Development of a Similar Question Generator to
Support Peer Teaching
Yoshimichi Oikawa
oikawa@tokai-u.jp
Faculty / PhD Candidate
School of Science, Tokai University /Kumamoto University
Hiratsuka / Kumamoto, Japan

Katsuaki Suzuki
ksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Faculty
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Ryuichi Matsuba
matsuba@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Faculty
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Hiroshi Nakano
nakano@cc.kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Faculty
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Toshihiro Kita
t-kita@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Faculty
Graduate School of Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, JapanABSTRACT
We developed a similar question generator and introduced it in general chemistry classes, andfound that the exercises using the similar questions activated peer teachings effectively in faceto-face general chemistry classes. Peer teaching is one of the useful teaching techniques basedon the social constructivism and should be applied to the exercises. For a purpose of supporting
the exercise, we developed the similar question generator which can produce a set of similar
questions from an XML description file including definitions of variables, calculation formulaof correct / incorrect answers and choices. For evaluation of the generator, we plugged it into
our LMS and utilized the LMS in three general chemistry classes. From the analysis result of
the recorded data, in comparison to the control group, the exercise with similar questions
activated more peer teachings than the exercise with the same questions for all students. In term
examinations, the score of questions related to the exercises using the similar questions
increased than ones using the same questions with a significant difference. According to aquestionnaire, the exercise with similar questions was viewed favorably by 82% of responded
students especially middle- and low-grade students.
Keywords: Question generation, Similar questions, Peer Teaching, Chemical Education,
Learning Management System

INTRODUCTION
Peer teaching is a complex process by which students learn from students that are more experienced
and knowledgeable about the subject material. Students play not only as a learner, but also as a teacher inpeer teaching, and it derives many benefits. Vasay (2010) studied the effect of peer teaching in college
mathematics, and concluded that “Peer teaching greatly affects the intellectual and moral values of thestudents such as the ability to express their ideas, mastery of different concepts, time management, senseof responsibility, sharing, self-discipline, self-reliance, self-confidence, resourcefulness, cooperation,obedience, etc.” Peer teaching was applied as a methodology in teaching chemistry too. Gosser & Roth(1998) found “statistically significant improvement by peer lead team learning in grades, retention, andlevels of student satisfaction.” Tien (2004) reported that “interacting with other students and explaining
their reasoning to one another had a much greater effect on their understanding.” In our case, we did notincorporate peer teaching into our course intentionally, but we have found that exercises using the similar
questions activated peer teachings effectively.
We have used homemade LMS (learning management system) in face-to-face general chemistryclasses at Tokai University since 2001. In these classes, we introduced quiz-based exercises in order toenhance encoding and verification based on Gagne’s nine events in instruction (Gagne et al, 2005). Thequiz-based exercises are used out of concern over lack of motivation in chemical education (Ochs, 1998).
But these quiz-based practices were not enough effective for low-grade students because the samequestions were distributed to all students and they copied answers of high-grade student. For solving thisproblem, first, we distributed different questions for each student. This strategy worked for preventing thecopying, but it led low-grade students to giving up solving quizzes by themselves and to asking one of thehighest-grade students intensively. After that, we prepared similar questions where variables, figures andchoices were slightly different from each other, and manually distributed in a class. As a result, the oneway asking behavior was reduced, and peer teaching among low-grade students was activated.
Though the quiz-based exercises with similar questions are expected to be effective, but it is very
hard to conduct the exercise because it requires many similar questions. Then we decided to develop asimilar question generator to improve the efficiency of preparation of similar question, and plugged it intoclassroom practice to validate usefulness.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of this study was developing a similar question generator as a LMS module andevaluating how quiz-based exercises using it influence peer teaching. One of the important points toconduct the exercise effectively is to prepare a large number of similar questions. For this reason, we had
to firstly develop the module and plugged it into our homemade LMS.

