A Thick Industrial Design Studio Curriculum

This presentation was part of the session : Pedagogy: Procedures, Scaffolds, Strategies, Tactics24th National Conference on the Beginning Design StudentThis paper describes an industrial design studio course based in a private university in Izmir, Turkey where second year industrial design students, for the first time, engage in a studio project. The design studio course emphasises three distinct areas of competence in designing that are the focus of the curriculum. They are; design process: the intellectual act of solving a design problem; design concept: the imagination and sensibility to conceive of appropriate design ideas; and presentation: the ability to clearly and evocatively communicate design concepts. The studio is 'thick' with materials, tasks and activities that are intentionally sequenced to optimise learning in a process that is known as educational 'scaffolding.' The idea of a process--a patient journey toward it's destination, is implicit in the studio that is full of opportunities for reflection-in-action. A significant feature is the importance placed on drawing and model making. An exemplary design process should show evidence of 'breadth'--meaning a wide search for solutions where a range of alternatives explored throughout; followed by an incremental refinement of the chosen solution where elements of the final design concept are developed thoroughly and in detail--called 'depth.' Learning to design is predicated on an engagement in and manipulation of the elements of the design problem. Evidence of that learning will be found by examining the physical materials and results of the design process. The assessment criteria are published with the brief at the outset of design project and outcomes are spelt out at the end. Students are remind throughout project of the criteria, which is to say they are reminded of pedagogical aims of the studio. Assessment criteria are detailed and the advantages of summative assessment are described

ISER 2012 Working Paper No. 1

Large resource development projects take years to plan. During that planning time, the public frequently debates the potential benefits and risks of a project, but with incomplete information. In these debates, some people might assert that a project would have great benefits, while others might assert that it would certainly harm the environment. At the same time, the developer will be assessing different designs, before finally submitting one to the government permitting agencies for evaluation and public scrutiny. For large mines in Alaska, the government permitting process takes years, and often includes an ecological risk assessment. This assessment is a data-intensive, scientific evaluation of the project’s potential ecological risks, based on the specific details of the project. Recently, some organizations have tried to bring scientific rigor to the pre-design public discussions, especially for mining projects, through a pre-design risk ecological risk assessment. This is a scientific assessment of the environmental risks a project might pose, before the details of project design, risk-prevention, and risk-mitigation measures are known. It is important to know whether pre-design risk assessment is a viable method for drawing conclusions about risks of projects. If valid risk predictions can be made at that stage, then people or governments would not have to wait for either a design or for the detailed evaluation that is done during the permitting process. Such an approach could be used to short cut permitting. It could affect project financing; it could affect the schedule, priority, or even the resources that governments put toward evaluating a project. But perhaps most important: in an age where public perceptions are an important influence on a project’s viability and government permitting decisions, a realistic risk assessment can be used to focus public attention on the facts. But if the methodology is flawed and results in poor quality information and unsupportable conclusions, then a pre-design risk assessment could unjustifiably either inflame or calm the public, depending on what it predicts.Executive Summary / Section 1. Introduction / Section 2. Overview of Ecological Risk / Section 3. Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology / Section 4. Examples of Post-Design Ecological Risk Assessments / Section 5. Pre-Design Ecological Risk Assessment: Risks of Large Scale Mining in the Bristol Bay Watershed / Section 6. Conclusion / Bibliograph

ASSESSMENT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM IN CHILE: EXPLORING THE WASHBACK EFFECT OF TRADITIONAL TESTING AND ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT ON SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS

Assessment has long been regarded as an integral part of the learning process. In the field of assessment, washback effect is understood as the impact of tests (or any assessment procedure) on the learner, the learning process, teachers, or such like. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to determine the washback effect of two different types of assessment procedures, namely, a traditional test and an alternative assessment procedure (a project) in an intact sample of 32 seventh-grade students, from a subsidised school in Chile. Through a mix-methods approach, quantitative data were gathered through a self-reported-washback survey, administered after a traditional test was given to the participants and after an English language project was carried out; qualitative data regarding the perceived effects caused by the test and the language project were gathered through a focus group interview. A series of t-tests was performed for quantitative data gathered through the washback surveys, while content analysis was used for the qualitative data emerging from the focus group interview. The results suggest that both procedures are positively valued, with the alternative assessment procedure being held in higher regard as far as motivation, anxiety and strategy use are concerned, as became evident in the focus group interview

Supporting health impact assessment in practice

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a process that aims to predict potential positive and negative effects of project, programme or policy proposals on health and health inequalities. It is recommended by national government and internationally. Supporting health impact assessment is one of the roles of English Public Health Observatories.The few centres in England with accredited health impact training centres have inadequate resources to meet demand. Currently, the London Health Observatory is providing the bulk of the training nationally. Some Public Health Observatories are currently investigating the preferences for support of those commissioning or conducting health impact assessment within their regions.The availability of published guidance on how to conduct health impact assessments has increased substantially over the past few years. The Department of Health has funded a research project led by the London Health Observatory to develop advice for reviewing evidence for use in health impact assessment. Completed health impact assessments can be useful resources. Evaluation of the process and impact of health impact assessment is important in order to demonstrate its usefulness and to learn lessons for the future.The focus for Public Health Observatories is to train and support others to conduct health impact assessment according to good practice, rather than undertaking health impact assessments themselves. The aim is to create sufficient skilled capacity around the country to undertake health impact assessments. The London Health Observatory plans to share its support models and to roll out a train the trainer programme nationally to enable effective local delivery of their national health impact assessment programme. (c) 2005 The Royal Institue of Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Student Learning Outcome Assessment at a Small, Liberal Arts Institution

