Learning and Exposure Affect Environmental Perception Less than Evolutionary Navigation Costs

Russell E. Jackson is with University of Idaho, Chéla R. Willey is with University of California Los Angeles, Lawrence K. Cormack is with UT Austin.Most behaviors are conditional upon successful navigation of the environment, which depends upon distance perception learned over repeated trials. Unfortunately, we understand little about how learning affects distance perception–especially in the most common human navigational scenario, that of adult navigation in familiar environments. Further, dominant theories predict mutually exclusive effects of learning on distance perception, especially when the risks or costs of navigation differ. We tested these competing predictions in four experiments in which we also presented evolutionarily relevant navigation costs. Methods included within- and between-subjects comparisons and longitudinal designs in laboratory and real-world settings. Data suggested that adult distance estimation rapidly reflects evolutionarily relevant navigation costs and repeated exposure does little to change this. Human distance perception may have evolved to reflect navigation costs quickly and reliably in order to provide a stable signal to other behaviors and with little regard for objective accuracy.Psycholog

RSA in Young Adults: Identifying Naturally-Occurring Response Patterns and Correlates

Few studies have focused on the joint contributions of baseline and stress-responsive RSA on mental health outcomes, and no research to date has examined naturally-occurring profiles of RSA, which may be more predictive of emotion regulation ability and mental health outcomes than looking at either component of RSA alone. Participants were 235 (87.1% female, 73.6% Caucasian) undergraduates ages 18-39 (M = 19.62, SD = 2.12). In Part 1, latent growth mixture modeling (LGMM) was used to identify naturally-occurring physiological profiles accounting for both resting and stress-reactive RSA among young adults. In Part 2, multivariate ANCOVAs were used to predict 18 variable outcomes, specifically state and trait negative affect, depressive symptoms, and multiple emotion regulation techniques. Part 1 analyses supported the identification of four RSA response profiles described by baseline/slope characteristics: moderate/moderate (N = 183; M[intercept] = 6.72; M[slope] = -1.09), moderate/high (N = 10; M[intercept] = 7.31; M[slope] = -1.71), moderate/augmenting (N = 17; M[intercept] = 6.09; M[slope] = 0.77), and high/moderate (N = 25; M[intercept] = 8.10; M[slope] = -0.99). Part 2 analyses yielded significant results, so effect sizes were utilized to identify trends on outcome variables. The moderate/moderate group appeared to be normative, with both capacity and sufficient response to environmental demands. The moderate/high and moderate/augmenting profiles differed most consistently from all other groups. The moderate/high profile demonstrated generally adaptive outcomes, with lower depression and NA; and higher brooding, social support, and thought suppression. In contrast, the moderate/augmenting profile demonstrated less adaptive emotion regulation overall, showing higher avoidance, acceptance, and thought suppression; and lower problem solving, social support, and expressive suppression. Because the most variable component of the groups was the responsive RSA (e.g., moderate, high, or augmenting), it may be that this is an important defining factor in a profile when considering psychological outcomes. Results support clinicians considering biological strengths and vulnerabilities in case conceptualization, as well as coaching in effective engagement and appropriately modulated responses to life stressors

Building a community of practice to improve inter marker standardisation and consistency

Copyright © 2015 SEFI. Over several years the authors have coordinated engineering subjects, with large cohorts of up to 300+ students. In each case, lectures were supported by tutorials. In the larger subjects it was not uncommon to have in excess of 10 tutors, where each tutor is responsible for grading the assessment tasks for students in their tutorial. A common issue faced by lecturers of large multiple tutor subjects is how to achieve a consistent standard of marking between different tutors. To address this issue the authors initially used a number of methods including double-blind marking and remarking. This process was improved by using the benchmarking tool in SPARKPLUS [1] to compare both the grading and feedback provided by different tutors for a number of randomly selected project tasks. In these studies we found that while students' perception of difference in grading was not unfounded, the problem was exacerbated by inconsistencies in the language tutors use when providing feedback. In this paper, we report using new SPARKPLUS features developed as a result of this previous research to quickly establish and build a community of practice amongst subject tutors. We found that in just one session these processes assisted tutors to reach a higher level of shared understanding of the concepts and practices pertinent to the subject assessment activities. In addition, it enabled tutors to gain an appreciation of the grading issues frequently reported by students. This resulted in not only improving both the understanding and skills of tutors but changing the way they both marked and provided feedback

Improving self- and peer assessment processes with technology

Purpose - As a way of focusing curriculum development and learning outcomes universities have introduced graduate attributes, which their students should develop during their degree course. Some of these attributes are discipline-specific, others are generic to all professions. The development of these attributes can be promoted by the careful use of self- and peer assessment. The authors have previously reported using the self- and peer assessment software tool SPARK in various contexts to facilitate opportunities to practise, develop, assess and provide feedback on these attributes. This research and that of the other developers identified the need to extend the features of SPARK, to increase its flexibility and capacity to provide feedback. This paper seeks to report the results of the initial trials to investigate the potential of these new features to improve learning outcomes. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews some of the key literature with regard to self- and peer assessment, discusses the main aspects of the original online self- and peer assessment tool SPARK and the new version SPARKPLUS, reports and analyses the results of a series of student surveys to investigate whether the new features and applications of the tool have improved the learning outcomes in a large multi-disciplinary Engineering Design subject. Findings - It was found that using self- and peer assessment in conjunction with collaborative peer learning activities increased the benefits to students and improved engagement. Furthermore it was found that the new features available in SPARKPLUS facilitated efficient implementation of additional self- and peer assessment processes (assessment of individual work and benchmarking exercises) and improved learning outcomes. The trials demonstrated that the tool assisted in improving students' engagement with and learning from peer learning exercises, the collection and distribution of feedback and helping them to identify their individual strengths and weaknesses. Practical implications: SPARKPLUS facilitates the efficient management of self- and peer assessment processes even in large classes, allowing assessments to be run multiple times a semester without an excessive burden for the coordinating academic. While SPARKPLUS has enormous potential to provide significant benefits to both students and academics, it is necessary to caution that, although a powerful tool, its successful use requires thoughtful and reflective application combined with good assessment design. Originality/value - It was found that the new features available in SPARKPLUS efficiently facilitated the development of new self- and peer assessment processes (assessment of individual work and benchmarking exercises) and improved learning outcomes. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Authors' perceptions of peer review of conference papers and how they characterise a 'good' one

This paper examines the individual's experience of the peer review process to explore implications for the wider engineering education research community. A thematic analysis of interview transcripts showed that providing feedback to authors in reviews was mentioned equally as frequently as the role of quality assurance of the conference papers. We used responses from participants from various levels of expertise and types of universities to identify what were for them the elements of a quality conference paper and a quality review. For a conference paper these included that it should be relevant, situate itself relative to existing literature, state the purpose of the research, describe sound methodology used with a logically developed argument, have conclusions supported by evidence and use language of a professional standard. A quality review should start on a positive note, suggest additional literature, critique the methodology and written expression and unambiguously explain what the reviewer means. The lists of characteristics of a good paper and a good review share elements such as attention to relevant literature and methodology. There is also substantial overlap between how our participants characterise quality papers and reviews and the review criteria used for the AAEE conference, and for such publication outlets as the European Journal for Engineering Education (EJEE) and the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE). This suggests some level of agreement in the community about the elements that indicate quality. However, we need to continue discussions about what we mean by 'sound' methodology and 'good' evidence as well as establishing some shared language and understanding of the standards required in regard to the review criteria. The results of this study represent the first steps in improving our shared understandings of what constitutes quality research in engineering education for our community, and how we might better convey that in offering constructive advice to authors when writing a review of a conference paper. Since the peer review process has implications for the development of individual researchers in the field and hence for the field overall, it seems reasonable to ask reviewers to pay attention to how they write reviews so that they create the potential for engineering academics to successfully transition into this different research paradigm

Investigating invisible writing practices in the engineering curriculum using practice architectures

Writing practices are seen to be essential for professional engineers, yet many engineering students and academics struggle with written communication, despite years of interventions to improve student writing. Much has been written about the importance of getting engineering students to write, but there has been a little investigation of engineering academics’ perceptions of writing practices in the curriculum, and the extent to which these practices are visible to their students and to the academics. This paper draws on research from an ongoing study into the invisibility of writing practices in the engineering curriculum using a practice architectures lens. The paper uses examples from the sites of practice of two participants in the study to argue that prevailing practices in engineering education constrain more than enable the development and practice of writing in the engineering curriculu

Does pre-feedback self reflection improve student engagement, learning outcomes and tutor facilitation of group feedback sessions?

The authors have previously reported the effectiveness of using self and peer assessment to improve learning outcomes by providing opportunities to practise, assess and provide feedback on students' learning and development. Despite this work and the research of others, we observed some students felt they had nothing to learn from feedback sessions. Hence they missed the opportunity for reflection and to receive feedback to complete the learning cycle. This behaviour suggested that students needed more guidance to facilitate deeper engagement. We hypothesised that student engagement would increase if they were provided with guiding 'feedback catalyst questions' to initiate reflection and facilitate effective feedback on learning outcomes. In this paper we report testing whether this approach assisted students to gain more benefit from the self and peer assessment feedback sessions. In our investigation both students and tutors were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the feedback catalyst questions in improving student engagement and learning. We found that the pre-feedback self reflection exercise improved learning outcomes and student engagement with more than 80% of students reporting multiple benefits. Furthermore tutors reported that the exercise assisted them to facilitate their sessions. However, not surprisingly the degree of success was related in part to the attitude of the tutor to the exercise. This suggests that while the feedback catalyst questions were extremely effective there is no substitute for enthusiastic and engaging tutorial staff. © 2010 Gardner & Willey