METHODOLOGY
Development of Similar Question Generation Module
Several quizzes were developed in chemical education (Kolodny & Bayly, 1983; Freasier et al.,2003). In these studies, questions were stored in the database beforehand and randomly displayed atruntime environment. This methodology is difficult to prepare a large number of questions because
teacher, after all, had to prepare questions manually and had to consume much time and labor. The otherhand, Takano & Hashimoto (2004) and Kanenishi (2003) reported methods for generating question. But
these methods used knowledge base and it was too difficult for non-experts to describe the knowledge ofthe question. In our LMS, each question is defined by extensible markup language (XML) and isdelivered to each client PC of student with the similar question generator coded by javascript. It meansthat our module generates similar questions dynamically on the client side. Screenshots of the generated
questions are shown in Figure 1. The generator can produce many similar questions and we show two
examples here. Students find differences of their questions and may also notice the differences are not somach. Figure 2 shows the corresponding XML code which can generate variations of similar questions.
The schematic diagram of the exercise with similar questions utilized our homemade LMS is shownin Figure 3. The LMS send the generation module and a question definition file to each client PC
according to the content of personalized course definition file. The accesses of the students can be logged
as the primary LMS function.

Figure 1. Examples of the generated similar questions<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><question check="off"><caption>Formula Mass</caption><ask><b>Calculate the formula mass for each of the following compounds:</b></ask><blocks><block><ask>(1)H<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block><ask>(1)O<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block><ask>(1)N<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block><ask>(1)Cl<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block><ask>(1)Br<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block></blocks><blocks><block><ask>(2)SO<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block><ask>(2)SiO<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block><ask>(2)CO<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block><ask>(2)NO<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block></blocks><blocks>

Figure 2. The corresponding XML code for Figure 1.

<block><ask>(3)HNO<SUB>3</SUB></ask><block>…</block></blocks><blocks><block><ask>(4)Ca(NO<SUB>3</SUB>)<SUB>2</SUB></ask></block><block>…</block></blocks><blocks><block><ask>(5)K<SUB>4</SUB>[Fe(CN)<SUB>6</SUB>]</ask></block><block>…</block></blocks>

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of exercise with similar questions

Classroom Practice
For the purpose of evaluating the exercise with similar questions, we applied the developed system
to three general chemistry classes. The classes are remedial courses designed for a student who hardly
studied chemistry in high-school days. Each semester, there are 40 or less students in a class. The class
meets for 90 minutes twice a week in a PC-room they sit in front of each PC. In each class, firstly, thecourse teacher explained the topics briefly, and then students red texts and exercised on the LMS, where
they got own similar questions generated by the developed module. Students were permitted not only totalk each other, but also to walk about the classroom. They could discuss about their questions each other,and we expected that the peer teaching would be activated. Finally, students submitted the answer paper
sheet to the teacher. The condition of the classes is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Condition of general chemistry classes for students of engineering for evaluation
Number ofMajors ofGrade ofstudent
students
students
Sophomore The exercises with similar questions wereGroup-A29
One major
utilized in six of thirty chapters in the class(2011, Spring semester).
Sophomore,
The exercises with similar questions wereThree majors
Group-B
24Junior,
utilized in six of thirty chapters in the classmixedSenior(2011, Spring semester).
The exercises with similar question wereThree majors
Group-C
14Senior
utilized in six of thirty chapters in the classmixed(2012, Spring semester).
This was a control group. The exercise
Group-D39
One major
Sophomore with similar questions did not use.
(2010, Spring semester)

Writing down or Recording student activity
From the result of classroom practice, we expected that the exercise with similar questions let thepeer teaching activate more and it may affect student activities. We wrote down the activity or recorded itwith digital video. The recorded data was converted into relationship diagram we named in which thesymbol pictures of student were linked together by arrows from teacher role student to learner rolestudent.

Questionnaire survey
At the end of the semester, we carried out questionnaire for attitude survey about peer teaching as
shown in Table 2. This survey was conducted to Groups utilized the exercise with similar questions.

Table 2. Statement and type of questions in the questionnaire
StatementType
Did you join the peer teaching?
Dichotomous: Yes/No
What was your main role in the peer teaching?
Bipolar: Teacher-----Learner
Was the peer teaching helpful or not in your learning?
Bipolar: Helpful-----Unhelpful
Did your partner’s understanding (assisted by your teaching) increase Bipolar: Increase-----Decreaseor decrease your satisfaction?
Did you join peer teaching? If not, why not?
Closed and Open format
Did you teach other students? If yes, how did you feel when the Closed and Open format
partner solved the question with your assist?
Did you teach other student? If yes, what were your feelings in the Closed and Open format
situation to teach?
Did you learn from other student? If yes, what were your feelings in Closed and Open format
the situation to ask?

