Pub Date : 2009-10-18DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2009.5350611
Xiaoyan Mu, D. Walter, C. Berry
Studies have demonstrated that instructional media play an important role in instructorspsila teaching and studentspsila learning. The purpose of this study is to assess the studentspsila preferences for different instructional media and the impact of different instructional media on the studentspsila learning and course-related behavior in an undergraduate electrical circuitpsilas course. The instructional media under study are: computer-based PowerPoint presentation, whiteboard only, combination of PowerPoint and whiteboard and combination of printed handouts and whiteboard. In this study, nine sections of Introduction to Electrical Circuits sections were taught by 6 instructors using different instructional media. All the instructors used a common syllabus, labs, homework, and tests. Two midterm exams and one final exam were used to assess the learning effectiveness of different instructional media. At the end of the quarter, a questionnaire was collected from participating students to measure their preference for the instructional media. To understand the course related behavior, each of the instructors were asked to assess their studentspsila behavior in terms of attendance, amount of classroom interaction, percent of homework completion and Web logins.
{"title":"Work in progress - a study of the effect of instructional media in an undergraduate electrical circuits course","authors":"Xiaoyan Mu, D. Walter, C. Berry","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2009.5350611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350611","url":null,"abstract":"Studies have demonstrated that instructional media play an important role in instructorspsila teaching and studentspsila learning. The purpose of this study is to assess the studentspsila preferences for different instructional media and the impact of different instructional media on the studentspsila learning and course-related behavior in an undergraduate electrical circuitpsilas course. The instructional media under study are: computer-based PowerPoint presentation, whiteboard only, combination of PowerPoint and whiteboard and combination of printed handouts and whiteboard. In this study, nine sections of Introduction to Electrical Circuits sections were taught by 6 instructors using different instructional media. All the instructors used a common syllabus, labs, homework, and tests. Two midterm exams and one final exam were used to assess the learning effectiveness of different instructional media. At the end of the quarter, a questionnaire was collected from participating students to measure their preference for the instructional media. To understand the course related behavior, each of the instructors were asked to assess their studentspsila behavior in terms of attendance, amount of classroom interaction, percent of homework completion and Web logins.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132801316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720591
D. Jimenez-Gonzalez, C. Alvarez, D. López, Joan-Manuel Parcerisa, J. Alonso, C. Perez, R. Tous, P. Barlet, M. Fernández, J. Tubella
Students of computer science freshman year usually develop assembler programs to learn processor architecture. Homework exercises are done on paper, while those in lab sessions are solved with the aid of programming tools. Students perceive theory and lab as different subjects, so they donpsilat use lab tools to test their theory solved problems. Moreover, during lab sessions, students often tend to ask for the teacherpsilas guide and advice instead of using the debugging tools because these are new and unfriendly for them, and do not offer a quick and clear feedback. In this paper we present an automatic and friendly assessment tool, SISA-EMU, with a novel feature: exercise driven feedback with teacherpsilas expertise. It provides correctness information and clues to help the students solve their most common mistakes for each individual problem (and not typical generic debug information) without the physical support of a teacher. SISA-EMU is currently in pre-deploy phase via a Moodle learning platform and we will have first evaluation results by the end of the current term.
{"title":"Work in progress-improving feedback using an automatic assessment tool","authors":"D. Jimenez-Gonzalez, C. Alvarez, D. López, Joan-Manuel Parcerisa, J. Alonso, C. Perez, R. Tous, P. Barlet, M. Fernández, J. Tubella","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720591","url":null,"abstract":"Students of computer science freshman year usually develop assembler programs to learn processor architecture. Homework exercises are done on paper, while those in lab sessions are solved with the aid of programming tools. Students perceive theory and lab as different subjects, so they donpsilat use lab tools to test their theory solved problems. Moreover, during lab sessions, students often tend to ask for the teacherpsilas guide and advice instead of using the debugging tools because these are new and unfriendly for them, and do not offer a quick and clear feedback. In this paper we present an automatic and friendly assessment tool, SISA-EMU, with a novel feature: exercise driven feedback with teacherpsilas expertise. It provides correctness information and clues to help the students solve their most common mistakes for each individual problem (and not typical generic debug information) without the physical support of a teacher. SISA-EMU is currently in pre-deploy phase via a Moodle learning platform and we will have first evaluation results by the end of the current term.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115003238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720281
E. López, E. Sancristóbal, S. Martin, G. Díaz, M. Castro, J. Peire, J. Gomez, P. López
The DIEEC (Electrical and Computer Engineering Department) of UNED (Spanish University for Distance Education) in Spain is elaborating different tools to teach in computer architecture subject by using new technologies. DIPSEIL (distributed Internet-based performance support environment for individualized learning) is one of the projects where we are experimenting with teaching by task in Internet. We present this project and their advantages. By the other side we are elaborating lots of resources and evaluating them to incorporate virtual and remote labs integrated in learning management systems (LMS) or educational platforms. Lots of the decisions of this Web-Labs are the suggestions that students suggest in the DIPSEIL architecture course.
