Enhancing student learning shrough self-assessment (original) (raw)
Related papers
Student self-assessment in upper level engineering courses
1998
Faculty cannot ensure that educational program objectives and course learning objectives are being met unless both students and faculty become involved in the process of assessment and evaluation. In two senior-level courses, we are addressing these issues through course learning models that directly involve students via reflection, discussion, empowerment, and ownership in the course. The relevance of the learning model to real-life, industrial experiences is underscored as well. Our approach includes a student journal, an engineering workbook, a self-assessment report, and a student management team, as well as periodic surveys throughout the semester. These various instruments form a set of selfassessment tools that provide documentation related to the following issues. Do students have the correct background and preparation for the course? Do students understand the course learning objectives? Are students fulfilling these learning objectives? Are there ways to improve the course during the current semester? Are there ways to improve the course in future semesters?
2024
Self-assessments are used in higher education to spur students to metacognitive learning engagements. In the process of self-assessing, students activate self-regulatory functions that enable students to take ownership of their own learning. Self-assessment activities include students reflecting on, evaluating, and monitoring their own learning performances. Students who self-assess are better able to identify areas they need to improve upon, and to determine the most appropriate courses of action to achieve academic success. However, little is known about the congruence in students' perception of self-assessment and instructor's intent in requiring selfassessments. Hence, the purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of engineering students who participated in self-assessment in an engineering course and how their perspective of the experience compares with the intent of self-assessments by the course instructor. The study further investigates students' positive and negative experiences while engaging with the self-assessment process. This investigation is an exploratory study that uses a multi-method qualitative design consisting of phenomenology and phenomenography. Participants are 121 undergraduate students who enrolled in an engineering class and the course instructor at a R1 public university in Southeastern USA. Data for the study was collected using a qualitative survey that included questions that required students to reflect on their experience and type their responses to prompts that probe their perception of the purpose, benefits, and difficulties of self-assessment activity they engaged in. In addition, the instructor's intent of using self-assessment was obtained through a semi-structured interview session. The data were coded and analyzed using the NVivo data analysis software. A deductive thematic analysis was conducted on participants' responses using the self-regulation framework proposed by Zimmerman [15] and McMillan and Hearn [8]. The final codebook was based on the guiding framework and multiple iterations of coding and engaging in critical reviews of codes by peer debriefers. The results showed students' perceived purpose, benefits, and difficulties of self-assessments. Further, findings revealed that self-assessment aided students' conceptual understanding, reflection on their learning and in identifying learning gaps. There was some alignment found between the overall students' perspectives of the purpose of self-assessment and the intent of self-assessment by the instructor. Students' positive and negative experiences with selfassessments are also illustrated in this study. The knowledge from this study could help instructors on ways to elicit informed feedback about their courses from students. This could in turn help in the redesign of instructional course materials to maximize students' learning gain.
An Assessment Framework for First-Year Introduction to Engineering Courses
2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings
In this evidence-based practice paper, we describe an assessment framework that applies to firstyear introductory engineering courses. First-year engineering courses cover a variety of learning objectives that address both technical and professional outcomes outlined in ABET. These courses also often involve open-ended design and modeling projects. The assessment of multiple competencies along with open-ended design can be a challenging task for educators. In this paper, we describe a framework that guides instructional processes for effective assessment for student learning. This assessment-centered teaching and learning framework helps connect specific learning objectives to broader learning goals or competencies and ongoing formative feedback targeting student progression on specific learning objectives. Our plan is to refine the framework using a design-based research approach. Following the description of the model and its development, we present results from the first cycle of implementation. We conclude by discussing hybrid ways for combining traditional methods of assessment with the ability to highlight performance expectations and the appropriate uses of the framework in the classroom.
