It is imperative when utilizing educational video games in K-12 classrooms that student preferences regarding game play, purpose, and design be considered to maximize game play efficiency for learning. As Web 2.0 content infiltrates our educational medium, student customization is key. This manuscript intends to share customization requests gleaned during an 18-week experimental study examining educational video game effects upon 7th graders enrolled in Mathematics and Mathematics 2 courses.
This article examines how service-learning positively impacts students' perspectives of the homeless. Data were collected through a preand post-assessment issued to students in a servicelearning course. At the beginning of the course, students characterized the homeless according to common stereotypes. At the end of the course, students' views were more humanized. Service-learning Improves Perceptions of Outgroups Service-learning (SL) is a variety of experiential learning that couples two distinct but complementary components academic learning and community service. This combination creates a social-justice oriented learning experience in which students are introduced to key concepts, which they observe firsthand while performing community service (Furco, 1996). SL affords students a glimpse into critical issues affecting local communities such as homelessness and poverty. By engaging in SL, students may also better understand service recipients who are struggling with these very issues. Research indicates that SL encourages critical examination of preconceived notions about marginalized groups, helping participants to identify and debunk the stereotypes, biases, and/or prejudices that they may hold (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000). SL has also been shown to enhance participants' empathy levels, making participants more empathetic towards the populations that they serve (Stewart, Tomko, & Lassila, 2012). This syncs with research on stereotype mitigation, which shows that sustained contact with outgroups tends to disrupt stereotypes, leading to more positive perceptions (Aberson & Haag, 2007; Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000; Buchanan, Rohr, Kehoe, Glick, & Jain, 2004; Gumpert & Kraybill-Greggo, 2005; Hock.ing & Lawrence, 2000; Hughes, Welsh, Mayer, Bolay, & Southard, 2009; Knecht & Martinez, 2009). One population often served by SL courses is the homeless, a social group burdened with pronounced stigma (Harter, Berquist, Titsworth, Novak, & Brokaw, 2005; Phelan, Link, Moore, & Stueve, 1997; Phillips, 2015; Shier, Jones, & Graham, 2010). Largely dehumanized as "[social] outcasts ... [eliciting] contempt and disgust," the homeless are stereotyped as lazy, mentally ill, substance abusers, and worse (Fiske, 2015, p. 46; cf. Forte, 2002; Harris & Fiske, 2011; Leibowitz & Krueger, 2005; Phillips, 2015; Rokach, 2014). Negative perceptions like these are dehumanizing, stripping the homeless of their individuality and "elicit[ing] both active harm and passive neglect." (Fiske, 2015, p. 46; cf. Shier et al., 2010) Could participation in a SL class positively influence students' optmons of the homeless? Early research indicates that it could (Buch & Harden, 2011); however, more research is needed to better understand if and how SL impacts students' perceptions of outgroups (Chupp & Joseph, 2010), including the homeless. Here we contribute to scholarship on the impact of SL by investigating how participants in a SL course experienced a shift in their perspectives of the homeless.
