Integrating Assessment and Design Activity in Engineering Education: A Proposed Synthesis of Adaptive Comparative Judgement and the CDIO Framework.

One of the leading frameworks in engineering education specifically associated with design based competencies is the CDIO framework. This has been incorporated internationally into many institutions offering engineering education courses. Characterized by four unique stages, the CDIO framework affords an ideal scenario to incorporate a continuous assessment model. This paper presents a proposed synthesis between CDIO and Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ). In particular, the opportunity to provide feedback through the ACJ system is theorized to have potentially positive educational effects. As part of a larger study, this approach is in the process of being refined prior to implementation as a pilot study for feasibility which will ultimately be succeeded by large-scale implementation to determine any potentially positive effect sizes.

[1]  Mantz Yorke.  Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice , 2003 .

[2]  D. Boud,et al.  Assessment 2020. Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education , 2010 .

[3]  A. Pollitt.  The method of Adaptive Comparative Judgement , 2012 .

[4]  Violet Cheung-Blunden,et al.  A modified peer rating system to recognise rating skill as a learning outcome , 2018 .

[5]  Alastair Pollitt,et al.  Comparative judgement for assessment , 2012 .

[6]  D. Nicol,et al.  Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice , 2006 .

[7]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  On an Approach to Testing and Modeling Competence , 2013 .

[8]  D. Royce Sadler,et al.  Transforming Holistic Assessment and Grading into a Vehicle for Complex Learning , 2009 .

[9]  Kristina Edström,et al.  Rethinking engineering education - The CDIO approach, 2nd ed , 2014 .

[10]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .

[11]  Niall Seery,et al.  The validity and reliability of adaptive comparative judgements in the assessment of graphical capability , 2016 .

[12]  Mark Huxham,et al.  Oral versus written assessments: a test of student performance and attitudes , 2012 .

[13]  N. Holmes,et al.  Student perceptions of their learning and engagement in response to the use of a continuous e-assessment in an undergraduate module , 2015 .

[14]  N. Purdie,et al.  Effects of Learning Skills Interventions on Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis , 1996 .

[15]  Johan Malmqvist,et al.  Rethinking Engineering Education - The CDIO Approach , 2007 .

[16]  Niall Seery,et al.  The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education , 2012 .

[17]  P. Orsmond,et al.  The Use of Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment , 2000 .

[18]  Hamish Coates,et al.  Assessing student learning outcomes in higher education: challenges and international perspectives , 2016 .

[19]  Helen Gartley,et al.  The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education , 2002 .

[20]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  How do you know they are learning? The importance of alignment in higher education , 2006, Int. J. Learn. Technol..

[21]  Bram E. Vaessen,et al.  Students’ perception of frequent assessments and its relation to motivation and grades in a statistics course: a pilot study , 2017 .

[22]  D. Sadler,et al.  Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory , 1998 .

[23]  Larry Ambrose,et al.  The power of feedback. , 2002, Healthcare executive.

[24]  James Hartley,et al.  Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple‐choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes? , 2009 .

[25]  Richard Kimbell,et al.  The origins and underpinning principles of e-scape , 2012 .