a team of 4 or 5students). Thus, based on the technical quality of the bridge designs, the lower peer ratings forMiddle Eastern students may reflect biased ratings by peers, while the lower peer ratings ofChinese students appear to have some objective justification.It is possible that in fact Middle Eastern and Chinese students contributed less to the team projectthan majority peers, on average. Putting together the written report and completing the groupdiscussion elements could be distributed unevenly among team members. For example, thosewith better writing skills may naturally take on these tasks. While the quality of the bridge itselfcreated by Middle Eastern students was comparable to average students in the course, the MiddleEastern
. Garden, M. S. Roh, J. E. Lee, C. M. Balch, and T. A. Aloia, “Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals,” Research integrity and peer review, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 4, 2018. [5] W. Xiong, D. Litmaan, and C. Schunn, “Natural language processing techniques for research- ing and improving peer feedback,” Journal of Writing Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–176, 2012. [6] K. Cho, “Machine classification of peer comments in physics,” in Educational Data Mining 2008, 2008. [7] K. Lundstrom and W. Baker, “To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing,” Journal of second language writing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 30–43, 2009. [8] I
with groups, N/A Please share how the peer Reassured Me, Gave me compliments, Work through mentors helped you develop problems with me, Gave me extra time, Provided direction confidence when working in /support, Encouragement, Welcoming, Kind, Let students try the makerspace classroom. first/ fostered learning, Helpful, N/A (Confidence) Please share what new Programming /coding, Writing, Presentation skills, Soldering, technical skills you learned in Tool use, Drafting, 3D printing, Prototyping, Other, Circuits, this course. (Technical Skills) N/A How did the peer mentors
Paper ID #33981Near-Peer Mentoring and Early Exposure to Computer Science –Quantitative and Qualitative ResultsDavid Hartenstine, Western Washington University David Hartenstine is a Professor of Mathematics at Western Washington University. He earned his PhD at Temple University.Perry Fizzano, Western Washington University Perry Fizzano earned his BS degree in Computer Science from Widener University and his MS and PhD in Computer Science from Dartmouth College. He had stints in academia and industry prior to joining WWU in 2005. He served as department chair from 2012 - 2019. His research interests are in optimization
, explainingcourse material to struggling students, adjusting to different learning styles, and acting as amentor for other students [9], [16]. Through addressing these challenges, peer tutors are providedthe opportunity to foster a variety of skills that are essential for their personal development.Previous research has revealed that by participating in peer tutoring programs in science,engineering, or writing, peer tutors can develop key leadership skills, including communication,ability to work in a team, empathy, and presentation skills that follow them after graduation intotheir professional lives [10], [17] - [21]. Another impact associated with being a peer tutor infields like nursing, science, and engineering is the enhancement of qualities relating
replied “I feel the student instruction left me wanting formore guidance towards more specific lab goals.” When asked what they will carry with theminto other classes or other aspects of life, responses were almost all positive and included“writing good procedures”, “how to measure a signal”, “it was useful to learn how to effectivelyteach someone how to conduct an experiment”, “signal processing capabilities, experience, andconfidence”, and “how to work with and teach peers.” While many of the responses supportedthe objective of this technique, some showed a student-perceived dependence on the instructor.The end of semester institutional course evaluations (n=35 out of 47 students) had two textresponse questions. The first asked for comments and
Paper ID #6753Those who can, teach. Immersing Students as Peer Educators to EnhanceClass ExperienceDr. Beverly Kristenson Jaeger, Northeastern University Beverly Kris Jaeger, PhD has been a member of Northeastern University’s Gateway Team, a selected group of full-time faculty expressly devoted to the first-year Engineering Program at Northeastern Uni- versity. Recently, she has joined the expanding Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at NU to continue teaching Simulation, Facilities Planning, and Human-Machine Systems. Dr. Jaeger has been the recipient of several awards in engineering education for both
