Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T05:26:32.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING PERFORMANCE IN ENGINEERING DESIGN EDUCATION FROM A MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE: AN ANALYSIS OF INSTRUCTORS’ COURSE REVIEW REPORTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Yakhoub Ndiaye  and
Lucienne Blessing
Yakhoub Ndiaye*
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design
Lucienne Blessing
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design
*
Ndiaye, Yakhoub, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, yakhoub_ndiaye@sutd.edu.sg

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Performance assessment plays a crucial role in engineering education. Yet most instructor assessment focuses on student outcomes to analyse achievements. Although there is extensive research analysing student productions, however, few studies have explored assessment from instructor perspectives, especially when reporting their assessment practice. This study examines instructors' assessment of student performance through the lens of course review reports (CRRs). The CRRs were collected from 5 core undergraduate courses submitted for annual review and were related to the mappings of the measurable outcomes to performance indicators, assessment methods, and level of engagement. Regardless of the variability in reporting the student design experience, instructors' assessment and potential gaps, as well as strong existing correlations between some indicators and associated assessment methods, the study showed that the CRR may be a powerful and complementary approach to investigate the complexity of multidisciplinary design and design assessment.

Keywords

Performance assessmentDesign educationDesign engineeringMeasurable outcomesResearch methodologies and methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 667 - 676
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Biggs, J. (1996). “Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment”. Higher Education, Vol. 32, pp. 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., and Nudurupati, S. (2012), “Performance measurement: challenges for tomorrow”. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 3, 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00318.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedefop (2014). Terminology of European education and training policy: a selection of 130 key terms. Second edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/4117Google Scholar
Cedefop (2016). Application of LOs approaches across Europe: A comparative study. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Cedefop reference series; No 105. http://dx.doi.org/10.2801/735711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 16–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X016008016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo, R. M., Najjar, J., Derntl, M., Leony, D., Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P., …& Kloos, C. D. (2010, April). “Aligning assessment with LOs in outcome-based education”. IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference (pp. 1239–1246). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. H. (2003). “Outcome-based education”. Journal of veterinary medical education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258–263. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.30.3.258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harden, R. M., Crosby, J. R., Davis, M. H. (1999). “An introduction to outcome-based education”. Medical Teacher Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 7–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/01421599979969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, M., and Adair, D. (2014). “Two consecutive project-based learning engineering design courses. An analysis of portfolio assessment results”, Fourth Interdisciplinary Engineering Design Education Conference, 2014, pp. 1–5, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEDEC.2014.6784672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, S., Blessing, L., Ndiaye, Y. (2023). “Artificial intelligence for competency assessment in design education: a review of literature”. 9th International Conference on Research into Design, ICoRD'23, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, 9–11 Jan 2023, Springer.Google Scholar
Kirschner, Paul A. 2002. “Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning”. Learning and Instruction, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mina, M., & Heywood, J. (2021). “Disconnected Engineering Education”. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). “Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement”. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). “A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts”. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troman, G. 1989. “Testing Tensions: the Politics of Educational Assessment”. British Educational Research Journal Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192890150305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savin-Baden, M. “Challenging models and perspectives of problem-based learning”, Management of change - Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering, edited by de Graaff, Erik and Kolmos, Anette, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2007, pp. 9–29.Google Scholar
Shekar, A. (2014), “Project-based learning in engineering design education: Sharing best practices”. Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streveler, R., & Smith, K. A. (2006). “Rigorous research in engineering education”. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 103–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Smith, K. A., & Pilotte, M. (2012). “Aligning course content, assessment, and delivery: Creating a context for outcome-based education”. In Outcome-based science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Innovative practices, pp. 1–26. IGI global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1809-1.ch001Google Scholar
Williams, R. (2003). “Education for the profession formerly known as engineering”. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 49 No. 20.Google Scholar