Search for: All records

This study explored the implementation of a novel approach to dual credit referred to as the facilitator model that can be suited for STEM-focused coursework such as courses focused on engineering, design, technology, and innovation. Unlike other models, high school teachers facilitate the implementation of a college course for both high school and college credit in collaboration with a university instructor who evaluates student learning. This novel approach was specifically implemented for an open-ended undergraduate design course within an engineering technology college, similar to many first-year engineering course experiences that emphasize project based learning, from a large research-intensive public university. For this study, the facilitator model was piloted with five high school teachers as facilitators of an undergraduate design course for dual credit at two innovative, STEM-focused public charter schools. The qualitative research design focused on examining (1) teacher needs while implementing, and perceptions of, the dual credit facilitator model for an undergraduate design course in urban public charter schools and (2) the impact of this model on student learning. This study included the collection and analysis of over 90 h of interviews, focus groups, surveys, and observations. Results provide a promising outlook for the use of the facilitator model when delivering dual credit content that is open ended and within the context of design, technology, and engineering by (1) navigating multiple institutional policies and processes related to dual-credit implementation, (2) providing ongoing support and fostering collaboration between high schools and university, (3) enabling students to earn directly transcripted college credits that count as a required course toward degree completion, and (4) increasing affordability and access to dual credit coursework. These potential advantages over other dual credit models can help address barriers that may limit access to dual credit coursework, specifically for underserved high schools. 

Adaptive comparative judgment (ACJ) is a holistic judgment approach used to evaluate the quality of something (e.g., student work) in which individuals are presented with pairs of work and select the better item from each pair. This approach has demonstrated high levels of reliability with less bias than other approaches, hence providing accurate values in summative and formative assessment in educational settings. Though ACJ itself has demonstrated significantly high reliability levels, relatively few studies have investigated the validity of peer-evaluated ACJ in the context of design thinking. This study explored peer-evaluation, facilitated through ACJ, in terms of construct validity and criterion validity (concurrent validity and predictive validity) in the context of a design thinking course. Using ACJ, undergraduate students ( n = 597) who took a design thinking course during Spring 2019 were invited to evaluate design point-of-view (POV) statements written by their peers. As a result of this ACJ exercise, each POV statement attained a specific parameter value, which reflects the quality of POV statements. In order to examine the construct validity, researchers conducted a content analysis, comparing the contents of the 10 POV statements with highest scores (parameter values) and the 10 POV statements with the lowest scores (parameter values)—as derived from the ACJ session. For the criterion validity, we studied the relationship between peer-evaluated ACJ and grader’s rubric-based grading. To study the concurrent validity, we investigated the correlation between peer-evaluated ACJ parameter values and grades assigned by course instructors for the same POV writing task. Then, predictive validity was studied by exploring if peer-evaluated ACJ of POV statements were predictive of students’ grades on the final project. Results showed that the contents of the statements with the highest parameter values were of better quality compared to the statements with the lowest parameter values. Therefore, peer-evaluated ACJ showed construct validity. Also, though peer-evaluated ACJ did not show concurrent validity, it did show moderate predictive validity.