Search results

The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of multiple campus teams as they engaged in the assessment of their science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) mentoring ecosystems within a peer assessment dialogue exercise.

This project utilized a qualitative multicase study method involving six campus teams, drawing upon completed inventory and visual mapping artefacts, session observations and debriefing interviews. The campuses included research universities, small colleges and minority-serving institutions (MSIs) across the United States of America. The authors analysed which features of the peer assessment dialogue exercise scaffolded participants' learning about ecosystem synergies and threats.

The results illustrated the benefit of instructor modelling, intra-team process time and multiple rounds of peer assessment. Participants gained new insights into their own campuses and an increased sense of possibility by dialoguing with peer campuses.

This project involved teams from a small set of institutions, relying on observational and self-reported debriefing data. Future research could centre perspectives of institutional leaders.

The authors recommend dedicating time to the institutional assessment of mentoring ecosystems. Investing in a campus-wide mentoring infrastructure could align with campus equity goals.

In contrast to studies that have focussed solely on programmatic outcomes of mentoring, this study explored strategies to strengthen institutional mentoring ecosystems in higher education, with a focus on peer assessment, dialogue and learning exercises.

This article focuses on the assessment of entrepreneurship competence by selected vocational teachers in Italy. The exploratory research question addresses the extent to which entrepreneurship assessments are competence based, and the research seeks to identify fully fledged assessment programmes with both a formative and summative component, and the use of assessment rubrics. It also explores the extent to which entrepreneurship competence is referred to in school documentation and later assessed, and the tools and strategies used for such assessment.

This case study is part of a larger European research project promoted by Cedefop; in Italy it focused on six selected vocational IVET and CVET programmes and apprenticeship schemes. It used a wide range of instruments to ensure triangulation and multiple perspectives: analysed policy documents and undertook online interviews with experts and policy makers. At VET providers' premises it deployed: analysis of school documents; observations of learning environments; interviews and focus groups with (in schools) teachers, directors and vice directors, learners and alumni (in companies) instructors, company tutors and employers, apprentices and alumni.

Assessment tasks were rarely embedded within fully fledged assessment programmes involving both formative and summative tasks, and assessment rubric for grading. Most of the time, entrepreneurship programmes lacked self-assessment, peer assessment and structured feedback and did not involve learners in the assessment process. Some instructors coached the students, but undertook no clear formative assessment. These findings suggest institutions have a testing culture with regard to assessment, at the level of both policy and practice. In most cases, entrepreneurship competence was not directly assessed, and learning outcomes were only loosely related to entrepreneurship.

One limitation concerned the selection of the VET providers: these were chosen not on a casual basis, but because they ran programmes that were relevant to the development of entrepreneurship competence.

At the policy level, there is a need for new guidelines on competence development and assessment in VET, guidelines that are more aligned with educational research on competence development. To ensure the development of entrepreneurship competence, educators need in-service training and a community of practice.

So far, the literature has concentrated on entrepreneurship education at the tertiary level. Little is known about how VET instructors assess entrepreneurship competence. This study updates the picture of policy and practice in Italy, illustrating how entrepreneurship competence is developed in selected IVET and CVET programmes and apprenticeships.

New educators may feel overwhelmed by the options available for engaging students through classroom participation. However, it may be helpful to recognize that participatory pedagogical systems often have constructivist roots. Adopting a constructivist perspective, our paper considers three meta-practices that encourage student participation: designing activities, leading others, and assessing peers. We explored the consequences of these meta-practices for important student outcomes, including content knowledge, engagement, self-efficacy, sense of community, and self-awareness. We found that different meta-practices were associated with different combinations of outcomes. This discovery demonstrates the benefit of studying meta- practices so as to reveal the nuanced effects that may arise from pedagogical choices. In addition, an understanding of meta-practices can help leadership educators to be more discerning and intentional in their course designs.

A sample (N=81) of undergraduates participating in a semester-long team-project engineering course completed assessments of their leadership competence, motivation to lead, and leadership self-efficacy, as well as the leadership competence of their peers who served within their durable teams. Results indicated that peers scored students lower than students scored themselves; that males deflated the transactional leadership scores of the female peers they assessed; and that the strongest individual predictor of teammate- assigned scores was a student’s affective-identity motivation to lead (i.e. the degree to which they considered themselves a natural leader). Leadership self-efficacy failed to significantly predict teammate scores.

The purpose of this paper is to describe an online faculty development pilot course on how to engage students online. A framework was used, referred to as the Trifecta of Student Engagement, for the design of the course. The Trifecta of Student Engagement proposes that students, in order to be fully engaged in a course, need to be engaged with their course content, with their peers and with their instructor. The course has three units of content that each correspond to the Trifecta of Student Engagement. This course has gone through one pilot with faculty and has impacted students and faculty positively.

An online faculty development course was piloted with eight faculty members across a range of disciplines who participated in the program. After taking the course, they had to apply the Trifecta of Student Engagement framework to a course they taught and share what they did via written report, webinar, or web presentation. This study summarized the faculty participants’ written reports and presentations as well as provided a qualitative evaluation on the impact this course had on students and faculty.

After faculty applied the Trifecta of Student Engagement framework to courses taught, faculty saw an improvement in student engagement, satisfaction, learning and achievement. Three faculty surveyed students to determine their engagement and satisfaction and found students to respond positively to the use of tools and activities for student-to-content engagement, student-to-student engagement and student-to-instructor engagement. Two faculty examined student grades to determine if there were changes in student outcomes. One professor saw average grades increase by 11 percent. Another professor saw grades improve by 8 percent. She also found that student assessment of learning increased by 0.57. Both faculty attributed the improvement to the effectiveness of the teaching strategies employed.

This research is limited to the eight faculty who participated in the pilot. Some faculty used methods to attempt to measure the impacts of their teaching practices by surveying students and looking at student performance data. A second pilot is needed for additional faculty to take the course and apply the Trifecta of Engagement framework to generate more data for impact.

Institutions looking to create an online teaching professional development course for faculty can utilize the Trifecta of Student Engagement framework for their course design. Additionally, faculty can read about tools and strategies that they can immediately apply to create more student-to-content engagement, student-to-student engagement and student-to-instructor engagement.

Faculty can be more intentional in how they engage students in their online course experience.

This paper adds to the literature on faculty development regarding student-centered teaching practices. Other institutions looking to create a faculty development course or program that utilizes a student-centered framework may find aspects of this paper useful for their own online teaching professional development initiatives.

Career preparedness is critical to successfully transitioning from college to a full-time work environment. Being prepared means students have the technical and non-technical skills to help an organization meet its strategic goals. In many instances, students lack the requisite career competencies and collaborative skills. This study proposes designing an instructor-led, career-driven quasi-virtual internship to address this issue and improve students’ preparedness and teamwork.

Our research integrates and expands the four-step processes outlined in instructional and course redesign theories, including analysis, design and development, implementation and evaluation. In the evaluation phase, a survey is used to collect data, and natural language processing is applied to identify the emerging themes. The sample included 104 undergraduate students enrolled in an information systems degree program, which resulted in a digital corpus of 40,744 words for analysis.

Results indicate that the implementation of instructor-led quasi-virtual internships offered a comprehensive career experience comparable to an onsite or virtual company-sponsored internship in five notable areas: (1) application of technical knowledge, (2) critical thinking, (3) time management, (4) application of IT project management and (5) collaborative skills.

Our study only evaluated participants in our treatment group. Future research should examine the differences between students who complete sponsored versus instructor-led quasi-virtual internships. Researchers can add a control group of students who receive a theoretically based capstone course. Future research can simulate randomized controlled trials (RCT) (Chalmers et al., 1981) to measure the effectiveness of quasi-virtual internships. A benefit of this research is that an open-ended survey allows for collecting rich, multifaceted primary data. The second limitation is that the study included only single-item questions. Future authors can create and validate a survey instrument based on the themes and concepts emanating from our investigation. For example, they can operationalize team dynamics and career preparedness using a reflective model in which the underlying construct drives the indicators, requiring multiple items to examine each construct (Coltman et al., 2008). Third, the sample size in the study was relatively small. We can increase the sample size using a time-series dataset with multiple measurement periods. The fourth limitation is context; this study was conducted at a public university; other institutions may have varied teaching approaches, student demographics and resources. By expanding our study using a multi-site approach (Ballantyne et al., 2012), we can increase cross-sectional sample sizes and improve the generalizability of the study’s results.