This mixed-methods pilot study investigates elementary and secondary pre-service teachers’ (n=12) mathematics and science content knowledge and conceptions of nature of science following the first year implementation of a science and mathematics site-based professional development program. This study utilized pre/post data from science and mathematics content exams, and Views of Nature of Science-C instrument. Data revealed gains in preservice teachers’ mathematics and science content knowledge and perceptions regarding the nature of science. Introduction The shortage of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) middle school teachers, especially those in low income and high minority schools, is exacerbated by the fact that many of the teachers are not adequately prepared or supported to foster success and interest in science and mathematics (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Ronfeldt, & Wyckoff, 2011). This study explored designing teacher preparation with authentic research experiences combined with siteand content-specific professional development. Field based experiences utilized inquiry and other tools to increase content understanding and deepen views of the nature of science. The purpose of this paper is to describe a mixed-methods pilot study investigating elementary and secondary pre-service teachers’ mathematics and science content knowledge and conceptions of nature of science following the first year implementation of a science and mathematics site-based professional development program. The key elements of this transformative strategy for bolstering the elementary to middle levels science and mathematics teaching certification pathway for preservice teachers will be discussed. Findings in this study will offer insight regarding fostering and developing preservice teachers’ math and science content knowledge and understandings of nature of science in teacher preparation programs. Literature Review Generalist elementary education degrees are among the most completed in the U.S. (NCES, 2012). However, many of these teachers have limited preparation for effectively teaching mathematics and science as they have usually completed only one to three content courses in generalist education programs (CBMS, 2012). Teachers who express uneasiness with mathematics or science are more likely to avoid planning or teaching these subjects (Newton, Leonard, Evans, & Eastburn, 2012). In addition, because educators struggle to adapt new curricula and new instructional techniques in their unique classroom contexts, just-in-time, job-embedded assistance was identified as crucial (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Teacher preparation institutions must provide access to high quality mathematics education and create supportive learning environments for preservice teachers (Capraro, Capraro, Parker, Kulm, & Raulerson, 2005). Furthermore, engaging preservice teachers in authentic, situated practices of science and science teaching provides a productive context to learn about the nature of science (Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004). Traditional teacher education programs often lack authentic connections between university-based teacher education courses and K-12 field experiences (Zeichner, 2007). Additionally, student teachers usually do not have opportunities to observe, try out and receive focused feedback about their teaching of methods learned in college courses. Darling-Hammond (2009) identified this lack of connection as the Achilles’ heel of teacher education. Preservice teachers are typically left to work alone with little guidance relating activities to coursework. Furthermore, it is often assumed that good teaching practices are personally identified as they occur, rather than taught in an authentic, situated context (DarlingHammond, 2009; Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009). A possible solution to these challenges is to prepare elementary and secondary teachers for grades 4-8 STEM instruction and the certification process by augmenting their science and mathematics content knowledge. Program Description Project Overview South Texas University (pseudonym) is testing an unconventional and transformative strategy for bolstering the elementary to middle levels science and mathematics teaching certification pathway for preservice teachers. As a nationally funded, research-based effort, a team of investigators are studying the impact of a new program initiative by using a mixed-methods matched-group research design addressing students, preand inservice teachers in relation to views on nature of science, as well as selfefficacy, interest, and achievement in science and mathematics as indicators of the quantity, quality, and diversity of grades 4-8 mathematics and science teachers. The purpose of this paper is to highlight initial findings using case-based studies to investigate preservice teachers’ changes in mathematics and science content knowledge and views of NOS in a site-based professional development program. During the 2013-2014 academic year, the 30-year teacher preparation partnership consisting of the largest school district and university in a mid-sized U.S. southern city, began implementing the new program at three participating schools, including one middle school and two elementary feeder schools serving a combined 1,900 students annually. Given the deficits identified in the effectiveness of traditional, externally designed professional development and the lack of authenticity in college preservice field-based experiences, program investigators created a new model for science and mathematics content instruction by incorporating siteand content-specific professional development with field-based experiences, using inquiry and other tools to increase authenticity. The key elements of the site-based professional development program includes a stronger partnership between the university and school district, a partnership with preservice and inservice teachers, implementation of research-based instructional practices in lesson planning sessions and workshops, and incorporating hands-on, activelearning experiences and strategies specific for each classroom situation. This study addressed the following research questions: 1) To what extent did pre-service teachers’ mathematics content knowledge change over the program period? 