Implementing Peer tutoring in an online course Colin Neill, Joanna DeFranco, Amanda Neill The Pennsylvania State UniversityPrevious research in a large scale experiment provided no evidence that working on a successfuland effective team had a positive effect on individual student performance. Thus, to facilitateindividual learning, we implemented peer tutoring while students worked on an effective team inan online graduate software engineering course. This paper presents an online peer tutoringdesign. The results of a constant comparative qualitative analysis will be presented in order toprovide insight into the success of this peer tutoring implementation.I
Paper ID #12344Virtual Peer Teams: Connecting Students with the Online Work Environ-mentDr. Thalia Anagnos, San Jose State University Dr. Thalia Anagnos is a professor in the General Engineering Department at San Jose State University, where she has taught since 1984. From 2009 to 2014 she served as co-Leader of Education, Outreach, and Training (EOT) for the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), a consortium of 14 large-scale earthquake engineering experimental facilities. As co-Leader of NEES EOT she also served on the leadership team for the NEES REU program.Ms. Alicia L Lyman-Holt
decisions made by one faculty member. Lessons Learned Through the 6 years of the course, solutions to the barriers mentioned above have been brainstormed and approached with some trial and error. Below are the methods that have been successful in improving the program and building it to its current state. Page 26.1011.8 Identify Team Problems through Peer Evaluations Peer evaluations have been implemented in an attempt to identify potential conflicts in student groups and address them directly before they expand and propagate. After each group assignment an online peer evaluation form is distributed to students to complete
of precedent materials, and experienced instructional designers’ beliefs about design character. These studies have highlighted the importance of cross-disciplinary skills and student engagement in large-scale, real-world projects. Dr. Exter currently leads an effort to evaluate a new multidisciplinary degree program which provides both liberal arts and technical content through competency-based experiential learning.Iryna Ashby, Purdue University Iryna Ashby is a Ph.D student in the Learning Design and Technology Program at Purdue University with the research interests focused on program evaluation. She is also part of the program evaluation team for the Purdue Polytechnic Institute – a new initiate at Purdue
leadership programs can maximize their results through sponsorships and involvement. The program needs to make sure that the lessons learned in the program can be applied to the sponsors through internships and career opportunities. Also, the program may request that the sponsor provide: (a) knowledge to help in structuring the program; (b) lectures and presentations; (c) mentoring activities; and (d) funding. University support: The university needs to be very committed and provide resources for the development of the activities and high quality professionals willing to dedicate enough time to the development of the students
faculty learning communities can thrive and sustain themselves with avariety of models: ones that mimic, adapt, or diverge from the tightly integrated model describedabove. Within the engineering education community alone there are numerous successful modelscurrently in use. Many require limited commitment, bottom-up organization and no incentivizingbeyond faculty’s value for the community learning experience. By taking a closer, comparativelook at the breadth of faculty learning communities that exist in practice, we may provide acomplement to the existing learning community literature that helps to make faculty ensemblelearning more accessible to local problem-solvers and large-scale program-builders alike.In this paper we examine five learning
Enduring Engineering Education Built on the Basics and Reinforced throughPractical Problem Solution .......................................................................................................... 369A Proposed Grand Challenges Scholars Program in the Lyles College of Engineering ............... 376Expanding the Community College Engineering Educational Pipeline through CollaborativePartnerships ................................................................................................................................ 381Engaging Community College Students in Engineering Research through Design andImplementation of a Cyber-Physical System for Myoelectric-Controlled Robot Car ................. 394Visual Learning Tool for Teaching
. Of the 135 EiE teachers who began the project, 114 completed the first year of datacollection. Of the 114, 73 taught the EiE curriculum to only one classroom of students duringyear 1, while 41 taught the EiE curriculum to two or more classrooms of students. In total, 3620students learned the EiE curriculum during the first year of the project. A subset of 26 E4 Project teachers were selected at the beginning of the first year of datacollection for close observation to gather qualitative data regarding teacher instruction, teacherfidelity of implementation, student engagement and teacher-student interactions. Theirclassrooms are “Case Study Sites” where E4 Project team members: video-record classroomactivity and student team group