This study provides several practical insights for educators by examining quasi-virtual internships. Academic institutions that want to offer internships but struggle to establish industry partners can implement the quasi-internship model as an alternative approach. The study highlights that students gain critical insight into their future careers during these internships by being familiar with industry concepts and tools. We also provide insights into engaging students in “meaningful collaboration.” We suggest the instructor provide some time during the class sessions for group work to improve coordination and introduce industry-level tools that provide a more applied approach to IS education.

The National Survey of College Internships (NSCI) 2021 indicates that underrepresented and first-generation students were less likely to participate in internships. Our research may positively impact diverse communities since the quasi-virtual internship allows all students to participate once they are enrolled in a capstone class.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to utilize latent semantic analysis to analyze students’ feedback to improve course design, career preparedness and team dynamics.

The aim of this paper is to generate a streamlined, transparent and effective instrument to fairly measure the contribution made by each student to a group project within a higher education context. The primary aim is to moderate the grades of underperforming students at the end of the project. There is a secondary benefit in alerting underperforming students to raise their contribution mid-task or face a potentially reduced grade at the final stage.

The development of this multi-dimensional instrument is guided by findings from previous research. The quest is to minimise the instructor's administrative work load in applying a moderation-only instrument that is open-source and available at no cost. Based on the literature, the survey instrument seeks to apply a peer-based, equitable and transparent evaluation of each member's contribution to a group task. The survey is applied at mid-task and again at end-task in order to afford underperformers the opportunity to address contribution deficits during the final phase of the project.

The instrument, called TANDEM©, offers a transparent, streamlined, equitable, confidential and practical measure of each student's contribution to a graded group task. Students whose end-task contribution falls below the group average rating receive a proportional reduction in their personal grade. Additionally, the end-task moderation instrument captures a single-item holistic measure of relative contribution that may, in the future, serve as a surrogate for the multi-dimensional measures currently in place.

TANDEM© was developed with group sizes of four or five members in mind. There is no evidence to support its application to three-person groups. Moreover, the application was applied only amongst under-graduate students. It is yet to be applied across post-graduate groups and within online learning environments. Future research into diverse cultural settings would serve to advance understanding of how moderation is perceived across borders.

Several existing group grade moderation methods propose complex algorithms that are “black box” solutions from a student's perspective. In establishing a fair, streamlined, confidential and transparent process for peer-rated moderation, TANDEM© deploys a concise instrument with a relatively small administrative load. TANDEM © may be applied to all groups or can selectively be applied to groups that report moderate, strong or extreme levels of conflict.

Students will appreciate the opportunity to rate peer contributions to group projects. This will dissipate the negative social sentiment that may arise when fellow students benefit from the work of others. Those students seeking conflict resolution within the group will value the transparent and equitable moderation of grades as well as the positive social implications that follow.

This research forms part of an ongoing quest to present a moderation instrument that fairly identifies student contribution to a group project. Whilst the solution proposed is one of many existing alternatives, its focus is on a practical moderation-only instrument that can immediately be applied to a course or major. The benefits lie in the ease of application and minimal administrative workload. This constitutes an original contribution to the individual (course or major) coordinator who seeks to apply a moderation-only instrument without having to commit to an extensive, broad-based group optimisation programme.

This global, quantitative study explores the instructional and assessment strategy use of leadership educators who teach online, academic credit-bearing leadership studies courses at graduate- and undergraduate-levels. Participants include 81 graduate-level and 37 undergraduate- level instructors who taught an online leadership studies course within two years of completing the web-based survey used in this study. Findings suggest that discussion-based pedagogies, most commonly facilitated in online discussion boards, were the most widely used strategies. And, while reflection, case studies, and group or individual projects were also used frequently, instructors teaching graduate-level courses used ungraded formative quizzes significantly more often than undergraduate instructors. Findings also suggest that instructors attached the most weight to their students’ overall course grades to discussion boards, major writing projects or term papers, and participation.

This study compares the differences in instructional and assessment strategy use between instructors who teach undergraduate- and graduate-level face-to-face, academic credit-bearing leadership studies courses. Findings suggest that, overall, discussion-based pedagogies, case studies, and self-assessments are the most frequently used instructional strategies, while instructors attach the most weight in their courses to term papers, group projects, and class participation/attendance. Further, undergraduate-level instructors use service learning far more in their instruction, while graduate instructors attach much greater value to term papers.