class were to provide better formativefeedback more quickly to students, to continue to integrate authentic work in the class throughcase studies, and to provide a more active and collaborative learning environment.The blended experience for this class has several components, including • Student teams recording presentations with video-capture software (instead of just turning in PowerPoint files for feedback). • Peer review of aforementioned recorded presentations and other deliverables, utilizing an online peer-management system (called “PRAZE”) to reduce the complexity of administering peer review for a large number of students • In-class polls using Google Docs • Discussion board forums for student questions
handbook on distance communications which has been shared with all projectparticipants. Effective use of distance communications technology can dissolve walls betweenbuilding and miles between colleges.The project web page (http://scate.org/scate) works well as a basic resource site for interestedparties seeking information about the project. Establishing an intranet for use as an "in-house"bulletin board is also a good idea.To facilitate project communications, listservs have been established. There is a general listservfor all project participants and a listserv for each discipline peer group. The dialogue and sharingon the general listserv have helped faculty review project threads and issues. Faculty who attendproject-sponsored conferences and
-tenure Librarians.” Collaborative Librarianship 4, no. 4 (2012): 165-174.17. Samson, S., and D.E. McCrea. “Using Peer Review to Foster Good Teaching.” Reference Services Review 36, no. 1 (2008): 61-70.18. Chionski, E., and M. Emanuel. “The One-Minute Paper and the One-Hour Class: Outcomes Assessment for One-Shot Library Instruction.” Reference Services Review 34, no. 1 (2006): 148-155.19. Watson, S.E., C. Rex, J. Markgraf, H. Kishel, E. Jennings, and K. Hinnant. “Revising the ‘One-Shot’ Through Lesson Study: Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session” College & Research Libraries 74, no. 4 (2013): 381-398.20. Association of College & Research Libraries. “Standards
4.00 course? 2. Does writing a paper help you understand programming language concepts? 3.29 3. Does presentation help you understand programming language concepts? 3.71 4. Does the peer evaluation help you improve the quality of your paper? 4.43 5. Are the scores from the peer evaluations for your paper objective and fair? 4.57 6. Does the peer evaluation help you understand programming language 3.29 concepts?The responses to the questions 1, 4, and 5 confirm our observations 1, 2, and 3, respectively.The responses to the questions 2 and 6 indicate that students need more guidelines and help forwriting
, questions, expert guidance, and coaching (Adams et al., 2017).More specifically, Northeastern’s IE Capstone program integrates multiple opportunities forteams to receive feedback. Regular assignments, weekly advisor meetings, frequent clientinteractions, coordinator check-in sessions, open class Q&A, peer-to-peer feedback, and writtenfaculty evaluations during presentations all serve as sources of feedback. The writing coordinatormeets with every team once a term to provide detailed feedback on the writing assignments, andassure the teams are poised to create high-quality documents. The writing program is describedin a recent Capstone Conference paper (McManus, 2022). Further, all teams are stronglyencouraged to seek out faculty members for
). Responses to prompts on the applicationwere used by the leadership team during online interviews.Scholars entered the program at the beginning of their second term at HU. They enrolled in theSTEM Writing and Metacognition Seminar course meeting weekly. Scholars were assigned tomentoring “squads” composed of peer mentors (successful STEM students) and a faculty mentor,meeting biweekly throughout each semester. They participated in All Program events three timeseach year (beginning of Fall semester, beginning and end of Spring semester), as well asacademic and career-centered workshops hosted by the iAM Program in partnership with therelevant unit (e.g., Center for Academic Excellence, Center for Career Design andDevelopment). Scholars networked with
members who were unable to attend that module(members from other disciplines who had class at that time) were asked to relay information totheir team members during the team’s normal meeting times. Teaming instruction focused on fourcontent areas: creating team ground rules, the stages of team development (forming, storming,norming, performing), establishing team roles, and writing team minutes. Throughout the course,multidisciplinary teams had to complete three team assignments: team minutes and logs, peerreview sheets, and reflection assignments. Team minutes and logs detailed what happened atteam meetings in terms of the design progress. Peer review sheets were assignments wherestudents had to evaluate other team members so that the advisor
