Search results

We investigate how different methods of instructor-led reviews for an introductory accounting exam may affect student achievement. We compare two review groups: students who review for the exam by playing Monopoly versus those engaged a more traditional review. We also include a third group (no formal review). We conducted an experiment by examining students’ test scores on an accounting cycle exam. The students were placed into three groups: those who played Monopoly to review for the exam, those who participated in a more traditional exam review, and those who did not participate in any formal review. Our results indicate that, as expected, reviewing for an exam significantly improves students’ exam scores when compared to peers that did not review. However, this result is driven by the students in the Monopoly condition. Students in the traditional review did not score statistically significantly higher than those in the control (no review) group. Also, we did not find that students playing Monopoly as a review scored significantly higher than students actively working in a more traditional review. This study contributes to the literature by informing professors about the efficacy of using Monopoly to review the accounting cycle. This is the first paper to directly test the effects of using Monopoly on student achievement.

The emergence of social media has provided an alternative mechanism for students to provide and access online reviews about universities. These forms of feedback are often not systematically monitored and interpreted by universities. The purpose of this paper is to analyse quantitative ratings and qualitative comments provided by students via Google reviews of 40 Australian universities. The qualitative comments were analysed via thematic coding which identified four key themes including quality of teaching, course design, learning environment and administrative support. The data were also subjected to automated content analysis using the text analytics software Leximancer to enhance the objectivity and reliability of findings.

The study involved the extraction of quantitative ratings as well as qualitative comments from Google reviews of 40 Australian universities. Each university was searched on Google and their rating and comments were collected as of August 2019. The qualitative data were included in an Excel spreadsheet along with the name of the universities, and their quantitative ratings. Using thematic coding techniques, the qualitative data were manually coded into four themes: quality of teaching, course design, learning environment and administrative support. Furthermore, the qualitative comments were grouped into two categories: positive comments and negative comments.

The paper argues the need for universities to actively monitor these new forms of student feedback which have provided autonomy and freedom for students and other stakeholders to access and provide 24/7 feedback. The study found common themes emerging from the positive and negative student comments related to: quality of teaching, course design, learning environments and administrative support. These aspects contributed to the students’ satisfaction levels when they reflected on their educational experience on Google reviews. The study also found that institutions with high numbers of negative comments tend to have lower ratings compared to those with positive comments.

The study did not use other learning analytic tools to measure and assess the feedback from students using social media and other forms of feedback.

Many studies have been undertaken on student experience. Studies have focussed on the experience of home and international students, on-campus and online students, and students from various underrepresented backgrounds. So far no study has been undertaken on the reviews provided by students using Google reviews.

This paper presents recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy. It provides an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts. The selected bibliography is useful to efficiently keep up with trends in library instruction for busy practitioners, library science students and those wishing to learn about information literacy in other contexts.

This article annotates 424 English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, theses and reports on library instruction and information literacy published in 2021. The sources were selected from the EBSCO platform for Library, Information Science, and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and WorldCat, published in 2021 that included the terms “information literacy,” “library instruction,” or “information fluency” in the title, abstract or keywords. The sources were organized in Zotero. Annotations summarize the source, focusing on the findings or implications. Each source was categorized into one of seven pre-determined categories: K-12 Education, Children and Adolescents; Academic and Professional Programs; Everyday Life, Community, and the Workplace; Libraries and Health Information Literacy; Multiple Library Types; and Other Information Literacy Research and Theory.

The paper provides a brief description of 424 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested as a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy within 2021.

Given the disruption of the COIVD-19 pandemic in higher education, this study seeks to understand possible changes in students’ ratings and textual reviews of higher education institutions posted on Niche College Rankings (niche.com) prior to and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study utilized a text analytics technique to identify the positive and negative keywords of students’ sentiments expressed in their textual reviews provided on niche.com. After identifying the positive and negative sentimental keywords, this study performed ordinal logistic regressions and analyzed the statistical effects of these positive and negative sentimental keywords on the types of student ratings of a higher education institution.

Results from 15,666 online reviews provided by students on niche.com indicate the following. First, eight positive sentimental keywords such as “outstanding” and “love” have a significant impact on students’ positive ratings of a higher education institution prior to COVID-19, whereas eight positive sentimental keywords such as “amazing” and helpful” have a significant impact on students’ positive ratings of a higher education institution after COVID-19. Second, twenty-eight negative sentimental keywords such as “difficult” and “frustrating” have a significant impact on students’ negative ratings of a higher education institution prior to COVID-19, whereas thirty negative sentimental keywords such as “complex” and “hate” have a significant impact on student negative ratings of a higher education institution after COVID-19.

This study is one of the first few studies investigating higher education institution ratings and reviews provided by students. Additionally, this study provides an understanding of student positive and negative sentiments expressed in textual reviews posted prior to and after the COVID-19 pandemic. By doing so, this study provides a basis for future research seeking to understand student textual reviews of higher education institutions. Additionally, this study offers higher education administrators some recommendations that may foster student positive campus experience while minimizing negative sentiments.

The purpose of this paper is to incorporate a blended pedagogical approach to Scientific Writing, and assess its effectiveness in improving students’ writing skills and scientific literacy. Effective writing is vital to the dissemination of scientific information and a critical skill for undergraduate science students. Various pedagogical strategies have been successful in improving writing skills and developing scientific literacy.

