Crowdsourcing content creation in the classroom

The recent growth in crowdsourcing technologies offers a new way of envisioning student involvement in the classroom. This article describes a participatory action research approach to combining crowdsourced content creation with the student as producer model, whereby students’ interests are used to drive the identification and creation of educational content. This article first describes how this approach is grounded in cognitive psychology and aligned with contemporary learner-centered approaches to education. A case study is then provided detailing how this conceptual framework was implemented in an undergraduate psychology course on persuasion and influence. Two specific applications of this approach are described, one involving found content—with students identifying, explaining the research basis for, and archiving examples of persuasive content, they discover outside the classroom, in a public blog entitled Propaganda for Change—and a second involving content creation—with students producing their own persuasive messages that promote pro-social messages of their choosing. This framework offers a promising contemporary approach to learner-centered education and shifts the burden of education from figuring out how to expose what students know and are interested in into helping them construct relationships between content and their own prior understanding of the world.

[1]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Learning Styles , 2008, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[2]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Is constructivism risky? Social anxiety, classroom participation, competitive game play and constructivist preferences in teacher development , 2007 .

[3]  Adam Mathes,et al.  Folksonomies-Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata , 2004 .

[4]  H. Roediger,et al.  Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice , 2012 .

[5]  Douglas P Larsen,et al.  Test-enhanced learning , 2013 .

[6]  Edward J. Maloney What Web 2.0 Can Teach Us about Learning. , 2007 .

[7]  Barbara L. McCombs,et al.  How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. , 1998 .

[8]  J. Freedman,et al.  Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  A. King Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain , 1994 .

[10]  Charles R. Graham,et al.  Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems , 2007 .

[11]  B. Crisp Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work , 2007 .

[12]  Peter H. Reingen Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. , 1982 .

[13]  I. Simonson The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior , 1990 .

[14]  Rayne A. Sperling,et al.  A comparison of the effects of students’ expository text comprehension strategies , 2010 .

[15]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Learning Along With Others , 2013 .

[16]  Joseph Margolis,et al.  WORKS OF ART AS PHYSICALLY EMBODIED AND CULTURALLY EMERGENT ENTITIES , 1974 .

[17]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts , 1992 .

[18]  K. Squire Changing the Game: What Happens When Video Games Enter the Classroom? , 2005 .

[19]  Guadalupe Miñana,et al.  Enhancing Students’ Learning Process Through Self-Generated Tests , 2014 .

[20]  Ronald D. Bleed The IT Leader as Alchemist: Finding the True Gold. , 2006 .

[21]  R. Ploetzner,et al.  Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. , 1999 .

[22]  F. Dochy,et al.  Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness , 2010 .

[23]  Dulal C. Kar,et al.  Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation , 2003 .

[24]  R. Cialdini Influence: Science and Practice , 1984 .

[25]  Joanna C. Dunlap,et al.  Rich environments for active learning: a definition , 1995 .

[26]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Online product reviews and the description-experience gap , 2015 .

[27]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group performance and decision making. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[28]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning , 1991 .

[29]  Mike Neary,et al.  Student as producer: a pedagogy for the avant-garde? , 2010 .

[30]  Judith A. Duffield,et al.  Healing the Universe is an Inside Job: Teachers’ Views on Integrating Technology , 1999 .

[31]  N. Sanders,et al.  Journal of behavioral decision making: "The need for contextual and technical knowledge in judgmental forecasting", 5 (1992) 39-52 , 1992 .

[32]  Rajesh Tandon,et al.  Creating knowledge : a monopoly? , 1982 .

[33]  Sherrie L. Nist,et al.  The Role of Underlining and Annotating in Remembering Textual Information. , 1987 .

[34]  Pascal Huguet,et al.  Social comparison choices in the classroom: further evidence for students' upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance , 2001 .

[35]  W. Whyte,et al.  Participatory Action Research , 1989 .

[36]  Diana Baader Teaching With Technology Creating Student Centered Classrooms , 2016 .

[37]  John H. Mott,et al.  Creating an Interactive Classroom: Enhancing Student Engagement and Learning in Political Science Courses , 2005 .

[38]  P. deWinstanley,et al.  A generation effect can be found during naturalistic learning , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[39]  M. Wittrock Generative Learning Processes of the Brain , 1992 .

[40]  Beverly Park Woolf,et al.  Building Intelligent Interactive Tutors: Student-centered Strategies for Revolutionizing E-learning , 2008 .

[41]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology , 2012 .

[42]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. , 2006, Child development.

[43]  Michael Anderson,et al.  Crowdsourcing Higher Education: A Design Proposal for Distributed Learning , 2011 .

[44]  Hannah Sevian,et al.  Clickers Promote Learning in All Kinds of Classes--Small and Large, Graduate and Undergraduate, Lecture and Lab , 2011 .

[45]  R. Bruning Cognitive Psychology and Instruction , 1998 .

[46]  Erica Rosenfeld Halverson,et al.  Do social networking technologies have a place in formal learning environments , 2011 .

[47]  C. Dreu Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation , 2003 .

[48]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction , 1996 .

[49]  Danielle S. McNamara Effects of Prior Knowledge on the Generation Advantage: Calculators versus Calculation to Learn Simple Multiplication. , 1995 .

[50]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[51]  Joss Winn,et al.  The student as producer: reinventing the student experience in higher education , 2009 .

[52]  Ira Shor,et al.  When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy , 1996 .

[53]  Deborah Davis,et al.  urban consumer culture , 2005, The China Quarterly.

[54]  Jacob Goldenberg,et al.  The Fundamental Templates of Quality Ads , 1999 .

[55]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .

[56]  A. Pratkanis,et al.  The Science of Social Influence : Advances and Future Progress , 2011 .

[57]  H. Pashler,et al.  Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time , 2007 .

[58]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .

[59]  Yvonne Steinert,et al.  Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations , 1999 .

[60]  R. Hartshorne,et al.  Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[61]  Betty Collis,et al.  Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives , 2008 .

[62]  ConstructionismD . Raskin Constructivism in Psychology: Personal Construct Psychology, Radical Constructivism, and Social , 2002 .

[63]  Walter M. Stroup,et al.  A Dialectic Analysis of Generativity: Issues of Network-Supported Design in Mathematics and Science , 2005 .

[64]  Carole A. Ames Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. , 1992 .

[65]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique , 1975 .

[66]  Alice F. Stuhlmacher,et al.  The Impact of Time Pressure and Information on Negotiation Process and Decisions , 2000 .

[67]  Alenoush Saroyan,et al.  Variations in lecturing styles , 1997 .

[68]  Bryan N. Alexander Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? , 2006 .

[69]  Michael D. Basil,et al.  A Relational Obligations Approach to the Foot‐In‐The‐Mouth Effect , 1994 .

[70]  H. Roediger Applying Cognitive Psychology to Education , 2013, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[71]  Jim Hordern The student as producer within a productive system , 2012 .

[72]  H. Simon,et al.  Situated Learning and Education1 , 1996 .

[73]  S. Milgram BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE. , 1963, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[74]  Cath Lambert,et al.  Pedagogies of participation in higher education: a case for research‐based learning , 2009 .

[75]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[76]  J. Michael Spector,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd Edition , 2012 .

[77]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches , 1999 .

[78]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Why Testing Improves Memory: Mediator Effectiveness Hypothesis , 2010, Science.