scholarly journals ARE MANY HEADS BETTER THAN ONE? USING PEER REVIEW IN ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSES

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vahid Garousi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Universities And Colleges ◽  
Canadian Universities ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Design Project ◽  
Design Projects ◽  
Experimental Findings ◽  
Better Than

It is important for engineering students to peer review each other's work during design projects. Based on the demonstrated value of peer reviews in engineering (e.g., the software industry), numerous industry experts have listed it at the top of the list of desirable engineering skills and practices. However, surprisingly, not many engineering courses in Canadian or even non-Canadian universities and colleges include peer review activities in their design courses. The author thus decided to apply peer reviews to the design project of a senior software engineering course. The purpose of this article is to present our experimental findings, lessons learned, possible challenges and recommendations that may be used to promote learning and also the usage of peer review activities in teaching other engineering courses. The results of our experiment show promising signs of using peer review in a design project.

scholarly journals SHORT DESIGN PROJECTS FOR AN INTRODUCTORY THERMOFLUIDS ENGINEERING COURSE

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Hastie ◽  
Jan Haelssig
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Students ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Theoretical Work ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Team Work ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Design Project ◽  
Introductory Course ◽  
Design Projects ◽  
Second Year

The Faculty of Engineering at Dalhousie University offers a common introductory course that covers the basic principles of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics in a unified manner. This introductory course is a mandatory part of the curriculum for all engineering programs offered at Dalhousie. In this course, students are required to perform six laboratory experiments, and since 2012 students have also completed short, four-week design projects.The short design project helps students to acquire more of the graduate attributes defined by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB), including design, communication, and team work skills. They also provide students with a well-deserved break from purely theoretical work in lectures and tutorials, and a chance to develop some hands-on abilities.This paper describes the lessons learned from the last three design projects, which were focused on modifications to a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, design of a pop-pop boat, and design of a double pipe heat exchanger. The primary challenges have been the limited engineering design experience possessed by students in their third semester of studies, the heavy workload that second-year engineering students already have, and the relatively large class size. Even though there are clear challenges related to integrating a design project into a large second-year class, the results seem to indicate that these design projects provide a positive learning experience for the students.

scholarly journals CLIENT-BASED CORNERSTONE DESIGN PROJECTS

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Boudreau ◽  
Hanan Anis
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Student Groups ◽  
Engineering Teams ◽  
Design Projects ◽  
Second Year

Engineering students at the University of Ottawa are exposed to engineering design in first- and second-year courses. Both courses are open to all engineering students and are multidisciplinary in nature. Students work in teams to deliver a physical prototype by the end of the term. The design projects are all community-based and involve a client from the local community with a specific unmet need. Examples of such clients include local hospitals, accessibility organizations, Ottawa police, Indigenous elders and many more. The client meets with the students a minimum of three times throughout the semester to provide the problem definition and give feedback to the student groups at different stages of the design process. The goal of this paper is to share best practices in selecting and delivering client-based projects targeting first- and second-year students in multidisciplinary engineering teams. The paper discusses the choice of project themes and specific projects. In addition, it presents lessons learned based on student-client interactions, lab manager-client interactions and client satisfaction. Examples are presented from the past three years of delivering such engineering design courses, with testimonials from clients and students.

Regulatory Guide 1.200 PRA Peer Reviews: A Peer Reviewer Perspective

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Finnicum
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Current Model ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Pressurized Water ◽  
Water Reactor ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Review Team ◽  
Self Assessments

In January 2007, the NRC issued Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.200 endorsing Addendum B of the ASME PRA Standard, RA-Sb-2005. Effective January 1, 2008, the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) supporting any risk-informed application must comply with the requirements of RG 1.200 and the ASME PRA Standard, as explained in NRC’s Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2007-06. Per Section 6 of the ASME PRA Standard, a peer review must be performed to demonstrate compliance with the ASME PRA Standard. In the late 1990s, all nuclear plants in the U. S. had a peer review performed in accordance with NEI 00-02. However, the ASME PRA Standard requirements are more extensive than the review elements in NEI 00-02. Appendix D of NEI 00-02, endorsed by Appendix B of RG 1.200, includes a self-assessment process for using the NEI 00-02 results to, in part; assess a PRA’s compliance with the ASME PRA Standard. The ASME PRA Standard requires a peer review for any PRA element that has been upgraded since the original peer review. There is also the consideration that if the PRA updates have resulted in enough changes to the model that the current model no longer is adequately represented by the model that was originally peer reviewed, then, at their discretion, the utility may request a new peer review. Both the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) and the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group (PWROG) have authorized projects to conduct the peer reviews against RG 1.200, Revision 1 to support risk-informed applications after January, 2008. Two key elements have changed since the original NEI 00-02 peer reviews. These are: (1) the number of specific requirements that need to be reviewed and (2) the need for the utility undergoing a peer review to complete a self-assessment and a roadmap to the documentation supporting their assessment to enable the peer review team to complete their review within a reasonable timeframe. Since the original approval of the ASME PRA Standard in 2003, many plants have performed self-assessments either internally or with the assistance of contractors to ascertain their compliance with the ASME PRA Standard. A number of lessons have been learned as a result of these self-assessments that should be carried forward to the next round of formal peer reviews against Addendum B of the ASME PRA, RA-Sb-2005. This paper examines some of the lessons learned while performing these self-assessments, and provides some guidance for a pre-review self-assessment and as well as some guidelines on compiling a roadmap to support the self-assessment and the peer review.

