IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF A NEW PBL ASSESSMENT MECHANISM

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF A NEW PBL ASSESSMENT MECHANISM

M. Farhat, M. Nahas, H. Salti (2021).  IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF A NEW PBL ASSESSMENT MECHANISM. 9.

Professional engineering practice requires both technical and transversal skills, which raises the need to create modern learning methods that develop both. In alliance with CDIO, Problem Based Learning (PBL) has emerged as an effective way of learning and teaching since it fosters the enhancement of transversal competences along with the required technical ones. Moreover, PBL employs real world problems as a learning tool and encourages students to learn independently while being supported by academic facilitators. In PBL approaches, the assessment process is one of the common issues pointed out by students and faculty since it should not only assess technical knowledge, but also transversal competences. Therefore, various academic institutions have developed different assessments tools and mechanisms. However, whereas such tools work in a given learning environment, the social, technical, pedagogical, and other aspects make of its implementation in other environments a challenge. This paper presents the design and implementation of a new assessment framework to evaluate the student work within PBL courses. It addresses new techniques to measure the individual student’s contribution while he/she is working in a team to solve a real-life problem. Instead of the previously implemented assessment mechanism that involves only one mid-term and one final assessment, the new assessment mechanism suggests several individual and group sub-assessment tools distributed along the semester. The outcome of this new assessment framework is evaluated and compared to the previously implemented PBL assessment framework.

Authors (New): 
Mohamad Farhat
Michel Nahas
Hassan Salti
Pages: 
9
Affiliations: 
Australian College of Kuwait, Kuwait
Keywords: 
Project based learning
Engineering education
Assessment
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 6
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 11
Year: 
2021
Reference: 
Addae JI, Sahu P, Sa B. The relationship between the monitored performance of tutors and students at PBL tutorials and the marked hypotheses generated by students in a hybrid curriculum. Med Educ Online. 2017;22(1):1270626.: 
Alameen M., Abdul-Niby M., Omar M., Alkhatib F., Salti H., Salhia A., Zabalawi I. (2019), Experiential Learning and Its Impact on Graduate Attributes and Employability, Proceeding of the World Engineers Convention, Melbourne, Australia.: 
Barrows H, Tamblyn R (1980) Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. Springer, New York.: 
Boud D, Feletti G (1998) Changing problem-based learning: Introduction to the second edition. In: Boud D and Feletti G (Eds.): The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. Kogan Page, London.: 
Langendyk V (2006) Not knowing that they do not know: self-assessment accuracy of third-year medical students. Med Educ 40: 173-179.: 
Schmidt H (1993) Foundations of Problem-Based Learning: Some Explanatory Notes. Med Educ 27: 422-432.: 
Tai, Gillian Xiao-Lian and Yuen, May Chan (2007). Authentic assessment strategies in problem based learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singaore, Singapre 983-993.: 
White, H. (2001). Problem based learning' Speaking of Teaching. Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching 11 (1).: 
Willem S, de Grave J, Moust H (1985) et al. Tutorials in Problem-Based Learning. Volume II: A new direction in teaching the health professions: 13-28.: 
Woods D (1985) Problem-based learning and problem-solving. In: Boud D. (Ed.): Problem-Based Learning for the Professions. HERDSA, Sydney.: 
Zahid MA, Varghese R, Mohammed AM, Ayed AK. Comparison of the problem-based learning-driven with the traditional didactic-lecture-based curricula. Int J Med Educ. 2016; 7:181–7.: 
Go to top
randomness