Using Student Video Presentations to Develop Communication Skills
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Communication skills are one of several professional skills that are required for engineering graduates that pose difficulties for engineering educators. The issues around these skills include what to teach, how to teach them, and how to assess students’ abilities. As part of a curriculum reform project that is a component of a larger department change effort, three required classes of the third year curriculum of an Electrical and Computer Engineering program have added a knowledge integration component that occurs approximately every five weeks. During these integration efforts, students are required to integrate knowledge from the three courses to evaluate the design of a cell phone. The goal of these efforts is to have the students connect the knowledge across the three courses using a practical real-world device. Additionally, students are required to produce short video presentations to demonstrate their abilities in integrating the knowledge and the ability to communicate this via a video presentation. The video presentation assignment includes several components. To provide scaffolding for the student efforts, a couple of high-quality example video presentations are made available. These videos were developed by graduate students involved with the knowledge integration project. After the graduate students developed initial versions of their videos, they were critiqued by several faculty and then finalized and made available to the students. A time limit of 7.5 minutes was given for each video. After producing the videos, students were required to perform an anonymous peer review of three classmates’ presentations. Additionally, one graduate student, not responsible for an example video, then also performed an assessment of the videos. The students were also required to provide guided self-reflections on their communication skills after they had completed their videos and performed and received peer reviews. Herein we present results of the assessment data collected for this project. There are a couple of goals related to the assessment of the videos. First, a comparison is made between the assessments of the GTA and peer assessments with the students’ self-reflections –looking for areas of consistency. Then a second evaluation was performed where a random selection of videos were evaluated by members of an industry advisory board to look for similarities and differences between their evaluation and the in-house, or academic, evaluations. The methodology for this work includes collecting the text-based evaluations from each constituents. These texts were then coded for emergent themes that are compared across the various constituents. The results of this work demonstrate the efficacy of combining peer reviews with self-reflections in the development of students’ communication skills.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».