FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2596395719> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2596395719 abstract "Abstract The concept of differentiated instruction (DI), i.e., adjusting material delivery according to the readiness of each student, has gained substantial interest in K-12 education. Current literature suggests that it is an effective option for designing instruction in classrooms where there is significant difference in students’ academic readiness levels. Evidence suggests that different readiness levels are a reality in college classrooms, and with it come different student needs in order to succeed. However, there has been significantly less interest in the application of differentiated learning techniques at the college level and which this study begins to address. This may be due to the level of commitment required for DI, where the burden of design of individualized mini-curricula for each student falls on the instructor, and may not be realistic for engineering college faculty. Additionally, college students are adults, and adult learning theory suggests that as such they should be responsible for their own learning. Based on these notions, our wider question was whether we could provide a design where the student could make a choice for a learning pathway adapted to their own needs, based on both their interests and readiness levels. One key pedagogical intervention tested in the study was a tiered homework assignment. In our design, these homework assignments consisted of problem menus organized in three categories, corresponding to the levels of apply, analyze and creating (termed “design”) in Bloom’s taxonomy. Each problem was assigned a number of points, and students were asked to choose problems in order to earn a certain number of points. A student could not complete the number of points required for passing by solving problems in the apply or analyze sections alone. The challenge was to encourage and support students’ extended reach towards the “creating” or design level. Four such assignments were presented over the course of a semester; each such homework was preceded by a conventional assignment that was graded for effort only, aiming at providing formative feedback to the student prior to the tiered assignment. Additionally, each tiered assignment was accompanied by a brief, open-ended questionnaire aiming at understanding how students chose problems to solve in this context. This allowed the instructor to assess students’ understanding and conceptions of the material as well as their misconceptions. Data for this study were collected during the Spring 2015 semester. 44 students provided written informed consent to have their course data analyzed for this study with 40 students completing the class; 4 dropped the class for reasons unrelated to the study. Student responses from the questionnaires accompanying the homeworks indicated that there are four major factors that drive such a choice: (1) Confidence that they can answer the question correctly was the strongest, with answer rates ranging from 80% to 86% over the four assignments. (2) A choice of questions based on how they would help them learn, or prepare for an exam, was the second cited motivation factor, which was mentioned in around 25% of responses in all assignments but the first one. (3) Time constrains, usually coupled with a rejection of the more complicated design questions, ranged from 6% to 17%, with concerns increasing as the semester progressed. (4) Looking for a challenge, which we initially assumed would motivate students to choose design problems, started at 16% and dropped to 10% towards the end of the semester. Interestingly, despite our expectation that this group would consist of the highest performing students, this was not the case: while some of the highest performing students were consistently in that group, that group also included students who exhibited overall lower performance levels in the course. Similarly, a lot of the higher performing students avoided the more demanding design problems. Concerns over a potential adverse effect on the final course grade and time demands seemed to be driving these choices. In this study, we present a detailed discussion on how these factors vary over time, and how they correlate with student choices and performance in the assignments. Overall, the intervention was well-received, even though thought of as time-consuming by the students, as indicated by a separate homework assessment questionnaire. Even though this is not a case-control study, both students’ success levels and ratings of the course improved compared to the previous year and is worthy of further study. Further data acquisition and analysis is currently underway which includes designing and enacting a video library for further supports for students’ learning." @default.
• W2596395719 created "2017-03-23" @default.
• W2596395719 creator A5024113212 @default.
• W2596395719 creator A5058066213 @default.
• W2596395719 creator A5043439186 @default.
• W2596395719 date "2016-07-06" @default.
• W2596395719 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2596395719 title "Examining Choice in Self-directed Tiered Homework Assignments in College-Level Engineering Courses" @default.
• W2596395719 cites W1539905757 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W1556686995 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W1586550618 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W1603958014 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W2020074764 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W2053430782 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W2072857498 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W2108117470 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W2126860562 @default.
• W2596395719 cites W2158877485 @default.
• W2596395719 doi "https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26791" @default.
• W2596395719 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2596395719 type Work @default.
• W2596395719 sameAs 2596395719 @default.
• W2596395719 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2596395719 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2596395719 hasAuthorship W2596395719A5024113212 @default.
• W2596395719 hasAuthorship W2596395719A5043439186 @default.
• W2596395719 hasAuthorship W2596395719A5058066213 @default.
• W2596395719 hasBestOaLocation W25963957191 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C106165879 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C110354214 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C2777004525 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C2781368961 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C5041995 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConcept C88610354 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C106165879 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C110354214 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C127413603 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C145420912 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C15744967 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C19417346 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C2777004525 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C2781368961 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C41008148 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C47177190 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C5041995 @default.
• W2596395719 hasConceptScore W2596395719C88610354 @default.
• W2596395719 hasLocation W25963957191 @default.
• W2596395719 hasOpenAccess W2596395719 @default.
• W2596395719 hasPrimaryLocation W25963957191 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W1986036947 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W2014899411 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W2087120320 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W2130589772 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W2132258358 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W2351723860 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W3039229321 @default.
• W2596395719 hasRelatedWork W1891995373 @default.
• W2596395719 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2596395719 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2596395719 magId "2596395719" @default.
• W2596395719 workType "article" @default.