2) To what extent did pre-service teachers’ science content knowledge change over the program period? 3) To what extent did pre-service teachers’ views of `the nature of science change over the program period? Methods Context of the Study The College of Education teacher preparation program’s enrollment predominantly consists of preservice teachers seeking their early childhood/elementary teacher, grades EC-6 certification. Hence, the target population for this study was elementary preservice teachers in urban settings. Additionally, the program was offered to middle grades mathematics majors with the goal of them adding on a middle grades science certification. The EC-6 preservice teachers were enrolled in an undergraduate teacher preparation program and had taken three math foundation courses and two science foundation courses as part of their required courses. The middle grades mathematics majors had the same foundational courses in math and science as the elementary preservice teachers. The 4-8 mathematics majors had an additional 19 credits of mathematics coursework. The preservice teachers participated in this research study during their required year-long field experience, the final year of their program. The first semester of preservice teachers’ field experiences is the field based course, which focuses on the pedagogy and professional competencies of teachers. The course is comprised of students from a variety of disciplines. Therefore, the pedagogy component is not specific to the students’ major field of study. The field based course is hosted on-site at a K-12 school campus (partner school) and taught by a university site professor. The preservice teachers spend two days per week for 14 weeks working with their university site professor on pedagogical skills and time in assigned K-12 classrooms implementing teaching strategies and techniques with students. The second semester of field experiences is the student teaching semester, where preservice teachers spend five days a week for 14 weeks in a research partner school. In addition to field basing and student teaching, participants met after school to plan three inquiry-based lessons for STEM Thursday. The research participants were assigned to research partner schools and took their field-based courses over consecutive Fall-Spring semesters. In addition, participants received compensation for their participation. All preservice teachers’ names have been replaced with pseudonyms. The professional development efforts centered directly on providing authentic experiences in mathematics and science to enhance preservice teachers’ mathematics and science content knowledge and their understandings of NOS and scientific reasoning (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 1998). The program’s professional development model consists of: 1) common planning 2) STEM Thursdays 3) certification workshops and 4) authentic research experiences. Common Planning. There are two common planning sessions held at each partner school per semester, for a total of six planning sessions led by university faculty during each semester. The common planning sessions offer a unique opportunity for mathematics and science inservice teachers to work alongside each other to plan collaborative lessons as they mentored preservice teachers. During the first part of the common planning sessions, preservice teachers and inservice mathematics and science teachers participate in professional development activities ranging from mathematics concepts and problem solving to inquiry-based teaching and nature of science understandings. During the second part of common planning time, t
Using Pearson product-moment correlation, independent sample t-tests, and content analysis, this mixed-methods study explored the effectiveness of a collaborative program between a journalism department and a writing center by examining student performance and student perceptions of the value of tutoring toward achieving their goals. Empirical results indicate that tutoring significantly impacts students’ learning and success in mastering writing proficiencies in a journalism course, and attests to the benefits of collaborative assessment and research. Introduction This study examines the potential impact of writing tutoring on students’ acquisition of grammar skills, the relationship between students’ perceptions and exam scores, and their perceptions about the value of tutoring toward achieving their performance goals in a Media Writing course. Through the use of mixed methods analyses, this study enhances previous writing research by using data-driven, methodologically sophisticated assessments to support the argument that writing centers can work with other departments to build viable, collaborative studies. The Value of Collaborative Assessment and Research Effective oral and written communication skills, an essential skill set for any student seeking a professional career, can impact the trajectory of a graduate’s future. One’s oral and written communication abilities will not only increase a graduate’s employability, but communication skills can also impact one’s ability to get promoted (The National Writing Project, 2006) and experience success in the workplace (The National Writing Project, 2007). In the field of journalism, where one’s ability to artfully use words to convey compelling