How We Know They're Learning: Comparing Approaches to Longitudinal Assessment of Transferable Learning Outcomes
How We Know They're Learning: Comparing Approaches to Longitudinal Assessment of Transferable Learning Outcomes
复制标题
我们如何知道他们正在学习：可迁移学习成果纵向评估方法的比较
DOI：
10.18260/p.25493
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
J. Kaupp
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Frank;N. Simper;J. Kaupp
本文介绍了一项为期4年的纵向研究的中期结果，该研究是关于工程专业学生如何发展批判性思维、解决问题和沟通技巧的。样本包括大约400名学生在一个中等规模的研究密集型加拿大机构。使用多种方法对学生进行评估，包括标准化测试、课程内活动、调查以及由训练有素的团队使用程序范围内的规则进行评分的课程文物。在学生课程人工制品显示的结果外部评分的价值标尺评估增加了两年。标准化测试的分数通常随着批判性思维评估测试（CAT）而上升，但在大学学习评估（CLA+）上则参差不齐，这很可能是由于动机和对齐问题。学生的积极性是该项目的一个重要问题。本文比较了评估方法，并发现，使用外部评分的课程文物是既便宜，更喜欢的课程和程序改进的标准化测试的课程教师。
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.