YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Evaluation of Student Learning for an Engineering Graphics Course

    Source: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice:;2005:;Volume ( 131 ):;issue: 003
    Author:
    Maria Elena Baldizan
    ,
    Kurt M. McMullin
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2005)131:3(192)
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: The ability of students to master various skills defined by a set of course learning objectives of an engineering graphics course at San Jose State University was assessed. One semester offering of the introductory course was reviewed. The course objectives were evaluated by the amount of coverage each received on the exams and the level of cognitive skill required according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Student learning was assessed by review of their ability to produce documented evidence of mastering the skill. In addition two methods of assigning grades based upon student performance were compared. The primary finding of the study was that the ability of students to master particular skills varied widely on both objectives and taxonomy levels. Secondary findings were that the exams did not address each objective equally, and that some important objectives did not receive the coverage they likely deserved. Recommendations about improved wording of some objectives were made to more clearly state the instructor’s intent. The grade assigned to a student would have been different depending upon the method the instructor uses for evaluating their score for an exam. If scoring is weighted based upon the taxonomy level, then some students would receive higher grades while others would have been lower. The distribution of points received for exam questions covering objectives of different taxonomy levels showed that C-students generally performed poorer than A-students, but that at some levels performed better.
    • Download: (73.49Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Statistics

      Evaluation of Student Learning for an Engineering Graphics Course

    URI
    https://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/47759
    Collections
    • Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice

    Show full item record

    contributor authorMaria Elena Baldizan
    contributor authorKurt M. McMullin
    date accessioned2017-05-08T21:20:38Z
    date available2017-05-08T21:20:38Z
    date copyrightJuly 2005
    date issued2005
    identifier other%28asce%291052-3928%282005%29131%3A3%28192%29.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/47759
    description abstractThe ability of students to master various skills defined by a set of course learning objectives of an engineering graphics course at San Jose State University was assessed. One semester offering of the introductory course was reviewed. The course objectives were evaluated by the amount of coverage each received on the exams and the level of cognitive skill required according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Student learning was assessed by review of their ability to produce documented evidence of mastering the skill. In addition two methods of assigning grades based upon student performance were compared. The primary finding of the study was that the ability of students to master particular skills varied widely on both objectives and taxonomy levels. Secondary findings were that the exams did not address each objective equally, and that some important objectives did not receive the coverage they likely deserved. Recommendations about improved wording of some objectives were made to more clearly state the instructor’s intent. The grade assigned to a student would have been different depending upon the method the instructor uses for evaluating their score for an exam. If scoring is weighted based upon the taxonomy level, then some students would receive higher grades while others would have been lower. The distribution of points received for exam questions covering objectives of different taxonomy levels showed that C-students generally performed poorer than A-students, but that at some levels performed better.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleEvaluation of Student Learning for an Engineering Graphics Course
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume131
    journal issue3
    journal titleJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2005)131:3(192)
    treeJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice:;2005:;Volume ( 131 ):;issue: 003
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian