peer learning

Does Grading an Assignment Matter for Student Engagement – A Case Study in an Interdisciplinary Course with Science and Humanities

cdtlsd Paper Presentations , , , , ,

LIU Mei Hui1 and Stephen En Rong TAY2

1Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Humanities and Sciences, NUS
2Department of the Built Environment, College of Design and Engineering (CDE), NUS

fstlmh@nus.edu.sg; stephen.tay@nus.edu.sg

 

Liu, M. H., & Tay, S. E. R. (2024). Does grading an assignment matter for student engagement: A case study in an interdisciplinary course with science and humanities [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Conference in Singapore (HECS) 2024, 3 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecs/hecs2024-liu-tay/

SUB-THEME

Opportunities from Engaging Communities

 

KEYWORDS

Interdisciplinarity, peer learning, student-generated questions, assessment, feedback

 

CATEGORY

Paper Presentation 

 

INTRODUCTION

The Scientific Inquiry II (SI2) course – HSI2007 “Deconstructing Food” – employed scenario-based student-generated questions and answers (sb-SGQA) previously to encourage interdisciplinary learning (Tay & Liu, 2023). In the activity, students were tasked to develop questions and answers based on the learning objectives that are contextualised to community examples beyond the classroom. This contextualisation to a scenario helps develop authentic assessment (Wiggins, 1990). To further increase student engagement with the sb-SGQA activity, the sb-SGQA activity changed to a graded assignment in AY2023/24 Semester 1. This was motivated by literature that reports how a graded assignment motivates students in their learning, specifically as an extrinsic motivator, in which students are incentivised to work towards a reward (i.e. good grade) (Docan, 2006; Harlen et al., 2002; Schinske & Tanner, 2014). Hence, this study aims to answer the following questions:

  1. Does the graded sb-SGQA improve student performance, evidenced through a comparison of the continual assessment marks between the graded and ungraded cohorts?
  2. What are students’ perceptions of the sb-SGQA approach from both the graded and ungraded cohorts?

METHODOLOGY

The graded sb-SGQA (20% weightage) was adopted in AY2023/24 Semester 1, and results were compared with data from AY2022/23 Semester 2, when the sb-SGQA was not graded. Across both cohorts, two continual assessment (CA) components, a MCQ Quiz (20% weightage) and Individual Essay (20% weightage) were analysed as these two components were present in both cohorts. Numerical data was analysed with JASP, an open-source statistical package (Love et al., 2019).

RESULTS

In Figure 1, students analysed and discussed differences between meals served to students in the East and West differ, and Figure 2 demonstrates how students employed content materials from the online community for a case study. Through these questions, students demonstrated concepts of nutrition, food microbiology (e.g., fermented foods), and health-related information.

HECS2024-a20-Fig1

Figure 1. Example of students’ work analysing meals in other communities

 

HECS2024-a20-Fig2

Figure 2. Student work in question-and-answer generation through engaging the digital community.

Though formal evidence has not been collected, we believe the project is impactful based on several observations. Participants demonstrate increased confidence and curiosity as they develop coding and robotics skills, particularly after successfully completing projects or engaging in hackathons. Exposure to tech fairs broadens their understanding of technology’s potential and encourages further exploration. These activities are designed to spark interest in technology and create a positive learning environment, which we believe is key to fostering long-term engagement in the field.

 

When the CA scores were analysed, a statistically significant difference was observed for the MCQ Quiz but not for the Individual Essay (refer to Table 1). This could be attributed to the open-ended nature of the Individual Essay assessment component, which requires student competencies in articulation of ideas and positioning their views, which may have masked the effect.

