Conference Session

Engineering Communication I: History and Praxis

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Royce A Francis, George Washington University; Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Rachel Riedner, George Washington University

Tagged Divisions

Liberal Education/Engineering & Society

effects of differing design pedagogies on retention and motivation, the dynamics of cross-disciplinary collaboration in both academic and industry design environments, and gender and identity in engineering.Dr. Rachel Riedner, George Washington University Rachel Riedner is Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Professor of Writing and of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Engineering judgment and decision making in undergraduate student writingAbstractThe exploration of engineering judgment in undergraduate education should be grounded at

Conference Session

Innovations in Teaching Physics or Engineering Physics

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Teresa Larkin, American University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Physics & Physics

topic both before and after it has been discussed in class. The following section provides a collective summary of instructor observations regardingthe free-writing writing activity. In addition, it provides some concluding thoughts in terms ofapplications of these writing activities to other domains of science and engineering.V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Critical to the writing activities is the feedback provided to the students. The benefits ofinstructor- (as well as peer-) feedback are numerous. The instructor-student relationship isquickly fostered and enhanced. Because students are given prompt critical and detailedfeedback, they take the writing activities very seriously. The quality of student work is clearlyimproved

Conference Session

Mentoring Graduate Students, Diversity, and Assessment

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Joy L. Colwell, Purdue University, Calumet; Jana Whittington, Purdue University, Calumet; Carl F. Jenks, Purdue University, Calumet

Tagged Divisions

Graduate Studies, Minorities in Engineering

research-based works. Thisproblem is also a result of student confusion on who the audience is for their writing—scholarlywriting is not addressed to the instructor but to their professional peers in the discipline.14 Mostfaculty will encourage the use of passive voice to address these issues. This avoids the firstperson problem that students fall into, and helps create the proper academic tone.Citation and Attribution of Sources and Academic HonestyThe concept of research ethics and academic honesty in regard to written submissions bygraduate students is of significant importance to all graduate faculty members. Unfortunately,many graduate students do not know or fully understand the concept of academic honesty orproper attribution of sources

Conference Session

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Collection

2003 Annual Conference

Authors

Edward Gehringer

. At the end of the period, the reviewer gives the author a grade. Each author getsreviews from several reviewers, whose grades are averaged. At the end of the review period,there is a final round when students grade each other’s reviews. Their grade is determined by thequality of both their submitted work and their reviewing.This paper reports on our use of peer review in two computer architecture courses, amicroarchitecture course and a parallel-architecture course. Students in these courses engaged ina variety of peer-reviewed tasks: Writing survey papers on an aspect of computer architecture,making up homework problems over the material covered in class, creating machine-scorablequestions on topics covered during the semester, animating

Conference Session

Teaching Communication I

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Brad Jerald Henderson, University of California, Davis

Tagged Divisions

Liberal Education/Engineering & Society

communicate technical ideas in such a way that people without knowledgeof industry-specific jargon can still understand. Additionally, a semester-long graduate course atthe University of South Carolina is designed to prepare graduate students to write an engineeringmanuscript with the specific intent of being peer-reviewed and published3. The content of thecourse includes specific instructions on the purpose of and information in the four sections of atypical engineering research article. Page 24.64.3At K.U. Leuven in Belgium, a technical writing course has been implemented that centersaround a checklist of goal writing abilities4. Here, each of the

Conference Session

Student Learning and Assessment

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Josh Coffman, University of Arkansas; Joseph Rencis, University of Arkansas; Daniel Jensen, United States Air Force Academy; Christina White, Columbia University; Ashland Brown, University of the Pacific; Jiancheng Liu, University of the Pacific; Kristen Kaufman, University of Texas, Austin

Tagged Divisions

Mechanical Engineering

AC 2010-281: STRUCTURED PROCESS FOR WRITING, REVISING, ANDASSESSING MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUIZZESJosh Coffman, University of Arkansas Josh Coffman is a M.S. student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. He has worked as a civil design technician for Crafton, Tull, Sparks, and Associates in Russellville, Arkansas. He received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Arkansas Tech University in 2006. V-mail: 479-970-7359; E-mail: jacoffma@uark.edu.Joseph Rencis, University of Arkansas Joseph J. Rencis has been professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville since 2004. He has held the inaugural

Conference Session

NSF Grantees Poster Session

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Patricia A. Carlson, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Tagged Topics