faculty workload model.The current paper focuses on strategies that will encourage, facilitate, and provide support for thegrowth of scholarship in ET. Some of the “ways and means” for increasing scholarlyproductivity that are currently being implemented in the College of Applied Science andTechnology (CAST) at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) are discussed. These include:developing a college scholarship website, developing a scholarship mentoring program,developing web-based venues of dissemination and peer review, developing grant proposal andscholarly writing workshops, and identification and cultivation of support resources forscholarship. The early results and experiences from implementing some of these strategies at RITare discussed
students and automatically record and check their answers. Google forms provide someof the same functionality for free and without the need to install software on a server.Google forms can also be used to survey students. SALG is a specialized survey program toassess how much students have learned. For taking graphical feedback from students ontablet computers during class, Classroom Presenter and Ubiquitous Presenter are twoopen-source tools. The most widely used peer-review application is Calibrated PeerReview. Expertiza is a peer-review system that incorporates functionality for topicselection and team formation by students. Wikis are a well known collaborative space,which can be used by students to write reports and other documents
limit on the numberof courses or degree credit hours. Consequently, teaching communication skills must be infusedin required courses adding to the general education portion of the curriculum and withoutreplacing cognate or core engineering material. The challenge is to provide a solid and modernengineering education where students will naturally and ubiquitously acquire efficient andmodern communication skills.This presentation discusses some of the research results of this project including the developmentof a modern technical writing course, the integration of communication skills into engineeringmaterials, and multidisciplinary methods that combine students enrolled in the Arts, Media, andCommunication Studies with engineering
' experiences within a cohort regarding theirutilization of social capital, we leveraged these definitions to characterize students' networks andhow they used social capital. Specifically, this paper focuses on the support provided to studentsinside and outside of structured institutional support mechanisms (i.e., the cohort program), suchas the connections provided by relationships to faculty or professional contacts and the emotionalsupport of peers and advisors.MethodsThis paper uses qualitative data from an ongoing NSF-funded mixed methods study (NSFgrant #EHR-1833738) which looks at a cohort of academically talented engineering studentswith demonstrated financial need. This larger study used semi-structured focus group interviewsto learn more
through Video Annotated Review of Faculty TeachingAbstractReflection is a critical need for peer observations and reviews to initiate a change in practice(Race, 1998; Allen, 2002; and Bell, 2002). It is maintained, however, that the self-reflectionsmust be adequate to effect this change, and that there are challenges involved in developingmeaningful reflective practices (Harvey and Knight, 1996). Literature exists that definesadequate self-reflection and provides reasons why many instructors fall short when they self-reflect. However, studies on instructor reflective statements and how they might evolve overtime and in the context of a cohort of peer reviewers has not been extensively studied. Thisstudy compares both pre
• Error, Negligence, Misconduct, Human Subjects in Research • The Basics of Laboratory Safety • Literature Search Skills • Strategies for Reading Journal Article • Peer Review of Scientific Papers • Plagiarism • How to Document Your Research • Treatment of Research Data • How Research Is Funded • Student Research and Intellectual Property • Publication, Authorship, Patenting, Copyright and Trademark • Writing an Abstract • Presentation of Research • REU and Fellowship Opportunities for
paintings found in Indonesia—date back at least 43,900 years (George, 2019).Humans came into being with a set of basic survival needs, in which storytelling played a crucialrole. Storytelling transcends boundaries and disciplines, with fictional and non-fictional storiesbeing depicted and disseminated through art, technology, writing, and speaking. Because storiesplay a critical role in offering opportunities for meaning and connection in our lives, manyscholars and researchers have attempted to harness its benefits through storytelling interventionsand approaches (Pennebaker & Beall, 1986; Sharif et al., 2018; Suhr et al., 2017). Theseapproaches take on an array of forms, ranging from written journal entries to the oral sharing ofstories with