Analysis of percentage of correct answer
Tessier (2007) reported that students performed better on exam questions based on material that theytaught to peers or learned from peers than on material that they learned from a traditional lecture approachin introductory biology class. This study showed that the usefulness of a certain method for peer teaching
could be evaluated by analyzing the result of the examination. We classified each exam’s questions into
two categories: questions based on the exercise with similar questions and ones based on the exercise
with the same questions, and compared the rate of correct answers with each other.

RESULTSA pre-test was conducted in first meeting of each class for evaluation of group's achieved level. The
test was composed of 30 basic questions that students would normally learn in a high school in Japan.
Result of t-test for the pre-test showed no significant differences between each groups.

Student activity
A typical relationship diagram is shown in Figure 4, where allows means the directions of questionasking behaviors. In case of the exercise with the same questions (a), the role of peer teaching was almost
fixed as: high-grade students were as teachers and low-grade students were as learners. The asking targets
were concentrated to the specific students, and not logic of solving question but only answer of thestudent was propagated to the group members. Critical checking of students’ answer papers showed that
mistake of high-grade students was spread to the class.
In contrast, in case of the exercise with similar questions as shown in Figure 4 (b), the simple asking
behaviors almost dispersed. One of the notable points of this case is that the number of both arrows
increased in comparison with the case of (a). This means that many students played the role of teacherand peer teaching was activated qualitatively. The act of teaching others enhances student's own learning(Bargh & Schu, 1980; Whitman, 1988). Therefore, peer teaching, including the exercise with similar
questions, is regarded as one of the useful methodology to learning.

Questionnaire survey
We conducted questionnaire survey to Group-A and Group-B (Table 1). The response rate was 74%(39 of 53 students answered) and, as a result, 32 of 39 responders (82%) answered that they joined peer
teaching. The result also showed that students who did not join peer teaching felt difficulty to ask to otherstudents whom major or grade differ from. And analysis of the relationship diagram showed that peer
teaching occurred locally in Group-B while peer teaching widely spread in Group-A, where Group-A
consisted of the same major and grade, and Group-B consisted of mixed majors and grades as shown inTable 1. These results suggest that students’ sense of familiarity to other students affect occurrence ofpeer teaching. This idea is supported by the fact that fewer peer teaching appeared also in Group-C inwitch student relationships were weak. On the other hand, the result of questionnaire survey showed thatthe student who did not join peer teaching wished to learn with other students. Pairing of students isimportant factor to support learner in e-learning environment (Monobe et al. 2008), it will be necessary to
study pairing methods for more activations of the peer teaching.

(a) Exercise with the same question.

(b) Exercise with similar question.

Figure 4. Typical relationship diagrams (patterns of students’ activities)
Influence of main role of students to help in learning and their satisfaction was shown in Table 3
and Table 4. This result shows that the peer teaching is helpful to students learning and increase theirsatisfaction especially middle-grade student. Satisfaction generating is an important strategy in ARCS
model approach (Keller, 2010). We think that our methodology utilizing similar questions can be applied
to the motivation.
Table 3. Results of questionnaire on influence of the main role to the helpfulness in learning.
“Was the peer teaching helpful or not in your learning?”
Question
HelpfulUnhelpful54321
Student main role
50
1000
Teacher
4430003
64200
211
400
10
0
000
LearnerTable 4. Results of questionnaire on influence of the main role to the satisfaction.
“Did your partner’s understanding (assisted by your teaching) increase orQuestion
decrease your satisfaction?”
Decreased
Increased
54321
Student main role500100Teacher
423200346200211400100000Learner

Exam score
Preceding studies showed that the peer teaching affected achievement or grade of student byanalyzing test scores (Tessier, 2007; Giuliodori et al, 2008). If the exercise with similar questions activate
peer teaching, it also affect to the test scores. Then we compared the percentage of correct answers ofeach questions in 2011 exam with those of 2010 exam as shown in Table 5. Total number of questions
was 60 and the same questions were used in both exam. Students of Group-A and Group-B took the 2011
exam and students of Group-D took the 2010 exam. As a result of chi-square test，there was a significant
difference (p < 0.05) between question types and the changing percentage of correct answers. It meansthat the exam score analysis also supported that peer teaching effect in our exercise using similarquestions.