NSF Grantees

model ofmanuscript submission and peer-review in the conduct of scientific inquiry.1 The pedagogicalframework draws from the “writing across the curriculum” (WAC) movement’s premise thatverbal and visual composition are an analog for thinking and that communication assignmentscan be used to mediate student learning in complex problem-solving situations.21.1 CPR Components that Enable Learning -- Four structured workspaces perform in tandemto create a rich series of activities that reflect modern pedagogical strategies for usingcommunication in the learning process. Table A summarizes these stages in a typical CPRsession. Table A: Four Structured Workspaces of CPR SEGMENT ACTIVITY

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Edward Gehringer

single individual to review. It forces studentsto learn to write clearly for their peers, since their grade depends upon it. It can be used togenerate problems for future homework and tests, by assigning students to make up a probleminvolving the course material. It can be used to generate resources for students in a course, asstudents can be assigned to browse the Web for further material related to each lecture. Itpromises a scalable solution to managing large courses, because the work of the course staffincreases less than linearly with the number of students.1. IntroductionAs technology marches onward toward the 21 st century, the rapidity of change forces educatorsto revise their curricula frequently, while high-tech industry seeks

Conference Session

IT-based Instructional Technologies

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Edward Gehringer, North Carolina State University; Abhishek Gummadi, North Carolina State University; Reejesh Kadanjoth, North Carolina State University; Yvonne Marie Andrés, Global Schoolnet.org

Tagged Divisions

Information Systems

, can be accomplished by a simple extension tostudent peer review.Expertiza [1, 2] is a Web-based system for peer-reviewing student work. After studentssubmit their work by uploading a file or writing on a wiki, other students are assigned toreview their work. Author and reviewer communicate in double-blind fashion using rubrics.The reviewer fills out a rubric that includes several questions about the author’s work, as Page 15.886.2 Figure 1. Filling out a review formProceedings of the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition 1Copyright ∏ 2010, American Society for

Conference Session

First-Year Activities and Peer Review Strategies in Civil Engineering

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Luciana Barroso, Texas A&M University; James R. Morgan, Texas A&M University

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering

-STEM Center to Texas ISD teachers. Her research interests include structural health monitoring and control, structural dynamics, earthquake engineering, and engineering education.James R. Morgan, Texas A&M University Page 22.854.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Incorporating Technical Peer Review of Civil Engineering Student ProjectsAbstractPracticing engineers use peer review of most work products on a regular basis. While peerreview of team members and peer review of classmate’s writing and presentation has beenextensively researched, the use of student peer review of

Conference Session

Communication Across the Divisions I: Communication in Engineering Disciplines

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Alyssa Catherine Taylor, University of Washington; Stephanie Pulford, Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching (CELT)

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering, Liberal Education/Engineering & Society

bedemoralizing4,6. Students also often defer to their reviewers’ suggestions without engaging withthem or making meaning out of them, in order to attain better grades5,6. And though studentsprefer to receive honest and straightforward critiques, they are not all yet in a position to give it;there is great variation in both participation and quality of feedback among peer discussants6.These drawbacks are reminiscent of similar ones within peer-to-peer review activities in writingcourses. Among writing educators, these shortcomings are often mitigated by providing morescaffolding within the peer review activity itself. Recommended practices include providingstudents with guiding questions to help them focus on important feedback7; instructing studentsto

Conference Session

Engineering Management Division Technical Session 1: Programs, Pedagogies, and Practices

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ekaterina Koromyslova, South Dakota State University; Teresa J.K. Hall, South Dakota State University; Byron G. Garry, South Dakota State University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Management

evaluative nature of the process also meant that both observers providedindependent feedback to the faculty member under observation. Longitudinal data across foursemesters and five different courses provided context for assessment of teaching methods,efficacy, and relevance in content.Adoption of Barrick’s peer observation five-step process and adaptation of his process todepartment performance standards led to implementation of a seven-step peer observationprocess for the department. See Appendix 1 for an overview of the process (Figure 5), includingforms used by the peer (Figure 6) and supervisor (Figure 7). These two additional steps toBarrick’s methodology (post-observation dialogue and observation write-up) serve to “close aloop” which is a