thought is crucial, journalism graduates must attain a high level of proficiency in writing and editing skills to ensure their employability. In fact, strong writing and editing skills are one of the most desired attributes for journalism job applicants, just slightly behind previous professional experience (Wenger & Owens, 2012). As far back as 1998, journalism educators have found that many incoming journalism students arrive at college underprepared in basic writing skills: grammar, mechanics, and spelling (Massé & Popovich). Today, many Americans lack confidence about the quality of writing instruction provided in American schools (The National Writing Project, 2007), and it appears that many first-year students do not possess mastery of basic writing skills when entering college. To help students develop confidence and mastery of basic writing skills, journalism departments may choose to teach grammar basics to prepare students for writing professions. Some journalism departments even require a basic-level writing course as part of their degree program to address students’ skill development; yet, a stand-alone course may not be sufficient for some students to master grammar concepts. Writing centers can support writers in understanding how to apply grammar concepts. Journalism students can benefit from discussing grammar applications with a writing tutor, and as Light (2001) notes, students do care
The changing demographics of universities have resulted in changing demographics among writing center clientele; however, tutors are often underprepared to meet the language needs of students writing in a second language. Although many agree that ESL-specific training for tutors is needed, little has been written to describe that training. This paper explores the issues related to ESL training and details the intensive ESL-specific training for tutors conducted in the Purdue Writing Lab during the spring of 2013. Introduction The changing demographics of universities over the last decade have resulted in a concomitant change in writing center clientele, with increasing numbers of international students seeking writing help. Unfortunately, the philosophies of writing centers, which are often based on work with native speakers, do not always meet the needs of ESL writers. Difficulties arise when writing center theory’s historic aversion to sentence-level help and writing consultants’ lack of knowledge about second language (L2) acquisition are confronted on a daily or even hourly basis by ESL writers who require—and seek—sentence-level language help. While recent research has called for rethinking writing center practice in light of the changes in clientele, there is a corresponding need to reformulate the training received by tutors to enable this shift in practice. The need to design new tutor training has been important for the Purdue Writing Lab, where increased international enrollment led to a dramatic increase in international clients between the 2006-2007 academic year, when 25 percent of clients were international students, and six years later when that number was 72 percent. To prepare tutors for the necessary shift in practice, I created a one-semester, intensive training program that focused exclusively on working with international students. This paper first discusses the issues related to ESL-specific tutor training and then describes and evaluates the program piloted in the Purdue Writing Lab during the Spring of 2013. Rationale The need to rethink writing center practice as it relates to international clients is not new. Powers (1993) notes that tutors are informants as well as collaborators, that native speakers and non-native speakers bring different knowledge and skills to the writing conference, and that “successful assistance to ESL writers may involve more intervention . . . than we consider appropriate with native speaking writers” (p. 44). Bell and Youmans (2006) highlight the misunderstandings that can result when tutors and ESL clients possess different politeness norms. Thonus (1993, 2004) calls for ESL pedagogy to be applied to tutoring and explicates the differences in behavior and interaction between native speaker and non-native speaker tutorials. Blau and Hall (2002) enumerate cultural differences that affect writing and may need to be addressed during tutorials. Research such as this highlights the disconnect between writing center theory, with its focus on the so-called higher order concerns of content and organization, and the needs of non-native speakers, for whom language difficulties contribute to problems in all aspects of writing. Given the de facto status of many writing centers as the sole language center on university campuses, these explications, redefinitions, and calls for change serve a necessary function in encouraging writing centers to redesign services for international clients to include the lower or later order concerns of sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar. When a plethora of wrong word choices or incorrect parts of speech result in reader confusion, the vocabulary or grammar problems cease to be lower order and fall squarely within the purview of the writing center. Such widening of what is acceptable in tutorials necessitates a corresponding expansion of training for consultants who must work within the new parameters. Harris and Silva (1993) point out that often tutors are not adequately equipped to deal with . . . the unfamiliar grammatical errors, the sometimes bewilderingly different rhetorical patterns and conventions of other languages, and the expectations that accompany ESL writers when they come to the writing center (p. 525). Although tutor training is a common topic in writing center literature, the focus is seldom on ESL-specific concerns. Researchers tout methods for general training as varied as video (Catalano, 2003; Devet, Cinense, Rogers, & Snyder, 2009), journals (Hall and Kennedy, 2007; Munger, Rubenstein, & Burow, 1996), tape transcription (Blau, Hall, Davis, & Gravitz, 2001), and scenario card games (Smith, 2005); and topics range from emotional intelligence (Lape, 2008) to visual tools for working with non-native speakers (Ganguly, 2004) and cultural differences (Blau & Hall, 2002). What is missing is a discussion of the practicalities of providing intensive tutor training that will enable consultants to successfully work with international clients.