{"title":"Internet-based teaching evolution in Computer Architecture","authors":"E. López, E. Sancristóbal, S. Martin, G. Díaz, M. Castro, J. Peire, J. Gomez, P. López","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720281","url":null,"abstract":"The DIEEC (Electrical and Computer Engineering Department) of UNED (Spanish University for Distance Education) in Spain is elaborating different tools to teach in computer architecture subject by using new technologies. DIPSEIL (distributed Internet-based performance support environment for individualized learning) is one of the projects where we are experimenting with teaching by task in Internet. We present this project and their advantages. By the other side we are elaborating lots of resources and evaluating them to incorporate virtual and remote labs integrated in learning management systems (LMS) or educational platforms. Lots of the decisions of this Web-Labs are the suggestions that students suggest in the DIPSEIL architecture course.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115690883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720270
M. Dziedzic, P. R. Janissek, A.P. Bender
Assessment by peers is a powerful technique to engage students in active learning, and to make them reflect about their own work. On the other hand, the usual problem with such a technique is that students tend to be excessively lenient towards their colleagues, which threatens to turn the exercise pointless when assessment by peers is used as part of a grade. Thus, the present work describes a successful experience in which assessment by peers was employed as a learning technique in a graduate course in Faculty Development to evaluate oral presentations. A seminar assessment form was developed by the instructors and used to give immediate feedback to the students on their performance. The same form is used by the students to assess their peers. This assessment by peers is not used by the instructors to compose the grades on the course, but as a tool to enhance awareness of the students to the quality of their own work. It was verified that the quality of the seminars improved faster when peer assessment was employed, and that the assessment by the students approached the assessment by the instructors as the course progressed.
{"title":"Assessment by peers - an effective learning technique","authors":"M. Dziedzic, P. R. Janissek, A.P. Bender","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720270","url":null,"abstract":"Assessment by peers is a powerful technique to engage students in active learning, and to make them reflect about their own work. On the other hand, the usual problem with such a technique is that students tend to be excessively lenient towards their colleagues, which threatens to turn the exercise pointless when assessment by peers is used as part of a grade. Thus, the present work describes a successful experience in which assessment by peers was employed as a learning technique in a graduate course in Faculty Development to evaluate oral presentations. A seminar assessment form was developed by the instructors and used to give immediate feedback to the students on their performance. The same form is used by the students to assess their peers. This assessment by peers is not used by the instructors to compose the grades on the course, but as a tool to enhance awareness of the students to the quality of their own work. It was verified that the quality of the seminars improved faster when peer assessment was employed, and that the assessment by the students approached the assessment by the instructors as the course progressed.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115710817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720324
C.R. Lang, H. Gurocak
The accreditation criteria and assessment expectations for computer science programs are undergoing rapid changes as ABET seeks to normalize the criteria between its EAC and CAC commissions. This paper presents the curricular structure and assessment methods of a new computer science program and describes how it has met ABET/CACpsilas current criteria. The program adopted a set of outcomes for computer science that are aligned closely with those associated with engineering programs. Faculty connected their courses to the program outcomes with specific course outcomes, which are assessed quantitatively by multiple measurement methods. The end result is a program assessment procedure that fulfills the intent of ABET/CACpsilas criteria, provides the program with useful and actionable feedback, and does so without imposing an undo burden on faculty. The outcomes originally chosen for this program are a close fit with the program outcomes listed in ABETpsilas recently published ldquo2008-2009 Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs - New Criteriardquo, thus the structure presented in this paper may be applicable to programs undergoing a transition to these new criteria.
