Search for: All records

Abstract The current study explores the quality of students’ argumentation within the context of Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ) and Learning by Evaluation (LbE), focusing on the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) framework. The aim is to understand what students consider essential for superior engineering design journals and why, particularly examining evidence and reasoning components. Thirty-five students from four high schools participated in LbE, justifying their preferences for selected options. These schools were part of a broader five-school project, though one did not conduct the relevant session and was excluded from the study. Utilizing the CER framework, the study analyzed the structure of scientific argumentation, supplemented by thematic analysis to elucidate students' reasoning. Three response models emerged: Claim-Evidence (CE), Claim-Reasoning (CR), and CER. CE responses lacked reasoning, while CR responses lacked evidence. Students favored design portfolios with visual aids, detailed content, documentation of design failures, and clearly stated challenges. For reasoning, students highlighted the value of clear explanations of the design process, facilitation of group and individual work, idea generation, and instructional clarity. The study underscores the importance of teacher-led scaffolding to help students articulate comprehensive claims and suggests structured group discussions and modeling as effective supports. 

Classroom research has demonstrated the capacity for significantly influencing student learning by engaging students in evaluation of previously submitted work as an intentional priming exercise for learning; we call this experience Learning by Evaluating (LbE). Expanding on current LbE research, we set forth to investigate the impact on student learning by intentionally differing the quality of examples evaluated by the students using adaptive comparative judgement. In this research, university design students (N = 468 students) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups; while each group evaluated previously collected student work as an LbE priming activity, the work evaluated by each group differed in quality. Using a three-group experimental design, one group of students only evaluated high quality examples, the second only evaluated low quality examples, and the third group of students evaluated a set of mixed-quality examples of the assignment they were about to work on. Following these LbE priming evaluations, students completed the assigned work and then their projects were evaluated to determine if there was a difference between student performance by treatment condition. Additional qualitative analysis was completed on student LbE rationales to explore similarities and differences in student cognitive judgments based on intervention grouping. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of achievement, but several differences in group judgement approach were identified and future areas needing investigation were highlighted. 

In design courses, reviewing how others have solved design problems or completed projects is common practice and often encouraged by educators. Using student work as examples can provide context for assessment criteria and help students approach new design problems. While studies have explored the use of exemplars in various disciplines, little research has focused on which exemplars to use (e.g., high-quality, low-quality) in design, technology, and engineering fields. To address this gap, researchers conducted a literature review of 33 articles on exemplar use in secondary and post-secondary education. The analysis revealed nine themes related to exemplar use and their impact on student learning, including (1) Clarity of instruction, (2) Learner focus, (3) Motivation for learning, (4) Student reflection on learning, (5) Building student self-efficacy, (6) Identifying instructional challenges, (7) Providing contrasting cases, (8) The relationship between exemplar quality and student work quality, and (9) Raising the bar for learning outcomes. Findings suggest that simply providing an exemplar is not enough and that the selection of an exemplar can have positive or negative impacts on student motivation, understanding, and application. Carefully selecting exemplars and engaging in dialogue with students can help them identify expectations, recognize quality work, and identify potential misconceptions. These findings have implications for those involved in design, technology, and engineering education. Educators can use these findings to guide their selection of exemplars and engage students in meaningful dialogue to aid their learning. Researchers can also use these findings to further investigate the use of exemplars in these fields. 

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.