Pedagogical Strategies for Enhancing the Outcomes of Weekly Readings

Sarah Garner, Vivian Neal
{"title":"Pedagogical Strategies for Enhancing the Outcomes of Weekly Readings","authors":"Sarah Garner, Vivian Neal","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explores different pedagogical methods to understand what motivates undergraduate and graduate engineering students to read more thoroughly, deeply and with greater criticality. It analyzes three associated activities that were intended to encourage reading: a summary of the readings, an online discussion board and a student-led discussion. The study explores questions about the amount and depth of reading, and students’ perceptions of the value of the readings and associated activities. Data was collected using the following methods: student questionnaires and focus groups, TA and instructor reflections, end of course evaluations and student grades. The results indicate thatthe associated assignments encouraged students to read more and motivated the students to read with more depth and criticality. Overall, the students had a positive perception of the readings and assignments, but they also identified pedagogical improvements that would have encouraged them to be more engaged with the reading material. The results of this research show that the associated activities in all three iterations of the undergraduate course increased reading compliance. The online discussion activities increased the depth of reading more than the summary assignment, though the discussion students read less of the entire reading weekly. The overall student perception of the reading assignment was that the assignment was good but could be made more effective with some changes. Future iterations of the courses could include new pedagogical strategies with interactive components to increase depth and engagement.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explores different pedagogical methods to understand what motivates undergraduate and graduate engineering students to read more thoroughly, deeply and with greater criticality. It analyzes three associated activities that were intended to encourage reading: a summary of the readings, an online discussion board and a student-led discussion. The study explores questions about the amount and depth of reading, and students’ perceptions of the value of the readings and associated activities. Data was collected using the following methods: student questionnaires and focus groups, TA and instructor reflections, end of course evaluations and student grades. The results indicate thatthe associated assignments encouraged students to read more and motivated the students to read with more depth and criticality. Overall, the students had a positive perception of the readings and assignments, but they also identified pedagogical improvements that would have encouraged them to be more engaged with the reading material. The results of this research show that the associated activities in all three iterations of the undergraduate course increased reading compliance. The online discussion activities increased the depth of reading more than the summary assignment, though the discussion students read less of the entire reading weekly. The overall student perception of the reading assignment was that the assignment was good but could be made more effective with some changes. Future iterations of the courses could include new pedagogical strategies with interactive components to increase depth and engagement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高每周阅读成果的教学策略
本研究探讨了不同的教学方法,以了解是什么促使工程专业本科生和研究生更全面、更深入、更批判性地阅读。它分析了旨在鼓励阅读的三个相关活动:阅读摘要、在线讨论板和学生主导的讨论。该研究探讨了有关阅读量和深度的问题,以及学生对阅读和相关活动的价值的看法。数据收集采用以下方法:学生问卷和焦点小组,助教和讲师反思,课程结束评估和学生成绩。结果表明,相关作业鼓励学生进行更多的阅读,并激励学生进行更深入和批判性的阅读。总体而言,学生们对阅读和作业有积极的看法,但他们也发现了教学上的改进,这将鼓励他们更多地参与阅读材料。本研究的结果表明,在所有三个迭代的本科课程的相关活动增加阅读依从性。在线讨论活动比总结作业更能提高阅读深度,尽管讨论组学生每周阅读的全部阅读内容较少。学生对阅读作业的整体看法是,作业很好,但可以通过一些改变来提高效率。未来的课程迭代可能包括新的教学策略与互动组件,以增加深度和参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Makes an Exemplary Engineering Leader? In the Words of Engineers Questioning Green Growth and Sustainable Development in Undergraduate Engineering Memorization: Friend or Foe when Solving Problems in STEM Undergraduate Courses Persistent mistakes in learning basic circuit analysis Development and Assessment of a Training Module on Intellectual Property Literacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1