Assessing engineering competencies
The Conditions for Educational Improvement
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4097032 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Frank Musekamp (University of Bremen, corresponding author), Jacob Pearce (0000-0003-3081-9132, Australian Council for Educational Research) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 505-524 |
| Publication date | 2015-03-16 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Studies in Higher Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0307-5079 • E-ISSN: 1470-174X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/03075079.2015.1004238 |
| OpenAlex | W2045666251 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 14 |
Low-stakes assessment is supposed to improve educational practice by providing feedback to different actors in educational systems. However, the process of assessment from design to the point of a final impact on student learning outcomes is complex and diverse. It is hard to identify reasons for substandard achievement on assessments, let alone the means that should be undertaken to improve the educational setting. Furthermore, it is difficult to show a causal link between educational reforms and change in test achievement over time. This paper examines the potential impact that low-stakes testing initiatives have in engineering higher education on educational improvement by examining two case studies. It discusses how the design of constructs and particular assessment conditions may foster or limit educational improvement and outlines conditions to ensure that low-stakes assessment designs achieve educational improvement.Keywords: assessmenteducational improvementengineering competencieshigher education AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to express their gratitude to Andreas Saniter, Daniel Edwards, Georg Spöttl and Karine Tremblay for feedback on the earlier versions of this manuscript. They would also like to thank Hamish Coates for encouraging collaboration between ACER and ITB.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.FundingFederal Ministry for Education and Research (Germany) [grant number 01PK11012A].Notes1 AHELO and KOM-ING frameworks are depicted and described in a reduced version. For the sake of brevity the normative parts of the models have been omitted
Academic achievement · Christian ministry · Educational assessment · Engineering ethics · Gratitude · Higher education · Mathematics education · Normative · Pedagogy · Political science · Standardized test · Computer Science · Engineering · Engineering Education and Curriculum Development · Higher Education Learning Practices · Psychology · Social Psychology · Student Assessment and Feedback
Developing instruments to assess and compare the quality of engineering education
Professional competencies in engineering
Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States
The international state of research on measurement of competency in higher education
Modeling and Measuring Competencies in Higher Education
Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post‐secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. 1
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
The effects of feedback interventions on performance
Meanings and Consequences
When Do Numbers Count? The Differential Impact of the Pisa Rating and Ranking on Education Policy in Germany and the US
The Power of Feedback
Summative Assessment in Higher Education
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,36 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2021 (7) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |