This full research paper documents assessment definitions from engineering faculty members, mainly from Research 1 universities. Assessments are essential components of the engineering learning environment, and how engineering faculty make decisions about assessments in their classroom is a relatively understudied topic in engineering education research. Exploring how engineering faculty think and implement assessments through the mental model framework can help address this research gap. The research documented in this paper focuses on analyzing data from an informational questionnaire that is part of a larger study to understand how the participants define assessments through methods inspired by mixed method strategies. These strategies include descriptive statistics on demographic findings and Natural Language Processing (NLP) and coding on the open-ended response question asking the participants to define assessments, which yielded cluster themes that characterize the definitions. Findings show that while many participants defined assessments in relation to measuring student learning, other substantial aspects include benchmarking, assessing student ability and competence, and formal evaluation for quality. These findings serve as foundational knowledge toward deeper exploration and understanding of assessment mental models of engineering faculty that can begin to address the aforementioned research gap on faculty assessment decisions in classrooms.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 1, 2024
WIP: Faculty Use of Metaphors When Discussing Assessment
This Work-in-Progress paper studies the mental models of engineering faculty regarding
assessment, focusing on their use of metaphors. Assessments are crucial components in courses as they serve various purposes in the learning and teaching process, such as gauging student learning, evaluating instructors and course design, and documenting learning for accountability. Thus, when it comes to faculty development on teaching, assessments should consistently be considered while discussing pedagogical improvements. To contribute to faculty development research, our study illuminates several metaphors engineering faculty use to discuss assessment concepts and knowledge. This paper helps to answer the research question: which metaphors do faculty use when talking about assessment in their classrooms? Through interviews grounded in mental model theory, six metaphors emerged: (1) cooking, (2) playing golf, (3) driving a car, (4) coaching football, (5) blood tests, (6) and generically playing a sport or an instrument. Two important takeaways stemmed from the analysis. First, these metaphors were experiences commonly portrayed in the culture in which the study took place. This is important to note for someone working in faculty development as these metaphors may create communication challenges. Second, the mental model approach showed potential in eliciting ways engineering faculty describe and discuss assessments, offering opportunities for future research and practice in faculty development. The lightning talk will present further details on the findings.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2113631
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10432189
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This full research paper documents assessment definitions from engineering faculty members, mainly from Research 1 universities. Assessments are essential components of the engineering learning environment, and how engineering faculty make decisions about assessments in their classroom is a relatively understudied topic in engineering education research. Exploring how engineering faculty think and implement assessments through the mental model framework can help address this research gap. The research documented in this paper focuses on analyzing data from an informational questionnaire that is part of a larger study to understand how the participants define assessments through methods inspired by mixed method strategies. These strategies include descriptive statistics on demographic findings and Natural Language Processing (NLP) and coding on the open-ended response question asking the participants to define assessments, which yielded cluster themes that characterize the definitions. Findings show that while many participants defined assessments in relation to measuring student learning, other substantial aspects include benchmarking, assessing student ability and competence, and formal evaluation for quality. These findings serve as foundational knowledge toward deeper exploration and understanding of assessment mental models of engineering faculty that can begin to address the aforementioned research gap on faculty assessment decisions in classrooms.more » « less
-
