the students wrote theirexecutive summaries. With the submitted summaries, the students were split into small peerreview groups separating students by expertise (ie. students with one type of expertise withinthe field of civil engineering (i.e. structural) would review summaries written by students with adifferent expertise (i.e. water resources)). After the peer review portion of the class period, therewas a whole class discussion regarding the any action that students could take to improve theirsummaries. In the peer review session, students used non-evaluative feedback questions to helpguide their peer review sessions. The three questions came from Elbow’s (1998) non-evaluativesayback process for writing feedback: non-evaluative
gradually increased incomplexity, with students receiving feedback on report structure, grammar/spelling, conciseness,figures/tables, and overall argument through drafting, classroom presentations, peer review, andone-on-one group meetings.In 2016 and 2017, students were given examples of “real world” technical reports and articles asexamples of technical writing, and in 2018 students were only given other students reports (withexamples of A, C, and F work) and encouraged to search articles and reports for additionalexamples.2.3 Study Outline2.3.1 DataThree major data sources were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. 1) Anonymous course evaluation survey data. Course evaluations were conducted every year of the
Experiences (FYE - some colleges and universities have a course called first-year experiences or seminars to better prepare students that are currently struggling with motivation to succeed in academic environments) 2. Common Intellectual Experiences (CIE - two or more courses that build upon same background and advance in concepts and difficulty in a given field) 3. Learning Communities (LC - students form groups to study and work on problems or projects together) 4. Writing-Intensive Courses (WIC) 5. Collaborative Assignments and Projects (CA) 6. Science as Science Is Done; Undergraduate Research (UR) 7. Diversity/Global Learning (DGL) 8. Service Learning, Community-Based Learning (SL) 9. Internships (intern
dialogues. However, instructor facilitation may result in an instructor-centered discussion whichlimit students’ participation and voice [18], and student-facilitated discussions provide analternative approach. Peer facilitation can foster a sense of student ownership and help studentsfeel more at ease in expressing their opinions [19], and allow practical hands-on experience ofbeing a discussion facilitator [18]. Compared to instructor-facilitated discussions, research onstudent-facilitated discussions is still limited focusing more on the student facilitation techniques[11], [20]. This study aims to explore how overall design and management of student-facilitateddiscussions influence peer interaction and critical thinking in engineering
) program to support courses implementing significant active learningexperiences [10]; implementation of curricular peer mentoring and hiring of a PostdoctoralTeaching Fellow into the School of Engineering to serve as an embedded expert. While theseinterventions are all highly synergistic with each other and with broader university-levelinterventions, the introduction of a Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow in the School of Engineeringserved as a keystone to the Engaged Learning Initiative. The first engineering Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow was present in the school fromAugust 2014 – May 2015 (PDTF A), and the second from August 2016 - present (PDTF B).Both PDTFs were hired through an open external search process, with the explicit goal that
on Undergraduate Research, undergraduate research is defined as “aninquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an originalintellectual or creative contribution to the discipline [1].” As stated in literature, undergraduateswho conduct research show improvements in thinking independently, thinking critically, puttingideas together, solving problems, analyzing data, analyzing literature, interpreting researchfindings, conducting ethical research, writing and communicating [2-9]. Literature also assertsthat it is rare for students to have enough opportunity to gain higher-order thinking skills fromtheir undergraduate research experiences [10].Students involved in undergraduate research also report outcomes that may
recognizing the diversity of personalvalues among peers. Students delve further into ethical decision making in the context of academicintegrity during the first year with reflections on real-life scenarios.During the second year, students discuss the need for a purpose of a common set of ethicalstandards and review the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Code of Ethics when interpretingethical dilemmas. Students were introduced to an ethical decision-making process during fall oftheir junior year. This process is a step-by-step guide that includes reflection throughout theprocess of assessing and making a judgment on an ethical dilemma. During each quarter of juniorand senior year, students were given a real-life ethical dilemma, and they utilized
managing their time in the classroom andare forced to use a ‘write down now, learn later’ strategy. Flipped classrooms have gainedtraction in recent years because this instructional method enables the student to begin thelearning process outside of class at their own pace (still under the guidance of the instructor),digest the material prior to class, and subsequently, use the in-class time to participate in activelearning strategies that increase engagement between faculty and students, and enhancecomprehension of the material. This study pilots a Partially Flipped Classroom (PFC)instructional model in a required geotechnical civil engineering course at UNC Charlotte toformally assess student engagement, perceptions, learning, and gains. This
their own with little parental guidance. Orientationprograms at most universities have grown, specifically to help students cope with these newexperiences and expectations.Gunn [1] reports on the value of scavenger hunts at the University of Michigan. Their studentshave opportunities for campus-wide scavenger hunts as well as in-building College ofEngineering scavenger hunts. The latter provide an opportunity for new students to feel part oftheir new environment, overcome isolation, and begin interacting with peers and faculty.Grey et al [2] describe the development and implementation of a scavenger hunt for First YearEngineering Orientation. Lindsay et al [3] follow this up with an evaluation of student exitsurvey responses after participating
Statics and Mechanics of Materials and motivatesthe groups to write their lines. Once complete, each group leaves the classroom to record theirlyrics (which must be appropriate) and then uploads the videos to an online file drive. When allthe teams are done, the class watches the videos. I then have a rap of my own to share live,dramatically revealing my ‘dyed’ Eminem style hair (Figure 1a) and then rapping the entirecourse outline. The major learning objective for the day is for students to become comfortabletalking in front of their peers and not being afraid to ask any questions, because as I say, “onceyou have rapped in front of each other, how hard is asking a question?”Greek Rush DayThe value for this theme is its applicability to many STEM
: Offers a structured methodology for organizing a class with emphasis on constructing an outline, board notes, and out-of-class activities.6,7 (See Fig. 2)VI Writing: Covers fundamentals of making written presentations using the chalk board, vu-graphs, and Powerpoint slides.8VII Speaking: Illustrates effective use of the voice and demonstrates how to stimulate positive emotion using drama, music, humor, and spontaneity in the classroom.9VIII Questioning: Illustrates different student questioning techniques and discusses effective strategies for their use.10IX Teaching Assessment: Covers student, peer and self-assessments and separates myth from fact regarding their usefulness. Introduces