00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

203 Ansichten8 SeitenThis paper presents the implementation of the Outcomes-Based Education
(OBE) framework in a basic undergraduate engineering course—Engineering
Mechanics (Statics of Rigid Bodies)—from syllabus design to course assessment. The
revision of the syllabus using the OBE format was carried out and outcomes-based
assessment is conducted to determine if the intended learning outcomes for this
course using the revised syllabus are achieved. Two types of assessment methods
were applied: direct and indirect methods to assess the attainment of the course
learning outcomes. The direct method used the scores in the quizzes and final
exams. The indirect method used an end-of-course evaluation by the faculty and
students to determine the perception on the achievement of outcomes. Based on the
outcomes-based assessment using direct methods, the achievement of the learning
outcomes is barely satisfactory while the review of the course syllabus and teaching
and learning activities is recommended.

May 11, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

This paper presents the implementation of the Outcomes-Based Education
(OBE) framework in a basic undergraduate engineering course—Engineering
Mechanics (Statics of Rigid Bodies)—from syllabus design to course assessment. The
revision of the syllabus using the OBE format was carried out and outcomes-based
assessment is conducted to determine if the intended learning outcomes for this
course using the revised syllabus are achieved. Two types of assessment methods
were applied: direct and indirect methods to assess the attainment of the course
learning outcomes. The direct method used the scores in the quizzes and final
exams. The indirect method used an end-of-course evaluation by the faculty and
students to determine the perception on the achievement of outcomes. Based on the
outcomes-based assessment using direct methods, the achievement of the learning
outcomes is barely satisfactory while the review of the course syllabus and teaching
and learning activities is recommended.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

203 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

This paper presents the implementation of the Outcomes-Based Education
(OBE) framework in a basic undergraduate engineering course—Engineering
Mechanics (Statics of Rigid Bodies)—from syllabus design to course assessment. The
revision of the syllabus using the OBE format was carried out and outcomes-based
assessment is conducted to determine if the intended learning outcomes for this
course using the revised syllabus are achieved. Two types of assessment methods
were applied: direct and indirect methods to assess the attainment of the course
learning outcomes. The direct method used the scores in the quizzes and final
exams. The indirect method used an end-of-course evaluation by the faculty and
students to determine the perception on the achievement of outcomes. Based on the
outcomes-based assessment using direct methods, the achievement of the learning
outcomes is barely satisfactory while the review of the course syllabus and teaching
and learning activities is recommended.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

March 7, 2014

Outcomes-Based Assessment of a Basic Engineering Course

(Statics of Rigid Bodies)

Andres Winston C. Oreta

1*

and Cheryl Lyne C. Roxas

2

1

Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., De La Salle University

2

Asst. Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., De La Salle University

*Corresponding Author: andres.oreta@@dlsu.edu.ph

Abstract: This paper presents the implementation of the Outcomes-Based Education

(OBE) framework in a basic undergraduate engineering courseEngineering

Mechanics (Statics of Rigid Bodies)from syllabus design to course assessment. The

revision of the syllabus using the OBE format was carried out and outcomes-based

assessment is conducted to determine if the intended learning outcomes for this

course using the revised syllabus are achieved. Two types of assessment methods

were applied: direct and indirect methods to assess the attainment of the course

learning outcomes. The direct method used the scores in the quizzes and final

exams. The indirect method used an end-of-course evaluation by the faculty and

students to determine the perception on the achievement of outcomes. Based on the

outcomes-based assessment using direct methods, the achievement of the learning

outcomes is barely satisfactory while the review of the course syllabus and teaching

and learning activities is recommended.

Key Words: Outcomes-Based Education, Assessment, Syllabus, Engineering

Mechanics, Learning Outcomes

1. INTRODUCTION

Outcomes-Based Education is an

educational model in which the curriculum and

pedagogy and assessment are all focused on student

learning outcomes (Driscoll & Wood 2007 p.4).

