You are here:

Effect of Different Instructor(s) on CAMPing
PROCEEDING

, , , James Madison University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper presents a new methodology of curriculum for teaching as a possible practical teaching method. Rapid advances in technology require instructors to propose classes that allow students to learn technical skills. Many instructors become overwhelmed by the vast range of group projects their students complete. There is no reliable method to determine which approach is most efficient and most likely to contribute to the growth and development of all learners. Computer Technology undergraduate programs seek to identify the most effective strategies, and determine the best teaching methods for students, based on an all-class project method and identified project needs. The purpose of this quantitative research study was to introduce a new methodology of curriculum for teaching an All-Class Method Project based Undergraduate Course (CAMPing) as a possible practical teaching method that could be repeated if a different instructor followed the same process and curriculum method. ”Can CAMPing be a repeatable practical teaching method if a different instructor followed the same theme process and curriculum method?” research question served as the framework for the argument that explicit practical teaching activities at the undergraduate levels of computer technology studies could be effective. We have adopted CAMPing in the last four years with great success. Over that period, we have conducted numerous surveys to assess the effectiveness and the reproducibility of this method.

Citation

Salib, E., Iskandarova, S. & El-Tawab, S. (2019). Effect of Different Instructor(s) on CAMPing. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2045-2053). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Breunig, M.C. (2009). Teaching dewey’s experience and education experientially. Teaching adventure education theory: Best Practices, 1–395.
  2. Brickell, L.C.J.L., Porter, L.C.D.B., Reynolds, L.C.M.F., & Cosgrove, C.R.D. (1994). Assigning students to groups for engineering design projects: A comparison of five methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 83(3), 259–262.
  3. Burstein, A.G. (1998). Review of Death of Guilds. Retrieved from http://web.utk.edu/ ~burstein/musings/krause~1
  4. Capretz, L.F. (2015). Clues on software engineers learning styles. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1507.06943.
  5. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(1), 14.
  6. Dunlap, J.C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65–83.
  7. El-Tawab, S., Iskandarova, S., Almalag, M., & Ghazizadeh, P. (2018, March). A methodology of teaching mobile development for undergraduate students in project-based classes. In E. Langran& J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology& Teacher education international conference 2018 (pp. 749–754).
  8. Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 57– 72.
  9. Gorka, S., Miller, J.R., & Howe, B.J. (2007). Developing realistic capstone projects in conjunction with industry. In Proceedings of the 8th acm sigite conference on information technology education (pp. 27–32).
  10. Haas, R.W., & Wotruba, T.R. (1990). The project approach to teaching the capstone marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 37–48.
  11. Hannafin, M.J. (2012). Student-centered learning. In Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 3211–3214). Springer.
  12. Khorbotly, S., & Al-Olimat, K. (2010). Engineering student-design competition teams: Capstone or extracurricular? In Frontiers in education conference (fie), 2010 IEEE (pp. F1C–1).
  13. Krause, E.A. (1996). Death of the guilds: Professions, states, and the advance of capitalism, 1930 to the present. Yale University Press.
  14. Laird, T.F.N., Shoup, R., Kuh, G.D., & Schwarz, M.J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469–494.
  15. Nanney, B. (2004). Student-centered learning. Retrieved November, 30, 2012.
  16. Peterson, S.M., Phillips, A., Bacon, S.I., & Machunda, Z. (2011). Teaching evidence-based practice at the bsw level: An effective capstone project. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 509– 524.
  17. Salib, E.H., Erney, J.A., & Schumaker, M.E. (2013). Designed-for-motivation based learning for large multidisciplinary team one semester hands-on network based course case study. In Proceedings of the 2013 american society for engineering education annual conference& Exposition.
  18. Todd, R.H., Sorensen, C.D., & Magleby, S.P. (1993). Designing a senior capstone course to satisfy industrial customers. Journal of engineering education, 82(2), 92–100.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read