The CDIO framework provides extensive guidelines for improving engineering education quality, yet a critical gap exists in its Standard 11 - Learning Assessment. The framework’s treatment of assessment quality enhancement is superficial, concentrating primarily on assessment 'of' learning (AoL) and neglecting the transformative potential of assessment 'for' learning (AfL). While the CDIO syllabus expresses a deep understanding of the importance of self-regulation (González, León, & Sarmiento, 2020) and identity affirmation for success in engineering education, their link to assessment is ignored. The study highlights the necessity for a cohesive integration and reinforcement between AoL and AfL, advocating for self-regulation as a key element of the latter. This is crucial especially in engineering mathematics where serious shortcomings have been identified. To spark a dialogue about the need to update Standard 11, this study presents a practical case from Finnish engineering education, demonstrating how Flipped Assessment (FA) has been specifically developed to facilitate the implementation of Flipped Learning (FL) in teaching of engineering mathematics. The study argues that simply evolving mathematics teaching cultures to align with CDIO standards is not enough; there is a critical need to revolutionize assessment practices as well. In an era where artificial intelligence is challenging conventional assessment paradigms, it is an opportune moment to critically reflect on the ethics of assessment and its validity. As an inherently ethical endeavor, the focus of discussion should shift from the technical validity of assessments to their normative validity. If assessment is detached from its role in nurturing students’ mathematical identity and self-regulation, it may lead to engineers who are unprepared for the demands and expectations of their professional careers.
Affiliations:
Satakunta University of Applied Sciences, Finland
Keywords:
Assessment of Learning
assessment for learning
Flipped Assessment
Flipped Learning
Engineering Mathematics
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 11
Year:
2024
Reference:
Andrade, H. L. (2019). A Critical Review of Research on Student Self-Assessment. Front. Educ. 4:87. :
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
de Araujo, Z., Otten, S., & Birisci, S. (2017). Mathematics teachers' motivations for, conceptions of, and experiences with flipped instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 60-70. :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.006
Baird, J., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T.N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: fields apart?, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24:3, 317-350.:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337
Barrow, M. (2006). “Assessment and Student Transformation: Linking Character and Intellect.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (3): 357–72. :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680869
Bennedsen, J. (2021). Assessing Students’ Professional Criticism Skills – A Mathematics Course Case. Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, RMUTT and Chulalongkorn, Thailand:
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ. 18, 5–25. :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33–46.:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In 120th ASEE National Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA (Paper ID 6219). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.:
Black, P. J. & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Mastery learning. Evaluation comment, 1(2), 1-12, Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs:
Boud, D., Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Bennett, S., Joughin, G., & Molloy, E. (2018). Reframing assessment research: Through a practice perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 43(7), 1107–1118.:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1202913
Brown, G., Andrade, H., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student selfassessment: directions and cautions for research. Assess. Educ. 22, 444–457. :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.996523
Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as ”springboards for inquiry”: A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166–208.:
https://doi.org/10.2307/749507
Brown, G. T. & Harris, L. R. (2014). “The Future of Self-Assessment in Classroom Practice: Reframing Self-Assessment as a Core Competency.” Frontline Learning Research 2 (1): 22–30. :
http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i1.24
Hansen, G. & Sindre, G. (2023). Assessment and Feedback Across Various Outcomes in Project-Courses: A Department-Wide Study. Proceedings of the 19th International CDIO Conference, NTNU, Norway, 913-922.:
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 36, 101–111. :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008
Butler, R. (2011). Are positive illusions about academic competence always adaptive, under all circumstances: New results and future directions. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 251-256. :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.006
Cosnefroy, L., & Carré, P. (2014). Self-Regulated and self-directed learning: Why don’t some neighbours communicate? International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 11(2), 1–12.:
