diff --git a/src/components/ResearchCard.tsx b/src/components/ResearchCard.tsx deleted file mode 100644 index c4f3009..0000000 --- a/src/components/ResearchCard.tsx +++ /dev/null @@ -1,25 +0,0 @@ -import React from "react"; -import { Link } from "./Link"; - -export interface ResearchCardProps { - title: string; - children: React.ReactNode; - reference: string; - referenceHref: string; -} -export const ResearchCard: React.FC = ({ - title, - children, - referenceHref, - reference, -}) => ( -
-
-

{title}

-

{children}

- - {reference} - -
-
-); diff --git a/src/pages/research/index.module.scss b/src/pages/research/index.module.scss deleted file mode 100644 index 411d66a..0000000 --- a/src/pages/research/index.module.scss +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6 +0,0 @@ -@import "~bootstrap/scss/_functions.scss"; -@import "~bootstrap/scss/_variables.scss"; - -.container { - background-color: $gray-200; -} diff --git a/src/pages/research/index.tsx b/src/pages/research/index.tsx index 5329d37..7778297 100644 --- a/src/pages/research/index.tsx +++ b/src/pages/research/index.tsx @@ -1,14 +1,467 @@ import React from "react"; -import classnames from "classnames"; import Head from "next/head"; +import Accordion from "react-bootstrap/Accordion"; +import Link from "next/link"; import { PageBanner } from "../../components/Banner"; import { BannerCTA } from "../../components/CallToActionBanner"; -import { Heading } from "../../components/Heading"; -import { ResearchCard } from "../../components/ResearchCard"; -import Stack from "../../components/Stack"; -import styles from "./index.module.scss"; +export interface ResearchCardProps { + title: string; + reference: string; + referenceHref: string; +} + +export const ResearchCard: React.FC = ({ + title, + referenceHref, + reference, +}) => ( + +); + +const Papers = [ + { + title: "Computer-based assessments with randomization and instant feedback", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Retrieval practice and second-chance testing", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ), + }, + + { + title: "Computer-based testing centers", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Investigating cheating during computer-based testing", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Auto-grading open-ended questions", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Computer-based collaborative learning", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Open Educational Resources (OER)", + contents: ( + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Applications in CS1 courses", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Application in Discrete Math and Algorithms courses", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ), + }, + { + title: "Application in Database Systems courses", + contents: ( + + + + + + + + + + ), + }, +]; export default function Research() { return ( @@ -22,546 +475,29 @@ export default function Research() { subtitle="Collection of educational research and case studies using PrairieLearn" /> -
+
+
+ + {Papers.map((faq, i) => ( + + + {faq.title} + + {faq.contents} + + ))} + +
+
+ +
- - - - Mastery learning, randomized assessments and instant feedback - - - - This paper introduces PrairieLearn, an online assessment system - designed to facilitate learning to mastery. The objectives of - this system are to: (1) enable students to practice solving - randomized problem variants repeatedly until mastery, (2) - incentivize students to repeat questions until mastery is - achieved, and (3) provide immediate feedback about their current - mastery level to the student. The results from using - PrairieLearn over several semester in a large engineering course - include gains in student mastery, improved student satisfaction - when compared to other existing assessment systems and high - instructor satisfaction. - - - - Research studies have shown that frequent testing improves - learning, with bigger impact than rehearsal strategies such as - re-reading a textbook or re-watching lectures. This study - presents a quasi-experimental study to examine the effect of - using frequent, automated examinations in an advanced computer - science course: in the first semester students were given - traditional paper-based exams, and in the following semester - students took frequent computer-based tests, while other aspects - of the course were held constant. It was observed a significant - change in the distribution of students' grades with fewer - students failing the final examination, and proportionately more - students earning grades of B and C. - - - - This study compares final exam performance from two different - semesters in a mechanical engineering course, the first offering - including two midterms and a final exam, and the other with - seven bi-weekly quizzes and the same final exam. The bi-weekly - quizzes were auto-graded and offered at a computer-based testing - facility where students had immediate feedback of their - performance. Results indicated that students who completed seven - short assessments over the course of the semester scored higher - on the final exam than students who completed two longer - mid-term examinations, and they were twice as likely to receive - a perfect score. - - - - To design good assessments, it is useful to have an estimate of - the difficulty of a novel exam question before running an exam. - This study uses a collection of a few hundred automatic