Using Rubrics in a Capstone Engineering Design Course

Zytner, Richard G.; Donald, John; Gordon, Karen D.; Clemmer, Ryan; Thompson, Jason

doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5720

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Judging by the reports we received, students used each rubric as a series of discrete checkboxes, instead of considering how the different parts of the assignment contributed to the whole-regardless of the order in which the content on the rubric was presented, and despite the number of times that we emphasized that the organization of reports should be based on how the audience would understand the material best, the majority of student reports seemed to follow the same order of topics in the rubric. Our experiences mirror the findings of Zytner et al (2015), who found that students also tended to treat a rubric as a template to be filled in, even when some categories of the rubric were made optional to account for the effective reporting of different projects.…”

Section: Students Seemed To Use the Rubrics As Checklists Of Requiredsupporting

confidence: 80%

Implementing a Single Holistic Rubric to Address Both Communication and Technical Criteria in a First Year Design-Build-Test-Communicate Class

Sheffield

Fowler

Alford

et al.

2017 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Students Seemed To Use the Rubrics As Checklists Of Requiredsupporting

confidence: 80%

Implementing a Single Holistic Rubric to Address Both Communication and Technical Criteria in a First Year Design-Build-Test-Communicate Class

Sheffield

Fowler

Alford

et al.

2017 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The selected case studies include Potter et al's (2006), one of the earliest literature which focuses on ABET's student outcomes; Zytner et al (2015) with focus on CEAB's programme outcomes; Yousafzai et al (2015) with focus on ABET's student outcomes; and Pasya et al (2015) with focus on EAC's programme outcomes. ABET and CEAB are selected as they are the founding members of the Washington Accord, whereby their assessment practices and strategies are very much sought after by other countries as a benchmark (Liew et al, 2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Engineering Design Project Assessment Rubrics to Address the Washington Accord’s Complexity Attributes

Chia¹,

Marlia²,

Hamzah³

2021

AJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the years, various reports confirmed the importance of complex problem-solving in the workplace. However, in most cases, engineering educators often fail to design assessment rubrics that drive the ability to solve complex problems among the students. Literature review revealed that the studies of assessment rubrics in higher education have been undertaken in a wide range of disciplines but not in the field of engineering. Hence this study attempts to present the gaps in four assessment rubrics which were designed to assess engineering design projects. It applied comparative case studies to analyze and synthesize the similarities, differences and patterns from the assessment rubrics to produce generalizable knowledge about how and why particular assessment rubrics work or fail to work against the attributes of complex engineering problem solving and complex engineering activities defined by the International Engineering Alliance (2013), and the essential features of rubrics proposed by James Popham (1997). The results showed that engineering rubric designers generally fulfilled the requirements of designing a rubric. The shortcomings, however, it was found that not all-important design skills were addressed and limited characteristics of complex engineering problem solving were practiced by engineering educators, and the absence of complex engineering activities in the design of assessment rubrics. The understanding of these shortcomings is expected to benefit engineering educators in enhancing their instructional materials for implementing complex problem solving in engineering design projects and subsequently improve the ability of the engineering graduates to solve complex problems.

show abstract

“…In addition, students' ability to solve design problems with realistic constraints can be assessed (EAC, 2020). Typical performance assessment tools include project progress by the course instructor or facilitator, peer review of team member participation, project reports by course instructor or facilitator, and presentation assessment by the public (Scales et al, 1998;Yousafzai et al, 2015;Zytner et al, 2015).…”

Section: Assessment Tools For Programme Outcomes Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Assessment: The Inevitable Future of Engineering Curriculum

Liew

Kiew

2022

AJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The programme outcomes, also known as graduate attributes in the International Engineering Alliance, serve as a benchmark of standards for engineering education to higher learning institutions in Malaysia and other signatory countries under the educational accords. Various studies conducted around the world have revealed that evaluating programme outcomes is perhaps the most important criterion for Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) which focuses on improving graduates' intellectual skills and capabilities. Several Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs) in Malaysia have struggled with assessing programme outcomes since the Engineering Accreditation Council Malaysia (EAC) introduced OBE in 2005. Despite the fact that the programme has been in place for over a decade, issues with assessing programme outcomes persist. Unsustainable effort and meaningless outcome assessment among academic staff are exacerbated by a lack of a specific programme outcome model, improper use of assessment tools, and the collection of massive amounts of unnecessary data. The challenges of assessing programme outcomes experienced by HLIs and academic staff are elaborated on in this article. The concept of sustainable development is introduced, which is believed to be capable of alleviating the problems associated with programme outcome assessment. The background of the adoption of OBE in Malaysia, as well as the assessment requirements of the Washington Accord, are presented in order to emphasise sustainable assessment as the inevitable future of engineering curriculum. The sustainable assessment in engineering curriculum advocated in this article aims to produce sustainable engineering graduates while also reducing the burden of programme outcomes assessment on academic staff.

show abstract

Using Rubrics in a Capstone Engineering Design Course

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Implementing a Single Holistic Rubric to Address Both Communication and Technical Criteria in a First Year Design-Build-Test-Communicate Class

Implementing a Single Holistic Rubric to Address Both Communication and Technical Criteria in a First Year Design-Build-Test-Communicate Class

Comparative Study of Engineering Design Project Assessment Rubrics to Address the Washington Accord’s Complexity Attributes

Sustainable Assessment: The Inevitable Future of Engineering Curriculum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About