Evaluating the Quality of Peer-generated Artefacts when Using Web2.0 Computer-supported Collaborative Communities in Large Enrollment Freshman Chemistry Courses

Indianapolis, IN

Active learning pedagogies have shown improved academic performance (Cooper et. al., 2015) especially among underprepared/underrepresented students (Freeman et. al., 2014). However, the implementation of active learning pedagogies in large enrollment courses, such as 1st-year science courses, remains difficult. Research has shown that peer-collaborative communities outside the classroom can support active learning. These peer-collaborative communities can provide immediate feedback and improve student learning by helping students construct meaning, introduce disciplinary language (Webb & Palincsar, 1996) and foster the development of disciplinary values and ways of knowing (Brown, 1995). This paper reports on using rubrics to evaluate the ‘quality’ of peer-generated artifacts when using a Web2.0 computer-supported collaborative communities (CSCP) platform called PeerWise. PeerWise was implemented in a large-enrollment (>2000) chemistry lecture course. With this platform, students are required to author, solve and evaluate multiple-choice questions and their solutions. A key feature of Web2.0 systems are participants’ ability to evaluate the quality of the artifacts they create. Here we focus on determining the suitability of previously developed evaluation rubrics for use on large enrollment courses that have previously been used and developed on courses with much lower enrollment (Bottomley & Denny, 2011). This has determined the transferability and scale for which these rubrics can be applied. We will present the results of the evaluation metric and, suggest modifications and suitability of using the rubric so that participants of Web2.0 systems may evaluate repository artifacts in CSCP systems.