[1] For instance, how should ESL training be conducted in a setting in which every tutor possesses differing levels of knowledge and amounts of previous experience with L2 writers? How can ongoing training take place despite high levels of turn-over among tutoring staff as individuals graduate and move on? More importantly, what topics should be covered and what skills taught in order to enable tutors to most successfully meet the needs of international clients? These questions have had particular relevance at the Purdue University Writing Lab as our numbers of international clients have grown. In the 2012-2013 academic year, the Writing Lab hired 17 Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) and 17 Undergraduate Teaching Assistants (UTAs) and Business Writing Consultants (BWCs) combined, for a total of 34 tutors. Among the GTAs, 77 percent possessed up to five years of experience working with international students in any capacity. This included a mandatory year of teaching First Year Composition (FYC) before working in the Writing Lab. In any FYC class at Purdue, between one and eight students are likely to be international; thus, most GTAs will have had “experience” working with non-native speakers prior to tutoring. The quantity of this experience, however, varies quite a bit, with some having worked as tutors or ESL instructors in other locations in addition to the FYC experience. In contrast to the GTAs, among the UTA/BWCs, 40 percent were in their first year of experience working with internationals. Not surprisingly, for any one topic relevant to working with international students, the number of consultants lacking prior knowledge ranged from one or two among GTAs (ten percent) to four to ten among UTA/BWCs (up to half). In other words, experience level and background knowledge were inconsistent both across and within the two groups of tutors. A one-size-fits-all training approach would not, therefore, seem particularly useful. Prior to spring 2013, tutor training in Purdue’s Writing Lab consisted mainly of a course for undergraduates and a practicum for graduate students, with some additional training held during regular staff meetings throughout the semester. Since this training had to cover all aspects of working in a writing center, relatively little of it focused specifically on ESL clients. Our Spring Intensive ESL training was designed to remedy this lack. Format In creating a training program of this type, the initial questions center around format. With a large number of participants, all of whom are students, and with a goal of providing instruction to meet different levels of experience, group meetings or workshops are not effective longterm options. In recent years, several researchers have investigated ways to overcome these difficulties. Estes and Martina (2010) developed “online self-guided training modules on various tutoring-related topics” (p. 2), and Nowacki (2012) explored using Moodle for a selfpaced program that would include “advanced instruction in assisting ESL writers” (p. 2). Since the Purdue Lab had funding for one hour of ESL training per week per tutor, we planned a pilot program using the ideas of training modules and self-guided programming. Our intensive ESL training was arranged as a series of one-hour “assignments” completed by each tutor individually at scheduled times. Despite the goal of individualized training, the pilot program contained only two separate options: graduate or undergraduate. All GTAs completed the same assignments; all UTA/BWCs completed assignments that had some overlap with the GTAs. In general, the training for the GTAs tended to have additional theoretical material supplementing the practical skills which comprised UTA/BWC training. In order to incorporate the ESL training as smoothly as possible, it was arranged to mimic the current Lab practice of having the reception staff hand tutors their clients’ folders when clients arrived, thus signaling to tutors that they had appointments. Similarly, at the beginning of a tutor’s scheduled training hour, he or she was given a manila folder by the reception staff, signaling the start of training. The folder contained all previous work, any individual materials needed for the current assignment (e.g., observation forms, reflection sheets), and directions for that assignment. Materials to be shared by all tutors (e.g., books, articles, DVDs) were located in a central spot in the Writing Lab. The tutoring schedule allowed training to be adequately spaced over the week so that no two tutors were training during the same hour.
