Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student-Generated Instructional Materials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Learning in College Science

Abstract

Student-Generated Instructional Materials, as the term implies, asks learners to provide objects that other students can use in their own learning. These objects (lessons, videos, questions, summaries) can become as important to the class as the teacher’s own work. Although well represented, this area has been largely overlooked, perhaps because it has lacked its own identifiable label and has been subsumed under the broad heading of student-generated materials. Yet Student-Generated Instructional Materials represents an exclusive area of student work, providing powerful evidence for how the responsibility for learning can be acquired by a community of learners. Examples reveal students building directly upon prior knowledge and developing independence, self-reliance, expertise, ownership, empowerment, inclusivity, and metacognition and transferring their understanding to new and potentially unfamiliar content. The popular contextualization of evidence-based practices as a prescribed “do this, don’t do that” list of actions raises deep concern, particularly in science education. Two dilemmas that warrant consideration are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achenbach, J. (2015). No, science’s reproducibility problem is not limited to psychology. The Washington Post. Retrieved 22 November 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/28/no-sciences-reproducibility-problem-is-not-limited-to-psychology/?utm_term=.c9a542a29cde.

  • Ahn, R., & Class, M. (2011). Student-centered pedagogy: Co-construction of knowledge through student-generated midterm exams. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 269–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alaimo, P. J., Langenham, J. M., & Tanner, M. J. (2010). Safety teams: An approach to engage students in laboratory safety. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(8), 856–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L., & Feldman, R. S. (1973). Learning through tutoring: Low-achieving children as tutors. The Journal of Experimental Education, 42(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, F. R. H., Mizoguchi, R., & Isotani, S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of gamification. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9684, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashamalla, M. H., & Crocitto, M. M. (2001). Student-generated cases as a transformation tool. Journal of Management Education, 25, 516–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Convincing other people: The issues formerly known as reliability, validity, and generalizability. In Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis (pp. 77–90). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begley, C. G. (2013). Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work. Nature, 497, 433–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict, L., & Pence, H. E. (2012). Teaching chemistry using student-created videos and photo blogs accessed with smartphones and two-dimensional barcodes. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 492–496. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed2005399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisra, K., Liu, Q., Nesbit, J. C., Salimi, F., & Winne, P. H. (2018). Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 703–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottomley, S., & Denny, P. (2011). A participatory learning approach to biochemistry using student authored and evaluated multiple-choice questions. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(5), 352–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2001). Peer learning in higher education: Learning with & from each other. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions? Research in Science Education, 32, 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box, M. C., Dunnagan, C. L., Hirsh, L. A. S., Cherry, C. R., Christianson, K. A., Gibson, R. J., Wolfe, M. I., & Gallardo-Williams, M. T. (2017). Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of three types of student-generated videos as instructional support in organic chemistry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. I., Doughty, G. F., Draper, S. W., Henderson, F., & McAteer, E. (1996). Measuring learning resource use. Computers & Education, 27(2), 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H., Iyobe, B., & Riley, P. (2013). An evaluation of the use of student-generated materials. The Language Teacher, 37(3), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busari, J. O., & Scherpbier, A. J. (2004). Why residents should teach: A literature review. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 50(3), 205–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajander, A., Daniels, M., & McDermott, R. (2012). On valuing peers: Theories of learning and intercultural competence. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callan, R. C., Bauer, K. N., & Landers, R. N. (2015). How to avoid the how to avoid the dark side of gamification: Ten business scenarios and their unintended consequences. In T. Reiners & L. C. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 553–568). New York: Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P., Chavez, O., Ong, D. C., & Gunderson, B. (2017). Strategic resource use for learning: A self-administered intervention that guides self-reflection on effective resource use enhances academic performance. Psychological Science, 28(6), 774–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, W. H., & Curtin, L. N. (2000). The directed case method: Teaching content and process in a content-rich course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(1), 64–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbran, S., & Gilding, A. (2014). Exploring legal ethics using student generated storyboards. The Law Teacher, 48(3), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2014.967954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colbran, S., Gilding, A., Colbran, S., Oyson, M. J., & Saeed, N. (2017). The impact of student- generated digital flashcards on student learning of constitutional law. The Law Teacher, 51(1), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2015.1082239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 387–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. B., Brown, A. L., & Rivkin, I. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on formal learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2006). The contributing student: Learners as co-developers of learning resources for reuse in web environments. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 49–67). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P. (2000). Targeting entry points for ethics in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 1506–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P. (2006). Laboratory instruction: Ensuring an active learning experience. In W. J. McKeachie & M. Svinicki (Eds.), McKeachie’s teaching tips, 12E (pp. 266–277). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P. (2010). Structure and reactivity at the University of Michigan. In J. Ryan, T. Clark, & A. Collier (Eds.), Assessment in the disciplines (vol 5): Assessment in chemistry (pp. 175–199). Tallahassee: Association for Institutional Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P. (2013). The distinctiveness of a higher education. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(8), 955–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P. (2015). Do real work, not homework. In J. Garcia-Martinez & E. Serrano- Torregrosa (Eds.), Chemistry education: Best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 203–257). Weinhein: Wiley-VCH.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P., & Kiste, A. (2004). Examination of Technologies for Student-Generated Work in a Peer-Led, Peer-Review Instructional Environment. In Proceedings of the international IPSI 2004 conference, July 28-Aug 2, 2004, Pescara (Italy), 11 pages. (refereed).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P., & Krajcik, J. S. (2013). Discipline-centered post-secondary science education research: Understanding university level science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, B. P., Daniels, D. S., & Pontrello, J. K. (2001). Using structured study groups to create chemistry honors sections. In J. Miller, J. E. Groccia, & D. DiBiasio (Eds.), Student assisted teaching and learning (pp. 116–122). New York: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, H., & Craciun, G. (2013). Asking the right questions: Using student-written exams as an innovative approach to learning and evaluation. Marketing Education Review, 23(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croft, T., Duah, F., & Loch, B. (2013). ‘I’m worried about the correctness’: Undergraduate students as producers of screencasts of mathematical explanations for their peers – Lecturer and student perceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(7), 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.823252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandavino, M., Snell, L., & Wiseman, J. (2007). Why medical students should learn how to teach. Medical Teacher, 29(6), 558–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701477449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devon, J., Paterson, J. H., Moffat, D. C., & McCrae, J. (2012). Evaluation of student engagement with peer feedback based on student-generated MCQs. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 11(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2012.11010027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2018). The replication crisis in psychology. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds.), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign: DEF Publishers. nobaproject.com(http://noba.to/q4cvydeh).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ege, S. N., Coppola, B. P., & Lawton, R. G. (1997). The University of Michigan undergraduate chemistry curriculum 1. Philosophy, curriculum, and the nature of change. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., & Folley, S. (2010). Students writing their own lectures with a wiki and the CSA. In L. Wang, J. Fong, & R. Kwan (Eds.), Handbook of research on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and applications (pp. 244–259). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. J. G. (2012). Supporting and structuring “contributing student pedagogy” in computer science curricula. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 413–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldon, D. F. (2010). Why magic bullets don’t work. Change, 42(2), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellenz, M. R. (2004). Using assessment to support higher level learning: The multiple choice item development assignment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 703–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fergus, S., & Kirton, S. (2013). N106 Peerwise presentation June 2013. [Online]. http://www.studynet1.herts.ac.uk/intranet/lti.nsf//Teaching+Documents/3E20D3CA17259DDA80257B94005A94B9/$FILE/N106%20Peerwise%20presentation%20June%202013.pptx.