But there was not a significant difference between question types and the changing percentages ofcorrect answer in 2012 exam Group-C took. We are still investigating what caused such a difference.
Table 5. The number of questions in 2011 exam
whom percentage of the correct answers increased or decreased from 2010 exam.
Question type
Increased
Decreased
Exam questions related to the exercise with the same questions.
2131
Exam questions related to the exercise with similar questions.
135

CONCLUSION
We developed a similar question generator and introduced it in general chemistry classes, and foundthat the exercises using the similar questions activated peer teachings effectively in face-to-face generalchemistry classes.
We developed the similar question generator which can produce a set of similar questions from anXML description file and it can be plugged into the LMS for providing the exercise using similarquestions.
For evaluation of the generator, we utilized it in three general chemistry classes. We wrote down theactivity or recorded it with digital video. The recorded data was converted into the relationship diagram
which describing students’ teaching and learning activities. In case of the exercise with the samequestions, the role of peer teaching was almost fixed as: high-grade students were as teachers and lowgrade students were as learners. In contrast, in case of the exercise with similar questions, many students
played as teacher and peer teaching was activated qualitatively.
From the questionnaire survey, 82% of responders answered that they joined peer teaching, and thepeer teaching was helpful and increased their satisfaction especially for middle-grade student. Bothanalysis of the questionnaire and the relationship diagram indicate that students’ sense of familiarity toother students affect occurrence of peer teaching, and it suggested the important of the pairing methods.
We compared the percentage of correct answers of each questions in 2011 exam with those of 2010
exam. As a result of chi-square test，there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the question
types and the changing percentage of correct answers. But there was no significant difference for 2012
data, and we are still investigating it.
In future works, we will continue our study for developing the similar question generator withclassroom practices. We are developing Moodle version of this module and it will be open in near future.

REFERENCES
Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y (1980), On the Cognitive Benefits of Teaching, Journal of Education
Psychology, 72(5), 593-604.
Freasier, B., Collins, G., & Newitt, P. (2003), A Web-Based Interactive Homework Quiz and Tutorial
Package To Motivate Undergraduate Chemistry Students and Improve Learning, Journal ofChemical Education, 80(11), 1344-1347.
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005), Principles of Instructional Design (5thed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth / Thomson Learning, Inc.
Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E.(2008), Collaborative group testing benefits high- andlow-performing students, Adv Physiol Educ., 32(4), 274-278.
Kanenishi. K, Hayashi, Mitsuhara, H., K., Yano. Y. (2003), Drill Exercise Generation in WBT fromKnowledge Based Components. The Journal of Information and Systems in Education, 20(2), 7181.
Keller, J. M. (2010), Motivational Design for Learning and Performance, The ARCS Model Approach,
New York, NY: Springer US.
Kilner, C. (1984). Let your students teach themselves chemistry, procedure for peer teaching in beginningchemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 61 (5), 473.

Kolodny, N. H., & Bayly, R. (1983), Using the Computer for Pre-Laboratory Quizzes, Journal ofChemical Education, 60(10), 896-898.
Monobe, K., Tanaka, S., & Torigata, Y. (2008), Research on e-Learning to Support with Each other,
Proceedings of the 70th Annual Convention IPS Japan, No. 4, 423-424.
Ochs, R. S. (1998), The First-Day Quiz as a Teaching Technique. Journal of Chemical Education, 7 (4),401-403.
Takano, A., & Hashimoto, J. (2004), Drill Exercise Generation based on the knowledge base, IPSJ SIG
Technical Report, 160(4), 23-28.
Tessier, J. (2007), Small-Group Peer Teaching in an Introductory Biology Classroom, Journal of CollegeScience Teaching, 36(4), 64-69.
Tien L.T., Roth V., Kampmeier J. T. (2004), A Course To Prepare Peer Leaders To Implement - a
Student-Assisted Learning Method. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(9), 1313-1321.
Vasay, E. T. (2010), The Effects of peer teaching in the performance of students in mathematics, EInternational Scientific Research Journal, 2(2), 161-171.
Whitman, N. A., & Fife, J. D. (1988), Peer Teaching: To Teach Is To Learn Twice, ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Report No. 4, Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report.