not coded).The authors looked at the proportion of comments related to the conceptualization of the study,design, method, analysis, interpretations and conclusions, and presentation (quality ofexpression). Two-thirds of comments overall were related to the Planning & Execution of thestudy, and one-the third to the Presentation. Twenty percent of weaknesses were attributed toConceptualization, 11% to Design, 12% to Procedures, 7% to Measurement, 22% to Analyses &Results, 16% to Interpretations/Conclusions, 9% to Editing/Writing, and 3% to “General.” Aswith other studies of peer review, inter-class correlations of publication recommendations werelow (x̄r=.20). That authors found minimal consensus across reviewers does not
Paper ID #37499Developing an AE Tutoring Engaging Advising & Mentoring(TEAM) Program: a Peer Cohort EnvironmentRyan Solnosky Ryan Solnosky is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Department of Architectural Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University at University Park. Dr. Solnosky has taught courses for Architectural Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Pre-Major Freshman in Engineering. He received his integrated BAE/MAE degrees in architectural engineering from The Pennsylvania State University in 2009 and his Ph.D. in architectural engineering from The Pennsylvania State University in 2013. Dr
this skill developmentmore intentionally. Specifically, we will add two additional short readings on leadership ofdiverse teams, and we will ask mentors to write short reflections (a few paragraphs) at three orfour time points during the semester. We believe this scaffolded reflection will enhance mentors’learning and retention of this critical information, as shown in other studies of double looplearning and scaffolded reflection [10,11].Suggested Best Practices for Working with Peer MentorsOver five years of teaching this course, we have found that certain practices for mentorrecruitment and facilitation have improved the project experience for students, mentors, andinstructors. For example, we: Recruit excellent former students of the
AC 2009-1474: PEER AND SELF ASSESSMENT IN DEVELOPING TEAM SKILLSIN A CORE DESIGN SEQUENCEKeith Sheppard, Stevens Institute of Technology Keith Sheppard is a Professor of Materials Engineering and Associate Dean of Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology. He earned the B.Sc. from the University of Leeds, England and Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham, England, both in Metallurgy. As Associate Dean, Sheppard is primarily responsible for undergraduate programs. He is a past Chair of the ASEE Design in Engineering Education Division.Edward Blicharz, Stevens Institute of Technology Edward Blicharz is a Distinguished Service Associate Professor in the Electrical and Computer
Paper ID #10605Exploring How Design Critique Processes Shape Fifth Graders’ Peer Inter-action in Collaborative Engineering ProjectsDr. Michelle E. Jordan , Arizona State University Michelle Jordan earned her PhD in Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, focusing her studies on learning, cognition, and motivation with an emphasis on classroom discourse. She joined the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University in 2010. Her interdisciplinary research draws on traditions in qualitative inquiry, sociolinguistics, complexity theories, and the learning sciences. Partnering with teachers
variety of disciplines to create an online peer evaluation system.The system accommodates numerical grading schemes in which student team members can useinstructor-defined rubrics or other criteria to evaluate or rate contributions to the team effort ofthemselves and fellow team members.To provide beneficial feedback to the students, the system encourages essay responsecommentary that students can write about themselves and other team members. The commentscan be compiled by the system and forwarded to the instructor. To insure anonymity and thatcomments released to students are constructive, the system gives the instructor the ability toexamine all comments and provide appropriate editing before the comments are anonymouslyforwarded to the
, besides email, has beenincorporated into the program. At the end of every semester we have the mentees and mentorsfill out a survey about the EASE program.Select responses from the peer mentee survey are shown below.● Your participation in the EASE program has improved your ability to utilize your time efficiently: ○ “Me and one of my peer mentors came up with a matrix on how to prioritize my tasks using my planner according to how urgent and important they are. As I write this, I have only been using this matrix for a week but it does help quite a bit on prioritizing my tasks.” ○ “I am thinking of many different ways to utilize my free time based on the urgency of my assignments from my classes
Developing Academic, Professional and Life Skills in Undergraduate Engineers through an Interdisciplinary Peer-Mentoring Support System Deborah Nykanen, Rebecca Bates, Marilyn Hart, Mezbahur Rahman Minnesota State University, Mankato Civil Engineering / Computer Science / Biological Sciences / Mathematics1. IntroductionUndergraduate engineering programs prepare students for a career in engineering by buildingknowledge of fundamental engineering concepts and developing skills in engineering design.Due to limitations on program credits, broadening the student’s education beyond the requiredengineering coursework is typically limited to mandatory humanity and social science electives.Developing