-represented groups who may not have access to college-educated role models within theirfamilies and who may not otherwise have access to professional and academic engineeringmentors. PROMES was launched at the University of Houston in 1974 and incorporates keyrecommended structural elements such as a formal introductory course for new freshmen andincoming transfer students, clustering of students in common sections of their courses, adedicated study center, and structured study groups.1 In addition, peer mentors assist freshmenand new transfer students throughout the first year.There is a second learning community within the College of Engineering that supports successfor a different, although sometimes overlapping, cohort. This second community is
review tools.Unfortunately, few students answered this question, but many provided a wide variety of othercomments concerning the peer review instead.Some students preferred the tablet PC to other tools for peer review while other students did notcare for the tablet for peer review. Those students who indicated in their comment a preferencefor the tablet PC did so because they found the comments to be easier to distribute, save, access,and track changes. “It was easier to have an electronic copy. The tablet was useful for writing by hand on the electronic copy. Because I had an easily accessible electronic copy I was more likely to use the peer review.” --RH 330 student “I could take notes on the document
Use on Facilitating Student InteractionsAbstractThe objective of this study is to examine how Tablet PCs affect the interaction between studentswhen working in pairs on in-class assignments, and to study the effects of shared Tablet PC useon learning. Prior studies have demonstrated that engaging students in the learning processthrough active discussion and/or problem-solving with their peers improves learning. Tablet PCsallow students to engage in learning activities while using unique digital Inking and sharingcapabilities.In this pilot study, significant differences were observed between students working on paper andTablet PCs (“Paper” and “Tablet,” respectively) in terms of the frequency of observations
Maryland, Penn State and the State University of New York (SUNY).On the web, SUNY Teaching, Learning and Technology is at < http://cms.suny.edu/ >.Experiences from the Virtual ClassroomI present these distance learning faculty happenings based mostly upon my own personalexperience and partly based upon the experiences of my peers. (5)My initial distance learning courses were developed and presented for the University ofPhoenix (UOP) Online campus in 1997. These were courses addressing businessapplications of information technology. Later courses in Operating Systems, Statisticsand Computer Programming were prepared and delivered for UOP and RochesterInstitute of Technology.After a rigorous interview process, I was invited to attend a new
encouraged(better required) to attend training and mentoring program prior to the conduct of theirfirst DL course. Page 7.557.1 “Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education”Experiences from the Virtual ClassroomI present these distance learning faculty happenings based mostly upon my own personalexperience and partly based upon the experiences of my peers. (5) Not all experiences inthe online teaching environment can be generalized to all faculty and all institutions.Faculty development programs need to be
. One of the aspects of engineering design that sets it apart from design in manyother disciplines is analysis. We wanted to assure that our designs were based on goodengineering analysis and produced a satisfactory artifact.Demonstration of a Successful DesignValidation of the product of the design is an important part of the design process. Weprefer projects that result in an artifact that can be tested (validated). The question is whatto do about artifacts that fail their “test”, about teams that fail to produce a testable artifactand about projects that, by definition, will not produce an “artifact.”Quality Evaluation and Feedback for Writing and Oral AssignmentsGrading assignments is of course required. “Quality” evaluation and useful
Creating and integrating effective graphics Providing clear technical descriptions Providing logical transitions between ideas Unifying paragraphs Providing constructive criticism for peers Writing or presenting effectively as a team Listening and participating productively in a team meeting Thinking critically about political, social, and economic constraints Thinking critically about ethical ramifications Writing effective email Employing audience-appropriate tone and style Using proper grammar, punctuation, and spellingWe then asked our
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2001, American Society for Engineering Education introductory writing course), Integrated Arts and Humanities, and Integrated Social Science (the latter three course categories are used to meet MSU’s general education requirements. • Enrollment in small sections of the ROSES freshman seminar. • A tutoring program emphasizing math and science courses. • A contingent of peer leaders, typically sophomores who were in the ROSES program the previous year.Living in the same residence hall provides the setting for the above mentioned academicinteractions. ROSES students study together in their rooms, in the lounges, and in
