How we know they’re learning: Comparing approaches to longitudinal assessment of transferable learning outcomes

Brian Frank, Natalie Simper, James Kaupp

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This research paper describes interim results from a 4-year longitudinal study of how engineering students develop critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills. The sample includes approximately 400 students in a mid-sized research intensive Canadian institution. The students were assessed using multiple approaches, including standardized tests, in-course activities, surveys, and course artefacts scored by a trained team using program-wide
rubrics. Outcomes demonstrated in student course artefacts externally scored by VALUE rubric assessment increased over the two years. Scores on standardized tests generally trend upward with the Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT) but are mixed on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), most likely due to motivational and alignment issues. Student motivation is a significant issue in the project. The paper compares the assessment methods, and finds that using externally scored course artefacts is both less expensive and preferred by course instructors for course and program improvement over standardized tests.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 123rd American Society for Engineering Education Meeting (ASEE)
Place of PublicationNew Orleans, LA
PublisherAmerican Society for Engineering Education
Number of pages14
Volume2016-June
ISBN (Electronic)978-0-692-68565-5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 26 Jun 2016
Externally publishedYes

Publication series

NameASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
ISSN (Electronic)2153-5965

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'How we know they’re learning: Comparing approaches to longitudinal assessment of transferable learning outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this