AC 2008-1480: PEER ASSESSMENT OF TEAM WORK AND COLLABORATIVELEARNING IN CONSTRUCTION/CIVIL ENGINEERINGEnno Koehn, Lamar University Enno “Ed” Koehn is Professor of Civil Engineering at Lamar University. Dr. Koehn has served as the principle investigator for several research and development projects dealing with various aspects of construction. He also has experience in the design, scheduling, and estimating of facilities. He has authored/co-authored over 200 papers in engineering education, as well as the general areas of civil and construction engineering. Dr. Koehn is a member of ASEE, AACE International, ASCE, NSPE, Chi Epsilon, Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, and is a registered Professional
own reviews, which violates the college level governance documents’ specification thatfaculty will not be responsible for initiating the review of their teaching. In addition, eachdepartment chair brought their own expertise and approach to the process of review. While thiscan allow for each chair to tailor the approach to the individual faculty member under review, itdoes not ensure that the evaluation addresses the criteria required to write a robust letter insupport of the faculty’s teaching to be included in a successful dossier for promotion and tenure.Because of a lack of standard procedures, the department chair benefits from a peer review ofteaching program in several ways, including eliminating uncertainty around who is
drawings quite seriously.Many of them took time to write out notes and comments, often repeating specificinformation/terminology that had been used by the instructor and in the book about the errorsthey found. Anecdotal evidence based on questions asked of students during lab indicated thathaving a peer grade their assignments made them focus a little more on their work and putadditional effort into understanding the necessity of dimensioning rules. Student commentsduring the review sessions included: “It’s hard to figure out what someone else was thinking on their drawing when its dimensions are different than mine.” “Why is it easier to find someone else’s mistakes than it is to find mine before I turn it in?” “I
Paper ID #10874Multi-Disciplinary Teams and Collaborative Peer Learning in an Introduc-tory Nuclear Engineering CourseSamuel A. Heider, U.S. Military Academy BA Physics from the Universty of Nebraska at Lincoln, 2004 PATRIOT Missile system Fire Control Officer 2004-2007, PATRIOT Fire Direction Center Officer 2007, BCT Company Commander 2007-2008, Validation Transition Team Leader (AFG) 2008-2009, Engineer Captain Career Course 2010 MS Nuclear Engineering from Kansas State University, 2012 Instructor United States Military Academy 2012-PresentCol. Bryndol A. Sones, U.S. Military AcademyDr. Brian E. Moretti, Department of Physics
can change the ways we collaborate, learn, read, and write. Teaching engineering communication allows her to apply this work as she coaches students through collaboration, design thinking, and design communication. She is part of a team of faculty innovators who originated Tandem (tandem.ai.umich.edu), a tool designed to help facilitate equitable and inclusive teamwork environments.Mark Mills, University of Michigan Mark Mills (he/him) is a Data Scientist on the Research & Analytics team at University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation. He directs and supports analytics across CAI’s portfolio of educational technologies. His experience is in prediction and classification of longitudinal and hierarchically
Paper ID #40991Board 76: Expansion of Peer Tutoring Program to In-Class Sessions in MultipleDisciplinesDr. Cara J Poor P.E., University of Portland Dr. Poor teaches many of the integral undergraduate civil engineering courses at University of Portland, including hydraulics, fluids, and environmental engineering. Dr. Poor is a licensed professional engineer with ongoing research in green infrastructure. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Expansion of Peer Tutoring Program to In-Class Sessions in Multiple DisciplinesAbstractPeer tutoring has been used for
/07448481.1993.9936334.[9] J. J. Snyder, J. D. Sloane, R. D. P. Dunk, and J. R. Wiles, “Peer-Led Team LearningHelps Minority Students Succeed,” PLOS Biology, vol. 14, no. 3, p. e1002398, Mar. 2016, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002398.[10] R. F. Frey, A. Fink, M. J. Cahill, M. A. McDaniel, and E. D. Solomon, “Peer-Led TeamLearning in General Chemistry I: Interactions with Identity, Academic Preparation, and aCourse-Based Intervention,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 95, no. 12, pp. 2103–2113, Dec. 2018, doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00375.[11] N. S. Stephenson, I. R. Miller, and N. P. Sadler-McKnight, “Impact of Peer-Led TeamLearning and the Science Writing and Workshop Template on the Critical Thinking Skills ofFirst-Year Chemistry Students,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 96, no. 5
