用点击器和课堂投票解决微积分中的常见错误和误解

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Kelly Cline;Holly Zullo;David A Huckaby
{"title":"用点击器和课堂投票解决微积分中的常见错误和误解","authors":"Kelly Cline;Holly Zullo;David A Huckaby","doi":"10.1093/teamat/hrz002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Common student errors and misconceptions can be addressed through the method of classroom voting, in which the instructor presents a multiple-choice question to the class, and after a few minutes for consideration and small-group discussion, each student votes on the correct answer, using a clicker or a phone. If a large number of students have voted for one particular incorrect answer, the instructor can recognize and address the issue. In order to identify multiple-choice questions that are especially effective at provoking common errors and misconceptions, we recorded the percentages of students voting for each option on each question used in 25 sections of integral calculus, taught by 7 instructors, at 4 institutions, over the course of 12 years, on a collection of 172 questions. We restricted our analysis to the 115 questions which were voted on by at least 5 different classes. We present the six questions that caused the largest percentages of students to vote for a particular incorrect answer, discuss how we used these questions in the classroom, and examine the common features of these questions. Further, we look for correlations between question characteristics and the mean percentage of students voting for common errors on these questions, and we find that questions based on general cases have higher percentages of students voting for common errors.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/teamat/hrz002","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing common errors and misconceptions in integral calculus with clickers and classroom voting\",\"authors\":\"Kelly Cline;Holly Zullo;David A Huckaby\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/teamat/hrz002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Common student errors and misconceptions can be addressed through the method of classroom voting, in which the instructor presents a multiple-choice question to the class, and after a few minutes for consideration and small-group discussion, each student votes on the correct answer, using a clicker or a phone. If a large number of students have voted for one particular incorrect answer, the instructor can recognize and address the issue. In order to identify multiple-choice questions that are especially effective at provoking common errors and misconceptions, we recorded the percentages of students voting for each option on each question used in 25 sections of integral calculus, taught by 7 instructors, at 4 institutions, over the course of 12 years, on a collection of 172 questions. We restricted our analysis to the 115 questions which were voted on by at least 5 different classes. We present the six questions that caused the largest percentages of students to vote for a particular incorrect answer, discuss how we used these questions in the classroom, and examine the common features of these questions. Further, we look for correlations between question characteristics and the mean percentage of students voting for common errors on these questions, and we find that questions based on general cases have higher percentages of students voting for common errors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/teamat/hrz002\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9254208/\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9254208/","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

学生常见的错误和误解可以通过课堂投票的方法来解决,在课堂投票中,老师向全班同学提出一道选择题,经过几分钟的思考和小组讨论,每个学生都可以使用点击器或电话对正确答案进行投票。如果大量学生投票支持某个特定的错误答案,讲师可以识别并解决该问题。为了确定在引发常见错误和误解方面特别有效的多项选择题,我们记录了在12年的时间里,由4所院校的7名教师教授的25节微积分中,学生对172道题的每个选项的投票百分比。我们将我们的分析限制在115个问题上,这些问题由至少5个不同的班级投票决定。我们提出了六个问题,这些问题导致最大比例的学生投票支持特定的错误答案,讨论我们如何在课堂上使用这些问题,并检查这些问题的共同特征。此外,我们寻找问题特征与学生在这些问题上投票支持常见错误的平均百分比之间的相关性,我们发现基于一般情况的问题有更高的学生投票支持常见误差的百分比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing common errors and misconceptions in integral calculus with clickers and classroom voting
Common student errors and misconceptions can be addressed through the method of classroom voting, in which the instructor presents a multiple-choice question to the class, and after a few minutes for consideration and small-group discussion, each student votes on the correct answer, using a clicker or a phone. If a large number of students have voted for one particular incorrect answer, the instructor can recognize and address the issue. In order to identify multiple-choice questions that are especially effective at provoking common errors and misconceptions, we recorded the percentages of students voting for each option on each question used in 25 sections of integral calculus, taught by 7 instructors, at 4 institutions, over the course of 12 years, on a collection of 172 questions. We restricted our analysis to the 115 questions which were voted on by at least 5 different classes. We present the six questions that caused the largest percentages of students to vote for a particular incorrect answer, discuss how we used these questions in the classroom, and examine the common features of these questions. Further, we look for correlations between question characteristics and the mean percentage of students voting for common errors on these questions, and we find that questions based on general cases have higher percentages of students voting for common errors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信