{"title":"Assessment methods for the upcoming ABET accreditation criteria for computer science programs","authors":"C.R. Lang, H. Gurocak","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720324","url":null,"abstract":"The accreditation criteria and assessment expectations for computer science programs are undergoing rapid changes as ABET seeks to normalize the criteria between its EAC and CAC commissions. This paper presents the curricular structure and assessment methods of a new computer science program and describes how it has met ABET/CACpsilas current criteria. The program adopted a set of outcomes for computer science that are aligned closely with those associated with engineering programs. Faculty connected their courses to the program outcomes with specific course outcomes, which are assessed quantitatively by multiple measurement methods. The end result is a program assessment procedure that fulfills the intent of ABET/CACpsilas criteria, provides the program with useful and actionable feedback, and does so without imposing an undo burden on faculty. The outcomes originally chosen for this program are a close fit with the program outcomes listed in ABETpsilas recently published ldquo2008-2009 Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs - New Criteriardquo, thus the structure presented in this paper may be applicable to programs undergoing a transition to these new criteria.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123082557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720481
W. Lasher, R. Ford
This workshop will focus on two critical and inter-related issues in capstone design projects - project formation and faculty involvement. Project formation is a notoriously difficult process in any environment. Teams must be formed, project concepts identified, a project selected, specifications and goals determined, and implementation plans developed. Each of the preceding elements is critical to achieving success and requires a good level of understanding by both the students and faculty involved. Students often have little experience in this process and are challenged by its ambiguity and fluidity. Furthermore, faculty are not typically prepared by their academic training to understand or supervise capstone projects, and likewise find it challenging. This presents many barriers to effective and consistent project advising. When multiple faculty members advise projects there need to be consistent expectations and assessment methods. The inclusion of industrial sponsors and advisors adds another level of complexity, as their expectations are often different from those of the institution.
{"title":"Workshop - effective practices for team formation and faculty involvement in capstone design courses","authors":"W. Lasher, R. Ford","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720481","url":null,"abstract":"This workshop will focus on two critical and inter-related issues in capstone design projects - project formation and faculty involvement. Project formation is a notoriously difficult process in any environment. Teams must be formed, project concepts identified, a project selected, specifications and goals determined, and implementation plans developed. Each of the preceding elements is critical to achieving success and requires a good level of understanding by both the students and faculty involved. Students often have little experience in this process and are challenged by its ambiguity and fluidity. Furthermore, faculty are not typically prepared by their academic training to understand or supervise capstone projects, and likewise find it challenging. This presents many barriers to effective and consistent project advising. When multiple faculty members advise projects there need to be consistent expectations and assessment methods. The inclusion of industrial sponsors and advisors adds another level of complexity, as their expectations are often different from those of the institution.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116784509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720453
D. Davis
Many schools and programs have advisory boards that function as little more than a fundraising pool or an audience for the reading of the annual report. Ideally, an advisory board should team with the school to drive the strategic direction while providing advice on various important issues. Having the right group of people on the board is a key factor in determining how effective it will be. But, who are the ldquorightrdquo people? And, how should they be organized? According to many academic leaders, the board should be made up of a small, select group of people with a variety of experiences. This variety of people and experience makes the meetings much more productive and the board much more effective. Finding and attracting the right outside advisors is not as easy as it seems. Regardless of who is on your board, it is important that they can be relied upon for good advice and direction.
{"title":"Partnering with industry via your advisory board","authors":"D. Davis","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720453","url":null,"abstract":"Many schools and programs have advisory boards that function as little more than a fundraising pool or an audience for the reading of the annual report. Ideally, an advisory board should team with the school to drive the strategic direction while providing advice on various important issues. Having the right group of people on the board is a key factor in determining how effective it will be. But, who are the ldquorightrdquo people? And, how should they be organized? According to many academic leaders, the board should be made up of a small, select group of people with a variety of experiences. This variety of people and experience makes the meetings much more productive and the board much more effective. Finding and attracting the right outside advisors is not as easy as it seems. Regardless of who is on your board, it is important that they can be relied upon for good advice and direction.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"361 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120939859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720330
O. Gotel, V. Kulkarni, C. Scharff
This paper reflects upon three years of experience of running Global Software Development projects for students distributed across three countries. The paper focuses almost exclusively on the instructorspsila perspective of such projects and articulates the various Project Management concerns that instructors from the participating institutions need to consider and agree upon to both collaborate on such an international initiative and to run the constituent student projects. Each decision made has implications for instructor workload, institutional relationships and the kind of pedagogical experience that students will receive. The paper uses the Project Management Body of Knowledge as a framework through which to delineate the concerns and types of decision that need to be taken, to explain some of the challenges we faced and strategies we developed to overcome them. The paper seeks to provide guidance to other instructors who are considering the Global Software Development path for their student Software Engineering projects, based upon our experiences of uniting over one hundred students and seven instructors, and suggests critical questions that need to be examined a priori to any such new effort.