Conference Session

First-year Programs: Teams and Teamwork

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Siqing Wei, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Rui Wang, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Gaurav Nanda, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

have already proposed algorithms, pipelines and tools to resolve the issues based onthe U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)’s requirement onprotecting protected health information [6]–[8]. However, HIPAA requires protection on lots ofunexpected information in the academic setting, such as locations, dates, telephone numbers, faxnumbers, social security numbers, etc. [9]. In the education context, Rudniy reported anautomating deidentification project using peer feedback textual data for online writing projectsvia MyR [10]. However, our peer to peer comment data is structured in groups to facilitateteamwork learning so that it is highly possible that the commenter mentions more than one groupmember, which might

Conference Session

Construction Session 1: Sustainable Practices

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Scott Kelting, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; Eric A. Holt, University of Denver; Nathan Barry, University of Nebraska - Kearney

Tagged Divisions

Construction

Construction Engineering from the University of Nebraska. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Peer and Student Review of an Online Construction Management Sustainability Course This paper presents the delivery system for an online construction management course in sustainability and the built environment at a major university. Information about the course layout, assignments, discussions, and assessments are provided in this paper. The course provides a systems approach to green building science that includes sustainable site development, water use efficiency, renewable energy, improving material use, indoor environmental quality, and design innovation. The authors

Conference Session

Military and Veterans Division (MVD) Technical Session 1

Collection

2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kyle Patrick Ditonto, United States Military Academy; Brandon Lawrence; Sam Yoo, United States Military Academy

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Military and Veterans Division (MVD)

, “ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback,” Computersand Composition, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 443–461, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002.[14] D. Boud and N. Falchikov, “Aligning assessment with long‐term learning,” Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 399–413, Aug. 2006, doi:10.1080/02602930600679050.[15] K. Lundstrom and W. Baker, “To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer reviewto the reviewer’s own writing,” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 30–43,Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002.[16] J. van der Pol, B. A. M. van den Berg, W. F. Admiraal, and P. R. J. Simons, “The nature,reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education,” Computers

Conference Session

Computers in Education Division Poster Session

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Edward F. Gehringer, North Carolina State University; Ferry Pramudianto, North Carolina State University ; Abhinav Medhekar, North Carolina State University; Chandrasekar Rajasekar, North Carolina State University; Zhongcan Xiao, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

Computers in Education

–72).8. Lauw, H. W., Lim, E. P., & Wang, K. (2007). Summarizing review scores of “unequal” reviewers. In SIAMInternational Conference on Data Mining.9. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peerreview system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.10. De Alfaro, L., & Shavlovsky, M. (2014, March). CrowdGrader: A tool for crowdsourcing the evaluation ofhomework assignments. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp.415-420). ACM.11. Chiou, Y., & Shih, T. K. (2015). Auto grouping and peer grading system in massive open online course(MOOC). International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 13(3), 25

Conference Session

Defining and Refining Technological and Engineering Literacy

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Robert M. Brooks, Temple University; Mehmet Cetin, Temple University; Jyothsna Kavuturu

Tagged Divisions

Technological and Engineering Literacy/Philosophy of Engineering

only journals2.The students were asked to write a critique consisting of the solutions to the problems. The list ofthe topics is given in Table 2. The first 4 topics were taught in the class in detail. However, the5th topic by design was a new topic that was not covered in the class. By the virtue of experienceand training obtained from the 4 topics, the students were expected to obtain the relevantknowledge from five peer reviewed journal articles and complete the deliverables. The reportswere graded as shown in Table 2.Results and DiscussionThe pre and post intervention groups scored on the average 69.6% and 70.3% on the test given atthe beginning of the semester on basic principles of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The scoresindicate that

Conference Session

NSF Grantees Poster Session

Collection

2005 Annual Conference

Authors

Rufus Carter; Lisa F. Bullard; Douglas G. Schmucker; Misty Loughry; Richard Felder; Matthew Ohland; Richard Layton; Cynthia Finelli

Session 1526 Developing a Peer Evaluation Instrument that is Simple, Reliable, and Valid Matthew W. Ohland, Misty L. Loughry, Rufus L. Carter, Lisa G. Bullard, Richard M. Felder, Cynthia J. Finelli, Richard A. Layton, and Douglas G. Schmucker General Engineering, Management, Clemson University / Institutional Research and Assessment, Marymount University / Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University / Center for Research on Learning and Teaching-North, University of Michigan / Mechanical Engineering, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology / Civil Engineering, Western Kentucky

Conference Session

Computing and Information Technology Division (CIT) Technical Session 9

Collection

2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Drew Alex Clinkenbeard, California State University Monterey Bay; Joshua B. Gross, California State University Monterey Bay