Outcomes-Based Education is now accepted as a

framework in the accreditation of Engineering

Programs. The ABET in the US adopts its

Engineering Criteria, which basically follows the

OBE framework. Similarly, the Washington Accord,

which recognizes substantial equivalence in the

accreditation of qualifications in professional

engineering for the member countries, also adopts

similar criteria. As a result, various studies have

been conducted by engineering educators on how to

effectively implement the OBE framework in

engineering schools. Felder and Brent (2003) gave an

overview on ABET accreditation process and

described the instructional techniques that should

effectively prepare students to achieve the program

outcomes. Designing the learning outcomes of a

course follows a hierarchy from top to bottom

starting from the University Vision-Mission when

the expected graduate attributes are defined, then to

the Program level when the student or program

outcomes are articulated, and down to the course

level. The key to OBE is that the course learning

outcomes are aligned with the program outcomes and

the expected graduate attributes. Moreover, the

course content, teaching and learning activities

(TLAs), and assessment tasks (ATs) must address

the intended course learning outcomes (LO).

However, whether the course learning outcomes are

achieved or not needs to be assessed.

Assessment methods have been applied by

various universities in the US to satisfy the ABET

accreditation criteria. Rogers (2003) emphasized

that grades in the courses cannot capture the

achievement of the learning outcomes because

various factors were included in the computation of

the final grade. Specific outcomes-based assessment

Proceedings of the Scholarship and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (SILT) Symposium 2014

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 7, 2014

tools must be used to directly and indirectly measure

the achievement of outcomes. Menhart (2011)

discussed direct and indirect student assessment

methods, used by the Department of Engineering

Technology at the University of Arkansas at Little

Rock (UALR). He presented an example for a Digital

Systems Design course where exams, quizzes, and

reports are used for direct assessment and an end-of-

course evaluation was completed by the students for

their self-assessment of achievement of outcomes.

This self-assessment generates indirect assessment

data, which complements the traditional direct

assessment data. Gurocak (2009) presented an

approach for assessment of course outcomes using

direct measures. Specific homework and exams were

mapped to the knowledge and skills described by the

course outcomes. At the end of the semester,

students, aside from receiving their usual letter

grades, received a score on the scale of 1 to 5 for

every course outcome indicating how well he/she

achieved each outcome. The data (scores) coming

from each course are used at the program level to

assess the program outcomes. Based on these scores

and the data, the faculty may make changes in the

syllabus, teaching and learning activities, or even

revise the learning outcomes to improve the course

delivery, thus closing the loop.

This paper presents the results of a research

(Oreta & Roxas, 2013) on the implementation of the

OBE framework in a basic undergraduate

engineering courseEngineering Mechanics (Statics

of Rigid Bodies or STATICS)from syllabus design

to course assessment. The syllabus using the OBE

format is implemented and outcomes-based

assessment is conducted to determine if the intended

learning outcomes for this course using the revised

syllabus are achieved. Two types of assessment

methods were applied: direct and indirect methods to

assess the attainment of the course learning

outcomes. The direct method used the scores in the

quizzes and final exams. The indirect method that

uses an end-of-course evaluation by the faculty and

students is conducted to determine perceptions on

the achievement of outcomes. A pilot study on OBE

application at the course level will provide useful

information to the faculty and the department on

how OBE can be effectively implemented to improve

learning and meet accreditation needs.

2. STATICS AND THE LEARNING

OUTCOMES

Statics of Rigid Bodies (STATICS) is a

branch of Engineering Mechanics that deals with the

study of forces and interaction of forces that occur in

rigid bodies that are in static equilibrium. It is a

three unit course required for all engineering

programs and a prerequisite and essential to

structural or machine design courses. Various

knowledge and skills are aimed to be achieved in this

course. The key to course design is the formulation

of the course learning outcomes. Powers (2008)

provided guidelines and examples on how to write

learning outcomes. The revised OBE syllabus of

STATICS states three intended course learning

outcomes (LO) as follows:

At the end of this course, the student must

be able to:

LO1. Analyze the properties (components, resultants,

and moments) of a force and force systems in 2D &

3D.