This case study documents the use of improvement science to create and sustain an institution-wide assessment process and culture at a small, liberal arts institution in the mid Atlantic region. The project began when the institution was put on warning with the regional accreditor (Middle States) for an inconsistent student learning outcome assessment process. In order to gain reaffirmation of accreditation, the institution needed to quickly adapt and change to comply with the educational effectiveness standard. A new process needed to be centralized, systematized, and communicated to all stakeholders at the institution. This project chronicled the journey to reaffirmation and beyond using improvement science to fuse theories from change management, leadership, and organizational culture with assessment best practices to develop an assessment process and culture. Several projects were ongoing throughout the project with a specific test of change to pilot an assessment consultation in one academic department in order to spread and scale to other academic departments throughout the institution. The purpose of the test of change was to build assessment know-how, confidence, knowledge, and leadership. Through surveys, a focus group, and observation field notes, the project’s findings show promise for future consultations with other academic departments for spread and scale throughout the institution. This will require continuous improvement of the assessment process overall and the assessment consultation specifically

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

Youth Learners: The Authentic Neglected Species Learning for an Unknown Future

This paper reports on a major research project that investigated youth learning. Specific parts of the project have been published in other literature (Choy 2000, Choy and Delahaye 2000 and Choy and Delahaye 2001), and this paper provides an overview of the findings. The Study Process Questionnaire, the Student Orientation Questionnaire and the Learning Preference Assessment were completed by 448 youths (aged 18 to 24 years) from TAFE 59% and university (41%). Fifty three youths participated in five follow-up focus groups. Generally, youths studied in this project were found to be surface learners with low level of readiness for self-directed learning but, surprisingly, they showed a high preference for a combination of structured and unstructured learning. Youth comments on formal learning, the learning institutions and role conflicts are discussed. Finally, the paper suggests that learners progress through a four stage development sequence and that youth learners are at Stage 2

Co-designing climate-smart farming systems with local stakeholders: A methodological framework for achieving large-scale change

The literature is increasing on how to prioritize climate-smart options with stakeholders but relatively few examples exist on how to co-design climate-smart farming systems with them, in particular with smallholder farmers. This article presents a methodological framework to co-design climate-smart farming systems with local stakeholders (farmers, scientists, NGOs) so that large-scale change can be achieved. This framework is based on the lessons learned during a research project conducted in Honduras and Colombia from 2015 to 2017. Seven phases are suggested to engage a process of co-conception of climate-smart farming systems that might enable implementation at scale: (1) “exploration of the initial situation,” which identifies local stakeholders potentially interested in being involved in the process, existing farming systems, and specific constraints to the implementation of climate-smart agriculture (CSA); (2) “co-definition of an innovation platform,” which defines the structure and the rules of functioning for a platform favoring the involvement of local stakeholders in the process; (3) “shared diagnosis,” which defines the main challenges to be solved by the innovation platform; (4) “identification and ex ante assessment of new farming systems,” which assess the potential performances of solutions prioritized by the members of the innovation platform under CSA pillars; (5) “experimentation,” which tests the prioritized solutions on-farm; (6) “assessment of the co-design process of climate-smart farming systems,” which validates the ability of the process to reach its initial objectives, particularly in terms of new farming systems but also in terms of capacity building; and (7) “definition of strategies for scaling up/out,” which addresses the scaling of the co-design process. For each phase, specific tools or methodologies are used: focus groups, social network analysis, theory of change, life-cycle assessment, and on-farm experiments. Each phase is illustrated with results obtained in Colombia or Honduras

Self-Efficacy and Expectancy of Engineering Students in Higher Education: A Case Study of the Perceptions and Beliefs of Lecturers

Online assessment is intended to enhance the learning experiences of students and improve the manner in which feedback is delivered. This paper reports on an international project, undertaken in three countries, to examine the beliefs held by engineering mathematics lecturers about the self-efficacy, and constructs of expectancy of their students. The research provides a comparison with beliefs on these topics held by students in the first year of undergraduate Bachelor of Engineering programmes. The interviews were semi-structured to stimulate conversations around a set of pre-determined themes. The thematic inputs to the lecturer interviews resulted from interpretative phenomenological analysis of the beliefs, experiences and perceptions of 127 students, gained from a series of questionnaires, and interviews. The aims of the engineering mathematics lecturer interviews were to examine current practices in terms of assessment of mathematics, and the provision of feedback, in both online and face-to-face formats. A particular focus was to determine if the self-efficacy of students is considered within the process. The research highlights differences in understanding of the assessment process held by lecturers, and students, particularly in the early stages of the first semester. There is also evidence that students’ meta-cognitive functions evolve over the first year of study, and that this may reduce the differences identified between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions. The implications of these findings are discussed

Final Report-Workshop on Experiences and Options for Priority Setting in NARS, August 12-16, 1996, Nairobi, Kenya

The motivation for this workshop came from two sources. First, under a project funded by USAID (AFR/SD/PSGE/TDT Office), Michigan State University (MSU) has been carrying out various activities to assist African national agricultural research systems (NARS) and regional organizations to improve their capacity for strategic agricultural research planning, including technology assessment and priority setting within a commodity sector framework. Second, recent collaborative work by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) has focused on the development of a process and methods for program-level priority setting. The objectives of the workshop were (1) to provide a forum for ASARECA member NARS to synthesize their experiences with institute and program-level priority setting and technology assessment; (2) to examine the process and methods developed by KARI/ISNAR and other NARS in commodity program planning; and (3) to develop country-specific frameworks and action plans for a priority-setting/technology assessment study in a focus program area, to be carried out beginning in late 1996.food security, food policy, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, Downloads July 2008 - June 2009: 11, F0,