Challenging Students' Values and Assumptions Through Project-Based Learning
Author(s) -
Diana Bairaktarova,
Mary Pilotte,
Nathan McNeill
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
papers on engineering education repository (american society for engineering education)
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Conference proceedings
DOI - 10.18260/1-2--20160
Subject(s) - curiosity , project based learning , mathematics education , computer science , active learning (machine learning) , trace (psycholinguistics) , socrates , pedagogy , psychology , artificial intelligence , epistemology , social psychology , linguistics , philosophy
10 % The problem is clearly presented. Solution is presented along with brief justification. One succinct paragraph. The problem is obscure. The solution is missing adequate justification. The abstract is too long or two short. The abstract is opaque and fails to encapsulate the entire proposal. Background section 10 % Clearly explained are: the need for additional electrical power generation capacity, the resources that are available for meeting those needs, and the economic situation. Background information is missing or poorly explained and supported. No background section. Proposed system 10 % Clearly explained are the technology you are proposing and justification for your choice. All of the items requested in the project write-up are included. Some of the required items of the proposal are missing. The proposed system is not adequately explained.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom