• LAST MINUTE UPDATES
• WHY
• CS IT RETOOLING
• DEGREES
• PDH
• TRANSCRIPTS
• MOOCS
• SCHOLARSHIPS/HONORS/AWARDS
• EXTRACURRICULARS
• LANGUAGES
• WRITING SAMPLES
• CASE STATEMENT
• SOP
• SOP-1
• SOP-2
• SOP-3
• SOP-4
• SOP-5
• PEER
• REF LETTERS
• MENTORING
• CAPSTONES
• GLOBAL ENGINEERING/OUTREACH
• CV
• PAPERS
• NOVEL

PEER

Some bits and pieces  about PEER (= Platform-based Engineering Education Research)

Journal papers perhaps basically only reach those in the trade.

In similar way perhaps conference papers only are examined by attendants or field only folks.

Student assignments and assessments/test are probably only read by the instructor and the student and then shelved away for oblivion.
Why should it be so?

That's when PEER (Platform-based Engineering Education Research) comes in.
Material/content is by design meant to be open/scrutable by anyone.
Perhaps kids may take a little bit more things/feel motivated or interested if they know are to be public "a la Warren Buffet" way.
NEVER harms to expand audiences!!

All material in turn can then be used to feed a whole new way to engineering education research in a far more handleable way.
Perhaps education and education research is no longer just pdfs and citations but the whole digital nine yards: html/css/mp4/still to be discovered/named.
Different kinds of analysis can be explored/tracked by faculty.

Then there's the YUGE available platforms.
By design, aeternal growth comes from students (OK also faculty & staff/community/parents/industry!!)

Perhaps people don't like to read copy but definitely most folks love click anything that comes around.

Conventional paper/pdf reading/writing is usually the classic top down.
That was also the way programming used to be (OK aside from the GO TO ...)

Nowadays program flow is anywhere from linear, and at times is makes sense.
Content production may perhaps benefit from the classic relatively static/single audience approach to the extremely fluid html.
There's no way to replicate the palpable navigation experience only banking on pdf products.

Provided agility does not mean or need to be at all at the expense of cohesiveness or compromise.
This impacts both organization and presentation of content.

In the past most engineering papers could get away with some well meant narrative.
Later on most had to include some pretty deep number crunching or lab work, say maybe 50% or more.
Plus there's the need to understand and "counter-balance" big tech.
Excel, programming all these things existed 40+ years ago.
So do not unlearn them but review additions to the arsenal or things will be difficult to understand.

Whatever activity launched/engineering education/eer is put to use almost since day one, i.e. deliver some value to student.
Plus subsequent generated data analysis/patterns can be conducted.
Yet some delivery to student is already in place - that's the priority (and a measure of ongoing validation test of the approach)
It just requires borrowing a little bit from many fields, very well along the so awesome law of diminishing returns.
Learn and build up glossary to be able to say No or Yes faster.

By the way it was only after I took thePEER  (platform-based engineering education research) for an online ChatGpt/AI assessment ride that the word/term NOVEL surfaced/showed up!   I guess that’s good news as what perhaps we’re all looking for!
That's exactly what Jim (Dr. Young) indicated as desirable/appropriate in his email -> "The basic objective of a Ph.D. program is to apply fundamental concepts to prove a hypothesis or to develop a new area of study."

NOVEL … I didn’t use that term myself until AI pointed out. 100% in agreement with my hard-way gathered res findings.  To a certain extent I guess I also found some suitable, distinctive name or acronym for the beast, i.e. PEER = Platform-based Engineering Education Research!!! While still definitely evolving work-in-progress PEER was my own ideation though.

So I guess after all even AI was able to make some sense out of the bits and pieces I wrote and join some dots as presumably to how move forward!   Aside from the kind of expected mirroring/known "prettyfying" effect, overall output looked a pretty decent [other than me/third party] reading of the case – had no one else around. I feel it provides a quite reasonable, in-a-nutshell rough input and/or wrap up/exec summary, kind of background program path matching/”second opinion” (had no one around!)  and that’s why it was included.  It’s easy to see the rest of the writings cannot possible be AI!!! 

I can say all this was done with “Gusto!”