LO2. Solve equilibrium problems of various types of

structures including friction problems using

analytical models, rigid bodies, FBDs, and equations

of equilibrium.

LO3. Solve the properties (centroid, center of gravity,

and moment of inertia) of areas, lines, and volumes

and apply these properties in equilibrium problems.

To realize the attainment of the outcomes,

the Constructive Alignment Principle (Biggs, 2003) is

applied. In the learning plan of the STATICS

Syllabus, the LOs being addressed by each lesson or

class meeting is indicated and the various TLAs are

listed for the instructors guidance. Instructors are

expected to use both blackboard and multimedia in

their lectures. Aside from traditional lectures, the

instructor can design activities that will engage the

students to construct learning. TLAs appropriate

with the topics of the STATICS course (e.g. video

showing, problem solving, lectures, etc.) are indicated

in the syllabus to guide the instructor in the delivery

of the course during the term.

The assessment tasks (ATs) used during the

term are also aligned with course learning outcomes

to help students achieve the LOs. In the present

STATICS syllabus, the traditional assessment

methods employed are aligned with the LOs as

shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Assessment Tasks in STATICS

Learning

Outcome

Assessment

Tasks

Date

LO1 LO2 Long Quiz #1 5

th

Week

LO1 LO2 Long Quiz #2 8

th

Week

LO1 LO3 Long Quiz #3 13

th

Week

LO1 LO3 Final Exams 14

th

Week

The raw scores in the Long Quizzes and the

Proceedings of the Scholarship and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (SILT) Symposium 2014

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 7, 2014

Final Exam are the basis of the final grades in the

course.

3. OUTCOMES-BASED ASSESSMENT

It must be noted that grades are not directly

used in assessing the achievement of learning

outcomes in the course and program level. Because

many factors contribute to an assigned grade, it is

almost impossible to make inferences about what a

student knows or can do by only looking at the

grades for a course (Rogers, 2003, p. 8).

There are two ways of assessing the

attainment of outcomes: direct and indirect methods.

Direct assessment is based on an analysis of student

behaviours or products in which they demonstrate

how well they have mastered learning outcomes.

Direct assessment methods use quizzes, exams, and

reports to measure students performance. Indirect

assessment, on the other hand, is based on an

analysis of reported perceptions about student

mastery of learning outcomes. Examples of indirect

assessment methods are surveys, interviews,

evaluations, questionnaire, and focus group.

3.1 Direct Assessment Methodology

Rogers (2003) emphasized that grades in the

courses can not capture the achievement of the

learning outcomes because various factors were

included in the computation of the final grade.

However, Rogers stated that, the numeric score that

is directly linked to students' performance on a

specific performance criteria can be used as evidence

of program learning outcomes (Rogers, 2003, p. 9).

Hence, direct assessment may used student ratings

for long quizzes and the final exam. For each long

quiz, the questions or problems that address specific

course learning outcomes are identified. Table 2 is a

sample spreadsheet of the scores of a sample Long

Quiz #1. In the sample Long Quiz No. 1, problem

nos. 1 and 2 address LO1, while problem nos. 3 and 4

assess LO2. For each student, the total score for

each outcome is obtained and when divided by the

maximum score and multiplied by 5 will yield the LO

score. In assigning an outcome score (1 to 5 scale) to

a student, Gurocak (2008) used the following

equation:

LO an for Earned Points Total

5 score LO

(Eq. 1)

Hence, the LO1 score for student 1 (S1) is obtained

as follows:

LO1 Score = 5 x (20 + 15)/50 = 4.

Table 2. Direct Assessment Sample

Student LO1 (Max: 50 pts) LO2 (Max: 50 Pts)

P1

25%

P2

25%

LO1

Score

P3

30%

P4

20%

LO2

Score

S1 25 15 4 30 20 5

S2 10 5 1.5 20 15 3.5

Average 2.75 4.25

Throughout the term, the instructor keeps

track of the performance of each student on each LO

by considering all assessment tasks that are aligned

with each LO and the performance for each LO for

the class at the end of the term is assessed. Gurocak

(2008) suggested that if a course learning outcome

scores less than or equal to 3.0, the instructor

indicates that outcome and suggests either minor or

major changes (actions) to be taken by the program.

