Tag Archives: terms


Capstone projects have significant potential to benefit academic institutions by promoting curriculum improvement. As a culminating experience for students near the end of their academic program, capstone projects require students to leverage and apply the knowledge and skills gained throughout their coursework. This makes capstone projects an invaluable learning tool as well as a key source of feedback for assessing and enhancing curriculum.

One of the primary ways capstone projects can spur curriculum improvement is by highlighting gaps, inconsistencies, or areas needing more focus within the existing curriculum. As students work to complete a substantive capstone project that incorporates multiple disciplines and perspectives, any weaknesses or shortcomings in how certain topics were covered or certain skills were developed will become apparent. Faculty advising capstone projects will get real-time insights into what elements of the curriculum successfully prepared students and what elements fell short. This direct learner feedback shows where curriculum modifications are warranted to improve preparation for capstone work and future careers.

Beyond simply identifying issues, capstone projects provide an opportunity for evidence-based curriculum enhancement. Many institutions now require students to document their capstone experience in a portfolio. These portfolios containing project proposals, development processes, final deliverables, and reflections assessed against learning outcomes can be systematically analyzed by program administrators and faculty. Such analysis reveals patterns and trends across numerous student projects, pinpointing precisely which subject areas and competencies regularly prove problematic or difficult for learners. Having concrete, multiple data points strengthens the case for tailoring curriculum to address evidenced needs rather thanacting based on anecdotes or assumptions alone.

In addition to portfolio assessment, capstone outcomes themselves can drive curriculum change. When evaluating final capstone papers, projects, or presentations, faculty gain insights into how well students were equipped to complete various elements. Persistent poor performance on certain Learning objectives signals those objectives may need reworking, such as modifying related course content, pedagogy, assignments, or resources. Conversely, particularly strong capstone work highlights areas of strength within the curriculum that should be preserved, expanded, or used as models. Continuous improvement depends on using assessment results to inform planned revisions geared toward optimizing student preparation and success.

Collaboration is another key attribute of capstone projects benefitingacademic institutions. To complete robust projects, students frequently work in teams and consult experts or stakeholders outside the university. This gives faculty a window into how well interpersonal skills and other soft competencies emphasized within their programs actually translate to real-world, multi-party settings. Feedback from external partners involved in projects similarly helps validate whether the curriculum adequately develops the applied, industry-relevant aptitudes valued by potential employers. Adjustments may then strengthen these in-demand career-oriented abilities.

The multi-disciplinary nature of many capstone projects can spark curriculum discussions leading to valuable coordination between programs. When students pull together different specializations, it exposes where perspectives from other fields could enhance individual programs’ curricula through additional electives, joint course offerings, or modified core requirements. Watching capstone proceedings may also give faculty new ideas for collaboration on research projects harnessing complementary areas of content expertise. The integrative quality of capstones encouragescross-program cooperation proven to deepen learning and career preparation for an increasingly interdisciplinary world.

As a final high-impact practice concluding students’ academic careers, capstone projects likewise function as an exit assessment of learning outcomes for entire programs and institutions. Internal reviews coupled with surveys of capstone participants, advisors and external stakeholders can expose deficiencies hindering learners from achieving published competencies. Such high-stakes assessment sparks accountability to address shortcomings through evidence-based, mission-driven curriculum changes. It ensures curricula evolve optimally as needs and contexts change while holding true to the promise of developing each graduate’s capabilities.

In various ways, capstone experiences produce rich multi-faceted insights into how academic programs can better serve students. When leveraged systematically for continuous self-study and improvement, capstones empower faculty and administrators to strengthen curricula, refine learning objectives, enhance teaching methods, and ultimately further educational quality, relevance and learner success. By directly linking curriculum to concrete capstone work, institutions integrate assessment seamlessly into the teaching-learning cycle for ongoing impact. Well-designed capstone projects offer tremendous promise as a driver of purposeful, evidence-based curriculum evolution at academic institutions.


To ensure the survey gathers a diverse representation of youth in terms of their civic engagement profiles, it is important to thoughtfully consider various factors related to survey design and administration that can impact representation.

First, the survey sample selection methodology should aim for a diverse and representative sample of youth across various relevant demographic factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, geographical location (urban vs. rural), socioeconomic status, disability status, and other key attributes. Using a stratified random sampling approach that sets quotas or targets for different demographic subgroups can help achieve a sample that broadly reflects the diversity within the youth population. It may also be useful oversampling certain underrepresented groups if needed to obtain adequate subgroup sample sizes for analysis.