Paper ID #32353Pair-to-Pair Peer Learning: Comparative Analysis of Face-to-Face andOnline Laboratory ExperiencesDr. Nebojsa I. Jaksic, Colorado State University, Pueblo NEBOJSA I. JAKSIC earned the Dipl. Ing. (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering from Belgrade Uni- versity (1984), the M.S. in electrical engineering (1988), the M.S. in industrial engineering (1992), and the Ph.D. in industrial engineering from the Ohio State University (2000). He currently serves as a Pro- fessor at Colorado State University Pueblo teaching robotics and automation courses. Dr. Jaksic has over 90 publications and holds two patents. His
Paper ID #17861Assessing Communications and Teamwork Using Peer and Project SponsorFeedback in a Capstone CourseDr. Michael Johnson, Texas A&M University Dr. Michael D. Johnson is an associate professor in the Department of Engineering Technology and In- dustrial Distribution at Texas A&M University. Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M, he was a senior product development engineer at the 3M Corporate Research Laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota. He received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from Michigan State University and his S.M. and Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Johnson’s
Paper ID #28522Comparing Effectiveness of Peer Mentoring for Direct Admit andCollege-Ready FreshmenDr. Teresa J. Cutright, The University of Akron Dr. Cutright is a Professor of Civil Engineering at The University of Akron. She has a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering with emphasis on environmental remediation techniques with over 20 years of experience conducting site assessments, soil characterizations and treatability studies for a variety of environmental contaminants. In addition she also conducts education research via an EPA education grant and a NSF Scholarships for STEM education. Most recently she
Paper ID #26265Integrated Mathematics Enrichment, Peer Mentoring, Tutoring, and Fresh-men Course for Student SuccessDr. Cem Karacal, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Dr. Cem Karacal is a Professor of Industrial Engineering and Dean of the School of Engineering at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He obtained his Ph.D. and M.S. degrees from Oklahoma State University in 1991 and 1986, respectively. His received his B.Sc. degree from Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey in 1982. He has experience in industry and academia. His main research and teaching interest areas are simulation modeling
Session 1526 Increasing Success in a Dynamics Course through Multi-Intelligence Methods and Peer Facilitation Louis J. Everett, Elsa Q. Villa College of Engineering The University of Texas at El Paso1.0 AbstractThe University of Texas El Paso (UTEP) located in a multicultural region of far west Texas has astudent population which is more than 70% Hispanic. UTEP is one of the largest producers ofHispanic engineers in the United States and prides itself in providing access to an exceptionalquality
Paper ID #42177Examining the Effect of Design Stimuli on Perception of Peer Contribution inDesign TeamsCorey James Kado, Florida Polytechnic University He is a senior-level student at Florida Polytechnic University, majoring in Mechanical Engineering. He is a Student Research Assistant under Dr. Elisabeth Kames, focusing on Design Neurocognition.Dr. Elisabeth Kames, Florida Polytechnic University Elisabeth Kames is an Assistant Professor at Florida Polytechnic University. Her focus is on design and manufacturing, including engineering education within the mechanical engineering department. Her research focuses the impact of
Page 15.1226.4choice answer, write a short answer explanation, and report their confidence. A distribution ofthe responses was displayed in bar graph form after the question was answered. In most cases,the class was encouraged to self-select groups of two or three students and discuss their answers.During this group discussion, the instructor did not interact with the groups directly except toanswer general questions. Therefore, the responses were entirely comprised of the co-construction within the student group. The exercise was assigned again and, in addition to theresponses above, students identified the members of their Peer Instruction group. In all cases, aclass wide discussion followed.In this paper, a subset of four question pairs
Paper ID #33164”Adding Stuff From Other People”: How Peer Comparison InfluencesConceptual Modeling in Precollege Engineering ContextsMs. Katelyn Stenger, University of Virginia Katelyn Stenger is a Ph.D. fellow in the Behavioral Science for Sustainable Systems program at the Convergent Behavioral Science Initiative at the University of Virginia. She researches behavioral designs for complex systems. Previously, she worked as a mechanical engineer helping design and construct high-rise buildings. She received her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.Prof. Jennifer L. Chiu, University of