Table 1
Score comparisons for MCQ Quiz, Individual Essay, and CA across the graded (n=102) and ungraded (n=184) cohorts

HECS2024-a20-Table1

 

Table 2 represents student feedback on the sb-SGQA approach. Majority of the students in both the graded and ungraded cohorts shared that the sb-SGQA has helped with their learning. Though the activity was challenging, the students enjoyed it and recommended it for future courses. The qualitative feedback (refer to Table 3) revealed how Humanities and Sciences students appreciated how their diverse views could be incorporated through the sb-SGQA (Humanities 1, Humanities 3, Science 3). The sb-SGQA also forces students to reflect deeper on the course materials to develop meaningful questions and answers, thus aiding their learning (Humanities 2, Science 1). The contextualisation of the learning objectives to community examples was appreciated by students (Humanities 4, Science 2). The approach was also utilised by students to integrate topics taught through the entire course, thus allowing students to appreciate the course as a whole (Science 4). The themes were similar in the ungraded cohorts.

 

Table 2
Student feedback from the graded (left) and ungraded (right) cohorts separated by “/”. Responses represented as a percentage, and were obtained from 102 respondents in the graded cohort and 120 respondents in the ungraded cohort. The modes are bolded for highlight

HECS2024-a20-Table2

 

Table 3
Qualitative feedback from Humanities and Science students in the graded cohort

HECS2024-a20-Table3

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

The change to a graded assignment increased students’ performance in the MCQ Quiz segment but not the Individual Essay segment. Student perceptions to the approach were generally positive across both the graded and ungraded cohorts. The results suggest that students’ perceived value of a learning activity may not be solely dependent on whether the learning activity is graded or not. The significance of this study lies in how the use of sb-SGQA could aid with community engagement in the creation of case studies without software and hardware costs involved.

REFERENCES

Docan, T. N. (2006). Positive and negative incentives in the classroom: An analysis of grading systems and student motivation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6, 21-40. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1668/1666

Harlen, W., Crick, R. D., Broadfoot, P., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/19607/1/SysRevImpSummativeAssessment2002.pdf

Love, J., Selker, R., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Dropmann, D., Verhagen, J., Ly, A., Gronau, Q. F., Šmíra, M., Epskamp, S., Matzke, D., Wild, A., Knight, P., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2019). JASP: Graphical Statistical Software for Common Statistical Designs. Journal of Statistical Software, 88(2), 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v088.i02

Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE Life Sci Educ, 13(2), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054

Tay, E. R. S., & Liu, M. H. (2023, 7 December 2023). Exploratory implementation of scenario-based student-generated questions for students from the humanities and sciences in a scientific inquiry course. Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/exploratory-implementation-of-scenario-based-student-generated-questions-for-students-from-the-humanities-and-sciences-in-a-scientific-inquiry-course/

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 2, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.7275/ffb1-mm19

From Solitary to Social: How GenAI Can Enhance Social Learning Processes with Peers in Reading

cdtlsd Paper Presentations , , , , ,

Jonathan Y. H. SIM1 and LEE Li Neng2

1AI Centre for Educational Technologies (AICET) and
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS), NUS
2Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT), and
Department of Psychology, FASS, NUS

1jyhsim@nus.edu.sg
2psylln@nus.edu.sg 

 

Sim, J. Y. H., & Lee, L. N. (2024). From solitary to social: How GenAI can enhance social learning processes with peers in reading [Paper presentation] In Higher Education Conference in Singapore (HECS) 2024, 3 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecs/hecs2024-jyhsim-leeln/

SUB-THEME

Opportunities from Generative AI

 

KEYWORDS

Reading, interpretation, social learning, peer teaching, peer learning

 

CATEGORY

Paper Presentation 

 

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Historically, reading has been a communal activity, where people came together to read aloud and engage in discussions and debates (Fischer, 2003; Sedo, 2011), enabling readers to collectively interpret and make sense of readings in their contexts.

 

Today, however, reading is typically perceived as a solitary activity.

 

Interestingly, Generative AI (GenAI) has begun to revive communal aspects of reading. Instead of engaging with other humans, students now interact with ChatGPT to discuss their readings. GenAI provides patient and non-judgemental responses, making these tools an essential learning partner for many students who now claim they “cannot imagine being a student without ChatGPT.”

 

Can interactions with GenAI chatbots elicit the same benefits as human social learning?