Gurocak (2008) stated that the major changes are

things that would result in modifications of the

master syllabus of the course such as adding,

rewording or deleting a course outcome, or changes

in the list of topics covered. Minor changes are things

that can be implemented next time when the course

is offered without altering its master syllabus. These

could include additional lecture to be spent to cover a

particular topic, a change in software, use of

supplemental textbooks, etc (p. 5).

3.2 Indirect Assessment Methodology

Indirect assessment, in the form of an end-of-

course-evaluation, is conducted. The indirect

assessment task is a questionnaire wherein the

students answer questions related to the course,

instructor, and learning outcomes using a Likert

scale of 1 through 5, where 5 means strongly

agree, 4 means agree, 3 means neutral, 2

means disagree, and 1 means strongly disagree.

An end-of-course-evaluation almost similar in

content with the students form was also prepared for

the instructors to fill out. The end-of-course

evaluation forms are completed by the students and

the faculty during the final examination. The survey

can be conducted online (using surveymonkey) or in

the class.

Aside from complementing direct

assessment, indirect assessment serves also the

purpose of triangulationusing more than one

assessment method to measure attainment of

learning outcomes. Aside from learning outcomes,

questions related to the course, instructor, teaching,

Proceedings of the Scholarship and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (SILT) Symposium 2014

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 7, 2014

and learning activities were included in the

evaluation form to capture more data that may be

useful in improving the course design and delivery.

Indirect assessment is useful when a negative or a

relatively low rating is obtained in a specific question

in the survey as this will guide the teacher on a

possible weakness in the course design and/or

delivery.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study was conducted during Term 1,

AY2012-2013 when STATICS is offered as a regular

course to majority of the engineering students. Five

sections labeled as Sections U, B, D, G, and P under

five Civil Engineering teachers were selected for the

data gathering. Students enrolled in the various

sections in STATICS are usually mixed from

different engineering degree programs. The data for

the quizzes were gathered from the respective

professors. Copies of the questionnaire for each quiz

were collected and the scores for each problem per

quiz were recorded. The complete data can be

obtained from the appendices of the research (Oreta

& Roxas, 2013).

4.1 Direct Assessment Results

Table 3 shows the summary of the scores of

the three learning outcomes using the quiz scores for

direct assessment of the five sections. The average

scores of the LOs for the five sections are: LO1 =

3.35, LO2 = 2.77, and LO3 = 3.38. If the cut-off value

of 3.0 is used, LO1 and LO3 seems to be satisfactorily

achieved and LO2 needs further review. However,

further analysis of Tables 3 and 4 would present

issues that needs to be addressed.

Table 3. Direct Assessment Results (Long Quizzes)

Section

LO U B G D P Ave

LO1 2.85 3.68 3.51 3.05 3.66 3.35

LO2 3.31 2.73 2.59 2.16 3.04 2.77

LO3 3.44 3.34 3.09 3.41 3.61 3.38

Some observations about the results are summarized

below:

(a) Table 3 shows that the LO1 score ranges from a

low of 2.85 to a high of 3.68. The LO2 score

ranges from a low of 2.16 to a high of 3.31. The

LO3 score ranges from a low of 3.09 to a high of

3.61.