{"title":"Instructor or project manager: What is the right balance as software engineering education goes global?","authors":"O. Gotel, V. Kulkarni, C. Scharff","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720330","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reflects upon three years of experience of running Global Software Development projects for students distributed across three countries. The paper focuses almost exclusively on the instructorspsila perspective of such projects and articulates the various Project Management concerns that instructors from the participating institutions need to consider and agree upon to both collaborate on such an international initiative and to run the constituent student projects. Each decision made has implications for instructor workload, institutional relationships and the kind of pedagogical experience that students will receive. The paper uses the Project Management Body of Knowledge as a framework through which to delineate the concerns and types of decision that need to be taken, to explain some of the challenges we faced and strategies we developed to overcome them. The paper seeks to provide guidance to other instructors who are considering the Global Software Development path for their student Software Engineering projects, based upon our experiences of uniting over one hundred students and seven instructors, and suggests critical questions that need to be examined a priori to any such new effort.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127479970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720456
B. Richardson, K. Davis, M.D. Beach
This paper describes the activities of a Computer Science doctoral student and a Secondary Education masters student in the design, development, and implementation of a lesson for a high school science class. The graduate students, called Fellows, worked in secondary classrooms in the Cincinnati Public School District as a part of Project STEP at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Science Foundation GK-12 Program. The Fellows formed partnerships with secondary math and science teachers to generate new lessons, activities, and resources to enhance the STEM skills of high school students. Additionally, the Fellows used their engineering expertise to bring authentic, inquiry-based learning experiences into the classroom and introduced engineering concepts to underserved student populations. This paper highlights a lesson that integrates data mining and software engineering into a physical science lesson that focuses on the periodic table. Included in the paper are techniques used by the Fellows, reactions and feedback from the students, and observations and reflections by the Fellows regarding aspects of the activity that had the most impact on student learning.
{"title":"Introducing data mining techniques and software engineering to high school science students","authors":"B. Richardson, K. Davis, M.D. Beach","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720456","url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes the activities of a Computer Science doctoral student and a Secondary Education masters student in the design, development, and implementation of a lesson for a high school science class. The graduate students, called Fellows, worked in secondary classrooms in the Cincinnati Public School District as a part of Project STEP at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Science Foundation GK-12 Program. The Fellows formed partnerships with secondary math and science teachers to generate new lessons, activities, and resources to enhance the STEM skills of high school students. Additionally, the Fellows used their engineering expertise to bring authentic, inquiry-based learning experiences into the classroom and introduced engineering concepts to underserved student populations. This paper highlights a lesson that integrates data mining and software engineering into a physical science lesson that focuses on the periodic table. Included in the paper are techniques used by the Fellows, reactions and feedback from the students, and observations and reflections by the Fellows regarding aspects of the activity that had the most impact on student learning.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126050531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-12-22DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720406
M. Urban-Lurain, J. Sticklen
A common instructional model for first year engineering is the lecture/laboratory model. The most common implementation is lecture introducing material of a given "unit" followed by laboratory sections used to provide hands-on experience. An alternative implementation reverses the order. Students read assigned material, then attend laboratory sections, then at the end of the "cycle" attend lecture. Lecture is used to generalize from the specifics students have applied in lab, and to demonstrate common student mistakes. The pedagogically larger picture is that "lecture as wrap-up" requires students to take more responsibility for their own learning, and to be more actively engaged in their learning. In fall, 2004, and fall, 2005, we conducted preliminary studies to compare "lecture before" versus "lecture after" models; results seemed to be promising. In fall, 2006, and spring, 2007, we replicated the study before drawing conclusions. In the current report we display our final round of research, the results from it, and our summary for the three year study we have undertaken. Our final round of testing produced results that are not consistent with our earlier reported results. A call for others to replicate the study is made.
{"title":"Enhancing learning of low performing students in multi-section first year lecture/laboratory classes: Completion of a three year study","authors":"M. Urban-Lurain, J. Sticklen","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2008.4720406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720406","url":null,"abstract":"A common instructional model for first year engineering is the lecture/laboratory model. The most common implementation is lecture introducing material of a given \"unit\" followed by laboratory sections used to provide hands-on experience. An alternative implementation reverses the order. Students read assigned material, then attend laboratory sections, then at the end of the \"cycle\" attend lecture. Lecture is used to generalize from the specifics students have applied in lab, and to demonstrate common student mistakes. The pedagogically larger picture is that \"lecture as wrap-up\" requires students to take more responsibility for their own learning, and to be more actively engaged in their learning. In fall, 2004, and fall, 2005, we conducted preliminary studies to compare \"lecture before\" versus \"lecture after\" models; results seemed to be promising. In fall, 2006, and spring, 2007, we replicated the study before drawing conclusions. In the current report we display our final round of research, the results from it, and our summary for the three year study we have undertaken. Our final round of testing produced results that are not consistent with our earlier reported results. A call for others to replicate the study is made.","PeriodicalId":342595,"journal":{"name":"2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125410401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：