 

Social learning can activate “higher forms of human mental activity” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Collaborative processes can help learners move from an understanding with the help of others (social learning), to understanding independently (individual learning) to perform tasks that previously were harder than what one can usually handle (Vygotsky, 1978; Commander & De Guerrero, 2013). Mastery of reading and sense-making does not happen in isolation; instead, it is achieved through social collaboration, leading to a “co-construction of meaning” (Sweet & Snow, 2002).

 

However, present-day GenAI has limitations. GenAI’s responses are influenced by the user’s knowledge and constrained by the user’s ignorance. For example, if I know nothing about periodontitis, I can only ask basic questions and cannot probe deeply. GenAI, at this point in time, cannot facilitate my discovery the way a human instructor can. As such, a student’s ability to interpret and make meaning of what she reads is likewise constrained by her existing knowledge, even with GenAI assistance.

 

One way to address such limitations is to introduce students to communal reading activities that incorporate GenAI, teaching students to consult these tools as part of social learning processes with peers. The more we practice this in the classroom, the more students will discover the benefits of social learning augmented by GenAI. This will allow us to effectively condition better GenAI usage habits in our learners over time.

 

As a start, I have begun to condition learners in social learning processes with GenAI through the course“PH2301 Classical Chinese Philosophy I” (taught during Semester 1, AY2023/24). In each tutorial, students received handouts containing curated passages from an ancient Chinese thinker. They discussed their interpretations in groups before consulting ChatGPT (role-playing as an ancient philosopher). After being made aware of ChatGPT’s potential inaccuracies and hallucinations, students were tasked to evaluate ChatGPT’s interpretation and consider incorporating its ideas if they found any merit.

 

Engaging in communal reading practices enhances students’ individual cognition through shared understanding and collaborative sense-making (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). In an end-of-course survey to the entire class (26 students) about these activities, 72% (18 of 25) of respondents appreciated the social learning opportunities. In the open-ended remarks, respondents highlighted how it helped them put their “thoughts into words,” and deepened their understanding. They enjoyed learning from each other, “build[ing] upon each other’s ideas,” and discovering their own contradictions and insights.

 

The use of ChatGPT in communal reading activities catalysed richer collaborations. In the same survey, students reported positive learning experience with ChatGPT. Although some remarked that it gave “textbook responses,” many valued it “as a springboard” to “gather their thoughts” and engage in deeper discussions with their peers.

 

Students typically worry about causing others to “lose face” or appear hostile if they voice their criticisms of their peer’s ideas (Sim, 2019) Discussing ChatGPT’s answers gave them opportunities to practice evaluating and voicing critical comments whilst overcoming such concerns. One student mentioned how this helped him to be more thoughtful “and critical about the answers it produces.”

 

A handful of students (mainly the stronger ones) felt that ChatGPT “lowered the quality of discussion,” this challenge mirrors the dynamics of groups with weaker students. For the next semester, I hope to provide more facilitation guides to ensure that all students, regardless of their calibre, can benefit from this activity. Nonetheless, this teaching and learning experience demonstrates the potential for GenAI to enrich social learning processes in various applications, from communal reading to peer learning.

 

REFERENCES

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.

Fischer, S. R. (2003). A History of Reading. Reaktion Books Ltd.

Commander, M., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2013). Reading as a social interactive process: The impact of shadow-reading in L2 classrooms. Reading in a Foreign Language 25(2), 170–191. https://dx.doi.org/10125/66865

DeNel Rehberg, S.  (2011). An introduction to reading communities: Processes and formations. In Reading Communities from Salons to Cyberspace. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sim, J. Y. H. (2019). The ‘face’ barriers to partnership. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 1(27),1-4. Retrieved from https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/rest/bitstreams/1373572/retrieve

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

 

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Warning

Blog.nus accounts will move to SSO login, tentatively before the start of AY24/25 Sem 2. Once implemented, only current NUS staff and students will be able to log in to Blog.nus. Public blogs remain readable to non-logged in users. (More information.)