Comments on: Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you! http://theactiveclass.com/2011/01/31/listening-to-student-conversations-during-clicker-questions-what-you-have-not-heard-might-surprise-you/ The Active Class Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:25:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Stephanie Chasteen http://theactiveclass.com/2011/01/31/listening-to-student-conversations-during-clicker-questions-what-you-have-not-heard-might-surprise-you/comment-page-1/#comment-2628 Stephanie Chasteen Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:13:35 +0000 http://theactiveclass.com/?p=801#comment-2628 I agree -- it is interesting. I've also often advocated some small correctness marks, since then students are motivated to actually get the right answer. But it seems that we are particularly sensitive, as humans, to the "get points for right answer" meme, and that goal can easily override all else. I wonder if getting points stimulates the same part of the brain that responds to other reward mechanisms (like winning the lottery, gambling, or cocaine) -- and so we'll unconsciously do whatever it takes to get "paid." It's probably less salient than gambling, because the reward is delayed, but there is still the knowledge that "correct answer = reward" so maybe the brain is positively stimulated even just by getting the right answer in that moment when the correct answer is displayed. We probably don't need to do more research -- the behavioral economists have already researched this sort of thing to death, and we just need to apply it to our field. I agree — it is interesting. I’ve also often advocated some small correctness marks, since then students are motivated to actually get the right answer. But it seems that we are particularly sensitive, as humans, to the “get points for right answer” meme, and that goal can easily override all else. I wonder if getting points stimulates the same part of the brain that responds to other reward mechanisms (like winning the lottery, gambling, or cocaine) — and so we’ll unconsciously do whatever it takes to get “paid.” It’s probably less salient than gambling, because the reward is delayed, but there is still the knowledge that “correct answer = reward” so maybe the brain is positively stimulated even just by getting the right answer in that moment when the correct answer is displayed.

We probably don’t need to do more research — the behavioral economists have already researched this sort of thing to death, and we just need to apply it to our field.

]]> By: Peter (@polarisdotca) http://theactiveclass.com/2011/01/31/listening-to-student-conversations-during-clicker-questions-what-you-have-not-heard-might-surprise-you/comment-page-1/#comment-2562 Peter (@polarisdotca) Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:34:12 +0000 http://theactiveclass.com/?p=801#comment-2562 It is interesting to examine their findings about low-stakes (participation point) vs high-stakes (participation + bonus for correct) classes. They found students much more likely to just give in and vote like their peers, even if they disagree, in the high stakes classes. It's like the appeal of that extra point over-rides their willingness to stick up for their own ideas. I've advocated for the bonus mark - I thought it encouraged engagement - but I'm starting to rethink that. In the high-stakes class, you are, in fact, penalized for failing. I don't think that promotes effective think-pair-share. We should do more research! It is interesting to examine their findings about low-stakes (participation point) vs high-stakes (participation + bonus for correct) classes. They found students much more likely to just give in and vote like their peers, even if they disagree, in the high stakes classes. It’s like the appeal of that extra point over-rides their willingness to stick up for their own ideas. I’ve advocated for the bonus mark – I thought it encouraged engagement – but I’m starting to rethink that. In the high-stakes class, you are, in fact, penalized for failing. I don’t think that promotes effective think-pair-share. We should do more research!

]]>