item - generators and show that their exam difficulty can be roughly - predicted from student performance on the same generator during - pre-exam practice. Specifically, we show that the rate that - students correctly respond to a generator on an exam is on - average within 5% of the correct rate for those students on - their last practice attempt. - - - - Second-chance testing, where students are allowed to take a - second instance of an exam for some form of grade replacement, - is a less expensive approximation of mastery-based learning that - can be easily integrated into a broad range of college course - structures. This paper analyzes three different grading - policies, where all of them encourage the students to prepare - adequately for the first-chance exam and review the material - again before the second-chance exam, if they elect to take it. - By comparing these different course policies, we show that - grading policies have a significant effect on whether students - take second-chance exams. The data also suggests that adding a - second-chance exam had no effect on student performance or study - habits for the first-chance exam. - - - - This quasi-experimental study in a single course compares the - effect of two grading policies for second-chance exams and the - effect of increasing the size of the range of dates for students - taking asynchronous exams. The first grading policy, called - 90-cap, allowed students to optionally take a second-chance exam - that would fully replace their score on a first-chance exam - except the second-chance exam would be capped at 90% credit. The - second grading policy, called 90-10, combined students' - first- and second-chance exam scores as a weighted average. The - 90-10 policy significantly increased the likelihood that - marginally competent students would take the second-chance exam. - Further, our data suggests that students learned more under the - 90-10 policy, providing improved student learning outcomes at no - cost to the instructor. - - - - This study complements previous work by including interviews - from a diverse group of 23 students that have taken courses that - use second-chance testing. From the interviews, we sought to - gain insight into students' views and use of second-chance - testing. We found that second-chance testing was almost - universally viewed positively by the students and was frequently - cited as helping to reduce test takers' anxiety and boost - their confidence. Overall, we find that the majority of students - prepare for second-chance exams in desirable ways, but we also - note ways in which second-chance testing can potentially lead to - undesirable behaviors including procrastination, overreliance on - memorization, and attempts to game the system. - - - - When exams are run asynchronously, a student can potentially - gain an advantage by receiving information about the exam from - someone who took it earlier. Generating random exams from pools - of problems mitigates this potential advantage, but has the - potential to introduce unfairness if the problems in a given - pool are of significantly different difficulty. This study - presents an algorithm that takes a collection of problem pools - and historical data on student performance on these problems and - produces exams with reduced variance of difficulty (relative to - naive random selection) while maintaining sufficient variation - between exams to ensure security. - - - - This study investigates fairness when adopting exam versioning - and randomization to mitigate cheating during asynchronous - online exams. It uses a Generalized Partial Credit Model (GPCM) - Item-Response Theory (IRT) model to fit exams from a for-majors - data structures course and non-majors CS0 course, both of which - used randomly generated exams. For all exams, students' - estimated ability and exam score are strongly correlated (ρ ≥ - 0.7), suggesting that the exams are reasonably fair. Through - simulation, we find that most of the variance in any given - student's simulated scores is due to chance and the worst - of the score impacts from possibly unfair permutations is only - around 5 percentage points on an exam. - - - - When taking a computer-based exam using PrairieLearn, students - have the option to receive immediate feedback on their submitted - answer or they can defer the feedback and grade questions in - bulk. This study analyzes data from three courses across two - semesters, and finds that only a small minority of students used - the deferred feedback option. Moreover, four main submission - strategies were identified and they were correlated to - statistically significant differences in exam scores, however it - was not clear if some strategies improved outcomes or if - stronger students tended to prefer certain strategies. - - - - This paper presents an algorithmic framework for auto-grading of - computer-drawn mechanics diagrams including key functionality - requirements: (1) ability to provide students with meaningful - feedback about errors in their diagram, (2) easy to understand - for problem authors, and require only data which is readily - available to authors, (3) adaptable to different types of - drawings or sketches, (4) fast to execute, and (5) robust to - unexpected or unusual inputs. - - - - This paper introduces a simple HTML markup language added to - PrairieLearn to create automated drawing-based questions, - allowing students to draw