Next, attention should be paid to how, when and where the survey is administered to reach diverse segments of youth. Using multiple modes of survey administration such as mail, phone, online, and in-person can help obtain responses from youth with varying levels of access to technology and connectivity. Surveying at different times of the day, days of the week and months of the year can further aid representation by capturing those unavailable during certain windows due to work/school schedules. Implementing the survey both via schools as well as in community settings can represent both students as well as non-student youth. Engaging community organizations that serve various subgroups can facilitate outreach. Providing the survey in multiple languages known within the target communities boosts inclusivity.

Questionnaire design also has implications for representation. The survey questions should be cognitively tested with diverse youth to ensure they are clearly understood by all subgroups. Using simple, straightforward and universally relevant question wording and response options limits bias. Including questions about key attributes like demographics, geographic location, education level etc. allows for analyzing representation and weighting responses post-data collection if needed. Questions assessing civic engagement activities should cover a comprehensive range suited to capture possible variations in how different youth participate based on their circumstances and opportunities. Obtaining open-ended feedback from youth pilots the option for write-in responses to account for unlisted civic actions.

Efforts are needed to minimize nonresponse bias and ensure views of hard-to-reach youth segments are incorporated. This involves multiple follow-ups via different modes with non-respondents, incentivizing survey completion, allaying privacy/data use concerns through clear and transparent informed consent procedures approved by an Institutional Review Board. Partnering with local community leaders and institutions well-positioned to engage underrepresented youth cohorts aids outreach. Making the survey process convenient and low-effort for respondents by maintaining a short questionnaire length, simple navigation on online/phone versions encourages participation.

The survey field staff and methodology also impact representation. Using a diverse team of field interviewers from varied backgrounds who are fluent in multiple languages fosters rapport and participation. Thorough training equips them to conduct the survey sensitively and flexibly with special populations. Strict protocols on non-biased interactions, confidential handling of data and participants’ rights minimize potential coercion and safeguards vulnerable youth groups. Obtaining parental consent respectfully for surveys of minors follows applicable ethics guidelines.

Once data collection ends, a thorough analysis of respondent demographics against population parameters using relevant benchmark data allows for identifying any underrepresentation. Informed by such findings, responses could be statistically weighted during analysis to adjust for non-response, coverage and non-coverage errors to project a distribution truly reflective of the diversity in the target youth population’s civic profiles.

With proactive measures applied at all stages from survey design to fieldwork to analysis, it is possible for the survey to embrace an inclusive methodology that holistically captures the civic voices and lived experiences of youth with differing backgrounds, circumstances and ways of participating within their communities. A representation approach grounded in key principles of scientific rigor, cultural competence and ethics ultimately creates a citizen-centric civic engagement assessment tool.


Blockchain technology is extremely promising but also faces significant scalability challenges that researchers and developers are working hard to address. Scalability refers to a system’s ability to grow and adapt to increased demand. The key scalability challenges for blockchains stem from their underlying architecture as decentralized, append-only distributed ledgers.

One of the main scalability issues is transaction throughput. Blockchains can currently only process a limited number of transactions per second due to constraints in block size and block timing. For example, Bitcoin can only handle around 7 transactions per second. This is far below the thousands of transactions per second that mainstream centralized systems like Visa can process. The small block size and block timing interval is by design to achieve distributed consensus across the network. It poses clear throughput constraints as usage grows.

Transaction confirmation speed is also impacted. It takes Bitcoin around 10 minutes on average to confirm one block of transactions and add it irreversibly to the chain. So users must wait until their transaction is included in a block and secured through sufficient mining work before it can be regarded as confirmed. For applications needing real-time processing like retail point of sale, this delay can be an issue. Developers are investigating ways to shorten block times but it poses a challenge for maintaining decentralization.

On-chain storage also becomes a problem as usage grows. Every full node must store the entire blockchain which continues to increase in size as more blocks are added over time. As of March 2022, the Bitcoin blockchain was over 380 GB in size. Ethereum’s was over 1TB. Storing terabytes of continuously growing data is infeasible for most users and increases costs for node operators. This centralization risk must be mitigated to ensure blockchain sustainability. Potential solutions involve sharding data across nodes or transitioning to alternative database structures.