  • Fischer, M. A., Mazor, K. M., Baril, J., Alper, E., DeMarco, D., & Pugnaire, M. (2006). Factors that influence how students and residents learn from medical errors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(5), 419–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00420.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D., Khoo, E., & Johnson, E. M. (2012). It gave me a much more personal connection: Student-generated podcasting and assessment in teacher education. In Future challenges, sustainable futures. Proceedings ascilite Wellington (326–330).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(3), 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallucci, K. (2009). Learning about the nature of science with case studies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(5), 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehringer, E. F., & Miller, C. S. (2009). Student-generated active-learning exercises. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin – SIGCSE ‘09 (Vol. 41(1), pp. 81–85). New York: SIGCSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehringer, E. F., Kadanjoth, R., & Kidd, J. (2010). Software support for peer-reviewing wiki textbooks and other large projects. In Proceedings of the workshop on computer-supported peer review in education, 2010. Pittsburgh: Computer Supported Peer Review in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmid, B., & Goldschmid, M. L. (1976). Peer teaching in higher education: A review. Higher Education, 5, 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haglund, J. (2013). Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 35–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.801119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hains, B. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Student-centered course design: Empowering students to become self-directed learners. The Journal of Experimental Education, 35(2), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.5193/JEE35.2.357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamer, J., Sheard, J., Purchase, J., & Luxton-Reilly, J. (2012). Contributed student pedagogy. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, J., Bates, S. P., Casey, M. M., Galloway, K. W., Galloway, R. K., Kay, A. E., Kirsop, P., & McQueen, H. A. (2014). Student-generated content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2180–2194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, L. M., & Coppola, B. P. (2005). Teaching and technology: Making the invisible explicit and progressive through reflection. Journal, Physical Therapy Education, 19(3), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, G. L. (2010). Designing contributing student pedagogies to promote students’ intrinsic motivation. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herreid, C. F. (1994). Case studies in science—A novel method of science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 221–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web- based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, T. J., & Pontrello, J. K. (2016). Building bridges between science courses using honors organic chemistry projects. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(1), 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, G., Nielsen, W., & Shepherd, A. (Eds.). (2015). Student-generated digital media in science education: Learning, explaining and communicating content. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. (Eds.). (2001). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudd, S. S. (2003). Syllabus under construction: Involving students in the creation of class assignments. Teaching Sociology, 31, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyrynsalmi, S., Kimppa, K. K., & Smed, J. (2018). Gamification ethics. In N. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of computer graphics and games. Springer International: New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_138-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. (1999). To err is human. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafari, M., Welden, A. R., Williams, K. L., Winograd, B., Mulvihill, E., Hendrickson, H. P., Lenard, M., Gottfried, A., & Geva, E. (2017). Compute-to-learn: Authentic learning via development of interactive computer demonstrations within a peer-led studio environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 1896–1903. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). Concept sketches – Using student- and instructor- generated, annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. T., Box, M. C., Eguren, K. E., Parker, T. A., Saraldi-Gallardo, V. M., Wolfe, M. I., & Gallardo-Williams, M. T. (2016). Effectiveness of student-generated video as a teaching tool for an instrumental technique in the organic chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A. E., Hardy, J., & Galloway, R. K. (2018). Learning from peer feedback on student- generated multiple choice questions: Views of introductory physics students. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14, 010119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2005). Students in the director’s seat: Teaching and learning with student generated video. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2005 (pp. 2864–2871). Chesapeake: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R. (2012). Have students generate content to improve learning. [Online]. http://www.magnapubs.com/newsletter/online-classroom/issue/1405/.