Table 4. Number of Problems (Total Points) in Long

Quizzes

Section

LO U B G D P Ave

LO1 3

(33)

1

(40)

3

(55)

1

(10)

2

(50)

2

(38)

LO2 8

(144)

8

(250)

8

(165)

7

(210)

8

(200)

8

(194)

LO3 2

(18)

1

(30)

2

(60)

1

(30)

1

(25)

1

(33)

(b) Table 4 shows that the number of problems and

their corresponding maximum points for each

LO. It is shown that the assigned number of

problems and points to LO1 and LO3 for each

section are relatively less compared to LO2. On

the average, only three problems with 33 points

were allotted for LO1 and only one problem with

33 points for LO3. The scores for LO1 and LO3

are higher in most cases compared to the scores

for LO2 except for Section U. It can be observed

that some teachers gave only one problem for a

specific LO (e.g. LO1 and LO3 for Section B/D

and LO3 for Section P), meaning only one

assessment task was used for that LO. The

reliability is in question when there is only one

assessment task or problem used to assess an

LO. Triangulation requires at least two

assessment tasks or two problems in case of

quizzes to effectively assess achievement of a

learning outcome. Even if LO1 and LO3 have an

average rating greater than 3.0, the rating is

barely passing. The results from the final exams

may be used to verify the achievement of these

two LOs.

(c) LO2 is too broad. This is the reason why there

are more problems (average of eight) and more

points (average of 194 points) assigned. In fact,

all problems in Quiz no. 2 address LO2 only.

Moreover, the analysis of properties, specifically

the components of forces, is usually incorporated

in solving equilibrium problems. There is a need

to review LO2 and probably break it into two

learning outcomes to capture specific skills and

knowledge.

Proceedings of the Scholarship and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (SILT) Symposium 2014

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 7, 2014

In order to show the distributional

characteristics of the LO scores obtained in each

STATICS section for the quizzes, box plots were

generated. A box plot is a graphical way of

displaying the distribution of data through the use of

median, quartiles, and extreme values (Barette,

Leech & Morgan 2005). In Figure 1, there is a clear

indication of variability in the distribution of LO

scores. It can also be observed that no faculty

obtained the same median and distribution in any of

the LO. This can be attributed to the differences in

terms of the level of difficulty in the quiz items and

also the time spent in discussing the topics. There is

also an uneven size of the sections in the box plots,

which indicate that students achieved the LOs in

different scales, that is, some have the same scores in

a certain part of the scale while others have varying

scores in other parts of the scale. For example, in the

LO1 of P, the scores are very similar towards the 3rd

quartile. Notice that some box plots are shorter than

the others, which indicate a high level of agreement

in the scores. Long box plot specifies difference in

the scores.

In the previous section, the scores of the long

quizzes were used to directly assess the attainment

of the learning outcomes. The scores in the long

quizzes are also affected by the type of problems

(which vary in difficulty per section) and the point

system used in checking each problem (which

depends on the teachers criteria). To determine the

achievement of the LOs for an assessment, which is

the same for all sections, the final exam is used to

verify the direct assessment using long quizzes. The

final exam is a 50-item multiple-choice exam, which

involves problem solving and objective questions.

The questions related to each LO were identified and

grouped to determine the LO Scores (using Equation

1).

Table 5. Direct Assessment Results (Final Exam)

Section

LO U B G D P Ave

LO1 2.47 2.20 2.54 2.19 2.79 2.44

LO2 2.58 2.30 2.82 2.43 2.85 2.60

LO3 2.19 2.60 2.48 1.75 2.27 2.26

Table 5 shows the average LO scores for each

outcome per section. Compared to the LO scores

based on Long Quizzes, the values are relatively

lower especially for LO1 and LO3. Obviously, the

assessment of LO1 and LO3 using quizzes must be

reviewed. The scores for LO2 of 2.77 and 2.60 based

on Quizzes and Final Exam, respectively, are close

enough, which means that the LO2 assessment using

quizzes is acceptable. Still, the LO scores are

relatively low.

In order to show the distributional

characteristics of the LO scores obtained in each

STATICS section for the final exam, box plots were

also generated. Figure 2 presents a box plot of the

LO scores in the final exam per faculty. Same

median but different distribution of scores can be

observed for some faculty in each LO. For example,

in LO1, G and P have the same median and

distribution. Although U has the same median, its

distribution of scores is higher than that of G and P.

