THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING ONE PROGRAMME-WIDE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT METHOD

THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING ONE PROGRAMME-WIDE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT METHOD

S. Hallenga-Brink, W. Visser, M. de Hei (2018).  THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING ONE PROGRAMME-WIDE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT METHOD. 10.

In September 2017, the English-taught, 3-year Bachelor Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS) has changed its curriculum from a linear to a flexible, choice-based modular curriculum, ‘Curriculum M’. And with it, one integrated assessment method has been developed for the whole programme, centered around ownership of the students regarding their own learning, and assessing directly and holistically on competency-level. Students decide themselves which six sub-competencies they will prove mastery of, on what level (novice, advanced beginner, or competent), with what proof material from their portfolio library, during which integrated oral assessment (in week 5, 10 or 15 of a semesters). This oral assessment is the only summative method of testing offered throughout the programme. In this paper the first four iterations of the integrated assessment, which are all part of the only mandatory semester ‘Basics of IDE’ (Boi), are analyzed. Each ‘real-time beta-testing’ iteration was observed and reflected on, which lead to (minor) changes in the design to be implemented in the next iteration. The expectation was that the assessment redesign in the authentic, integrated project-based, active-learning IDE curriculum leads to an increase of students’ ownership for their learning process, improvement of study progress, and more lifelong learning aptitude of students. The results of this study indicate that these goals were achieved. 

Authors (New): 
Suzanne Hallenga-Brink
Wianda Visser
Miranda de Hei
Pages: 
10
Affiliations: 
The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands
Keywords: 
Integrated assessment
Flexible curriculum
Oral assessment
competency-based learning
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 10
CDIO Standard 11
CDIO Standard 12
Year: 
2018-01-01 00:00:00
Reference: 
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead UK: Open University Press.: 
Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R., & Edström, K. (2011). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Dekkers, C.A.H.M., Glerum, J., & Hallenga-Brink, S.C. (2015). The 2015 IPO & DIE Competence Profile. The Hague: The Hague University of Applied Sciences. : 
Hallenga-Brink, S.C., & Sjoer, E. (2017). Designing A Flexible, Choice-Based, Integrated, Professionally Challenging, Multidisciplinary Curriculum. Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference, University of Calgary. Calgary.: 
Kerdijk, W., Cohen-Schotanus, J., Mulder, B.F., Muntinghe, F.L.H., & Tio, R.A. (2015). Cumulative Versus End-of-Course Assessment: Effects on Self-Study Time and Test Performance. Medical Education, 2015: 49: 709-716. : 
10.1111/medu.12756
Mazur, E. (2013). Assessment: the Silent Killer of Learning. https://youtu.be/CBzn9RAJG6Q: 
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T.C. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. London: Routledge.: 
Reekers, M. (2017). Professionele Identiteit. Omdat je toekomst op het spel staat. Rotterdam: Hogeschool Rotterdam Uitgeverij. : 
Topping, K. (1998). Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3), 249-276. : 
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Visser, W.A., Hallenga-Brink, S.C., & Kok, O.M.P. (2018). Zelf-evaluatie IPO – IDE. The Hague: The Hague University of Applied Sciences. : 
Go to top
randomness