Mean scores on draft and revision assignments were examined longitudinally (2013 cohort, n=51) and across cohorts (2011, 2012, and 2013; combined n=94). Domain-specific composite scores were calculated from survey items addressing students’ self-perceptions of knowledge (K), general and scientific writing skills (GWS and SWS), and attitudes (A) related to scientific literacy. Changes in composite scores were analyzed using paired t-tests, and cross-cohort differences were examined via MANOVAs (SPSS, p < 0.05).

Mean scores on revisions following peer review and instructor feedback were significantly higher than those for drafts. Students ' perceptions of their K, GWS, SWS, and A increased significantly over the semester in the 2013 cohort, and were significantly higher in the 2013 cohort than those for the two earlier cohorts. Students identified peer reviews, revisions and other writing assignments, and literature searches as effective learning strategies.

One limitation of the study was that the authors lacked a control group for comparison. Pre-course survey data were only available for the 2013 cohort, and these data were incomplete, particularly with regard to perceptions of attitudes toward science and writing. Instructor feedback was not separated from that obtained through peer review. Thus, it was not possible to determine their respective impacts on students’ scores on revision assignments. Also, the number of writing assignments and peer reviews completed varied among the three cohorts enrolled in Scientific Writing.

Using a blended approach to teaching scientific writing significantly improved students’ writing skills and enhanced their perceptions regarding their knowledge, skills, and abilities related to science and writing. Students identified peer reviews, writing abstracts, and outlining an Introduction as most helpful in improving their SWS. They identified the final peer review, the revision assignment of the Results section, literature searches, and poster presentations of research as most helpful in improving their scientific knowledge and understanding. Engaging students in a variety of pedagogical strategies was successful in achieving specific learning outcomes in an undergraduate human physiology course.

The approach to peer review was more structured than those of previous studies. Engaging students with a variety of teaching and learning strategies improved both writing skills and scientific literacy in undergraduate human physiology.

The purpose of this study is to explore Master’s students’ literature reviews to better understand the literacies required for engaging in complexity in this genre and to inform graduate student pedagogy.

In this qualitative study, data were collected in the form of student literature review papers (23 drafts and 23 final versions) from students attending a research seminar course in an all-course Master’s program. All papers were analyzed for citations patterns, genre awareness and levels of complexity.

Results highlight the nature of complexity in this genre – that this complexity is underpinned by discursive issues such as “truth”, “claims” or “facts” that often mislead novice academic writers, and recognizing that knowledge contested in academic contexts is important to understanding and teaching students about complexity in writing.

One of the most challenging writing tasks graduate students face, is the literature review. Literature reviews require sophisticated conceptual maneuverings. Despite being analytical in nature, many students find it difficult to engage with the layers of complexity required in this genre. How do we make the complexity in literature reviews more visible and accessible? The argument in this paper is that understanding the nature of complexity in literature reviews can enhance writing processes and intentional explicit pedagogy.

This study aims to examine entry-level PhD students’ experiences with participating in Critical Friends, a peer review protocol, used to support learning the threshold concept of literature review. It also sought to determine if, and how, students used the peer review protocol electively during their first year of doctoral study.

The authors used a sequential, QUAL-qual mixed-method design to guide the study. Reflective learning journals, surveys and interviews were collected from three cohorts of PhD students (N = 18).

Thematic analysis revealed that giving and receiving writing critique was uncomfortable for these novice peer reviewers and many described emotional disciplining associated with vulnerability. Critical Friends offered a safe space to begin mastery of the literature review and begin transforming new researcher and writer identities. While Critical Friends was a positive experience for students, they struggled implementing the protocol on their own following the course.

These findings support the need for faculty to embed peer review opportunities in courses during the first year to facilitate role modeling and mentoring. The findings also demonstrate the need to engage students with peer review early in the program to increase comfort, cultivate student resiliency for accepting critical feedback and build capacity for students to learn with and from others.

This paper advocates for the use of peer review practices early in the doctoral study to promote the development of researcher identity and positioning within the research community.

This paper aims to describe an internal quality enhancement system based on peer reviewing and summarizes the first results of application at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences.

A peer review framework has been developed to evaluate and further develop the teaching programs and practices. The questionnaire-based peer review program included 22 courses and involved almost 100 lecturers. Peer review outcomes are completed by end-of-semester student course evaluations.

The results allow us to map differences between lecturers and courses and to identify correlations between the assessment criteria applied for peer reviewing.

The implemented framework implies individual, faculty and organizational development to enhance a deeper understanding of how to create quality in teaching programs and processes. Secondly, the peer review program contributes to the establishment of a learning community with a growing common understanding of what is considered good quality in business education.

The paper is valuable as a guide to faculty management wishing to implement a peer review framework within their own institution. The novelty of the presented approach is that it focuses on a semester-long teaching performance including classroom performance, course outlines, teaching materials, course requirements and processes and means of student performance assessments.

As librarians have developed a growing concern for fostering the information literacy of library users they have become increasingly involved in teaching many facets of information use. Completing a literature review forms one important context within which people learn to use information effectively, and within this process the need to be able to think critically about the relevance of information is very important. One of the problems that neophyte researchers face in the early stages of their research, is the need to interpret the possible “scope” or “coverage” of their literature review. This article describes eight ways of thinking about scope identified among beginning research students: topicality, comprehensiveness, breadth, exclusion, relevance, currency, availability, and authority. Some of these eight concerns reflect recognised information values. They also suggest strategic directions for librarians and other educators working with beginning researchers. These directions include the need to help students adopt psychological rather than topical views of relevance, and subjective rather than objective views of information. Such strategies are likely to reduce students’ emphasis on comprehensive coverage, and would encourage them to focus on establishing connections and meaning in relation to their own research.