Paper ID #7340Reliability of the Global Real-time Assessment Tool for Teaching Enhance-ment (G-RATE)Ms. Nikitha Sambamurthy, Purdue University, West LafayetteMrs. Jeremi S London, Purdue University, West Lafayette Jeremi S. London is a graduate student at Purdue University. She is pursing a Ph.D. in Engineering Edu- cation. In 2008, she earned a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering from Purdue, and a Master of Science in Industrial Engineering from Purdue in 2013. Her research interests include: the use of cyber- learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education; assessing the impact
Engineering.Jyothsna Kavuturu, Jyothsna K. S., Department of English, St.Joseph’s College, Bangalore, secured a gold medal for the high- est aggregate marks in the Post Graduate English Literature Course at St.Joseph’s College (autonomous). K. S. has been working for the Department of English, St.Joseph’s College for almost two years now, teaching both undergraduate and Postgraduate courses in English. K. S. has published papers in intramu- ral and extramural publications, and presented papers at several conventions, conferences, and seminars. Page 23.1122.1 c American Society for Engineering
modules engage visitors in learning to express their needs assertively,negotiate effectively when interests and positions may diverge, and manage conflict as it arisesin their environment(s). The Advanced Strategies rely on the mastery of the Essential Skills andunderstanding of Communication Elements. The Advanced Strategies modules and associatedskills are presented in Table 3. The following is a sample of text taken from the Introductionsection of the Advanced Strategy entitled, Negotiation: Negotiation is a discussion between two or more people that involves two main functions: identifying a common ground and reaching an explicit agreement regarding a matter of mutual concern. It’s an advanced strategy that relies on the
SURF,for giving access to the data for this study.Bibliography1. Bauer, K. W., & Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 210-230.2. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2006). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36-74.3. Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biology Education, 3(4), 270-277.4. Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297
). Sydney, Australia: IEEE.10. Cole, D.J., Ryan, C.W., & Fran, K. (1995). Portfolios across the curriculum and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.11. Cyr, T., & Muth, R. (2006). Porfolios in doctoral education. In P. Maki & N. Borkowski (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral educational (pp. 215-237). Sterling, VA: Stylus.12. Strivens, J. (2007). A survey of e-pdp and e-portfolio practice in UK Higher Eduction. Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.recordingachievement.org/higher-education/articles.html13. Lorenzo, G., & Ittleson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ELI300114. Delandshere, G., & Arens, S. A
researchfindings. This may be alleviated in the future as the technology improves. The majority of theeffectiveness of online programs is still dependent on the instructor and the design of the coursecontent.Bibliography 1. Dunn, L.S., Poirot, J. L., & Rice, J.W. (2005). Instituting a distance-delivered doctorate in educational computing: PHDifferences, not just a higher-lever masters degree. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. pp. 385-390. 2. Kongrith, K., Aberasturi, S., & Maddux, C. (2004). Are online master’s degree programs replacing the traditional master’s degree programs? Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
andMotivations Survey as well as data collection and analysis outcomes of the subsequent phases ofour study will be topics of future publications.References1. NSF/NIH/USED/USDA/NEH/NASA. (2009). Survey of earned doctorates.2. Baker, S., Tancred, P., & Whitesides, S. (2002). Gender and graduate school: Engineering students confront life after the B. Eng. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(1), 41-48.3. National Science Foundation. (2012). Research in engineering education solicitation. Retrieved September 26 th, 2012 from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503584.4. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.5
outset of the summer, students’ were asked on the pre-experience survey to indicate thereason(s) they had chosen to apply to this summer research program. Students’ responses, indescending frequency, were as follows: 91%: it will enhance my resume 88%: to gain practical experience for a future career 79%: it was a paid position 75%: to develop a mentoring relationship with a faculty member 72%: it sounded interesting 71%: to help prepare me for graduate school 37%: a faculty/staff member approached me about the opportunityPractical, career-oriented goals topped students’ lists of reasons for participating in the summer
