Claims

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 · design r2 · 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.

Study Design Effect as recorded Bears on this claim through
Bates 2013 q3 · design · r2 i? this claim; Student-authored physics questions mostly require application or analysis, with under 5% a (supports)
Iwatani 2020 q2 · design · r3 i? Teachers reported that trusting students to generate and pursue their own questions worked (supports)
Fischer 2021 q1 · design · r2 i? Students who generate their own research question are apt to be more invested and more eng (supports)
Sora Kang 2026 q3 · causal · r2 i? Actors internalized the AI's questioning style, self-generating similar questions after th (supports)
Huang 2026 q3 · causal · r2 i? Trained students use more diverse higher-order prompting strategies, including generating (qualifies)
Hyoungwook Jin 2026 q2 · causal · r2 i? Students rarely formulated questions specifying both knowledge component and scaffold type (counts against)
Arifani 2016 q2 · design · r3 i? First-cycle underperformance was attributed to low-quality student-generated questions tha (counts against)
Matin Amoozadeh and Amin Alipour 2026 q2 · associational · r1 i? First-generation students asked fewer questions overall than continuing-generation student (qualifies); Continuing-generation students showed higher usage of procedural and directive question ty (qualifies)

Discussion

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.