Assessment Of An Introduction To Engineering And Problem Solving Course
2003 Annual Conference Proceedings
At North Carolina State University, the freshmen's first course in engineering is E101, Introduction to Engineering and Problem-Solving. It is offered each fall to over 1,100 first year engineering students. In an effort to continuously improve the course, we put into place a plan to assess the course's learning outcomes. Assessment data collected in fall 2001 and fall 2002 through surveys, rubrics, and class assignments were evaluated to determine how well students met learning outcomes related to communication, teamwork, and problem-solving. This paper presents the assessment methods used in this course and provides examples of how the assessment findings were used to modify the course. The assessment procedures developed for this course can be modified for use in any course, regardless of its size, and will illustrate how course assessment can be used to make course and program improvements. Model for Assessment Last year, we presented a model for assessment that describes what data to gather, where to obtain the data, what criteria may be most appropriate when interpreting the data, how to use the results to make improvements in program and how to document the process. 1 The present paper illustrates how that model can be implemented to assess the E101 Introduction to Engineering and Problem-Solving course. The assessment model can be summarized into four major steps: Step 1: Defining program mission, objectives, and outcomes; Step 2: Developing an assessment plan to assess the program objectives and outcomes with linkages to curriculum issues and implementation; Step 3: Gathering the data into a database; Step 4: Interpreting the data to determine program effectiveness and implementing
Self-assessed Student Learning Outcomes in an Engineering Service Course
MSU) received a grant from the GE Fund to reform the early undergraduate engineering learning experience. Focusing on the key service course in Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE 345), this project developed and implemented over a six-year period a new section based on innovative instructional approaches, including cross-disciplinary experiences in teamwork, design, and the use of advanced teaching technologies. This paper compares student self-assessed outcomes from these innovative sections with those from traditional sections of the course. Results support a central tenet of active and collaborative instruction, namely that student involvement in their own learning significantly improves self-assessed learning outcomes.
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), 2022
Given the need to use competency assessment systems, a complex problem arises, especially when applying a metric to transversal competencies is intended. In this context, it is possible to use, among other tools, self and peer assessment, so that the first-person perspective of the students is considered among the criteria to quantify aspects that are difficult to measure. Even though it may seem interesting, this strategy is not riskless, at least this is deduced when talking about this topic with some colleagues. It is intended to address a reflection on the advantages of self and peer assessment within engineering assessment, but also analysing the risks involved (lack of maturity, assigning too high grades...). This feeling of risky activity is presented as especially dangerous when it has to be used by teachers who are reluctant to its use. Analysis of collected assessment data and questionnaires addressed to both teachers and students will provide an insight to their opinion about these assessment methods.
Assessing A Freshman Engineering Course
2005 Annual Conference Proceedings
Assessment is arguably the most difficult activity in an engineering curriculum. An engineering school's first challenge is to align its incoming students with an area of study that appeals to their interests and will allow them to grow academically and ultimately embrace their profession. A secondary challenge is to provide the students with essential problem solving tools in an atmosphere that is engaging while accounting for their diverse educational backgrounds. The assessment tool thus must address these needs. In order to determine the effectiveness of the introductory engineering course, several assessment techniques were used. Initial assessment was performed using a pre-course survey in order to determine pre-conceptions and pre-existing knowledge. Innovative formative assessment used during the course includes using proprietary software permitting real-time, laptop-based student assessment in the classroom. Additional assessment techniques include a common mid-term exam; instructor evaluations for every module; post-module surveys; a post-course survey; and ultimately, student retention numbers.
Development of a Supplemental Evaluation for Engineering Design Courses
2016
Compared to the learning that occurs in most engineering courses, the learning that occurs in design courses is more dependent on students, and less dependent on instructors. Because typical course evaluations are instructor-centric and do not provide information about students’ contributions to their learning, we developed a supplemental evaluation to assess student actions and attitudes important to a quality design experience. We detected statistically-significant, logical shifts in self-reported practices and attitudes as student cohorts progressed through design projects. Factor analysis showed that the evaluation questions could be grouped into eight thematic categories, with most of the questions assessing student ability to function independently in uncertain situations, self-perception of maturation and achievement, and acceptance of responsibility for learning. Accepting responsibility for learning and believing that design experiences helps transition from being a student...