This pilot study examined students’ reactions to engagement in an online educational simulation titled “The Great Flu”. After the students finished the simulation, they completed an anonymous questionnaire. Results indicated that students had both positively and negatively valenced reactions. Some students found The Great Flu to be a fun and valuable learning experience, whereas other students disliked the ambiguities and lack of online feedback. The potential benefits of online games/simulations for education are noted. Introduction Online games/simulations (OGS) can be a valuable teaching resource. They provide an interactive way for (a) instructors to expose learners to concepts and (b) learners to explore decision-making skills. Simulations allow individuals to test several scenarios to determine which course of action (in the real world) is most likely to be effective (Cioffi-Revilla, 2011). Games can also be emergent, in that the parameters can be altered as conditions (in the simulation or actual environment) change over time (Jiao, Sun, & Sun, 2007). Recently, there has been an emphasis on enhancing the human elements within OGS, such as adding personality traits to online figures or increasing the degree of interaction between simulations and individuals (Cioffi-Revila & Rouleau, 2010; Ghasem-Aghaee & Oren, 2007). It is presumed that elements increase the realism of participants’ experiences, and tests their skills more effectively (Nassiri-Mofakham, Ghasem-Aghaee, Nematbakhsh, & Baraani-Dastjerdi, 2008). Online programs have been used in fields such as engineering and business (Colwell, 2005; Corsi, Boyson, Verbraeck, Van Houten, Han, & MacDonald, 2006). However, simulations can also be used in other environments, such as the college classroom. It is important for students to have exposure to the demands that they are likely to face in future professions (Joiner, Iacovides, Owen, Gavin, Clibbery, Darling & Drew, 2011; McKinnon & McCrae, 2011). The purpose of this paper is to briefly (a) review the advantages of games/simulations as a pedagogical resource and (b) summarize students’ perceptions of an epidemic simulation used in a public policy course. Social science instructors often seek to engage learners in active learning processes. Instructors commonly use hypothetical case studies (Hall, 2006), films/documentaries (Zoccolillo, 2009) and role plays (Haddad & Lieberman, 2002). These techniques are more active than traditional lecture, but they also have weaknesses. For example, students might generate unrealistic/overly simplistic solutions to hypothetical problems (Morales-Mann & Kaitell, 2001) and viewing documentaries is a relatively passive experience. Role plays require learner engagement (Pomerantz, 2003), but can be perceived as too intrusive (Smith, 2009). One alternative to these techniques is games/simulations. Compared to discussion or documentaries, simulations require a higher level of engagement. In addition, instructors can set parameters that limit learners to realistic issues in social sciences, such as limited resources and resistant clients. Academicallybased games can encourage students to think about (a) technology use beyond social networking and (b) issues in a less personalized way (Cain, 2008). Students gain technological skills from recreational online games. Instructors can build upon these skills to make academic concepts more accessible (Ferdig, 2007; Urtel, 2010). This approach is consistent with principles that undergraduates are co-creators of their learning experiences and should be empowered to make some educational choices (Akin, 2010; Culross, 2010; Fitzpatrick, Boden, & Kostina-Ritchey, 2010). Games allow instructors to expose learners to situations that would be hard to replicate in the classroom, such as global water conditions (Hoekstra, 2012), physical disabilities (Roccetti, Marfia, & Palazzi, 2011), or epidemics. OGS also allow students to be proactive in exploirng possibilities, without doing actual harm to others. As noted by Colwell (2005), games help learners to test the limits of systems and their knowledge. In addition, online simulations can be a venue for teachers to assess cognitive skills. According to Dunlap and Lowenthal (2010), students’ choices can provide information about their capacities to recognize, analyze and/or apply concepts. If teachers want to open pathways to knowledge and skill development (Weitzenkamp & Heckathorn, 2001), then games are an option worthy of consideration. Instructors do not have to limit themselves to recreational games. Rather, teachers can use educational or technical games (DiPietro, Ferdig, Boyer, & Black, 2007). Educational OGS can serve multiple purposes. For example, games can be used to build general cognitive skills, such as memory or concentration. As students gain such skills, they can engage in activities that will likely facilitate effective learning (Papastergiou, 2009). In addition, some online games focus on information and skills that are unique to a particular field of study. Such specialized simulations can expose individuals to the types of challenges that they will face in their professions (Blaylock & Kopf, 2009; Light, 2006). Similar to films/documentaries (Shdaimah, 2009; Zoccolillo, 2009), games can also be used to give rapid exposure to phenomena. Within an hour, students can engage in simulation processes that would take years to enact in the real world. Thus, OGS allows repeated engagement that can foster knowledge development (DiPietro, et al., 2007). Although a game might be designed with a singular purpose, the game elements could be interpreted differently by students in diverse fields of study. One OGS that is well-suited to transdisciplinary use is “The Great Flu” (TPM Games, 2011). This simulation focuses on five international flu epidemics that have the potential to infect/kill millions of people. The player takes the role of a humanitarian aid worker who decides how to distribute resources. Similar to real-world conditions, the player is given limited resources and it is impossible to protect everyone from infection. Thus, the game sets limits on tools and objectives (Bang, Wisdom, & Labat, 2010). So, the best outcome is often to minimize the degree of harm caused by the epidemic. The Great Flu has been used in prior research with community samples (Wijers, 2009), which suggests that the parameters do not require highly advanced computer skills. During the past year, the authors have utilized this OGS in an undergraduate public policy course. This course focuses on general public policies, such as health care, and their impact on families. Whether undergraduates pursue social science careers that focus on (a) direct client care and/or (b) policy development, they are likely to face situations in which there are inadequate resources or unsolvable problems. Thus, it can be valuable to expose students to such scenarios before entering their professions (Blaylock & Kopf, 2009; Roper, 2009). The Great Flu gives such exposure and allows learners to navigate resource allocation systems, make mistakes and learn from their mistakes. After students completed The Great Flu simulations, pilot study data was gathered about their perceptions of the simulation experience. Method Simulation Selection for Course The first author developed the undergraduate course, which focuses on the impact of macrosocial policies on families. She selected the teaching activities, including the online game/simulation, for the course as well. In reference to simulations, the selection criteria included the (a) range of policy issues that would be reflected, (b) realism of the potential crisis, (c) realism of resources available to address the crisis, (d) multiple variations on crisis conditions, and (e) degree of difficulty in minimizing negative outcomes, such as number of deaths. Based on these criteria, the first author identified and completed several online simulations. As a result of the experiences, she determined that The Great Flu simulation was the best fit for this particular course. In addition, she added three required course readings (Kelley, 2010; Olsen, 2007; Stirrat 2006) in order to give students sufficient exposure to international humanitarian aid issues. Overall, the simulation selection process was consistent with recommendations for alignment between online games and educational course plans (Shelton & Scoresby, 2011; Yien, Hung,
This article describes the implementation and evaluation of a writing center that assigned tutors to work with students in specific first-year composition (FYC) courses both in and out of the classroom. Student, tutor, and faculty satisfaction, as well as student learning, were evaluated. Findings indicate that a majority of those involved had a favorable view of the program, students were able to articulate how the program helped them achieve learning outcomes, and faculty and tutors enjoyed greater communication. Introduction Supplemental writing tutoring takes many forms on college campuses. Writing centers are traditionally the most common places students turn for additional instruction. There, students commonly work one-on-one with generalist, non-discipline specific writing tutors who are trained to assist students by using a process-centered pedagogy. Additional forms of supplemental writing instruction include writing fellows and classroom-based tutoring programs. Writing fellows programs commonly provide students enrolled in a discipline-specific course with a discipline-trained writing tutor who assists them with assignments outside of class. Classroom-based tutoring programs, on the other hand, assign tutors to conference with students during writing classes. Working one-to-one with writing center tutors helps students grow as writers and become more comfortable with academic expectations. However, writing centers that only employ generalist writing tutors may not always provide the strongest assistance to students who need guidance with specific disciplinary writing conventions (Kiedaisch & Dinitz, 2007). In addition, some students feel uncertain about sharing their writing with strangers in an unfamiliar space (Brauer, 2009; Bruce, 2009). To these ends, writing fellows and classroom-based tutoring programs can provide what traditional writing centers cannot. Both programs work to alleviate issues of unfamiliarity because individual tutors are assigned to specific courses; this allows tutors to get to know the professor, course expectations, assignments, and students. The purpose of this article is to share the results of a pilot program conducted at Nova Southeastern University during the spring 2012 semester. This program combined elements of writing center, writing fellow, and classroom-based tutoring models. Writing fellows were assigned to work inand out-of-class with students enrolled in specific sections of a first-year required composition course: COMP 1500 – College Writing. Thus, these writing fellows were known as COMP Fellows. A combination of student surveys, fellow and faculty written reflections, and student writing samples were used to assess the program and answer the following. Research Questions 1) What percentage of students will view this program as favorable and will want a COMP Fellow in a future writing course? 2) What do students learn from in-class and out-of-class sessions with fellows, and does this align with course outcomes? 3) Do students who work more often with COMP Fellows produce better end-of-thesemester writing assignments than students who visit less often? 4) Will COMP Fellows and participating writing faculty view this program as favorable? The first three questions measure student attitudes toward the program and student success based on their work with the program. The fourth question measures the attitudes that fellows and faculty have toward the program. Review of Literature A review of literature shows how writing fellows and classroom-based writing tutoring programs can benefit student-writers, faculty, and tutors by increasing communication between all three parties. While writing center lore suggests that the traditional tutoring model—where a student works with a tutor in the center without the involvement of the faculty—is most effective, there have been challenges to that assumption (Thonus, 2001), ones that show how students prefer to work with tutors who have a heightened awareness of the students’ subject matter and genre of writing (Thompson et al., 2009). Over the course of the last three decades, writing fellows programs have been an increasingly popular method of providing assistance to students, faculty, writing centers, and writing across the curriculum programs (Hughes & Hall, 2008). Much of the literature on writing fellows programs shows how these programs assist writing across the curriculum programs (HaringSmith, 2000; Soven, 1991, 2001; Zawacki, 2008) and writing centers (Leahy, 1999; DeCiccio, 2006; Severino & Knight, 2007) meet the demands of students writing in a number of disciplines. While the specifics of writing fellows programs vary from one institution to the next, one of the most common features is that fellows are assigned to a particular course, which means that they must work closely with both students and faculty (Hughes & Hall, 2008; Severino & Knight, 2007). A second common feature is that writing fellows work closely with “course instructors to become familiar with their goals for the course and how their writing assignments relate to these goals” (Severino & Knight 2007). These close working relationships have been shown to not only help students and fellows, but also to help faculty better understand their own teaching of writing (Corroy, 2005). A third common feature is that writing fellows provide either written or oral feedback, sometimes both, to students outside of class. Thus, writing fellows are an integral part of a course because they actively engage the students and faculty in conversations about writing and writing instruction within a specific discipline (Severino & Traschel, 2008). In contrast to writing fellows programs and writing centers, which provide assistance to students outside of class, classroom-based writing tutoring programs provide students with assistance during regular class sessions. Spigelman and Grobman (2005) provide theoretical and pedagogical foundations for creating these “on-location” tutoring programs, explore methods for incorporating writing tutors into first-year writing classrooms, and address the politics and power dynamics of such programs. Classroom-based writing tutors are often able to work even more closely with faculty, as they can actually see what is happening within a classroom environment, but Spigelman and Grobman’s work does not thoroughly address how “on location” tutors can provide additional writing assistance to students outside of the classroom. Other research has shown how combining both classroom-based and out-of-class mentoring for FYC courses can provide students with support that helps them develop traits of successful college students; however, this research does not focus on the impact these programs can have on improving students’ writing skills (Henry, Bruland, & Sano-Franchini, 2011; Henry, Bruland, & Omizo, 2008). How the COMP Fellows Program Worked The Nova Southeastern University COMP Fellows program combined classroom-based writing tutoring with writing tutoring that occurred outside of the classroom in a writing center environment. Five COMP Fellows were assigned to nine sections of COMP 1500 – College Writing taught by five full-time faculty. The fellows were undergraduate and graduate students hired and trained by the writing center/WAC coordinator; three fellows had previously worked as generalist writing tutors. During the semester, COMP Fellows attended one class session per course per week to conference with students individually and in small groups during class. Outside of class, COMP Fellows conducted 426 individual tutoring sessions with the 125 students who participated in the program. This was an average of 3.4 sessions per student. Additionally, COMP Fellows met with faculty on a weekly basis to develop an understanding of the course outcomes and assignments and to discuss student progress. Finally, COMP Fellows had weekly meetings with the writing center/WAC coordinator, individually and in groups, for on-going training and mentoring. The training focused on teaching COMP Fellows how to work with students on learning and achieving each of the five course learning outcomes: 1. Write recursively for a variety of purposes and audiences; 2. Use primary and secondary sources effectively; 3. Apply appropriate rhetorical conventions in multiple media; 4. Respond constructively to peer writers throughout the writing process; 5. Produce critical reflections on one’s writing and research processes. Program Assessment Methods Student Surveys In an effort to answer Research Questions #1 and #2, all students enrolled in courses with COMP Fellows were asked to complete an anonymous, end-of-the semester survey about their experiences working with a fellow. The survey included both closed and open-ended questions that asked students about their views of the program and what they learned from being a part of it. Student Writing Samples To address Research Question #3, a sampling of 10% of the final writing projects were assessed by writing faculty using a rubric that was developed to directly measure achievement of course outcomes. The number of times each student worked with a fellow was noted to determine whether students who met with fellows more often produced better writing. Fellow and Faculty Written Reflections To answer Research Question #4, COMP Fellows and participating faculty were asked to write summative reflections at the end of the semester.
This paper explores a project related to digital storytelling carried out at the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, in Spain, with the students of an English for Specific Purposes course devoted to the development of oral and written English skills. Several activities were designed for the project: surveys, a WebQuest, an online discussion forum, a log, oral presentations and peer assessment activities. The overall results were very positive for both teachers and students.
