Integration of good practices of active methodologies with the reuse of student-generated content

  1. Rosa Arruabarrena 1
  2. Ana Sánchez
  3. José M. Blanco
  4. José A. Vadillo
  5. Imanol Usandizaga
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Revista:
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

ISSN: 2365-9440

Año de publicación: 2019

Número: 16

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1186/S41239-019-0140-7 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Resumen

In this article, we present an integrated instructive methodological approach. We begin with a set of proposals for educational innovation oriented towards active learning that have been tested separately and implemented for various subjects in courses of different levels. The approach integrates the following elements: (1) the dynamic generation of digital content by students and their integration into shared knowledge bases of the subjects involved; (2) the systematic use of quality content, mainly in video format, distributed through online platforms as support for flipped classrooms; (3) peer evaluation to support the development of reflective and self- critical capacities; and (4) systematic collaboration with students and professors from other universities to develop the enumerated activities. The methodology has been tested in a variety of subjects, thanks to its flexibility. In all experienced cases, it has been shown that it is feasible for students to generate enough valuable and reusable content. In addition, students have expressed high levels of satisfaction with the implementation of the proposal.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aflalo, E. (2018). Students generating questions as a way of learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1469787418769120.
  • Agrawal, A., & Rajapakse, D. C. (2018). Perceptions and practice of peer assessments: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(6), 975–989.
  • Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345.
  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  • Barak, M., & Asakle, S. (2018). AugmentedWorld: Facilitating the creation of location-based questions. Computers & Education, 121, 89–99.
  • Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE national conference proceedings, Atlanta, GA. 30, 9, (1–18).
  • Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208.
  • Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H., & Lou, S. J. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacherassessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58, 303–320.
  • Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wua, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52, 283–291.
  • Chewar, C., & Matthews, S. J. (2016). Lights, camera, action!: Video deliverables for programming projects. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 31(3), 8–17.
  • Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1–6. de Almeida-Soares, D. (2008). Understanding class blogs as a tool for language development. Language Teaching Research, 12(4), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808097165.
  • Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis, (p. 88). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology ISBN 978-0911379013.
  • Domínguez, C., Jaime, A., Sánchez, A., Blanco, J. M., & Heras, J. (2016). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among online self-, peer-, external-and instructor-assessments: The competitive effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 112–120.
  • Droumeva, M., & Murphy, D. (2016). A sound pedagogy: Active learning through media production. In EDULEARN16 proceedings, (pp. 3974–3982).
  • Falchikov, N. (2004). Involving students in assessment. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 3(2), 102–108.
  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287e322.
  • Genereux, W. E. (2014). Student-made video projects in a computer technology course. In 2014 ASEE annual conference & exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana https://peer.asee.org/23063.
  • Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137–155.
  • Greene, H. (2014). Learning through student created, content videos. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(2), 469–478.
  • Ion, G., Barrera-Corominas, A., & Tomàs-Folch, M. (2016). Written peer-feedback to enhance students’ current and future learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 15.
  • Jaime, A., Blanco, J. M., Domínguez, C., Sánchez, A., Heras, J., & Usandizaga, I. (2016). Spiral and project-based learning with peer assessment in a computer science project management course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 439–449.
  • Kalayci, S., & Humiston, K. R. (2015). Students’ attitudes towards collaborative tools in a virtual learning environment. Educational Process International Journal, 4(1–2), 71–86.
  • Kay, A. E., Hardy, J., & Galloway, R. K. (2018). Learning from peer feedback on student-generated multiple choice questions: Views of introductory physics students. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010119.
  • Kerimkulova, S., Belova, X., Kozhabayeva, K., Syzdykbayeva, R., Myrzabayeva, A., & Ospanova, S. (2016). Creative use of technology for project-based learning assigment. In EDULEARN16 proceedings, (pp. 5478–5483).