This explains the evident variability in the LO

scores. Almost the same distribution of scores can be

observed in LO2 and LO3, while difference among

sections can be seen in the LO1 scores.

Figure 1. Box plot of LO scores in the long

quizzes per faculty

Proceedings of the Scholarship and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (SILT) Symposium 2014

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 7, 2014

Comparing the box plots of quizzes and the

final exam, it can be deduced that there is an evident

difference in the LO scores, with lower scores

obtained in the final exam. Noticeable variability in

the box plots is evident in the quizzes compared to

the final exam. This can be explained by the

differences in the long quizzes given by each faculty,

unlike in the final exam wherein all STATICS

students answered the same questions.

4.2 Indirect Assessment Results

The end-of-course evaluation was conducted

during the final exams for both the faculty and

students. Box No. 1 shows a section of the survey for

the students.

Table 6 presents the results of the survey

evaluation by the faculty and students. The five

faculty members rated his/her assessment of the

class achievement of the LOs. The teachers

perception on students achievement of LOs is high.

Table 6. Indirect Assessment Results: Faculty vs

Students (in parenthesis)

Section

LO U B G D P Ave

LO1 4

(4.07)

4

(3.82)

4

(3.94)

4

(3.67)

5

(3.95)

4.20

(3.89)

LO2 4

(4.17)

4

(4.07)

4

(3.94)

4

(3.73)

5

(3.65)

4.20

(3.91)

LO3 4

(4.31)

4

(3.53)

4

(3.69)

4

(3.87)

5

(3.51)

4.20

(3.78)

From a sample of 147 students from five

sections, the assessment of the students on

achievement of the LOs are shown as average scores

(in parenthesis) in Table 6. The student perception

of their achievement of learning outcomes is lower

than that of their teacher in most cases except for

Section U. However, the scores from indirect

assessment are relatively higher than the scores

from direct assessment. This is the same as the

observation by Menhart (2011) that the indirect

method results do not fully reflect the reality of what

students can actually do in the course. It appears

that some students had an inflated view of their own

capabilities (p. 5).

Menhart (2011) also noted that positive

results in indirect methods must be confirmed by

direct assessment methods, because students may

overestimate their abilities. Negative responses in

indirect methods should be examined carefully,

especially if the result represents a significant

percentage of the class. This should be taken as an

early warning sign to improve the course (p. 6).

Aside from this, faculty members may also

overestimate their teaching performance.

For the present study, both the faculty and

students have a positive perception (agree to

Figure 2. Box plot of LO scores in the final exam

f lt

Box No. 1: Survey on Learning Outcomes

For the Student: Rate your over-all assessment per learning outcome using the scale. (5. Strongly Agree 4. Agree 3.

Neutral 2. Disagree 1. Strongly Disagree )

______ 1. LO1: I can correctly and completely analyze the properties of a force (components, resultants and moments)

and force systems in 2D & 3D, in most cases.

______ 2. LO2: I can correctly and completely solve equilibrium problems of various types of structures including

friction problems using analytical models, rigid bodies, FBD and equations of equilibrium, in most cases.

______ 3. LO3: I can correctly and completely solve the properties of sections (centroid, center of gravity and moment of

inertia) represented as areas, lines and volumes and apply these properties in equilibrium problems, in most cases.

Proceedings of the Scholarship and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (SILT) Symposium 2014

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 7, 2014

strongly agree) on the achievement of learning

outcomes. The positive perception of the students is

a good indication of their satisfaction on the delivery

of the course.

5. CONCLUSIONS

From the results of outcomes-based assessment

using direct and indirect methods, the following

recommendations are proposed to further improve

the teaching and learning of STATICS.

The course learning outcomes must be revised,

specifically, LO2 must be broken into two or

more learning outcomes. This will address

subtasks that rated low in the student

assessment.

The number of problems per learning outcome

must be standardized making sure that there are

at least two problems per learning outcome to

satisfy the concept of triangulation.

Teaching and learning activities and assessment

task must be reviewed and revised.