Tagged Divisions

Computing and Information Technology Division (CIT)

application displays which students had correct answers sothese students were chosen to explain why they did not choose the incorrect answers. These stu-dents were selected because the instructor did not wish to single out students who got the questionwrong.An addition to the peer instruction model being followed here is the requirement that studentswrite down the questions and their answers to them. The instructor emphasizes that writing downthe question and all the answers, correct or otherwise, is important to their learning [12]. At theend of each class sessions students must turn in a PDF document with their individual answers aswell as the answer arrived at after group discussion. Students were also instructed to write downwhy any of their

Conference Session

Research Informing Teaching Practice II

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sensen Li, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Sean P. Brophy, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Divisions

Educational Research and Methods

of flow diagram; second, how to mechanically write syntactically correct code. Werealize the abstraction of logic is the key to successful coding. Typically students rush to codedirectly without comprehending the logic. Therefore, they lack a clear definition of the problemthey are trying to solve and a plan of action for how to solve the problem. As one instructionalmethod, we ask students to generate diagram of their logic. Then, we introduce pseudo peerdiagrams to reinforce the construction of visual representations as a roadmap to coding. Weconjecture that pseudo peer diagrams are an effective tool to foster students’ self-check strategywhich reduces instructors’ need to process large amount information generated by students inreal time

Conference Session

Emerging Information Technologies

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lakshmi Ramachandran, North Carolina State University; Edward F. Gehringer, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

Computing & Information Technology

AC 2012-4776: AUTOMATIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR PEER RE-VIEWS OF STUDENT WORKLakshmi Ramachandran, North Carolina State UniversityDr. Edward F. Gehringer, North Carolina State University Ed Gehringer is an Associate Professor in the departments of Computer Science and Electrical and Com- puter Engineering at North Carolina State University. He received his Ph.D. from Purdue University and has also taught at Carnegie Mellon University and Monash University in Australia. His research interests lie mainly in computer-supported cooperative learning. Page 25.245.1 c American Society for

Conference Session

First-year Programs: Focus on Student Success 2

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Elizabeth Anne Stephan, Clemson University; Abigail T. Stephan, Clemson University; Baker A. Martin, Clemson University; Matthew K. Miller, Clemson University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

writingthat would normally be included during an oral presentation of the slides.The last component of each round is the reflection. After completing all previous components,students reflect on their experience and compose a write-up on the two “best” presentations theyreviewed during the peer review process. The reflection includes details about what made themthe “best” presentations and what was learned from each presentation.Though the effectiveness of this instructional approach has been evidenced through anecdotesand previous research findings [1], [2], specific outcomes of the Exploring Engineeringassignment from the perspective of students have not been systematically investigated.Subsequently, this paper aims to answer the following research

Conference Session

Hey You: Effectively Engaging Students in the Classroom

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lelli Van Den Einde, University of California, San Diego; Samuel Holton Lee, University of California, San Diego; Jacqueline Linh Le, University of California, San Diego

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering

AC 2012-4477: INCORPORATING CLICKERS AND PEER INSTRUCTIONINTO LARGE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CLASSROOMSDr. Lelli Van Den Einde, University of California, San Diego Lelli Van Den Einde is a tenure-track lecturer at UC, San Diego, and focuses mostly on undergraduate education in mechanics and design courses. Her past research was in the seismic design of bridge sys- tems, but she is currently focused on assessing and improving engineering education pedagogy through technology. She has been the Faculty Advisor for UC, San Diego’s Society of Civil and Structural En- gineers (SCSE), a student chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers, for the past two years. Additionally, Van Den Einde is also the Faculty Advisor

Conference Session

Training and Mentoring of Graduate Teaching Assistants

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Lynn Brannon, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Tagged Divisions

Graduate Studies

teacher? Page 25.1436.7Figure 2: What do you think you will learn about yourself from observing a peer teacher?For posttest opened questions the students had these comments: (17 students completed thesurvey)At the end of the semester, when asked, 80 % of the students said yes, they had asked afriend/colleague/peer to observe their presentation skills. When asked a second time “what doyou think you learned about yourself from being observed by a peer teacher?” students nowcommented on more specific details, such as certain teaching methods (i.e. opening the classwith a welcome greeting), “many things that go unnoticed”, “the other peer’s observation helpsassess my teaching ability”. “I learned that my reiterating what I write on