Network latency can present scalability issues too. Achieving consensus across globally distributed nodes takes time due to the physical limitations of sending data at the speed of light. The more nodes involved worldwide, the more latency is introduced. This delay impacts how quickly transactions are confirmed and also contributes to the need for larger block intervals to accommodate slower nodes. Developers are exploring ways to optimize consensus algorithms and reduce reliance on widespread geographic distribution.

Privacy and anonymity techniques like mixing and coins joined also impact scalability as they add computational overhead to transaction processing. Techniques like zero-knowledge proofs under development have potential to enhance privacy without compromising scalability. Nonetheless, instant privacy comes with an associated resource cost to maintain full node validation. Decentralizing computation effectively is an ongoing challenge.

Another constraint is smart contract execution. Programming arbitrary decentralized applications on-chain through things like Ethereum Smart Contracts requires significant resources. Complex logic can easily overload the system if not designed carefully. Increasing storage or computation limits also expand the attack surface, so hard caps remain necessary. Off-chain or sidechain solutions are being researched to reduce overheads through alternatives like state channels and plasma.

Developers face exponential challenges in scaling the core aspects that make blockchains trustless and decentralized – data storage, transaction processing, network traffic, resource allocation for contract execution, and globally distributed consensus in an open network. Many promising approaches are in early stages of research and testing, such as sharding, state channels, sidechains, lightning network-style protocols, proof-of-stake for consensus, and trust-minimized privacy protections. Significant progress continues but fully addressing blockchain scalability to meet mass adoption needs remains an ambitious long-term challenge that will require coordination across researchers, developers, and open standards bodies. Balancing scalability improvements with preserving decentralization, security, and open access lies at the heart of overcoming limitations to blockchain’s potential.


While electric vehicles (EVs) were once thought of as slower and with less power than gas-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, modern EVs can often match or even surpass the performance of gas cars. This is due to the way electric motors deliver torque. With an electric motor, maximum torque is available from a stop, whereas with an ICE vehicle torque ramps up as the engine spins up. As a result, EVs tend to have stronger acceleration from a standing start. Some high-performance EVs like the Tesla Model S Plaid can accelerate from 0-60 mph in under 2 seconds, faster than almost all gas sports cars.

EVs also tend to have a lower center of gravity than gas cars thanks to the heavy battery packs being located low down in the floor of the vehicle. This provides better handling, balance, and stability when cornering. Some studies have even found EVs able to out-corner gas cars on winding roads due to this low center of gravity and instant torque response from electric motors. While you may sacrifice some cargo or rear seat space to the battery, most EVs still provide comparable interior room to similar gas vehicle models. Driving range for EVs has also increased dramatically in recent years. Top EV models now offer over 300 miles of range on a single charge.

There are some key differences in the driving experience compared to gas cars. One downside is that EVs have more weight from their batteries which can impact things like braking ability and tires may wear out more quickly with the extra pounds. Regenerative braking – which converts some of the energy lost during braking into charging the battery – helps offset this, but hard stops still take more distance in an EV. Without engine sounds, EVs are much quieter, which some drivers may perceive as less engaging or exhilarating, though others see it as a more serene driving experience.

Charging times can also be longer than refilling a gas tank. While most EVs can fast charge up to 80% in 30-45 minutes on newer high-powered networks, it still takes much less time to stop for gas during long road trips. Charging an EV overnight at home is very convenient. And total ownership costs tend to be lower for EVs due to fewer scheduled maintenance needs and very low fuel/electricity costs of around $1 to fully “refill” the battery. Gas prices fluctuate far more wildly. Some governments even offer tax credits and incentives to make EVs more affordable compared to comparable gas models.

In terms of driving dynamics behind the wheel, EV motors provide strong but smooth and linear acceleration. With quick and precise acceleration control at your fingertips, driving an EV can feel lively yet composed. There is no engine noise, so internal cabin silence reigns. Some higher-end EVs even allow for some cool customization of artificial engine sounds if desired via speakers. Sportier models like the Tesla Model 3 Performance or Porsche Taycan Turbo S bring racecar levels of instant throttle response. In contrast, driving a gas performance vehicle requires working with the engine rpm and gear shifts for the most engaging drives. While EVs may need some getting used to for drivers attached to certain aspects of internal combustion, modern electric drivetrains are highly capable and provide their own unique advantages and pleasures behind the wheel. As charging infrastructure expands and battery technology continues advancing, EVs will only continue closing the gap with gasoline counterparts.

Electric vehicles have made tremendous strides in both performance and driving experience to match and even exceed gas-powered cars in many key areas. With instant torque, precise acceleration control, lower centers of gravity for better handling, and high power outputs from leading models, EVs can absolutely satisfy driving enthusiasts. Their operation is simply differen but not necessarily inferior to traditional ICE vehicles. Over time, more convenient charging networks and longer driving ranges will make EVs viable options for most drivers, especially as their total cost of ownership makes increasingly good financial sense as well. As both technologies continue developing, drivers will continue gaining even more choices in finding satisfying vehicles suited to their unique needs and preferences.


When it comes to delivering truly immersive augmented reality (AR) experiences, AR glasses and headsets have distinct advantages over smartphones. While smartphones were the first major platform to bring AR to the consumer market and enable basic overlay of digital content on the real world, they have inherent limitations that prevent them from achieving the same levels of immersion as head-mounted displays (HMDs).

One of the most significant differences is the field of view (FOV) which refers to the extent of the real world that can be seen through the device. Smartphone FOVs are constrained by their small screen sizes, typically ranging from 5-6 inches diagonal. Even holding a phone at arms length only provides a FOV of 30-40 degrees. In contrast, HMDs are designed to fill more of the user’s natural FOV in order to fuse digital and physical scenes seamlessly. Current AR glasses like the Vuzix Blade have FOVs over 40 degrees, while advanced research prototypes are approaching human FOV levels of 180-220 degrees horizontal and 120-135 degrees vertical. A wider FOV is critical for convincing depth cues and peripheral awareness of blended environments.

Related to FOV is the optical resolution and pixel density needed to overlay graphics convincingly on the real world. Again smartphones are limited by their screens which top out around 450-500 pixels per inch (PPI), compared to next generation AR displays targeting 1000+ PPI. Higher resolutions are required to avoid the “screen-door effect” where individual pixels are visible, breaking the illusion. They also enable finer details and text in AR overlays. While smartphones can handle basic overlays, more complex 3D graphics and holograms will appear blurry or pixelated on phone displays.

Eye tracking is another differentiating feature that enhances immersion. Integrated eye tracking allows HMDs to track a user’s focus and line of sight, enabling new interactions like gaze-based controls and foveated rendering. Foveated rendering optimizes graphical fidelity based on where the user is looking for performance gains. For phones, crude eye tracking is possible through front cameras but precision is limited.

Input is also more natural and intuitive with HMDs. Most support 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) head tracking which precisely tracks and renders virtual content anchored in 3D space. Users can intuitively look around objects from different angles. Phones are limited to 3DoF and gyros – they can’t perceive true 6DoF head movements. Touchscreens also don’t support gestures like pointing that are natural in AR. Motion controllers further expand interactivity for some HMDs.

Perhaps the biggest difference lies in the form factor itself. Being untethered to a phone frees hands for other tasks while seeing AR. They also provide a more private experience that can be used discreetly in public. In contrast, holding phones up is awkward, tiring on arms, and draws more attention from others. This limits long-term use cases for AR on phones to passive, short-form experiences. The hands-free and discreet nature of HMDs unlocks many productivity, educational, and social/collaborative AR applications.

On the technical side, HMDs provide far better thermal management due to their design. Phones can overheat quickly rendering graphics-intensive AR for extended periods due to thermal constraints of thin, tightly packed devices. For a truly immersive experience, consistent performance is required. Phones are great for short demos but aren’t suitable for applications requiring persistent compute resources from the device.

Connectivity is also more reliable with HMDs which will support high throughput WiFi 6 and 5G connections. Phones still depend on mobile data plans that vary by region and provider. Offline and low-latency AR is challenging on phones but better supported by HMD hardware. Battery life is much longer too, enabling all-day AR use cases versus a few hours maximum on phones.

While smartphones created mainstream awareness of AR, their inherent form factor limitations prevent truly immersive experiences on par with HMDs. Only head-mounted displays can provide the large field of view, high resolution optics, integrated input like gaze and gesture, 6DoF tracking, thermal performance, offline capability and all-day battery required for advanced AR applications. As optical and computational technologies progress, AR glasses and headsets will continue leaving smartphones behind in the pursuit of seamlessly blending digital imagery with the real world.