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY, US: Random House.:
Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education. London: Routledge Falmer.:
Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from https://flippedlearning.org/definition-of-flipped-learning/:
Fung, C. H., Besser, M., & Poon, K. K. (2021). Systematic Literature Review of Flipped Classroom in Mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(6), em1974. :
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10900
Gommer, L., Hermsen, E., & Zwier, G. (2016). Flipped Math, Lessons Learned from a Pilot at Mechanical Engineering. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku UAS, Finland:
González, A., León, M. P., & Sarmiento, M. A. (2020). Strategies for the Mathematics Learning in Engineering Cdio Curricula. Proceedings of the 16 th International CDIO Conference, Chalmers UT, Sweden, (2), 206-215.:
Hawe, E. & Dixon, H. (2017). Assessment for learning: a catalyst for student self-regulation, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42:8, 1181-1192.:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/02602938.2016.1236360
Kilpatrick, J. (2014). Competency frameworks in mathematics education. In Lerman S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (85–87). Netherlands: Springer.:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_27
Kirschner, P. A. & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Cambridge Book Co., New York:
https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200220
Leach, L. (2012). Optional self-assessment: some tensions and dilemmas. Assess. Evalu. High. Educ. 37, 137–147. :
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.515013
Leong, H., Yee, C.M., & Kee, C.S. (2019). Flipped Learning to Nurture Self-Directed Learners at Singapore Polytechnic. Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University, Denmark:
Lo, C. K. & Hew, K. F. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(4). :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2017). Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: A synthesis of research in mathematics education. Educational Research Review, 22, 50–73. :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002
Malmqvist, J., Edström, K., & Rosén, A. 2020. CDIO Standards 3.0–Updates to the Core CDIO Standards. Proceedings of the 16th International CDIO Conference, 60–76. :
Mazur, E. (2013). Assessment: The Silent Killer of Learning [Lecture]. Derec Bok Center, Harvard University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBzn9RAJG6Q:
Naccarato, E., & Karakok, G. (2015). Expectations and implementations of the flipped classroom model in undergraduate mathematics courses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(7), 968–978. :
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1071440
Nieminen, J. H. (2021), Beyond empowerment: student self-assessment as a form of resistance, British Journal of Sociology of Education.:
Peters, M. & Prince, M. (2019). Learning and Teaching Engineering Mathematics within an Active Learning Paradigm. Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University, Aarhus:
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications (452–502). San Diego, CA: Academic. :
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
Rust, C., O’Donovan, B. and Price, M. (2005) ‘A social constructivist assessment process model: How the research literature shows us this could be best practice’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Taylor and Francis Ltd , 30(3), pp. 231–240. :
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063819
Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930601158919
Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 70–15.:
Swaffield, S. (2011) Getting to the heart of authentic Assessment for Learning, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol 18, Issue 4, 433 – 449.:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838
Taras, M. (2009) Summative assessment: the missing link for formative assessment, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33 (1), 57–69.:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770802638671
Toivola, M., Peura, P., & Humaloja, M. (2017). Flipped learning in Finland, Edita:
Toivola, M. (2016). Flipped learning – Why teachers flip and what are their worries? Experiences of teaching with Mathematics, Sciences and Technology, 2(1), pp. 237-250.:
Toivola, M. (2020). Flipped Assessment - A Leap towards Assessment for Learning, Edita:
Toivola, M., Rajala, A. & Kumpulainen, K. (2023). Pedagogical Rationales of Flipped Learning in the Accounts of Experienced Mathematics Teachers, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 18:4, 767-787.:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2022.2077341
Topping, T., Murphy, M., & Saunders, S. (2023). Enhanced Assessment and Learning Through Adaptive Comparative Judgement. Proceedings of the 19th International CDIO Conference, NTNU, Norway, 379-389.:
Treveyan, J. (2014). The making of an expert engineer. New York: CRC Press.:
https://doi.org/10.1201/b17434
Zimmerman, B. J., and Schunk, D. H. (2011). “Self-regulated learning and performance: an introduction and overview,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, eds B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (New York, NY: Routledge), 1–14.:
on June 30, 2024 - 16:29 Anonymous (not verified)
Conceive
Design
Implement
Operate
