Comments on: Teacher Authoring and Metacognition at the PSLC http://www.joelduffin.com/blog/2008/07/09/teacher-authoring-and-metacognition-at-the-pslc/ life is a rum go guv’nor, and that’s the truth Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:07:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: undesigned » Encouraging the creation of assessments that measure deep understanding http://www.joelduffin.com/blog/2008/07/09/teacher-authoring-and-metacognition-at-the-pslc/comment-page-1/#comment-371 undesigned » Encouraging the creation of assessments that measure deep understanding Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:57:48 +0000 http://www.joelduffin.com/blog/?p=110#comment-371 [...] at deeper levels of knowledge than what typical assessments do. I didn’t realize this but, Turadg, whose presentation I attended is one of David’s students. I shared my reaction to Turadg’s study with David: in order [...] [...] at deeper levels of knowledge than what typical assessments do. I didn’t realize this but, Turadg, whose presentation I attended is one of David’s students. I shared my reaction to Turadg’s study with David: in order [...]

]]> By: Turadg http://www.joelduffin.com/blog/2008/07/09/teacher-authoring-and-metacognition-at-the-pslc/comment-page-1/#comment-110 Turadg Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:44:41 +0000 http://www.joelduffin.com/blog/?p=110#comment-110 Hi Joel, Thanks for coming to our practice talks and giving your input. Conferences are too infrequent an opportunity to connect with people outside our institutional silos. I've recently begun a blog to get my research out into the open, http://openeducationresearch.org/ . (The link you included was to my personal/autobiographic blog, and also my name is spelled with a G, "Turadg".) If anyone is interested in the details of the study Joel referenced, there's an entry on the blog with the abstract and links to the full paper. ( http://openeducationresearch.blogspot.com/2008/07/results-from-study-on-open-authoring.html ) Joel is right that teachers weren't very eager to participate in the experiment and most of the participation came from people seeking the money. The $10 figure he writes is incorrect though. First off, it was designed as a small controlled experiment to test the effect of a particular design intervention and included a pseudo-experimental examination of the effects of participant expertise. Participant motivation was not a question in this study. If it were, offering money would be a pretty silly thing to do, because that's not sustainable. (If you care, participants were offered $4 per qualifying contribution, up to 3, and the URL was leaked out to reach many more people than intended.) Crunching the numbers, we found that the design manipulation did not improve the quality of the contribution but it did increase their length. To figure out why would take further work that we don't plan to do. One interesting result regarding participant expertise was that math teachers wrote better problem statements than anyone else, but their solutions were no better and amateurs' often were better. This is as judged by two math teachers (blind to the conditions). Again, thanks for joining our practice session that day and I hope we can exchange more ideas in the future. -Turadg Hi Joel,

Thanks for coming to our practice talks and giving your input. Conferences are too infrequent an opportunity to connect with people outside our institutional silos. I’ve recently begun a blog to get my research out into the open, http://openeducationresearch.org/ . (The link you included was to my personal/autobiographic blog, and also my name is spelled with a G, “Turadg”.)

If anyone is interested in the details of the study Joel referenced, there’s an entry on the blog with the abstract and links to the full paper. ( http://openeducationresearch.blogspot.com/2008/07/results-from-study-on-open-authoring.html )

Joel is right that teachers weren’t very eager to participate in the experiment and most of the participation came from people seeking the money. The $10 figure he writes is incorrect though. First off, it was designed as a small controlled experiment to test the effect of a particular design intervention and included a pseudo-experimental examination of the effects of participant expertise. Participant motivation was not a question in this study. If it were, offering money would be a pretty silly thing to do, because that’s not sustainable. (If you care, participants were offered $4 per qualifying contribution, up to 3, and the URL was leaked out to reach many more people than intended.)

Crunching the numbers, we found that the design manipulation did not improve the quality of the contribution but it did increase their length. To figure out why would take further work that we don’t plan to do. One interesting result regarding participant expertise was that math teachers wrote better problem statements than anyone else, but their solutions were no better and amateurs’ often were better. This is as judged by two math teachers (blind to the conditions).

Again, thanks for joining our practice session that day and I hope we can exchange more ideas in the future.

-Turadg

]]>