Student-Generated Content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions
Abstract
The relationship between students' use of PeerWise, an online tool that facilitates peer learning through student-generated content in the form of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), and achievement, as measured by their performance in the end-of-module examinations, was investigated in 5 large early-years science modules (in physics, chemistry and biology) across 3 research-intensive UK universities. A complex pattern was observed in terms of which type of activity (writing, answering or commenting on questions) was most beneficial for students; however, there was some evidence that students of lower intermediate ability may have gained particular benefit. In all modules, a modest but statistically significant positive correlation was found between students' PeerWise activity and their examination performance, after taking prior ability into account. This suggests that engaging with the production and discussion of student-generated content in the form of MCQs can support student learning in a way that is not critically dependent on course, institution, instructor or student.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The involvement of students in the design of assessment is associated with improvements in self-regulated learning and enhanced understanding.
“The involvement of students in the design of assessment has been associated with improvements in self-regulated learning and enhanced understanding (Doyle et al., 2018; Hardy et al., 2014).”
From Assessment design through co-creation (2025) · cites this paper as Hardy et al., 2014
Cites
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.2343497 · Cited by 3,235 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shahedi, F., Ahmadi, J., Sharifi, T., Seyedhasani, S. N., Abdollahi, M., Shaabani, N., & Sarmadi, M. (2020) · Journal of Education and Health Promotion · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_753_19 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Assessment design through co-creation
Williams, A., & Ingle, E. (2025) · International Journal for Students as Partners · doi:10.15173/ijsap.v9i1.5802 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hardy, J., Bates, S. P., Casey, M. M., Galloway, K. W., Galloway, R. K., Kay, A. E., Kirsop, P., & McQueen, H. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hardy, Judy
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-05-15
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 2180-2194
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2027929022
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 41.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Science Education (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- PeerWise, student-generated content, multiple-choice questions, peer learning, academic performance, physics education, chemistry education, biology education, prior ability, online learning tools
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
