projected words per minute. Also, at a 2009 symposium ofengineering graduate students at a large mid-Atlantic research university, a representativesampling of presentations averaged more than 40 words per minute. In addition, the paper calculates this metric for representative presentations thatfollow alternative slide structures. For instance, in a large set of assertion–evidencepresentations created by international science and engineering Ph.D. students for whomEnglish is a second language, the projected words per minute were less than 20. Thatnumber contrasts dramatically with the more than 40 projected words per minute fromU.S. graduate students. Another alternative slide structure considered is the slide:ologystructure often found in
elements presented here, including the action essay and self-directed learningreflection, should scale up to larger classes without much difficulty. Student-led discussion,however, is more difficult, especially with mid-size classes of 20-30, too small to creatediscussion sections, but large enough that students aren’t readily comfortable with discussion.One strategy that may be effective is having a panel of student discussants for a reading. A teamof 4 students or so leads discussion, facilitated with questions from the instructor that theyanswer as authorities. (Questions can be posed in advance to make this exercise less intimidating,and to generate student preparation notes which can be handed in.) After some period ofdiscussion, the floor is