Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80.
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41, 32.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261.
Anderson, M. (2011). Crowdsourcing higher education: A design proposal for distributed learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7, 576–590.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5–11.
Aune, R. K., & Basil, M. D. (1994). A relational obligations explanation for the foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 546–556.
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243–260.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45, 93–106.
Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 571–581.
Damron, D., & Mott, J. (2005). Creating an interactive classroom: Enhancing student engagement and learning in political science courses. Journal of Political Science Education, 1, 367–383.
Davis, D. (2005). Urban consumer culture. China Quarterly-London, 183, 692.
De Dreu, C. K. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 280–295.
deWinstanley, P. A. (1995). A generation effect can be found during naturalistic learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 538–541.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195.
Freire, P. (1982). Creating alternative research methods: Learning to do it by doing it. In B. Hall, A. Gillette, & R. Tandon (Eds.), Creating knowledge: A monopoly (pp. 29–37). New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18, 333–351.
Goldstone, R. L., Wisdom, T. N., Roberts, M. E., & Frey, S. (2013). Learning along with others. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 58, 1–45.
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3, 5–34.
Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8, 233–258.
Halverson, E. R. (2011). Do social networking technologies have a place in formal learning environments? On The Horizon, 19, 62–67.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Hills, T. (2007). Is constructivism risky? Social anxiety, classroom participation, competitive game play and constructivist preferences in teacher development. Teacher Development, 11, 335–352.
Hordern, J. (2012). The student as producer within a productive system. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences. doi:10.11120/elss.2012.04030005.
Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Monteil, J. M., & Genestoux, N. (2001). Social comparison choices in the classroom: Further evidence for students’ upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 557–578.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368.
Lambert, C. (2009). Pedagogies of participation in higher education: A case for research-based learning. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17, 295–309.
Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Maloney, E. (2007). What web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 25, B26.
Margolis, J. (1974). Works of art as physically embodied and culturally emergent entities. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 14, 187–196.
Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Computer Mediated Communication, 47, 1–13.
McNamara, D. S. (1995). Effects of prior knowledge on the generation advantage: Calculators versus calculation to learn simple multiplication. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 307.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.
Neary, M. (2010). Student as producer: A pedagogy for the avant-garde? Learning Exchange, 1.
Neary, M., & Winn, J. (2009). The student as producer: Reinventing the student experience in higher education. In M. Neary, et al. (Eds.), The future of higher education: Pedagogy, policy and the student experience (pp. 192–210). London: Continuum.
Nist, S. L., & Hogrebe, M. C. (1987). The role of underlining and annotating in remembering textual information. Literacy Research and Instruction, 27, 12–25.
Norum, K. E., Grabinger, R. S., & Duffield, J. A. (1999). Healing the universe is an inside job: Teachers’ views on integrating technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 187–203.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.
Ploetzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Preier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 103–121). Oxford: Elsevier.
Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Psychology Press.
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.
Ramsay, C. M., Sperling, R. A., & Dornisch, M. M. (2010). A comparison of the effects of students’ expository text comprehension strategies. Instructional Science, 38, 551–570.
Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. American Communication Journal, 5, 1–25.
Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 110.
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1–15.
Roediger, H. L. (2013). Applying cognitive psychology to education translational educational science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 1–3.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.
Roediger, H. L., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 242–248.
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). August). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 183–186.
Sanchez-Elez, M., Pardines, I., Garcia, P., Miñana, G., Roman, S., Sanchez, M., & Risco, J. L. (2013). Enhancing students’ learning process through self-generated tests. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 15–25.
Sandholtz, J. H., et al. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Saroyan, A., & Snell, L. S. (1997). Variations in lecturing styles. Higher Education, 33, 85–104.
Sevian, H., & Robinson, W. E. (2011). Clickers promote learning in all kinds of classes: Small and large, graduate and undergraduate, lecture and lab. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40, 14–18.
Shor, I. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 150–162.
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592.
Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1.
Steinert, Y., & Snell, L. (1999). Interactive lecturing: Strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21, 37–42.
Stroup, W. M., Ares, N. M., & Hurford, A. C. (2005). A dialectic analysis of generativity: Issues of network-supported design in mathematics and science. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 181–206.
Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Champagne, M. V. (2000). The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and decisions. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 97–116.
Trivedi, A., Kar, D. C., & Patterson-McNeill, H. (2003). Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18, 30–37.
Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27, 531–541.
Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 115.
Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
Wulff, D. U., Hills, T. T., & Hertwig, R. (2014). Online product reviews and the description–experience gap. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). doi:10.1002/bdm.1841
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the students of PS359 for their feedback in course development and to Katherine Hall (Aladdin’s Cave) and Cathryn Rebak (Charity Muggers) for permission to use their content. The work was supported by a grant from the Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning at the University of Warwick.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hills, T.T. Crowdsourcing content creation in the classroom. J Comput High Educ 27, 47–67 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9089-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9089-2