DukeSpace
Find and submit publications, theses, and dissertations by Duke faculty and students.
Communities in DukeSpace
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recent Submissions
Meet the winners of the 2024 Sony Women in Technology Award
(Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering) Aran, Kiana; Li, Jiawen; Randles, Amanda; Wan, Yating
Lessons from Graduate Student Instructors on the Peer Review of Teaching.
(The journal of faculty development, 2009-05-01) Crumley, Hugh; James, Douglas
In this qualitative study, we examined a pilot program for graduate student instructors (GSIs) in a peer review of teaching program at Duke University, a medium-sized research university. We noted key elements that participants identified from their experience that may be distinct from models of peer teaching review developed for faculty. These elements include factors that contribute to critical self reflection, such as interdisciplinarity and opportunities to both observe and be observed; modification of specific teaching behaviors; recognition of different teaching models within the discipline; and practical logistical suggestions for developing peer observation and feedback programs for GSIs.
Teaching Triangles
(MedEdPORTAL) Rudd, Mariah; Nagler, Alisa; Crumley, Hugh
Instructional technology in international teaching assistant (ITA) programs
(CALICO Journal, 2010-01-01) Crumley, H
This study examined the range of instructional technology use in international teaching assistant (ITA) programs in U.S. universities and the perceptions ITA professionals have of this use. It consisted of two phases of data collection: telephone interviews and a web-based survey. The study indentified and rank ordered 15 technology practices; the most common of which appears to be video recording presentations and teaching demonstrations. Findings also included three broad themes in ITA program technology use. First, ITA programs are making increasingly greater use of digital and online resources; second, these resources are used in pedagogically eclectic ways; and third, there were a number of factors that appear to be associated with comfort and perceived effectiveness of technology use. These factors are awareness of resources, administrative advocacy, the presence of technology support personnel, and availability of funding.
Voter Satisfaction with Ranked-Choice Voting
(2025-05-15) Barkley, Allyson
As ranked-choice voting (RCV) has spread across the United States in the last few decades, it has met with opposition from political groups claiming RCV ballots are too hard to
understand, effectively burdening the right to vote (Barkley & Sakati, 2024). Though this particular challenge has been dismissed by courts (Barkley & Sakati, 2024), it remains a
prominent component of opposition campaigns (Rosen, 2023; Foundation for Government Accountability, 2023; Mercier, 2024; MSPC, 2024; Save Our States, 2024). This study aims to
respond to the lack of empirical research addressing the question of whether those who vote using RCV are satisfied they have properly exercised their right to vote. As a voting system that
presents an opportunity to shift away from an increasingly polarized electoral context, this question is particularly salient.
Participants were randomized into six groups: a single-choice voting ballot control group and five types of RCV ballot treatments. After receiving instructions and completing their
ballots, they were asked a series of questions regarding the ease of completing the ballot and their satisfaction with the method of voting. The results were analyzed using multiple linear
regressions, controlling for variables such as political orientation and age.
Generally, participants considered RCV ballots slightly less simple but no more confusing than single-choice ballots. The grid ballot with poor instructions was the only
treatment for which participants had significantly lower confidence in their votes being counted correctly. While the RCV treatments decreased voter satisfaction with the voting method, the
treatments increased satisfaction with the outcome regardless of voter preferences and perceptions of fairness of the outcome regardless of voter preferences. Participants in the RCV treatment groups also felt their preferences were better captured by their ballots than those in the single-choice control group.
Finally, several exploratory results expose opportunities for further research. As voter sentiment toward the primary two political parties became more negative, they were more likely
to find RCV ballots more democratic and better able to capture their preferences. Likewise, voters with more extreme political views were more satisfied RCV methods were democratic and
fair. Voters living in states with widespread use of RCV also viewed it more favorably on measures of democratic satisfaction. These exploratory results reveal potential for RCV to
decrease polarization by offering voters a method they find fairer and more representative of their views.