Skip to main content

Crowdsourcing content creation in the classroom

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41, 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. (2011). Crowdsourcing higher education: A design proposal for distributed learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7, 576–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45, 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. (2005). Urban consumer culture. China Quarterly-London, 183, 692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 280–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deWinstanley, P. A. (1995). A generation effect can be found during naturalistic learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 538–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18, 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., Wisdom, T. N., Roberts, M. E., & Frey, S. (2013). Learning along with others. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 58, 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3, 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, E. R. (2011). Do social networking technologies have a place in formal learning environments? On The Horizon, 19, 62–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, T. (2007). Is constructivism risky? Social anxiety, classroom participation, competitive game play and constructivist preferences in teacher development. Teacher Development, 11, 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, C. (2009). Pedagogies of participation in higher education: A case for research-based learning. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17, 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, E. (2007). What web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 25, B26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. (1974). Works of art as physically embodied and culturally emergent entities. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 14, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Computer Mediated Communication, 47, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nist, S. L., & Hogrebe, M. C. (1987). The role of underlining and annotating in remembering textual information. Literacy Research and Instruction, 27, 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. American Communication Journal, 5, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L. (2013). Applying cognitive psychology to education translational educational science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). August). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 183–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, J. H., et al. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saroyan, A., & Snell, L. S. (1997). Variations in lecturing styles. Higher Education, 33, 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shor, I. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivedi, A., Kar, D. C., & Patterson-McNeill, H. (2003). Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18, 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27, 531–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas T. Hills.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9089-2

Keywords

  • Learned-centered education
  • Student as producer
  • Crowdsourcing
  • Communities of practice
  • Project-based learning