  • Khalid, A. (2014). Use of student generated videos to enhance teaching quality in aerospace engineering classes. In ASEE southeast section conference American society for engineering education, (pp. 514–522).
  • Khan Academy Free Online Courses, Lessons & Practice. (2019). https://www.khanacademy.org. Accessed 19 Febr 2019.
  • Le Roux, I., & Nagel, L. (2018). Seeking the best blend for deep learning in a flipped classroom-viewing student perceptions through the community of inquiry lens. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 1–28.
  • Li, H., Xiong, Y., Zang, X., Kornhaber, M. L., Lyu, Y., Chung, K. S., & Suen, H. K. (2016). Peer assessment in the digital age: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 245–264.
  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536.
  • Lundin, M., Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 20.
  • Matthew, K. I., Felvegi, E., & Callaway, R. A. (2009). Wiki as a collaborative learning tool in a language arts methods class. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 51–72.
  • McGarr, O., & Clifford, A. M. (2013). Just enough to make you take it seriously’: Exploring students’ attitudes towards peer assessment. Higher Education, 65(6), 677–693.
  • Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(116), 7–27.
  • Ng, E. M. (2018). Integrating self-regulation principles with flipped classroom pedagogy for first year university students. Computers & Education, 126, 65–74.
  • Niño, M., Blanco, J. M., Jaime, A., & Usandizaga, I. (2015). Collaborative learning, lessons learned sharing and knowledge management using a blog: A case study in university education with Project Management students. In Proceedings of INTED2015: Conference: 9th international technology, education and development, (pp. 3277–3285).
  • Nouri, J. (2016). The flipped classroom: For active, effective and increased learning–especially for low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 33.
  • O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.
  • Orús, C., Barlés, M. J., Belanche, D., Casaló, L., Fraj, E., & Gurrea, R. (2016). The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction. Computers & Education, 95, 254–269.
  • Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment. Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment, pp. 247.
  • Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133–156.
  • Project Knowledge 14. (2014). http://projectknowledge14.blogspot.com/search/label/EN. Accessed 21 Feb 2019.
  • Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: Its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 75–99.
  • Schwarzenberg, P., Navon, J., Nussbaum, M., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Caballero, D. (2018). Learning experience assessment of flipped courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(2), 237–258.
  • Seale, J. (2009). Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995–1015.
  • Smith, D. K. (2014). iTube, YouTube, WeTube: Social media videos in chemistry education and outreach. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(10), 1594–1599.
  • Søndergaard, H., & Mulder, R. A. (2012). Collaborative learning through formative peer review: Pedagogy, programs and potential. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 343–367.
  • Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20, 265–269.
  • Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. Optimizing new modes of assessment. In In search of qualities and standards, (vol. 1, pp. 55–87).
  • Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 43–55.
  • Van Noy, M., James, H., & Bedley, C. (2016). Reconceptualizing learning: A review of the literature on informal learning. Piscataway: Rutgers Education and Employment and Research Center.
  • Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.
  • Verleger, M. A., Rodgers, K. J., & Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2016). Selecting effective examples to train students for peer review of open-ended problem solutions. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(4), 585–604.
  • Wang, S., & Camilla, V. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? Calico Journal, 29(3), 412.
  • Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2018). Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: The crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1032–1047.
  • Wheeler, S. (2010). Open content, open learning 2.0: Using wikis and blogs in higher education. In Changing cultures in higher education, (pp. 103–114). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_9.
  • Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987–995.
  • Willmot, P., Pond, K., Loddington, S. P., & Palermo, O. A. (2008). Perceptions of peer assessment in university teamwork. In International conference on engineering education, (pp. 27–31).
  • Yang, X., Guo, X., & Yu, S. (2016). Student-generated content in college teaching: Content quality, behavioural pattern and learning performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 1–15.
  • Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2016). The effects of an online student-constructed test strategy on knowledge construction. Computers & Education, 94, 89–101.
  • Zheng, B., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Wikis and collaborative learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 357–374.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet