Validation of Student Peer Assessment of Effective Oral Communication in Engineering Degrees

© 2018 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permissíon from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertisíng or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.[EN] Peer assessment is a form of collaborative learning in which students evaluate learning products prepared by other students. We present the results of an analysis of the assessment of oral presentations by students. A group of students solves a problem, writes a document with the solution, and makes an oral presentation in class to other students. Another group assesses the written document and oral presentation. To help students perform the assessments, two rubrics are provided along with other guidance documents that help in writing scientific documents and performing oral presentations. The rubric evaluates five factors of oral communication. The results of the student evaluations are compared with the simultaneous evaluations produced by two lecturers. When making a comparison of the global assessment between lecturers and students, we find significant differences. However, when the factor "use of auxiliary resources" is removed, these differences disappear as the factor introduces a difficult to justify dispersion. In addition, the assessment performed by students with and without the help of a rubric is compared and no significant differences are found.Meseguer Dueñas, JM.; Vidaurre, A.; Molina Mateo, J.; Riera Guasp, J.; Martínez Sala, RM. (2018). Validation of Student Peer Assessment of Effective Oral Communication in Engineering Degrees. IEEE-RITA: Latin-American Learning Technologies Journal. 13(1):11-16. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2018.2801897S111613

Validation of student peer assessment in effective oral communication in engineering degrees

[EN] Peer assessment is a form of collaborative learning in which the students evaluate learning products of other students. In this paper we present the results of the analysis of the assessment between students of oral presentations. A group of students solves a problem, writes a document with the resolution and makes an oral presentation in class for the rest of the students. Another group assesses both, the written document and the oral presentation. To help students to do the assessments two rubrics are provided along with other guidance documents which help in writing scientific documents and performing oral presentations. Regarding the oral communication, the rubric evaluates 5 factors. The result of the students¿ evaluation is compared with the simultaneous evaluation of two professors. When making a comparison of the global assessment between professors and students we find significant differences. However, when the factor ¿use of auxiliary resources¿ is removed these differences disappear, since that factor introduces dispersion difficult to be justified. In addition, the assessment performed by students with and without the help of a rubric is compared. In this case we do not find significant differences.Los autores desean agradecer al Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universitat Politècnica de València (España) el apoyo al Grupo de Innovación Docente e-MACAFI y el apoyo financiero a través del proyecto PIME/2014/A025Meseguer Dueñas, JM.; Vidaurre, A.; Molina Mateo, J.; Riera Guasp, J.; Martínez Sala, RM. (2017). Validación de la Evaluación entre Compañeros en la Comunicación Oral Efectiva en los Estudios de Ingeniería. VAEP-RITA. 5(2):70-75. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/153372S70755

Data set on the effectiveness of Flip Teaching on engineering students' performance in the physics lab compared to Traditional Methodology

[EN] This paper shows the data of the Flip Teaching and Traditional Methodology on the laboratory practice in two subjects, Physics and Electricity, of a technical degree. The laboratory and final grades of these subjects were shown in four consecutive years. The characteristics of all four years were quite similar, except that the Traditional teaching Methodology (TM) was used in two, while Flip Teaching methodology (FT) was applied in the other two. For further discussion, please refer to the scientific article entitled "Effectiveness of flip teaching on engineering students' performance in the physics lab" [1]. Additional segmentation data in three levels are presented in this data in brief paper.This work was supported by the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia [Project PIME/2018/B25 Convocatoria de Proyectos de Innovacion y Convergencia de la UPV].Gómez-Tejedor, J.; Vidaurre, A.; Tort-Ausina, I.; Molina Mateo, J.; Serrano, M.; Meseguer Dueñas, JM.; Martínez Sala, RM.... (2020). Data set on the effectiveness of Flip Teaching on engineering students' performance in the physics lab compared to Traditional Methodology. Data in Brief. 28:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104915S1728Gómez-Tejedor, J. A., Vidaurre, A., Tort-Ausina, I., Molina-Mateo, J., Serrano, M.-A., Meseguer-Dueñas, J. M., … Riera, J. (2020). Effectiveness of flip teaching on engineering students’ performance in the physics lab. Computers & Education, 144, 103708. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.10370

Evaluación entre compañeros de la comunicación oral efectiva

[EN] Peer assessment is a form of collaborative learning where students evaluate the product of learning of other students. In our case, students perform two types of evaluation related to effective communication: they evaluate quantitatively, in teamwork, problems solved by another team, and later they evaluate qualitatively oral presentations of problem solutions. They have been given guidelines on how to perform the evaluation. The result has been compared to the assessment made by teachers. In the qualitative assessment of the oral presentations, we have not found significant differences between students and professors. Furthermore, the arguments that support evaluations are rigorous and show their learning through work done by peers[ES] La evaluación entre compañeros es una forma de aprendizaje colaborativo en el que los estudiantes valoran el producto de aprendizaje de otros estudiantes. En nuestro caso, efectúan dos tipos de evaluación relacionados con la comunicación efectiva: en equipo evalúan cuantitativamente documentos con la resolución de problemas de otros equipos, y, posteriormente, evalúan cualitativamente las presentaciones orales de los ejercicios. Se les han dado pautas sobre como llevar a cabo la evaluación. El resultado ha sido comparado con la evaluación hecha por los profesores. En la evaluación cualitativa de las presentacions no se ha encontrado diferencias significativas entre la realizada por los alumnos en equipo y la de los profesores. Además, la argumentación que hacen a las valoraciones son rigurosas y muestran su aprendizaje a través del trabajo hecho por los compañeros.Los autores desean agradecer al Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universitat Politècnica de València (España) el apoyo al Grupo de Innovación Docente e-MACAFI y el apoyo financiero a través del proyecto PIME/2014/A025.Messeguer-Dueñas, J.; Vidaurre Garayo, AJ.; Molina Mateo, J.; Riera Guasp, J.; Martínez Sala, RM. (2016). Evaluación entre compañeros de la comunicación oral efectiva. En In-Red 2016. II Congreso nacional de innovación educativa y docencia en red. Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/INRED2016.2016.4295OC

Valoración del alumnado sobre distintos formatos de vídeos utilizados en docencia inversa en prácticas de laboratorio

[EN] The students’opinion about the videos used in the flipped teaching in laboratory sessions is analized in this work. A survey with 7 multiple choice questions and one open question has been performed, obtanining 54 replies, from a total number of 155 students whi are attending the laboratory sessions. Students were asked about their preference between videos and written material (with some images), and about their preference between the three types of videos pffered: screencast (one of them including the image of the teacher and the other one with his/her voice only), and “Polimedia”. Results have shown that students prefer video files instead of written docuements when they have to prepare their laboratory sessions. Moreover, there is a statistically significant preference for the videos where the image of the professor is shown. On the other hand, despite the format of video “Poliformat” has been the best valuated, there are certain aspects to be added, as the valuation thay made of the other types of videos (which is also good), or the critrica comments on this format shown in the open question of the survey.[ES] En este trabajo se analiza la opinión de los estudiantes sobre los vídeosutilizados en la docencia inversa de prácticas de laboratorio. Se ha realizadouna encuesta con 7 preguntas de respuesta múltiple y una de respuesta abierta,contestada por 54 alumnos de los 155 que asisten al laboratorio. En ella sepregunta sobre la valoración del video frente documentos de texto e imagen,y sobre tres modelos de vídeo: dos de ellos responden al modelo de“screencast” (en uno de ellos está presente la imagen del profesor y en otrono) y el tercero es un “Polimedia”. Los resultados indican que los estudiantes,en general, prefieren archivos de video a documentos de texto para lapreparación de las prácticas de laboratorio. Además, se observa unapreferencia estadísticamente significativa a favor de los videos en los que semuestra la imagen del profesor. Por otra parte, aunque el formato de video“Polimedia” ha sido el mejor valorado, hay ciertos matices a destacar, comoes la valoración que hacen de los otros dos tipos de vídeos, que también esbuena, o los comentarios críticos con este formato mostrados en la preguntade respuesta abierta.Los autores agradecen al Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación de la universitat Politècnica de València su apoyo al grupo de Innovación e-MACAFI y al Proyecto PIME/2016/A/017.Gómez Tejedor, JA.; Martínez Sala, RM.; Meseguer Dueñas, JM.; Molina Mateo, J.; Quiles Casado, SDLS.; Riera Guasp, J.; Serrano Jareño, MA.... (2017). Valoración del alumnado sobre distintos formatos de vídeos utilizados en docencia inversa en prácticas de laboratorio. En In-Red 2017. III Congreso Nacional de innovación educativa y de docencia en red. Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. 621-630. https://doi.org/10.4995/INRED2017.2017.6876OCS62163

Effects of soil water-holding capacity and soil N-NO<SUB>3</SUB><SUP>−</SUP> and K on the nutrient content, vigour and yield of cv. Tempranillo vine and the composition of its must and wine

The aim of this study was to assess the relationships between the soil water-holding capacity (SWHC), nitrate nitrogen (N-NO3−) and extractable potassium (K) content of soil; the vine nutrient content, vigour and yield; and the quality of the musts and wines in DOCa Rioja vineyards over a five-year period (2010–2014). The SWHC, N-NO3− and extractable K content of the soil were analysed in twelve cv. Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) plots. Vine yield, nutritional parameters and the K and polyphenol compounds in the musts and wines were determined. In general, both the SWHC and the soil N-NO3− content were positively correlated with the N and K content of the petiole, the shoot weight and the bunch weight, but negatively correlated with the polyphenol and anthocyanin content of the musts and wines. The K extractable content was also correlated with the K content of the petiole and with the K in the musts and wines. The SWHC, the N-NO3− and the extractable K are soil parameters which have been linked to the growth and ripening of the vine plant and to the composition of the must and wine. For DOCa Rioja agroclimatic conditions, assessment of these soil parameters would enable selecting soils that support obtaining wines of better quality

The Influence of Climatic Conditions and Agronomic Practices on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a Conventional Vineyard (DOCa. Rioja, Spain)

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are influenced by physical, chemical, biological, and anthropogenic factors. The objective of the study is to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the emissions of three important agricultural GHGs (CO2, N2O, and CH4) in both rows and alleys of a vineyard (1) and to understand their interactions with the agricultural operations carried out in the experimental plot, namely tillage, inter-row management, application of mineral and organic fertilizers, and irrigation and pruning, as well as the agroclimatic conditions of the plot (2). The study was conducted in a vineyard of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo blanco in the DOCa. Rioja grape-growing region, during 2017, 2018, and 2019. Cumulative CO2 emissions were highest in 2018, reaching 934.7 ± 66.5 kg ha−1 day−1 in the alleys and 926.8 ± 76.5 kg ha−1 day−1 in the rows, in agreement with the wetter year and organic matter decomposition at the end of 2017. N2O emissions during the three-year study were mainly affected by mineral fertilizer application, with increases of 41.1 g ha−1 day−1 in the alleys and 49.3 g ha−1 day−1 in the rows during 2018, and 33.1 g ha−1 day−1 in the alleys and 39.6 g ha−1 day−1 in the rows in 2019. Regarding CH4, anaerobic soil conditions in 2018 (the year with the highest rainfall) led to the highest flux of CH4 emissions to the atmosphere, with 215.5 ± 51.0 g ha−1 day−1 in the corridors and 238.4 ± 54.9 g ha−1 day−1 in the rows. This study emphasizes the complex interplay of physical, chemical, biological, and human-related factors affecting GHG emissions in viticultural soils. Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing sustainable vineyard practices that minimize emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation