Journey Continues: Piloting Competency-based Assessment in a First-year Engineering Course on Ethics, Communication, and Creative Problem Solving

Kai Zhuang, J. Harris, S. Mattucci, M. Jadidi
{"title":"Journey Continues: Piloting Competency-based Assessment in a First-year Engineering Course on Ethics, Communication, and Creative Problem Solving","authors":"Kai Zhuang, J. Harris, S. Mattucci, M. Jadidi","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Renaissance Engineering 1 is a first-year engineering course that is the “flagship course” of Lassonde School of Engineering, where students are introduced to essential concepts and practices in ethics, communication, and creative problem solving. It is a large course that impacts over 600 students per year. Since Fall 2020, partly as a response to the pandemic, we fundamentally transformed the content and delivery of the course. This year, we have continued this transformative journey with an emphasis on reinventing the assessment approach. The limitations of normative grading are wellknown in the education field. Specifically, to our situation, the appropriateness of this practice in professional education where the goal is to ensure every student acquires the necessary competence, is suspect. Specification grading bridges normative and competencybased grading paradigms and has been shown to be effective in the engineering education setting. We applied specification grading to Renaissance Engineering 1. In all assignments, including the final case study, students are asked to satisfy a number of requirements distributed across four levels of competencies: Level 1: Foundational requirements for being a well-adjusted citizen, Level 2: Foundational requirements for being a contributing engineer, Level 3: Advanced requirements for being a well adjusted citizen, and Level 4: Advanced requirements for being a contributing engineer.\nStudents are assigned grades from D to A based on their requirement satisfaction. Students have a limited number of chances to revise and resubmit their work if they have failed to satisfy all requirements in order to demonstrate competency. If they fail to meet multiple level 1 requirements after resubmission, they will fail the course. During the Fall-2021 term, we faced a number of unexpected challenges and surprises. Compared to previous years, this cohort - having experienced tremendous difficulties through the pandemic - were more tentative and insecure and took to a new grading scheme with notable trepidation initially. Surprisingly, many students had notable difficulty following clear written instructions, which is likely another pandemic-induced abnormality. Nevertheless, the majority of the students became comfortable with the scheme by the end of the term and achieved satisfactory learning outcomes. Significantly, while the majority of the students (~58%) achieved A or B grades, a significant minority (~18%) of students had failed the course. The course is offered to a new cohort of students in Winter 2022. Following a system thinking approach, we adjusted the grading scheme implementation based on our experience and learnings from the Fall-2021 term through winter term that led us to new and consistent findings. However, the benefits of specification grading in ensuring students meet critical competencies is particularly relevant for a professional education program such as engineering. Indeed, the bimodal grade distribution calls into question the status quo of normbased grading and calls for further research on assessment schema in engineering.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15929","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Renaissance Engineering 1 is a first-year engineering course that is the “flagship course” of Lassonde School of Engineering, where students are introduced to essential concepts and practices in ethics, communication, and creative problem solving. It is a large course that impacts over 600 students per year. Since Fall 2020, partly as a response to the pandemic, we fundamentally transformed the content and delivery of the course. This year, we have continued this transformative journey with an emphasis on reinventing the assessment approach. The limitations of normative grading are wellknown in the education field. Specifically, to our situation, the appropriateness of this practice in professional education where the goal is to ensure every student acquires the necessary competence, is suspect. Specification grading bridges normative and competencybased grading paradigms and has been shown to be effective in the engineering education setting. We applied specification grading to Renaissance Engineering 1. In all assignments, including the final case study, students are asked to satisfy a number of requirements distributed across four levels of competencies: Level 1: Foundational requirements for being a well-adjusted citizen, Level 2: Foundational requirements for being a contributing engineer, Level 3: Advanced requirements for being a well adjusted citizen, and Level 4: Advanced requirements for being a contributing engineer. Students are assigned grades from D to A based on their requirement satisfaction. Students have a limited number of chances to revise and resubmit their work if they have failed to satisfy all requirements in order to demonstrate competency. If they fail to meet multiple level 1 requirements after resubmission, they will fail the course. During the Fall-2021 term, we faced a number of unexpected challenges and surprises. Compared to previous years, this cohort - having experienced tremendous difficulties through the pandemic - were more tentative and insecure and took to a new grading scheme with notable trepidation initially. Surprisingly, many students had notable difficulty following clear written instructions, which is likely another pandemic-induced abnormality. Nevertheless, the majority of the students became comfortable with the scheme by the end of the term and achieved satisfactory learning outcomes. Significantly, while the majority of the students (~58%) achieved A or B grades, a significant minority (~18%) of students had failed the course. The course is offered to a new cohort of students in Winter 2022. Following a system thinking approach, we adjusted the grading scheme implementation based on our experience and learnings from the Fall-2021 term through winter term that led us to new and consistent findings. However, the benefits of specification grading in ensuring students meet critical competencies is particularly relevant for a professional education program such as engineering. Indeed, the bimodal grade distribution calls into question the status quo of normbased grading and calls for further research on assessment schema in engineering.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
旅程继续:在伦理、沟通和创造性解决问题的一年级工程课程中试行基于能力的评估
文艺复兴工程1是一年级的工程课程,是拉森德工程学院的“旗舰课程”,向学生介绍道德、沟通和创造性解决问题的基本概念和实践。这是一个很大的课程,每年影响600多名学生。自2020年秋季以来,部分是为了应对疫情,我们从根本上改变了课程的内容和授课方式。今年,我们继续这一变革之旅,重点是重新发明评估方法。规范评分的局限性在教育领域是众所周知的。具体来说,在我们的情况下,这种做法在以确保每个学生获得必要能力为目标的专业教育中的适当性是值得怀疑的。规范分级衔接规范和能力为基础的分级范式,并已被证明是有效的工程教育设置。我们将规范分级应用到Renaissance Engineering 1。在所有作业中,包括最后的案例研究,学生被要求满足一系列要求,这些要求分布在四个能力水平上:第一级:成为一个适应良好的公民的基本要求,第二级:成为一名有贡献的工程师的基本要求,第三级:成为一名适应良好的公民的高级要求,第四级:成为一名有贡献的工程师的高级要求。根据学生对要求的满意程度,学生被分配D到A的分数。如果学生未能满足展示能力的所有要求,他们修改和重新提交作业的机会有限。如果在重新提交后未能满足多个一级要求,则该课程将不及格。在2021年秋季学期,我们面临着许多意想不到的挑战和惊喜。与前几年相比,这批人在大流行期间经历了巨大的困难,他们更加犹豫不决,更没有安全感,最初采取了一种新的评分方案,令人明显感到不安。令人惊讶的是,许多学生在遵循明确的书面指示方面存在明显困难,这可能是另一种由大流行引起的异常现象。然而,到学期结束时,大多数学生对该计划感到满意,并取得了令人满意的学习成果。值得注意的是,虽然大多数学生(约58%)取得了A或B的成绩,但也有少数学生(约18%)没有通过这门课程。该课程将于2022年冬季为新一批学生开设。按照系统思考的方法,我们根据从2021年秋季学期到冬季学期的经验和学习调整了评分方案的实施,这使我们有了新的和一致的发现。然而,规范评分在确保学生满足关键能力方面的好处与工程等专业教育项目特别相关。事实上,双峰式的等级分布对标准等级的现状提出了质疑,需要进一步研究工程评价模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Makes an Exemplary Engineering Leader? In the Words of Engineers Questioning Green Growth and Sustainable Development in Undergraduate Engineering Memorization: Friend or Foe when Solving Problems in STEM Undergraduate Courses Persistent mistakes in learning basic circuit analysis Development and Assessment of a Training Module on Intellectual Property Literacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1