Conference Session

Educational Research and Methods (ERM) Division Poster Session

Collection

2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Wanju Huang, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE); Frederick Berry, Purdue University at West Lafayette (PPI); Marisa Exter, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE); Ryan Wynkoop

students are given operational definitions for theassessment criteria along with training in conducting peer assessments.” Providing training forstudents to understand the criteria of a rubric allows a student to then successfully and effectivelyevaluate themselves and their peers [7].The focus of this study is to improve the alignment between the assessors’ feedback and theCATME dimensions in an Engineering Technology capstone course. This was accomplishedthrough the implementation of an intervention that further clarified the criteria of the CATMErubric and provided helpful principles for writing actionable feedback for peers.Purpose & Research QuestionsThe purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of instructional

Conference Session

Mathematics Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gianluca Guadagni, University of Virginia; Bernard Fulgham, University of Virginia

Tagged Divisions

Mathematics

Paper ID #19737The Impact of a Flipped Math Course on Peer LearnersDr. Gianluca Guadagni, University of Virginia PhD in Mathematics University of Virginia Lecturer, Applied Mathematics, Department of Engineering and Society, School of Engineering and Ap- plied Sciences, University of Virginia.Dr. Bernard Fulgham, University of Virginia Bernard Fulgham received his PhD in Mathematics in 2002, writing his thesis in the field of non-associative algebras with advisor Kevin McCrimmon. He began teaching Applied Mathematics at the University of Virginia in August 2004 and became a full-time Lecturer in 2006

Conference Session

The Best in DEED

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gina M Quan, University of Maryland, College Park; Chandra Anne Turpen, University of Maryland, College Park; Ayush Gupta, University of Maryland, College Park; Emilia Dewi Tanu, University of Maryland, College Park

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Design in Engineering Education

Paper ID #18835Designing a Course for Peer Educators in Undergraduate Engineering De-sign CoursesMs. Gina Marie Quan, University of Maryland, College Park Gina Quan is a doctoral candidate in Physics Education Research at the University of Maryland, College Park. She graduated in 2012 with a B.A. in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley. Her research interests include understanding community and identity formation, unpacking students’ relation- ships to design, and cultivating institutional change. Ms. Quan is also a founding member of the Access Network, a research-practice community dedicated to

Conference Session

NSF Grantees: RED 2 / Civil Eng

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Jennifer Harper Ogle, Clemson University; Candice W. Bolding, Clemson University; Jules Ava Lloyd, Clemson University; Logan C. Wade

Tagged Topics

Diversity, NSF Grantees Poster Session

Paper ID #31022Developing Inclusive Engineers: Teaching Peer-Mentors Principles ofEquity and InclusionDr. Jennifer Harper Ogle, Clemson University Dr. Jennifer Ogle is a Professor in the Glenn Department of Civil Engineering at Clemson University, and a 2005 graduate of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Georgia Tech. Her research portfolio focuses on transportation infrastructure design, safety, accessibility, and management. She is currently the facilitator for the NSF Revolutionizing Engineering and Computer Science Depart- ments (RED) grant at Clemson, and is leading three transformation efforts

Conference Session

Faculty Development II

Collection

2005 Annual Conference

Authors

Rebecca Bates

Constructing an Interdisciplinary Peer Mentoring Network for First Year Faculty Rebecca A. Bates Minnesota State University, MankatoAbstractThe success of a first year faculty member depends on many things, both internal (inherent to theperson) and external. Given a record of success, i.e., many years of schooling and completion ofa Ph.D., the internal factors contributing to success are already available to most facultymembers. The external factors that contributed to this earlier success may be difficult toduplicate at the new home institution. Along with information about mentoring in general, thispaper presents one method of building

Collection

2001 Annual Conference

Authors

Edward Gehringer

general public,” who haven’t. At the end of the review period, the reviewers assign grades totheir authors. If the reviewers are in general agreement about the quality of the project, theirgrades are used; if not, the instructor takes a peek and makes a final decision. In addition togiving students the experience of writing for their peers, peer review and peer grading is the onlyway to get the work done in such a large class, whose enrollment has ranged from 90 to 120students in recent semesters.Although the class projects provide a lot of raw material for the Website, most of the real workhas been done in a series of summer projects, involving from four to ten students per year.Currently, this is structured as a special section of an individual