Assessment in PBL: do we assess the learner or the product?

• Autores: Prue Howard, Matt Eliot, M. G. Rasul, Fons Nouwens, Justine Lawson
• Localización: The International journal of engineering education, ISSN-e 0949-149X, Vol. 32, no. Extra 1 (Parte B ), 2016, págs. 348-363
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Grading individual students in teams or projects has always been problematic. To accurately gauge individual learningoutcomes, students’ grades need to be based on what they have learned as an individual within the team or project context.However, within engineering team-based projects, individuals have traditionally been assigned a grade heavily influencedby the team’s project outcomes. Final year engineering projects (FYEP) suffer from similar problems. While typically in theAustralian context, the projects are conducted by individuals, they are still conducted using the philosophy of PBL. Toprovide a reliable indicator of student capability and program quality and standards, FYEPs must be coherent, valid andreliable instruments for student assessment and program evaluation. This paper considers two Australian engineeringeducation projects, one recently completed and one current, that investigate the issues of; how can individuals who learn ina team environment be assessed as individuals?, how can the outcomes from final year engineering projects be used todemonstrate the standards required by various state and professional accrediting agencies? And what are the issues thatprevent staff effectively assessing the learning outcomes of individual students who learn in the project environment? Thepaper outlines an assessment model that was trialled and discusses the issues arising. The difference between this form ofassessment and others in engineering education is that it assesses the learning outcomes of the individuals as opposed toassessing the product of the team. The paper also discusses the results from the first stage of data gathering on final yearprojects in Australia. The conclusion is that assessing the product rather than the learner degrades the opportunity to useprojects as evidence of learning, but continues because it is easier for academic staff.