The power of feedback.

1. Word frequency and vocabulary size Paul Nation and Rob Waring 2. Variation in spoken and written language Michael McCarthy and Ron Carter 3. Vocabulary connections Rosamund Moon 4. Vocabulary and context William Nagy 5. Productive vs. receptive aspects of vocabulary Francine Melka 6. Models of lexical acquisition Paul Meara 7. Cognitive constraints on vocabulary acquisition Nick Ellis 8. Intralexical factors affecting the difficulty of vocabulary acquisition Batia Laufer 9. L1 influences on L2 vocabulary acquisition 10. Acquisition of the formal aspects of vocabulary Michael Swan 11. Vocabulary learning strategies Ann Ryan 12. Vocabulary and the syllabus Norbert Schmitt 13. Teaching vocabulary: most recent trends Felicity O'Dell 14. Vocabulary and testing John Read 15. Dictionaries, thesauruses, lexical resources Phil Schofield.

詞彙:描述、習得與教學=Vocabulary : description, acquisition and pedagogy

Review of drop impact on heated walls

Review of spray cooling – Part 1: Single-phase and nucleate boiling regimes, and critical heat flux

https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~kimjh/Documents%20and%20movies/IJHMT%20spray%20copy.pdf

Single nozzle spray cooling heat transfer mechanisms

Variawa, C., and McCahan, S. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario Canada variawa@mie.utoronto.ca; mccahan@mie.utoronto.ca INTRODUCTION Inclusivity in the classroom is diminished when the instructional material is inaccessible to the students. One particular example that is pertinent to engineering education is the use of unfamiliar language during assessment. As instructors, we want to help students learn in an environment that is accessible, but also want to promote a robust technical vocabulary. However, when we begin to test the student’s understanding of non-technical vocabulary as part of a final exam, for example, we are affecting the validity of the assessment because not all students have the same background (academic, technical, cultural, etc.). This problem is particularly relevant to engineering education in Canada because of the very diverse student body in many of our engineering institutions. Prior interpretations of accessibility were often limited to physically-disabling environments, or a learning population that had a diversity of physical needs and accommodations. More recently, however, the literature suggests that other types of disabling environments are present in higher education, and that many of them negatively affect inclusivity in the classroom. As a result of increasing diversity, we need to analyze the inclusivity of our instructional and assessment material to maximize accessibility for all students. Language is one barrier to inclusivity, especially when it is unfamiliar and misunderstood by the learner. One assumption that can lead to inaccessible language in the classroom is that all students have the same vocabulary as one another and the instructor. This assumption isn’t true, particularly in diverse learning environments, because many of the cultural undertones of a language are different from individual to individual. Thus, whereas one student may be familiar with the word “toque”, another may refer to it as a “wool hat”, and so forth. In engineering education, technical terminology to a particular discipline is generally explicitly taught, but other “plain language” vocabulary is often assumed. Specifically, we are attempting to classify the language used on an engineering education artifact, engineering exams, to investigate the effect that language has as a barrier to an inclusive and accessible learning environment. The contextualization of engineering problems in course material and assessments can also constitute a barrier to inclusivity when it is inaccessible to the learner. Authentic contexts often add depth to the realism of engineering problems, and are often used to describe the technical fundamentals of engineering. However, the barrier to accessibility arises when there are differences between the student’s background (experience) and the context chosen. For example, if we use the context of an airplane cockpit to demonstrate technical material in an ergonomics course while assuming that all students are familiar with this context, we are creating an environment that alienates a portion of the learning population. However, adding information that helps better describe the context may assist to better understand the situation. This may be true for analyzing inaccessible language as well. Specifically, we will be investigating the role that context plays (if any) in helping make inaccessible language identifiable for the learner, and if context can help mitigate this learning barrier altogether. For example, we are studying cases like when the word “toque” is used in a sentence that describes its meaning, and if that would make it less inaccessible versus using another word altogether.

https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/3599/3613

Investigation of language used in engineering assessment

As an initial step in preparing faculty members for the new outcomes-based accreditation process introduced by the CEAB, a pilot workshop on creating learning objectives was developed for engineering professors at the University of Toronto. As the Graduate Attributes will be mapped to individual courses within engineering programs, the need for course-based learning objectives is even more critical; although research already supports the development and use of learning objectives as an effective educational practice. . This paper will describe the process of developing the workshop, facilitating it for the first time, and the lessons learned that were used in developing a second iteration of the workshop.

https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/download/3629/3643

A workshop on learning objectives for engineering faculty members

have discussed the implications of UDE in terms of standardization, testing, creation of social relationships, and effective learning, among other ideas. Although it may be easy to see how UD benefits physical spaces, the application and effectiveness of UDE is more difficult to assess. In an engineering design we seek to achieve measurable objectives; in UDE however, the ever-changing diversity of the learning population demands that the learning environment be dynamic and inclusive. The challenge is to create a flexible environment while maintaining the integrity of the learning objectives, and measure the effectiveness of changes in terms of achieving accessibility. Engineering education is also a designed system - it follows a design process, has a specified user-group, contextualizes problems into manageable quantities, etc. - and thus, it should also benefit from a universal design approach to increase inclusivity. The applicability of such pedagogy in instruction has been investigated in the fields of higher education and disability studies, but not in an engineering context 8 . The

https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/download/3146/3084

Universal Design in Engineering Education

Recent developments in post-secondary institutions have motivated a shift towards outcomesbased education. A major impetus for this agenda has been the growing need to provide concrete evidence of student learning and institutional effectiveness to various stakeholders. Given this trend, it is important that research be undertaken to explore valid approaches to learning outcomes assessment. The research described here involves the development of valid, non-discipline specific, analytic rubrics that assess learning outcomes in five key areas: communication, design, teamwork, problem analysis and investigation. This paper reports on the methodology used to complete the first stage of rubric development; identifying the standards through which student work is evaluated. In particular, a two-stage Delphi study was designed to identify rubric criteria for assessing problem analysis and investigation. The Delphi technique is an iterative research tool used to elicit input from a panel of experts. It typically involves a series of virtual survey rounds in which experts offer their views anonymously and have the opportunity to refine them based on controlled feedback from earlier rounds. Panel members include 11 experts for investigation and 15 experts for problem analysis from faculty and staff. In the first round, participants were asked to propose learning outcome statements or “indicators” that are important for assessing problem analysis or investigation. In the second and final round, these responses were arranged by major outcome areas and sent to participants for their feedback. They were asked to rate how likely they were to use the indicators, and their importance in the curriculum. The focus of this paper is not the results of this study, but the methodological processes involved in designing and administering a Delphi survey to develop tools for learning outcomes assessment. This includes expert selection, survey design, and analysis of expert responses. Special attention is paid to the challenges of conducting a Delphi study.

Using a Delphi Approach to Develop Rubric Criteria

This project aims to create and validate generic rubrics that can be used to authentically assess learning outcomes in core competency areas. As these rubrics are intended for ongoing use by students and educators who have had no involvement in their development, ensuring consistent interpretation and application is a challenge. This paper describes the rubric development methodology and progress to-date on Teamwork, Communication, and Design rubrics including the refinement of outcomes, indicators, and descriptors in response to expert feedback. We also discuss challenges that have delayed testing and deployment as well as future steps.

Susan McCahan

Papers

Investigation of language used in engineering assessment

A workshop on learning objectives for engineering faculty members

Universal Design in Engineering Education

Using a Delphi Approach to Develop Rubric Criteria

Developmentof analytic rubrics for competency assessment