75% of student-authored physics questions met combined high-quality criteria (clear, correct, plausible distractors, above recall, adequate explanation)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Of 602 sampled questions across four course repositories, 453 (75%) met all criteria in Table III for high quality. → Bates 2013
Evidence¶
Bates 2013¶
Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., Riise, J., and Homer, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository. https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.2202 doi:10.48550/arxiv.1308.2202
q3 · i? · design · r2
Post-hoc coding of a representative sample of 602 questions from four introductory physics course repositories (Physics 1A and 1B, 2010 and 2011), rated on cognitive level, explanation quality, clarity, distractors, correctness and originality. The article reports "overall 453 questions (75%) met all the criteria outlined in Table III". No effect size is printed.
"Combining all sampled questions together ( N = 602), our classification yielded that overall 453 questions (75%) met all the criteria outlined in Table III."
Studies bearing on this claim¶
Can learners write good questions of their own, and what support do they need to? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 9 narrower claims that bear on it: 8 distinct studies (4 design, 3 causal, 1 associational), q1–q3, 0 of 8 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students answer lower-taxonomy-category questions more frequently, but only by a factor of about 2 — related
- Student-authored physics questions mostly require application or analysis, with under 5% at the lowest recall level — related
- Explanation-quality distributions differed significantly between years for Physics 1A (2011 slightly lower) but not Physics 1B — related
- Over 95% of student-authored questions included an explanation, mostly of good or excellent quality — related
- Question cognitive-level distributions differed significantly between years for Physics 1B but not Physics 1A — related
- Adult teachers' questions concentrate at low Bloom's levels, and cooperative learning's dialogue and questioning support critical thinking across Bloom's taxonomy — related
- Students created and took peer assessments in Forms, learning through writing quiz questions and answer options — related
- AI-generated assessment items frequently need faculty correction, supporting AI as a draft generator within quality assurance — related
- First-cycle underperformance was attributed to low-quality student-generated questions that failed to represent journal article patterns — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
peerwise-student-questions-75-percent-high-quality |
title |
75% of student-authored physics questions met combined high-quality criteria (clear, correct, plausible distractors, above recall, adequate explanation) |
description |
75% of student-authored physics questions met combined high-quality criteria (clear, correct, plausible distractors, above recall, adequate explanation) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2013 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — bates-2013 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.