More student-centered learning activities like

problem solving, seatwork, and collaborative

work must be adopted to assure mastery of the

learning outcomes.

Standardized lecture notes and problem sets, as

well as departmental long quizzes, can help

reduce the variance among professors handling

STATICS. Hence, a better analysis and a more

reliable conclusion can be derived.

These recommendations were incorporated in

the revised syllabus of STATICS, which was adopted

in AY 2013-2014. Among the changes of the revised

proposed syllabus are:

The number of learning outcomes is increased

from three to five:

o LO1. Identify and determine the components

and resultant of forces and force systems in

2D and 3D.

o LO2. Analyze effects of forces on rigid bodies

in static equilibrium using free body

diagrams and equations of equilibrium.

o LO3. Analyze the external and internal

effects of forces on structures such as beams,

trusses, frames, and simple machines.

o LO4. Analyze the effects of friction forces on

rigid bodies in static equilibrium.

o LO5. Solve the properties (centroid, center of

gravity, and moment of inertia) of areas,

lines, and volumes and apply these

properties in equilibrium problems.

Problem Sets which addresses specific LOs are

now required as assessment tasks:

o Problem Set No. 1 (LO1, LO2) Resultants

and Equilibrium of Force Systems in 2D

o Problem Set No. 2 (LO3) Analysis of

Trusses and Frames

o Problem Set No. 3 (LO4, LO5) Friction,

Forces in 3D, Centroids (Optional)

There is a recommendation on distribution of

problems for the long quizzes and problem sets

to equally address the various LOs:

o Long Quiz No. 1 At least two problems on

LO1 and two problems on LO2

o Long Quiz No. 2 At least three problems

on LO3

o Long Quiz No. 3 At least two problems on

LO4 (Friction) and two problems on LO5.

One problem on forces in space (LO1/LO2).

Based on this study of applying outcomes-based

assessment in the course level, the following

recommendations are suggested to simplify the

process:

Indicate on the specific problem in the long

quizzes, problem sets, and even final exams

which learning outcome is addressed.

For easy recording of scores for each LO,

standardize the number of problems per LO as

suggested in the proposed revised syllabus.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by the DLSU

University Research Coordination Office (URCO).

7. REFERENCES

Barette, K., Leech, N., Morgan, G., (2005). SPSS for

intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation

(2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to

course objectives. Paper presented at the

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education:

New Trends and Innovations at the University of

Aveiro, 13-17 April 2003.

Proceedings of the Scholarship and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (SILT) Symposium 2014

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 7, 2014

Driscoll, A. & Wood, S. (2007). Outcomes-based

assessment for learner-centered education,

Stylus Publishing, Inc.

Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and

teaching courses to satisfy

the ABET engineering criteria. Journal of

Engineering Education, 92(1), 725.

Felder, Richard and Brent, Rebecca (2004). The

ABCs of Engineering Education: ABET, Blooms

Taxonomy, Cooperative Learning, and so on,

Proc. 2004 American Society for Engineering

Education Annual Conference & Exposition

Gurocak, H. (2009). Direct measures for course

outcomes assessment for ABET Accreditation.

Paper presented at the 2008 American Society

for Engineering Education (ASEE) conference.

Washington State University-Vancouver.

Menhart, S. (2011). Direct versus indirect

assessment methodologies. Paper presented at

the 2011 Midwest Section Conference of the

American Society for Engineering Education

(ASEE). Retrieved from

http://www.asee.org/papers-and-

publications/papers/section-

proceedings/midwest/2011

Oreta, A. W. C., & Roxas, C. L. C. (2013). Outcomes-

based assessment of engineering mechanics

(STATICS) using direct and indirect methods.

University Research Coordination Office, Project

No. 47FU311. DLSU, Manila

Powers, J. (2008). Converting class syllabi to the

outcomes based teaching and learning format.

Communication Studies Department, Hong Kong

Baptist University.

Rogers, G. (2003). Do grades make the grade for

program assessment? Retrieved from

www.abet.org

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.