Improving Student Design Skills Through Successive Design and Build Projects

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rober Choate ◽  
Kevin Schmaltz
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Program Outcomes ◽  
Design Project ◽  
Design Component ◽  
Student Teams ◽  
Design Projects ◽  
Design Skills ◽  
Team Design

Mechanical Engineering students at Western Kentucky University (WKU) are given instruction and must demonstrate their abilities to execute design projects during each of their four years of study. The features and goals of these projects are governed by a Professional Plan, which assures that graduates of the program have experienced key areas of the engineering profession and shown the ability to perform in an acceptable professional manner. The Engineering Design component of the Professional Plan is the focal point of the professional experiences. For students to be able to execute a structured approach to solving problems with an appreciation for the art of engineering, they must experience meaningful projects that expand and challenge their capabilities. WKU ME freshmen individually create physical devices with little engineering science, developing a sense of the manufacturing skills required for realistic designs. Sophomore students execute a team design project with more technical expectations, and also individually complete a design and build project that continues from their freshman project. As juniors, the team design experience is extended to an external audience with greater technical rigor, and additionally student teams implement the ASME Student Design Competition (ASME SDC) as their design and build project. The goal is for seniors to be prepared to implement an industry-based design and build project subject to realistic constraints and customer needs. The implementation of the Engineering Design Component has evolved over the past four years guided by ongoing assessment of both course outcomes and program outcomes, internal and external evaluations of the design project outcomes, and the maturing status of the program facilities and curriculum. One strength of the Professional Plan framework is the ability to build upon previous coursework, assess student progress, and adjust course activities based on prior assessment results to assure that graduates are capable of practicing as engineers. This paper will detail a sustainable model for implementing the design process across the curriculum, with the basis for selecting projects, managing the efforts of student teams, and providing effective feedback. In addition to the engineering design component, the use of professional communications and professional tools are also structured within the design projects.

scholarly journals IMPORTANCE OF FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS TO SELF-EFFICACY: DO FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS FEEL LIKE ENGINEERS?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Michael ◽  
J Booth ◽  
Thomas E Doyle
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
First Year ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
First Year Students ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Design Project ◽  
Mastery Experiences ◽  
Design Projects ◽  
Vicarious Experiences

Self-efficacy, a belief that one can achieve a certain level of attainment, is important to student retention in engineering and technology fields. Developing ways to increase self-efficacy should be a primary concern for engineering programs. Several key tasks will be investigated including (a) the importance of design projects to self-efficacy in first-year engineering, and (b) making first-year engineering students feel like engineers. A team-based “Cornerstone” design project was undertaken by first-year engineering students as part of a Design and Graphics course. Two groups of first- year engineering students were surveyed, (1) students who had completed the course and design project in first term, and (2) students who were enrolled in the second term offering of the same course, before completing the design project. The survey focused on Bandura’s four identified sources of self-efficacy: (a) Mastery experiences, (b) Vicarious experiences, (c) Social persuasions, and (d) Physiological states, as well as a fifth often added characteristic (e) Drive and motivation. Additionally, students were asked to quantify their agreement or disagreement to the statement “I feel like an Engineer.” This paper will present the results between these two groups and will be of interest to faculty involved in freshmen design.

scholarly journals THIRD YEAR INTEGRATED DESIGN PROJECT FOR THIRD YEAR CIVIL ENGINEERING STUDENTS

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janaka Ruwanpura
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Civil Engineering ◽  
Construction Material ◽  
Integrated Design ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Design Project ◽  
Design Concepts ◽  
The Third ◽  
Design Competition

There is a lack of courses for design education in civil engineering curriculum except in fourth year at many Canadian Universities. An innovative approach introduced and implemented by the author to promote design education at the third year using a design competition at the University of Calgary was very successful. Student learned design concepts, applied them in the third year using a real project, integrated several civil engineering deliverables in one project without doing them in a separate course, and gained experience to get ready for their final year design course through this design competition. The eight courses included in the competition comprise all civil engineering aspects including structural, geotechnical, transportation, environmental, construction, material, and project management. The lessons learned by implementing the competition for 2 years, the author suggests a new idea to introduce a third year design project for civil engineering students. The paper discusses the purpose, structure, student participation, deliverables of the new idea.

When are our experimental findings better than a guess?

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clintin Davis-Stober ◽  
Jason Dana
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Findings ◽  
Better Than

A Study of Medical Board Peer Reviews in Nevada

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Clark County ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Medical Examiners ◽  
Washoe County ◽  
Total Average Cost ◽  
Total Average

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.

scholarly journals Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Kwee ◽  
Hugo J. A. Adams ◽  
Robert M. Kwee
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Double Blinded

Abstract Objective To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Methods Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included. Results Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal’s impact factor. Conclusion Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document