of institutions each having common FYEPs. Having acommon FYEP means that, all engineering students take the same introductory engineeringcourse(s). Common FYEPs were chosen because they are not discipline specific which providescontinuity across institutions and because they tend to focus on common topics such asteamwork, communication, graphing, problem solving, etc.For this analysis, we draw on five semi-structured interviews, each from a different institution, toprovide a broad picture of GTAs’ views on teaching competence. While this is a small sample,we believe that the interviews chosen are a strong representation of the experiences of GTAs andtherefore our qualitative analysis yields rich, meaningful and impactful results. Before
description andanalysis of the mentoring experience.References1.Russell, S. H. (2008). Undergraduate Research Opportunities: Facilitating and Encouraging the Transition fromStudent to Scientist. In R. Taraban & R. L. Blanton (Eds.). Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programsin Science. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. P.53-80.2.Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an Undergraduate Research Experience: Perceptions of UndergraduateInterns and Their Faculty Mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology. 92(1), 191-201.3Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings. Cell BiologyEducation. 3, 270-277.4.Zydney, A. L., Bennett, J. S., Shahid, A., & Bauer, K. W. (2002). Impact of Undergraduate
. important. important field? to field.Practice and Suggested Facilitation: The following guidance is offered to faculty mentors tocreate a manuscript rubric for their students: (1) First review submission guidelines of reputable journals in your area; they often provide a broad checklist of ‘must have’ manuscript traits that can be used as a starting point. Also identify articles written at a proficient, intermediate, or novice level. (2) In concert with your student(s), review the articles. In each article section, identify the traits or characteristics that are definitive of this genre (e.g., across articles, what does each
). Analyzing the contextual, motivational, and conceptual characteristics of teaching faculty in regard to the use of learner centered approaches in teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.2. Rando, W., & Menges, R. (1991). How practice is shaped by personal theories. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 45, 7-14.3. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education 37(1), 57-70.4. Jarvis-Selinger, S., Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2007). Do academic origins influence perspectives on teaching? Teacher Education Quarterly
- tor member of Telematic Laboratory of UNED (Telelab) in systems of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Nowdays is working for Innovation and Technological Development Centre of UNED (CiNDETEC). He is an expert in Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Web development appli- cations. Currently, he is collaborating in a research project of Open services integration for distributed, reusable and secure remote and virtual laboratories (s-Labs).Mr. F´elix Garc´ıa Loro Page 23.962.2 Industrial Engineering degree from the Spanish University for Distance Education (UNED). Assistant teacher in Wind
thisterm?”The majo ority of TAs (64%) who reported usiing active le arning indiccated that theey were onlyy“somewh hat successfuul” implemennting these strategies s in their class, 12% reporteed being “verrysuccessfuul,” while 17 7% reported being “unsu uccessful” annd 7% weree “very unsucccessful” (Fiigure2). For thhis question, only 14 TA As provided further explaanation. Sinnce the majoority of thecommentts were from m “somewhatt successful”” and “very ssuccessful” T TAs, these ccommentscentered around TAss receiving positive p studeent feedbackk (N=11), annd recognizinng students bbeingable to
modelingPerformance Engineer Specialist Engine Manufacturing Simulation/modeling of gas turbine cyclesDesign Engineer Motion and Control Technol. Simulation, modeling and statistical designNational FactorsModeling and simulation (M & S) are endorsed at the federal level as an area needed in theUnited States. It is endorsed through House Resolution Number 487, which passed in the Houseof Representatives by voice vote in 2007.17 The Resolution recognized the contribution ofmodeling and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of the United States, andrecognized modeling and simulation as a National Critical Technology. In addition, the topic isof sufficient national importance to have a Congressional
chemicals and biological agents as well as safety procedures for injuries,fires, and other problems. Some students also had attended department-specific safety programs- usually in the first year of their graduate programs. To upgrade all students skills, the leadoperator(s) of each piece of major equipment led a short workshop on using that peice ofequipment. Students attending the workshops were enthusiastic about the training. As shown inTable 1, Question 1, students ranked their base knowledge of operating the laboratory equipmentrelatively high (5.9 out of 8), but still felt that the workshops significantly improved their skills. Table 1. Evaluation of 2011-2012 Program, Part 1 Question