  • Kidd, J., O’Shea, P., Allen, D., & Tamashiro, R. (2008). Student-authored textbooks: The future or futile. In Society for Information Technology & Teaching Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3274–3279). Chesapeake: Society for Information Technology & Teaching Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2003). Material and social affordances of multiple representations for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R., Yen, N., Li, F., & Wah, B. (2014). Recent developments in multimedia e-learning technologies. World Wide Web, 17, 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazzari, M. (2009). Creative use of podcasting in higher education and its effect on competitive agency. Computers & Education, 52, 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. J. W., & McLoughlin, C. (2007). Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 Era: Empowering students through learner-generated content. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 4(10), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. J. W., McLoughlin, C., & Chan, A. (2008). Talk the talk: Learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00746.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeper, H., Chang, E., Cotter, G., MacIntosh, P., Scott, F., Apantaku, L., Broutman, L., & Lazarus, C. (2007). A student-designed and student-led sexual-history-taking module for second-year medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 19(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401330701366770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochhead, J., & Clement, J. (Eds.). (1979). Cognitive process instruction: Research on teaching thinking skills. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (1989). Scientific diagrams: How well can students read them? What research says to the science and mathematics teacher (Vol. 3). Perth: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (1993). Constructing a mental representation from an abstract technical diagram. Learning and Instruction, 3, 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2010). Constructive evaluation: A pedagogy of student- contributed assessment. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 145–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascolo, M. F. (2009). Beyond student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy: Teaching and learning as guided participation. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences, 1(1), 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, J. A. (2001). Using analogies to teach conceptual applications of developmental theories. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14(3), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720530126292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 5–18). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 465–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalchik, V., Rosenquist, A., Kozma, R., Coppola, B. P., Kreikemeier, P., & Schank, P. (2008). Representational resources for constructing shared understandings in the high school chemistry classroom. In J. Gilbert, M. Nakhleh, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 233–282). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzes, J. J. (2019). From constructivism to active learning in college science. In J. J. Mintzes & E. M. Walter (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice. Place: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestojko, J. F., Bui, D. C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E. L. (2014). Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1038–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, P., Chappell, S., Allen, D., & Baker, P. (2007). Issues confronted while designing a student-developed online textbook. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2074–2079). Chesapeake: Society for Information Technology & Teaching Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulin, D., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2016). Crowdsourcing the curriculum: Redefining e-learning practices through peer-generated approaches. The Information Society, 32(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1130501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peluso, M. J., & Hafler, J. P. (2011). Medical students as medical educators: Opportunities for skill development in the absence of formal training programs. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 84, 205–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philip, C. T., Unruh, K. P., Lachman, N., & Pawlina, W. (2008). An explorative learning approach to teaching clinical anatomy using student generated content. Anatomical Sciences Education, 1, 106–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirhonen, J., & Rasi, P. (2017). Student-generated instructional videos facilitate learning through positive emotions. Journal of Biological Education, 51(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1200647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piscotty, R., Grobbel, C., & Tzeng, H.-M. (2011). Integrating quality and safety competencies into undergraduate nursing using student-designed simulation. Journal of Nursing Education, 50(8), 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyburn, D., Pazicni, S., Benassi, V., & Tappin, E. E. (2013). Assessing the relation between language comprehension and performance in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 524–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabkin, E. S., & Smith, M. (1990). Teaching writing that works: A group approach to practical English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez-Velarde, R., Perez-Cazares, R., Alexandrov, N., & Garcia-Rueda, J. J. (2014). Education 2.0: Student generated learning materials through collaborative work. Procedia Computer Science, 29, 1835–1845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashid, M. S., Sobowale, O., & Gore, D. (2011). A near-peer teaching program designed, developed and delivered exclusively by recent medical graduates for final year medical students sitting the final objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). BMC Medical Education, 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, S., Bruce, M., & Nolan, S. (2013). Can I have a word please – strategies to enhance understanding of subject specific language in chemistry by international and non-traditional students. New Directions, 9(1), 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repice, M. D., Sawyer, R. K., Hogrebe, M. C., Brown, P. L., Luesse, S. B., Gealyf, D. J., & Frey, R. F. (2016). Talking through the problems: A study of discourse in peer-led small groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00154d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C., & Taylor, C. (2007). Theorizing student voice: Values and perspectives. Improving Schools, 10(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (1999). Complexities of graphical representations during lectures: A phenomenological approach. Learning and Instruction, 9, 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J., & Kozma, R. (2005). Assessing learning from the use of multimedia chemical visualization software. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaedel, U., & Clement, M. (2010). Managing the online crowd: Motivations for engagement in user-generated content. Journal of Media Business Studies, 7(3), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2010.11073509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, T. L., & Whitman, M. (1984). Residents as teachers. Salt Lake City: University of Utah School of Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 25(6), 6–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 569–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. I., & Tanner, K. (2010). The problem of revealing how students think: Concept inventories and beyond. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowball, J. D., & McKenna, S. (2017). Student-generated content: An approach to harnessing the power of diversity in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(5), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sondergaard, H., & Mulder, R. A. (2010). Collaborative learning through formative peer review: Pedagogy, programs and potential. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier Dance, L., Mayer Smith, J., Dance, N., & Khan, S. (2005). The role of student generated analogies in promoting conceptual understanding for undergraduate chemistry students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500266401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staddon, J. (2017). Scientific method: How science works, fails to work or pretends to work. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, G., Fiedler, B. A., & Kandunias, C. (2014). Harnessing Facebook for student engagement in accounting education: Guiding principles for accounting students and educators. Accounting Education, 23(4), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.908730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C., & Robinson, C. (2009). Student voice: Theorizing power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360902934392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokumitsu, M. (2017). Long Live the Lecture! Chronicle of Higher Education: The Chronicle Review, 63(30), March 31. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Long-Live-the-Lecture-/239555