diagrams, graphs and design solutions - on the computer that are instantly auto-graded by the computer. - A key advantage of this new tool over previous work is that the - question author does not need to write any explicit programming - code. We present results from student interaction data with the - system, student surveys, and feedback from instructors and - question authors. - - - - Assessing students' knowledge of complex engineering - systems often requires administering long-form multi-part - questions with copious extra credit. Creating and grading these - questions can be time consuming. In this paper, we describe our - efforts to convert multi-part pencil-and-paper questions into - parameterized, machine-gradable questions in PrairieLearn. - Questions were built and parameterized by creating a simulator - for the engineering system in the back-end of PrairieLearn. A - comparison of machine-graded PrairieLearn variants of a question - with human-graded, pencil-and-paper variants of a question - revealed comparable student performance and partial credit - awarded. Students revealed an overwhelming preference for the - machine-graded questions to the pencil-and-paper questions. This - work provides proof-of-concept for creating meaningful, complex - assessments in PrairieLearn. - - - - - - Creating robust and randomized assessments to reduce cheating - - - Using a data set from 29,492 asynchronous exams in CBTF, we - observed correlations between when a student chooses to take - their exam within the exam period and their score on the exam. - Somewhat surprisingly, instead of increasing throughout the exam - period, which might be indicative of widespread collaborative - cheating, we find that exam scores decrease throughout the exam - period. While this could be attributed to weaker students - putting off exams, this effect holds even when accounting for - student ability as measured by a synchronous exam taken during - the same semester. - - - - This study presents a hypothesis that the average exam scores - decline over the exam period in asynchronous testing is - primarily due to self-selection effects, where weaker students - tend to choose exam times later in the exam period, while - stronger students are more likely to choose earlier times. We - used data from 31,673 exams over four semesters from six - undergraduate engineering and computing courses that had both - synchronous and asynchronous exams. We analyzed student exam - time choice and asynchronous exam scores, using synchronous exam - scores in the same course as a control variable. We conclude - that self-selection effects are primarily responsible for exam - score declines over time, that exam time selection is unlikely - to be a useful target for interventions to improve performance, - and that there is no evidence for widespread collaborative - cheating in the dataset used in this research. - - - - This paper investigates randomization on asynchronous exams as a - defense against collaborative cheating. Collaborative cheating - occurs when one student (the information producer) takes the - exam early and passes information about the exam to other - students (the information consumers) that are taking the exam - later. Using a dataset from 425 students, we identified 5.5% of - students (on average) as information consumers. These - information consumers had a significant advantage (13% on - average) when every student was given the same exam problem but - that advantage dropped to almost negligible levels (2-3%) when - students were given a random problem from a pool of two or four - problems. - - - - This study investigates the score advantage of unproctored exams - versus proctored exams using a within-subjects design for 510 - students in a CS1 course with 5 proctored exams and 4 - unproctored exams. We found that students scored 3.3 percentage - points higher on questions on unproctored exams than on - proctored exams. More interestingly, however, we discovered that - this score advantage on unproctored exams grew steadily as the - semester progressed, from around 0 percentage points at the - start of semester to around 7 percentage points by the end, - indicating that students were "learning to cheat". The - data suggests that both more individuals are cheating and the - average benefit of cheating is increasing over the course of the - semester. - - - - This was a controlled crossover experiment designed to measure - the score advantage that students have when taking the quizzes - asynchronously at a computer-based testing facility (i.e., - students could select a time to take the exam in a period of 4 - days) compared to synchronous quizzes (when all students took - the quiz during lecture time). The results indicated that when - students took exams asynchronously their scores were, on - average, only 3% higher. - - - - - Computer-based testing facilities (CBTF) - - - This paper describes our first experience building a - computerized testing lab and running the bulk of a 200-student - class's exams using computerized testing. It discusses the - mechanics of operating the testing lab, the work required by the - instructor to enable this approach, and the student response, - which has been strongly positive: 75% prefer computerized - testing, 12% prefer traditional written exams, and 13% had no - preference. - - - - In this work we explore how the large-scale introduction of - computer-based testing has impacted