Impact of student problem creation on self-reported confidence in mechanics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract (We intend to follow up with a full paper). Learning in engineering science courses typically involves solving textbook-style questions (given a problem statement, with one correct answer). As part of a project developing practice problems for students, we anecdotally noted that creation of problems deepended content understanding for the student problem developers. Problem creation could be an effective part of the engineering science teaching and learning toolbox. There is evidence of learning gains with student-created problems in immunology (Shakurnia 2018), general pathology and pathophysiology (Herroro 2019). Within the field of engineering, there are mixed results, with a study in the field of electrical engineering showing no effect on student learning (Algarni, 2021), and a study in manufacturing engineering showing significant improvement in learning (Brink 2004). No studies have examined the effectiveness of student problem creation in engineering mechanics, however. We seek to determine whether creating their own practice problems improves students' self-reported understanding of dynamics, and is viewed as an effective studying strategy. In this cohort study, we will use primarily quantitative methods to assess self-reported confidence and understanding of mechanics topics related to problem-creation activities within two populations. For the first population, a group of 135 students from a second-year dynamics course will be sent a pre-survey assessing their understanding of topics in dynamics, whether or not they create their own practice problems to aid with studying, and why they do or do not create practice problems. Students will be asked to develop their own practice textbook-style problem with a full solution as an optional bonus assignment. A second post-survey will ask students (both those who submitted problems and those who didn't) to repeat a self-evaluation of their understanding, and ask whether or not they plan to incorporate problem creation into their regular studying habits (and why or why not). Finally, a third separate survey will be sent out to 13 current and previous members of our open mechanics homework problem project (an ongoing 2-year project where students create ~50-100 problems each per work term), to evaluate whether creating their own problems improved their understanding of dynamics and/or statics, and whether they have since implemented problem creation into their studying. From the results from our pre and post surveys, we will measure any changes in the students' self-reported confidence in the concepts behind their question before and after they have completed it. We will also measure any change in whether the students would consider creating problems as part of their regular study practices. For the OER Mechanics survey, we will assess if students observed a change in self-reported confidence in the topics they created homework problems in. The results of this study can help inform whether student creation of problems could be used as an effective learning tool in engineering mechanics courses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».