to arrange and often felt riskybecause while sharing thoughts and ideas in the classroom could be viewed as collaboration,doing so in writing could be viewed as cheating. Some respondents noted feeling less isolated than they had prior to COVID-19 becausethey had not developed strong relationships with peers, instructors, TAs and other groups, sothey felt the playing field was more level. Students identified a variety of factors that made them feel most disconnected amidCOVID-19. Many centered around a lack of close interaction with people on campus. Studentsreported coming to campus less, and when they attended in-person classes, being seated far apartmade organic conversation unlikely. An additional outcome was decreased
. From these analyses, twovariables emerged as highly predictive of student performance: scores on peer evaluations andhomework submission timeliness. This relationship remains strong even when the measure ofstudent performance is adjusted so that student peer evaluations and late penalties on homeworkassignments do not directly factor into their adjusted overall score. We discuss potentialexplanations for and practical implications of this result.BackgroundBeginning in Spring 2013 we implemented a new freshman-level chemical engineeringlaboratory course [1, 2]. In this course, students work on open-ended product and process designprojects in teams of three to four. We use many different presentation techniques in order to caterto different
write up or the oral presentation. Really did a lot during the project, particularly with the final Tony Romo 1.05 document. Betty Crocker 1.05 Overall good participator. Note: “Total” must equal the number of rated team members or Total 3.00 3.0 Figure A-1: Completed sample peer evaluation by “Johnny Debb” on his fellow group members. Table A-1: Example of Total Group Assessments and Resulting Final Grades: Johnny Tom Tony
Initiative (WPSI)5. WPSI supports several institutions with diversecourses that all focus on the same wicked problem each year, with WPSI providing a differentwicked problem every year along with shared guest lecturers and infrastructure for inter-institutional peer review and faculty support. (See Hess et al. 6,7 for more information on WPSI).ENGR 1060/2060 centers around three main topics throughout the semester: socialentrepreneurship, sustainability, and wicked problems. In addition to learning about these topics,students complete a semester-long group project to write a business plan for a social enterprisethat will address that year’s specific wicked problem (provided by WPSI). Students also workon five individual writing assignments that they
. The 2010 test results show that nine of the students scored PartiallyProficient on the language arts/literacy test and one student scored Proficient. There are five testsubsets and those scores are reported in percents. It is the expository writing sample score that isof interest in this study because that is the writing genre that the students will use to explain anddescribe their engineering experiences. The scores of the partner students ranged from 40%-60%.The 2011 Grade 5 NJASK scores will be administered in May 2011, but the results will not beavailable to the schools until mid-August.Approach/Methods/MaterialsThe CIESE staff member visits the class twice per month and leads the lessons with theassistance of the teacher. The approach to
# 8: Effectiveness technical writing. A guest lecturer from the technical communication program share presents a program on writing an effective report. Samples of successful reports are used for illustration.Week # 9: Student presentation #2. Students present a progress report on their design projects.Week # 10: Top-down design. Students learn to do top-down design, a new methodology, a new approach used computer-aided manufacturing. Instruction covers writing a behavioral descriptive language, means of simulation, synthesizing, optimizing, and finally implementation with ASIC or FPGA.Week # 11: The electronic manufacturing sector--local and
a reflection are most engaging—can be more helpful to a student’s confidence than evaluative or judgment feedback is. Providing feedback about what works in a piece of student writing reinforces positive behavior. When evaluative feedback is provided, it is vital that the student be in control of that feedback. In P2P, one of the 20 tasks is for students to write a “feedback request” detailing their own questions about their ePortfolio. They go on to share this request during peer feedback
rubrics 15 28 3 8 peer evaluation 11 16 37 57 Structured Activities Provide templates/examples 33 56 NA NA Students give presentations 25 73 NA NA Skills are graded 25 48 18 57 Provide writing assignments 46 113 NA NA “we talk about” it 12 20 12 17