students and instructors. - Specifically we discuss the results of multiple rounds of - surveys completed by students and faculty. - - - - This paper discusses five main aspects of the CBTF: 1) basic - operations; 2) precautions taken to maintain secure exam - environments; 3) support of students that require testing - accommodations like extra time and/or a distraction-reduced - environment; 4) policies to handle exceptional circumstances - with minimal intervention by faculty; and 5) cost of operating - the CBTF and how it compares to traditional exams and online - services. - - - - This paper summarizes research studies performed over several - years in a broad collection of STEM-oriented classes using a - computer based-testing facility, indicating improved quality of - assessment, ability to test computational skills, and reduced - recurring burden of creating assessments. We find the CBTF to be - secure, cost-effective, and well liked by faculty, who choose to - use it semester after semester. We believe that there are many - institutions that would similarly benefit from having a - Computer-Based Testing Facility. - - - - Two major concerns reported by students taking computer-based - testing are: (1) limited access to the assessment after - completion, and (2) the lack of partial credit. To address these - concerns, the CBTF adopted a new exam-review service to provide - in-person feedback to students after the completion of - computerized exams. These review sessions are conducted by - course staff and hosted at the CBTF to ensure the integrity of - exam problems for future use. In this paper, we present the - design of this review system, including the scheduling - logistics, software support, course staff training, and guidance - to students. Detailed data from student usage is reported, - including survey data of student affect and learning outcome - changes after review sessions. - - - - - Scheduling of asynchronous exams in a CBTF - - - This paper explores the times students choose to take an - asynchronous exam at CBTF, when students make and change their - reservations, and the correlation between when students choose - to take exams and their exam performance. Among our results, we - find that students prefer to take exams in late afternoon/early - evening towards the end of the exam period. In addition, we find - that students frequently re-schedule when they take exams. - Finally, we find that there is a correlation between how early - in the exam period a student takes an exam and their score on - the exam. - - - - When undergraduate students are allowed to choose a time slot in - which to take an exam from a large number of options (e.g., 40), - the students exhibit strong preferences among the times. We - found that students can be effectively modelled using - constrained discrete choice theory to quantify these preferences - from their observed behavior. The resulting models are suitable - for load balancing when scheduling multiple concurrent exams and - for capacity planning given a set schedule. - - - - For planning and resource scheduling purposes it is important to - be able to forecast demand, and thus it is important to - understand what drives student preferences for particular - scheduling time slots. This paper presents a general framework - for measuring revealed student preferences from actual - reservation or scheduling data. The proposed method accurately - captures student preferences in real-world scheduling data. - - - - - Auto-grading of open-ended questions - - - In this paper, we describe a 7-point rubric developed for - scoring student responses to "Explain in plain - English" questions, reporting four different ways to - validate the rubric. - - - - Previous research suggests that "Explain in Plain - English" (EiPE) code reading activities could play an - important role in the development of novice programmers, but - EiPE questions aren't heavily used in introductory - programming courses because they (traditionally) required manual - grading. We present what we believe to be the first automatic - grader for EiPE questions and its deployment in a - large-enrollment introductory programming course. Based on a set - of questions deployed on a computer-based exam, we find that our - implementation has an accuracy of 87–89%, which is similar in - performance to course teaching assistants trained to perform - this task and compares favorably to automatic short answer - grading algorithms developed for other domains. - - - - This paper presents the use of peer grading for "Explain in - Plain English" (EipE) questions in a large enrollment - introductory programming course, where students were asked to - categorize other students' responses. We developed a novel - Bayesian algorithm for performing calibrated peer grading on - categorical data, and we used a heuristic grade assignment - method based on the Bayesian estimates. The peer-grading - exercises served both as a way to coach students on what is - expected from EipE questions and as a way to alleviate the - grading load for the course staff. - - - - -

Contribute to this page

-

- Do you have a paper that should be included on this page? Please - send us the appropriate information at{" "} - - hello@prairielearn.com - - . -

- - +

Contribute to this page

+

+ Do you have a paper that should be included on this page? Please + send us the appropriate information at{" "} + hello@prairielearn.com. +