scispace - formally typeset
G

Glenda S. Stump

Researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Publications -  34
Citations -  2196

Glenda S. Stump is an academic researcher from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Context (language use) & Engineering education. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 31 publications receiving 1949 citations. Previous affiliations of Glenda S. Stump include Arizona State University.

Papers
More filters

Studying Learning in the Worldwide Classroom Research into edX's First MOOC.

TL;DR: The 6.002x course as discussed by the authors was the first MOOC course, which was composed of video lectures, interactive problems, online laboratories, and a discussion forum, and over 155,000 students initially registered for the course.
Journal ArticleDOI

Changing “Course” Reconceptualizing Educational Variables for Massive Open Online Courses

TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that MOOC data are not only plentiful and different in kind but require reconceptualization, either new educational variables or different interpretations of existing variables.
Journal ArticleDOI

Collaborative Learning in Engineering Students: Gender and Achievement

TL;DR: In this paper, a set of hypotheses were tested that predicted positive relationships between students' self-reported informal collaboration, self-efficacy for learning course material, knowledge building behaviors, and course grade.
Journal ArticleDOI

Differentiated Overt Learning Activities for Effective Instruction in Engineering Classrooms

TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the effectiveness and applicability of the Differentiated Overt Learning Activities (DOLA) framework, which classifies learning activities as interactive, constructive, or active, for engineering classes.
Journal ArticleDOI

Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice.

TL;DR: A 5-year project to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures discussed, finding that teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, but students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities.