A comparison of traditional and adaptive comparative judgment assessment techniques for freshmen engineering design projects

• Autores: Greg J. Strimel, Scott R. Bartholomew, W. Andrew Jackson
• Localización: The International journal of engineering education, ISSN-e 0949-149X, Vol. 34, no. 1, 2018, págs. 20-33
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • This article examines the use of an alternative form of assessment for engineering design projects called adaptivecomparative judgment (ACJ). The researchers employed an ACJ tool to evaluate undergraduate engineering studentdesign projects in an effort to examine its’ reliability, validity, and utility in comparison with traditional assessmenttechniques. The ACJ process employed multiple judges to compare the design artifacts of 16 first-year engineering majors.The authors conducted an analysis of the reliability and validity of the ACJ method compared to the traditional rubric usedto evaluate the project and the performance data of each student’s design prototype. For these design artifacts, ACJdemonstrated a strong alignmentwith traditional assessment methods (rs= 0.79,p< 0.01).Yet, neither ACJ nortraditionalassessment results were significantly correlated with the actual performance of the design prototype. Additionally, thefindings indicate the amount of time each judge devotes to judging student work using ACJ does not significantly impactthe reliability of their assessment.