A 2019 report from the National Academies on Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) concluded that MSIs need to change their culture to successfully serve students with marginalized racial and/or ethnic identities. The report recommends institutional responsiveness to meet students “where they are,” metaphorically, creating supportive campus environments and providing tailored academic and social support structures. In recent years, the faculty, staff, and administrators at California State University, Los Angeles have made significant efforts to enhance student success through multiple initiatives including a summer bridge program, first-year in engineering program, etc. However, it has become clear that more profound changes are needed to create a culture that meets students “where they are.” In 2020, we were awarded NSF support for Eco-STEM, an initiative designed to change a system that demands "college-ready" students into one that is "student-ready." Aimed at shifting the deficit mindset prevailing in engineering education, the Eco-STEM project embraces an asset-based ecosystem model that thinks of education as cultivation, and ideas as seeds we are planting, rather than a system of standards and quality checks. This significant paradigm and culture transformation is accomplished through: 1) The Eco-STEM Faculty Fellows’ Community of Practice (CoP), which employs critically reflective dialogue[ ][ ] to enhance the learning environment using asset-based learner-centered instructional approaches; 2) A Leadership CoP with department chairs and program directors that guides cultural change at the department/program level; 3) A Facilitators’ CoP that prepares facilitators to lead, sustain, update, and expand the Faculty and Leadership CoPs; 4) Reform of the teaching evaluation system to sustain the cultural changes. This paper presents the progress and preliminary findings of the Eco-STEM project. During the first project year, the project team formulated the curriculum for the Faculty CoP with a focus on inclusive pedagogy, community cultural wealth, and community building, developed a classroom peer observation tool to provide formative data for teaching reflection, and designed research inquiry tools. The latter investigates the following research questions: 1) To what extent do the Eco-STEM CoPs effectively shift the mental models of participants from a factory-like model to an ecosystem model of education? 2) To what extent does this shift support an emphasis on the assets of our students, faculty, and staff members and, in turn, allow for enhanced motivation, excellence and success? 3) To what extent do new faculty assessment tools designed to provide feedback that reflects ecosystem-centric principles and values allow for individuals within the system to thrive? In Fall 2021, the first cohort of Eco-STEM Faculty Fellows were recruited, and rich conversations and in-depth reflections in our CoP meetings indicated Fellows’ positive responses to both the CoP curriculum and facilitation practices. This paper offers a work-in-progress introduction to the Eco-STEM project, including the Faculty CoP, the classroom peer observation tool, and the proposed research instruments. We hope this work will cultivate broader conversations within the engineering education research community about cultural change in engineering education and methods towards its implementation.more » « less
-
There have been numerous demands for enhancements in the way undergraduate learning occurs today, especially at a time when the value of higher education continues to be called into question (The Boyer 2030 Commission, 2022). One type of demand has been for the increased integration of subjects/disciplines around relevant issues/topics—with a more recent trend of seeking transdisciplinary learning experiences for students (Sheets, 2016; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2019). Transdisciplinary learning can be viewed as the holistic way of working equally across disciplines to transcend their own disciplinary boundaries to form new conceptual understandings as well as develop new ways in which to address complex topics or challenges (Ertas, Maxwell, Rainey, & Tanik, 2003; Park & Son, 2010). This transdisciplinary approach can be important as humanity’s problems are not typically discipline specific and require the convergence of competencies to lead to innovative thinking across fields of study. However, higher education continues to be siloed which makes the authentic teaching of converging topics, such as innovation, human-technology interactions, climate concerns, or harnessing the data revolution, organizationally difficult (Birx, 2019; Serdyukov, 2017). For example, working across a university’s academic units to collaboratively teach, or co-teach, around topics of convergence are likely to be rejected by the university systems that have been built upon longstanding traditions. While disciplinary expertise is necessary and one of higher education’s strengths, the structures and academic rigidity that come along with the disciplinary silos can prevent modifications/improvements to the roles of academic units/disciplines that could better prepare students for the future of both work and learning. The balancing of disciplinary structure with transdisciplinary approaches to solving problems and learning is a challenge that must be persistently addressed. These institutional challenges will only continue to limit universities seeking toward scaling transdisciplinary programs and experimenting with novel ways to enhance the value of higher education for students and society. This then restricts innovations to teaching and also hinders the sharing of important practices across disciplines. To address these concerns, a National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education project team, which is the topic of this paper, has set the goal of developing/implementing/testing an authentically transdisciplinary, and scalable educational model in an effort to help guide the transformation of traditional undergraduate learning to span academics silos. This educational model, referred to as the Mission, Meaning, Making (M3) program, is specifically focused on teaching the crosscutting practices of innovation by a) implementing co-teaching and co-learning from faculty and students across different academic units/colleges as well as b) offering learning experiences spanning multiple semesters that immerse students in a community that can nourish both their learning and innovative ideas. As a collaborative initiative, the M3 program is designed to synergize key strengths of an institution’s engineering/technology, liberal arts, and business colleges/units to create a transformative undergraduate experience focused on the pursuit of innovation—one that reaches the broader campus community, regardless of students’ backgrounds or majors. Throughout the development of this model, research was conducted to help identify institutional barriers toward creating such a cross-college program at a research-intensive public university along with uncovering ways in which to address these barriers. While data can show how students value and enjoy transdisciplinary experiences, universities are not likely to be structured in a way to support these educational initiatives and they will face challenges throughout their lifespan. These challenges can result from administration turnover whereas mutual agreements across colleges may then vanish, continued disputes over academic territory, and challenges over resource allotments. Essentially, there may be little to no incentives for academic departments to engage in transdisciplinary programming within the existing structures of higher education. However, some insights and practices have emerged from this research project that can be useful in moving toward transdisciplinary learning around topics of convergence. Accordingly, the paper will highlight features of an educational model that spans disciplines along with the workarounds to current institutional barriers. This paper will also provide lessons learned related to 1) the potential pitfalls with educational programming becoming “un-disciplinary” rather than transdisciplinary, 2) ways in which to incentivize departments/faculty to engage in transdisciplinary efforts, and 3) new structures within higher education that can be used to help faculty/students/staff to more easily converge to increase access to learning across academic boundaries.more » « less
-
This Complete Research paper investigates the holistic assessment of creativity in design solutions in engineering education. Design is a key element in contemporary engineering education, given the emphasis on its development through the ABET criteria. As such, design projects play a central role in many first-year engineering courses. Creativity is a vital component of design capability which can influence design performance; however, it is difficult to measure through traditional assessment rubrics and holistic assessment approaches may be more suitable to assess creativity of design solutions. One such holistic assessment approach is Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ). In this system, student designs are presented to judges in pairs, and they are asked to select the item of work that they deem to have demonstrated the greatest level of a specific criterion or set of criteria. Each judge is asked to make multiple judgements where the work they are presented with is adaptively paired in order to create a ranked order of all items in the sample. The use of this assessment approach in technology education has demonstrated high levels of reliability among judges (~0.9) irrespective of whether the judges are students or faculty. This research aimed to investigate the use of ACJ to holistically assess the creativity of first-year engineering students design solutions. The research also sought to explore the differences, if any, that would exist between the rank order produced by first-year engineering students and the faculty who regularly teach first-year students. Forty-six first-year engineering students and 23 faculty participated in this research. A separate ACJ session was carried out with each of these groups; however, both groups were asked to assess the same items of work. Participants were instructed to assess the creativity of 101 solutions to a design task, a “Ping Pong problem,” where undergraduate engineering students had been asked to design a ping pong ball launcher to meet specific criteria. In both ACJ sessions each item of work was included in at least 11 pairwise comparisons, with the maximum number of comparisons for a single item being 29 in the faculty ACJ session and 50 in the student ACJ session. The data from the ACJ sessions were analyzed to determine the reliability of using ACJ to assess creativity of design solutions in first-year engineering education, and to explore whether the rankings produced from the first-year engineering students ACJ session differed significantly from those of the faculty. The results indicate a reasonably high level of reliability in both sessions as measured by the Scale Separation Reliability (SSR) coefficient, SSRfaculty = 0.65 ± 0.02, SSRstudents = 0.71 ± 0.02. Further a strong correlation was observed between the ACJ ranks produced by the students and faculty both when considered in terms of the relative differences between items of work, r = .533, p < .001, and their absolute rank position, σ = .553, p < .001. These findings indicate that ACJ is a promising tool for holistically assessing design solutions in engineering education. Additionally, given the strong correlation between ranks of students and faculty, ACJ could be used to include students in their own assessment to reduce the faculty grading burden or to develop a shared construct of capability which could increase the alignment of teaching and learning.more » « less
