Freehand Sketching for Engineers: A Pilot Study

This paper describes a pilot study to evaluate Freehand Sketching for Engineers, a one credit, five week course taught to undergraduate engineering students. The short-term goal of this course was to improve engineering students’ freehand sketching ability and to assess their progress with metrics. The long-term objective (desired learning outcome) of this course is to improve the creativity and innovation of student design projects by enhancing students’ ability to visualize their ideas with freehand sketches. The class met two days a week for 75 min per day. Students were taught to draw simple objects such as electrical boxes, with orthographic, isometric, and oblique views on 8 ½ x 11 in. sheets of blank paper (no grid lines) and wooden #2 pencils. No instruments, such as rulers and compasses, were allowed. The course required students to apply what they learned in the classroom and included many examples of hands-on, active and student-centered learning activities. Two assessments were performed to measure whether students improved their ability to freehand sketch. The first involved two outside reviewers (industrial designers) who evaluated each student’s sketch of a pipe fitting that was drawn in the first class (pre-test) and a sketch of the same pipe fitting in the eighth class (after 7 hours of instruction - post-test). Sketches were evaluated using a 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) Likert scale. The second assessment consisted of an evaluation of the final projects, which were a collection of five sketches with different views of an engineered product. Evaluations of the pre- and post-test drawings and the final projects by outside reviewers and positive observations by engineering faculty suggest that this course has the potential to improve students’ ability to sketch objects. This paper discusses details of the course, provides examples of student sketches, and presents results of outside reviewer assessments. It includes suggestions for a more rigorous assessment of the course to determine its potential to improve students’ ability to sketch objects

Strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review

This journal article published at the October 2000 Frontiers in Education Conference discusses strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review. It outlines a peer-grading system for review of student assignments over the World-Wide Web called Peer Grader. The system allows authors and reviewers to communicate and authors to update their submissions. This system facilitates collaborative learning and makes it possible to break up a large project into smaller portions. The article summarizes a unique and innovative method of peer-review. Educational levels: Graduate or professional

Methods for Ordinal Peer Grading

MOOCs have the potential to revolutionize higher education with their wide outreach and accessibility, but they require instructors to come up with scalable alternates to traditional student evaluation. Peer grading -- having students assess each other -- is a promising approach to tackling the problem of evaluation at scale, since the number of "graders" naturally scales with the number of students. However, students are not trained in grading, which means that one cannot expect the same level of grading skills as in traditional settings. Drawing on broad evidence that ordinal feedback is easier to provide and more reliable than cardinal feedback, it is therefore desirable to allow peer graders to make ordinal statements (e.g. "project X is better than project Y") and not require them to make cardinal statements (e.g. "project X is a B-"). Thus, in this paper we study the problem of automatically inferring student grades from ordinal peer feedback, as opposed to existing methods that require cardinal peer feedback. We formulate the ordinal peer grading problem as a type of rank aggregation problem, and explore several probabilistic models under which to estimate student grades and grader reliability. We study the applicability of these methods using peer grading data collected from a real class -- with instructor and TA grades as a baseline -- and demonstrate the efficacy of ordinal feedback techniques in comparison to existing cardinal peer grading methods. Finally, we compare these peer-grading techniques to traditional evaluation techniques.Comment: Submitted to KDD 201

Centralisation of assessment: meeting the challenges of multi-year team projects in information systems education

This paper focuses on the difficulties of assessing multi-year team projects, in which a team of students drawn from all three years of a full-time degree course works on a problem with and for a real-life organization. Although potential solutions to the problem of assessing team projects may be context-dependent, we believe that discussing these in our paper will allow readers to relate to their teaching cases and increase the general appreciation of team project related work. Findings discussed in this paper are based on the first cycle of action research in relation to an existing multi-year team project scheme. Based on the interpretivist perspective, this work draws on data from staff and student focus groups, semi structured interviews and surveys. Team project clients were also asked to comment on their experiences and the way they would like team projects to be improved in the future. Since issues affecting the success of team projects are quite closely inter-related, a systemic view is adopted rather than analysis of a single issue in isolation. Overall there is a feeling that multi-year team projects are a good idea in theory but can be challenging to implement in practice. It is argued that the main areas of concern are the assessment process, the dilemmas and tensions that it can introduce, and the related inconsistencies in stakeholder involvement, which can compromise the learning experience if not handled well. We believe that the assessment process holds the key to a successful learning experience in team project work

Peer Reviewers Describe Success in Grant Writing

This article presents a comment on success in grant writing. According to the survey of 92 administrators of mass communication programs, successful grant applications rank in the top 10 in importance to successful faculty performance. To increase the success rate of grant proposals, many universities hold faculty seminars with representatives from a research support or graduate studies office making presentations. The objective of the author is to obtain specific criteria on acceptable grant proposals from the people who review proposals in mass communication research. According to reviewers, grant proposals in the communication area are almost exclusively quantitative