Learning Assessment – a Palette of Methods in a Master’s Program

Learning Assessment – a Palette of Methods in a Master’s Program

M. Berglund, A. Karltun (2016).  Learning Assessment – a Palette of Methods in a Master’s Program. 10.

There are several different examination methods to assess students’ achievements. These assessment methods should be matched with the course learning objectives, support deep understanding of concepts and active learning as well as different learning styles among the students (CDIO, 2015). The objective of this paper is to share and reflect on the experiences of different assessment methods applied in a master’s program in Ergonomics and HTO (Humans, Technology and Organization) at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden. The paper is based on the authors experience as main teachers in the master’s program since 2007 and student evaluations. Ergonomics is multidisciplinary and spanning over several sub-disciplines. The program therefore consists of five six-credit courses representing different areas within Ergonomics: 1) Humans, Technology, Organization; 2) Physical Ergonomics; 3) Cognitive Ergonomics; 4) Organization, Change Management and Work Environment Legislation; and 5) Research Methods and Study Design. These are followed by a 15-credit project course and the Degree Project. The students in the program have a mix of different educational backgrounds: engineering, behavioral sciences and healthcare science. About half of the students have continued studying directly after their Bachelor studies while the other half have long work experience from different fields. The students’ multidisciplinary backgrounds and difference in work experience call for special attention regarding what means to use to support the students’ deep understanding and active learning. This difference constitutes a dynamic learning environment with high potential for collaboration and knowledge sharing across academic disciplines. The need to apply several perspectives for problem solving is also acknowledged as the program proceeds over the wide span of Ergonomics, covering human physical and cognitive aspects, human-machine interaction and organizational issues as well as the systems view of HTO. To support the students’ cross-disciplinary collaboration and individual learning processes a variety of assessment methods have been developed. In all first six-credit courses, there is a written exam to assess theoretical knowledge. This exam is written in class with or without access to course literature, or at home during a limited time. Especially for home examination the students have expressed that the written exam constitutes an important learning process. The written exam is in all cases complemented by an array of other assessment methods to stimulate the development of a multidisciplinary view. These include seminars, laboratory work, as well as individual and group assignments. In the group assignments, the groups are mixed with students from the three main educational backgrounds to demonstrate the need to encompass several perspectives to understand phenomena. For all courses, including the project course and the degree project, the learning outcome is also assessed by oral presentation. In some cases, this also includes opposition of another group’s work. The project course and the degree project, finally, are also assessed by a project report. In the paper, the design, perceived benefits and challenges of the assessment methods are problematized. The reported methods are related to implementation of the CDIO standard 11 – Learning Assessment.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland, June 12-16 2016

Authors (New): 
Martina Berglund
Anette Karltun
Pages: 
10
Affiliations: 
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden
Keywords: 
Examinations
Ergonomics
HTO
assessment methods
CDIO Standard 11
Year: 
2016
Reference: 
Biggs, J. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching, Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7-25.: 
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk: St Edmundsbury Press Limited.: 
CDIO (2016). http://www.cdio.org/implementing-cdio/standards/12-cdio-standards#standard11. Retrieved Jan. 17, 2016.: 
Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R. & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education. The CDIO Approach, 2nd ed, Cham: Springer.: 
Hult, H. (1998). Examinationen och lärandet – en översikt, analys och värdering av examinationens roll inom högre utbildning, (English translation: Examination and learning – an overview, analysis and Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016. assessment of the role of examination in higher education). CUP:s Rapportserie Nr 1, Linköpings universitet, Sweden.: 
Lindberg-Sand, Ã…. (2008). Examination av lärandemÃ¥l i högskolan – menar vi det pÃ¥ allvar? (English translation: Examination of learning objectives at college – are we serious about that?). Lund, Sweden: Centre for Educational Development, Lunds universitet, Sweden.: 
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative differences in learning: I – Outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.: 
Ramsden P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education, 2nd ed., London/New York: Rautledge Falmer.: 
Silén, C. (1998). Assessing understanding as an outcome, 6th International Improving Student Learning Symposium Improving Student Learning Outcomes, 7-9 September, 1998, University of Brighton, England.: 
Toohey, S. (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.: 
Go to top
randomness