  • Topping, K. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture and Society, 31(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, A. M., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding students’ use of learner-generated content in a technology-enhanced inquiry learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.834828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varma-Nelson, P., & Coppola, B. P. (2005). Team learning. In N. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemist’s guide to effective teaching (pp. 155–169). Saddle River: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez, A. V., McLoughlin, K., Sabbagh, M., Runkle, A. C., Simon, J., Coppola, B. P., & Pazicni, R. (2012). Writing-to-teach: A new pedagogical approach to elicit explanative writing in undergraduate chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 1025–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, L. (1982). Peer teaching: Historical perspectives. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. (1991). False dichotomies, and science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, N. A. (1988). Peer Teaching: To Teach is to Learn Twice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 111(23), 8319–8320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2019). Characterization of first-semester organic chemistry peer-led team learning and cyber peer-led team learning students’ use and explanation of electron-pushing formalism. Journal of Chemical Education, ASAP. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthen, M. (2015). Lecture Me. Really. New York Times: Sunday Review (October 18), SR1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/opinion/sunday/lecture-me-really.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad&_r=0.

  • Wyatt, T. J., & Oswalt, S. B. (2011). Letting students be innovative! Using mini-grants to fund student-designed HIV/AIDS education. Health Promotion Practice, 12(3), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839909348745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, F.-Y., & Liu, Y.-H. (2005). Potential values of incorporating a multiple-choice question construction in physics experimentation instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yurco, P. (2014). Student-Generated Cases: Giving Students More Ownership in the Learning Process. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 54–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zurcher, D. M., Phadke, S., Coppola, B. P., & McNeil, A. J. (2016). Using student-generated instructional materials in an e-homework platform. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 1871–1878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Brian P. Coppola

  2. Department of Chemistry, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA

    Jason K. Pontrello

Authors
  1. Brian P. Coppola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason K. Pontrello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian P. Coppola .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Biological Sciences and Science Education, California State University, Chico, CA, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  2. Science Learning Associates, Wrightsville Beach, NC, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  3. Department of Biological Sciences and Center for STEM Education, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA

    Emily M. Walter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Coppola, B.P., Pontrello, J.K. (2020). Student-Generated Instructional Materials. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation