Engaging Freshman Engineers Using the Paul-Elder Model of Critical Thinking
Table 3. Faculty impressions of student responses on Analyze the Discipline exercises
Download 407.01 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
ASEE-2012-FirstYear-final paper
Table 3. Faculty impressions of student responses on Analyze the Discipline exercises.
Student Category Course Grade Faculty Impressions of the Analyze the Discipline Exercise 1 HA A good - thoughtful throughout, more trouble with points of view and assumptions - but got better! 2 HA A missed the central questions, some improvement with points of view, missed assumptions throughout; 3 HA A clear that student was engaged and listened to presentation; had trouble with points of view and assumptions; 4 HA A clear that student was engaged and listened; also had trouble with points of view and assumptions; 5 HA A assumptions - ones made about engineers, not assumptions THEY make; but IMPROVED drastically by end - very good through ECE; overall very good effort on all of these - proficient with elements 6 HA A struggled with points of view for BE onward, but good on first two; actually got worse - seemed to take less seriously as progressed 7 HA A had trouble with point of view and assumptions - but went in right direction - just weak - and continued with this answer (assumed that their data comes from reliable sources - wrote this for all of them!) On both of these, took a simplistic idea and used each time. 8 HA A problems with assumptions and points of view; answers got weaker with progression. 9 HA A same issue with points of view and assumptions; effort seemed to decrease - answers improved in some areas, worse in others with progression 10 HA A some improvement in point of view and assumptions - clearly most challenging 11 HA A Probably best effort but still it is clear that more discussion is needed on point of view especially more; excellent work throughout on other elements 12 I A good on purpose and questions; same trouble with points of view and assumptions on some, not all; poor on CEE - least effort appears to be put in; all others thoughtfully done; especially good with ME; 13 I A CECS one best I have seen - even for assumptions and points of view; poor CEE ( I think the speaker made a joke about assumptions people made about CEEs - wear hardhats- and kids started answering the question about assumptions from that perspective) ; pretty good on points of view and assumptions 14 I A struggled with assumptions and points of view; consistent effort, but missed point on most of elements only purpose and central question were very good 15 I B both CEE students thought implications were all dire - death, flooding, etc.; weak assumptions and points of view; effort appeared consistent 16 I B problems with assumptions and points of view; answers got shorter with progression 17 I A same issues with points of view and assumptions; answers worse with progression 18 I A only 4 assignments; similar issues with point of view and assumptions 19 I A effort and work seemed to decline with progression; took comments of presenter at strict face value; unable to integrate the entire content of the presentation; 20 LA B some fairly thoughtful answers, just left a lot of them blank; missing 3 assignments 21 LA B misunderstanding of points of view and assumptions(made about the career itself - good job, etc); missing 3 assignments; didn't take it seriously 22 LA A clearly did not understand assumptions or points of view, and wrote nonsense in places, general low effort - some fair answers 23 LA B frequently left assumptions and points of view blank; answers indicated some engagement but limited; some improvement with progression 24 LA C only three items, some brief, but fair answers, some off base, some good 25 LA D only two items, could barely read this - couldn't read most answers - Tas shouldn't have given credit for this work. 26 LA D Only 3 assignments; very poor effort, but some answers pretty good - even for assumptions and points of view 27 LA D only 4 assignments; similar issues with point of view and assumptions 2. There is a clear need for more and better feedback. This is difficult for any explicit critical thinking assignment, and is made more difficult by the large class size. One difficulty in giving a “solution” after collecting the assignment is that it can confuse students since their answers might be different but still accurate. It is therefore important to indicate to students, in the form of feedback, aspects of their response that meet a standard as defined by the instructors in advance. An approach being considered for next year is training of the TAs to score all the critical thinking assignments using a critical thinking rubric. In many cases, the overall quality of work actually declined from Analyze the Discipline exercises one to seven because the students didn’t feel the assignment was valued. Some of the very high achieving students did extremely well throughout, but in general that was not the case; and some even commented that they didn’t think anyone would ever read their assignment. Also, many errors of understanding the elements were made consistently across many of the assignments, punctuating the need to give more and better feedback. Finding an efficient way to provide feedback is a high priority for next year. 3. The elements of purpose, concepts, question at issue, and implications were well understood by all of the students, a very encouraging outcome which demonstrated their understanding of these elements of thought. These good responses also showed students learned something about the engineering disciplines, and they listened well enough to write it down for their assignment. It seems reasonable to assume they were engaged well enough to get more information from the presentation than they would already possess in most cases. Download 407.01 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling