if students do not do their tasks in a timely manner or even drop the course, leaving tasks abandoned?  Participatory Learning creates learning opportunities, increases student motivation for and enjoyment of learning, and has the potential to deepen learning through active participation in the entire problem lifecycle for assignments, quizzes and other kinds of activities.  We look forward to working with teachers and researchers to experiment with and refine the approach. REFERENCES Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Barrett, T., Moore, S., & others. (2010). New approaches to problem-based learning: revitalising your practice in Higher Education. Routledge. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., & Hill, W. H. (1956). Taxonomy of Education Objectives: Handbook I, the Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay. Chen, C. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self-and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. (2003). Validity and reliability of peer assessments with a missing data estimation technique. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 2003, pp. 1511–1514). Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339. De Jesus, H. P., Teixeira-Dias, J. J. C., & Watts, M. (2003). Questions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 1015–1034. Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. In TLRP conference, Leicester. Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2004). The ABC’s of engineering education: ABET, Bloom's taxonomy, cooperative learning, and so on. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.  Foos, P. W., Mora, J. J., & Tkacz, S. (1994). Student study techniques and the generation effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 567. Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 1–30. Hargreaves, D. J. (1997). Student learning and assessment are inextricably linked. European Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 401–409. Hersam, M. C., Luna, M., & Light, G. (2004). Implementation of interdisciplinary group learning and peer assessment in a nanotechnology engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 49–57. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. Holocher-Ertl, T., Kunzmann, C., Müller, L., Rivera-Pelayo, V., & Schmidt, A. P. (2013). Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact: 8th European Conference, on 	Deeper	Learning	by	Putting	Students	in	Charge	of	the	Problem	Lifecycle:	Bieber	 	 	 														35	eld.j Emerging	Learning	Design	Journal http://eldj.montclair.edu	ISSN	2474-8218 Volume	4	(2017)	pp.	32-36 Briefs	Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2013, Paphos, Cyprus, September 17-21, 2013. Proceedings. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.) (pp. 460–465). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Hutchinson, D., Wells, J., & others. (2013). An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Student Generated MCQs as a Method of Assessment to Improve Teaching and Learning. Creative Education, 4(07), 117. Jones, B. (2009). Motivating Students to Engage in Learning: The MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in …, 21(2), 272–285. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2). Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online University Students’ Satisfaction and Persistence: Examining Perceived Level of Presence, Usefulness and Ease of Use As Predictors in a Structural Model. Comput. Educ., 57(2), 1654–1664. Keane, T., Keane, W. F., & Blicblau, A. S. (2014). Beyond traditional literacy: Learning and transformative practices using ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 1–13. Klenowski, V. (1995). Student self-evaluation processes in student-centred teaching and learning contexts of Australia and England. Assessment in Education, 2(2), 145–163. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, 83–124. Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 50. Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Alternatives to instructor assessment: A case study of comparing self and peer assessment with instructor assessment under a networked innovative assessment procedures. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 395. Liu, E. Z.-F., Lin, S. S. J., Chiu, C.-H., & Yuan, S.-M. (2001). Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 44(3), 246–251. Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115. Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2006). Constructing multiple choice questions as a method for learning. ANNALS-ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE, 35(9), 604. Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and Reasoning in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan. Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing Project-Based Science: Connecting Learners through Guided Inquiry. Ways of Knowing in Science Series. ERIC. Richards, S. M., Adsit, K. I., & Ford, D. M. (2012). Integrating Inquiry-Based Field Investigations into an Environmental Science Curriculum. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science, 87(2). Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31.  Shen, J., Bieber, M., & Hiltz, S. R. (2005). Participatory examinations in asynchronous learning networks: Longitudinal evaluation results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 93–113. Shen, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Bieber, M. (2008). Learning strategies in online collaborative examinations. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 51(1), 63–78. Sircar, S. S., & Tandon, O. P. (1999). Involving students in question writing: a unique feedback with fringe benefits. Am J Physiol, 277(6 Pt 2), S84–S91. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wiswall, C. G., & Srogi, L. (1995). Using writing in small groups to enhance learning. Journal of Geological Education, 43, 334. Wu, D., Hiltz, S., & Bieber, M. (2010). Acceptance of educational technology: field studies of asynchronous participatory examinations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), 26. 	Deeper	Learning	by	Putting	Students	in	Charge	of	the	Problem	Lifecycle:	Bieber	 	 	 														36	eld.j Emerging	Learning	Design	Journal http://eldj.montclair.edu	ISSN	2474-8218 Volume	4	(2017)	pp.	32-36 Briefs	Yu, F.-Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 56(2), 484–494.  Yu, F.-Y., & Liu, Y.-H. (2009). Creating a Psychologically Safe Online Space for a Student-Generated Questions Learning Activity via Different Identity Revelation Modes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1109–1123.   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0] This article is being published as a proceeding of the 2016 Emerging Learning Design Conference (ELDc 2016). 

Deeper Learning by Putting Students in Charge of the Problem Lifecycle

https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=eldj

Deeper Learning by Putting Students in Charge of the Problem Lifecycle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Montclair State University Digital Commons