We Assess What We Value: "Evidence-based" Logic and the Abandonment of "Non-Assessable" Learning Outcomes
We Assess What We Value: "Evidence-based" Logic and the Abandonment of "Non-Assessable" Learning Outcomes
复制标题
我们评估我们看重的东西：“基于证据”的逻辑和放弃“不可评估”的学习成果
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Riley
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Riley
本文旨在根据工程教育中存在的两种有问题的意识形态，分析最近对 ABET 学士学位课程认证一般标准 3（学生成果）和 5（课程）提出的变更：过度依赖成果教育（OBE）和强调“基于证据”的研究和实践，其中“证据”是按照随机对照试验的医学模型进行狭隘定义的。 （随机对照试验），几乎不可能在教育环境中有效执行。这些变化消除或削弱了对教育广度的要求，包括全球和社会背景、工程伦理和终身学习。这些变化的既定理由之一是某些结果难以评估。相反，工程教育界投入了大量的时间和精力来创新评估方法，以为此目的创建越来越有效、简洁且易于实施的工具。这不仅揭示了“研究与实践”的差距（ABET 领导层可能没有意识到这些进步），而且还揭示了认知上的差距，即“基于证据的”逻辑几乎消除了我们在教育评估中拥有的一些最有效的工具。这场迫在眉睫的危机是我们对成果导向型教育的承诺造成的。正是这种痴迷导致了这样一种逻辑：即使学生的成绩很难评估，这也会在某种程度上构成他们被淘汰的理由。最终，我们评估我们所看重的东西；我们开始重视学生学习成果的可衡量性。我们问的是“什么有效”，而不是 21 世纪的工程师适合进入该行业学习什么。本文呼吁通识教育/工程与社会部门的成员回顾我们作为教育广度倡导者的历史，并长期加倍努力。该部门处于有利地位，可以作为信息交换所，具有召集能力，在 ASEE 各部门甚至包括 ABET 成员的专业协会之间建立联盟，围绕 2020 年及以后受过广泛教育的工程师的愿景重建共识。
This paper seeks to analyze the recent proposed changes to ABET’s baccalaureate-level programs accreditation General Criteria 3 (Student Outcomes) and 5 (Curriculum) in light of two problematic ideologies at work in engineering education: an over-reliance on Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) and an emphasis on “evidence-based” research and practice, where “evidence” is narrowly defined following the medical model of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nearly impossible to execute validly in educational settings. The changes remove or weaken requirements for educational breadth, including global and social context, engineering ethics, and lifelong learning. One of the stated rationales for these changes is that some outcomes are difficult to assess. To the contrary, the engineering education community has invested a great deal of time and effort innovating assessment methods to create increasingly valid, concise, and easy to implement tools for exactly this purpose. This reveals not only a “research to practice” gap in which ABET leadership may not be aware of these advancements, but also an epistemic gap where “evidencebased” logic has all but eliminated some of the most effective tools we have in educational assessment. This immediate crisis is brought on by our own commitment to Outcomes-Based Education. It is this obsession that leads to the logic under which, even if student outcomes were difficult to assess, that this would somehow constitute grounds for their elimination. Ultimately, we assess what we value; and we have come to value measurability of outcomes over student learning. We ask “what works” rather than what is appropriate for engineers to learn entering the profession in the 21 century. This paper calls for members of the Liberal Education/Engineering and Society Division to recount our history as advocates for educational breadth, and redouble our efforts for the long haul. The Division is well positioned to serve as a clearinghouse of information with convening power for building coalitions across ASEE Divisions and even across professional societies comprising ABET’s membership, to rebuild consensus around the vision of a broadly educated engineer in 2020 and beyond.