scholarly journals Lessons Learned from Using Competency Based Assessment (CBA) in a First Year Engineering Statics Course

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Maw ◽  
Shaobo Huang ◽  
Duncan Cree ◽  
Glyn Kennell ◽  
Wendy James
Keyword(s):  
Type A ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
First Year ◽  
Final Exam ◽  
Module Test ◽  
Competency Based ◽  
College Of Engineering ◽  
Competency Based Assessment

During the Fall term of 2020, the first year Statics course in the College of Engineering at theUniversity of Saskatchewan was taught remotely, and synchronously, using a competency-based assessment (CBA) implementation. CBA is commonly used in other professions, especially medical education and teacher education, but it has yet to see widespread use in engineering education.CBA can involve a number of key differences from conventional assessment practices. In this pilot, it involved the following key differences. Whereas previous versions of the course had involved assignments, labs, a midterm, and a final exam, each worth a certain weight in the overallcourse grade, the 2020 CBA version was broken into three modules, each with a “module test”. The module tests were superficially similar to a midterm, and there was no cumulative final exam. Open book assignments, quizzes, labs, and module tests consisted of questions and exercises that addressed a variety of learning outcomes (LOs) within the modules. The LOs were assigned weights in the overall course grade, as opposed to assigning weights to assessments themselves as in a conventional assessment system. Students could therefore overcome poor performances in early assessments of LOs, as better later results on the same LOs would replace the earlier results.A key feature of this approach was that students had at least two and typically three or more opportunities to exhibit competence with respect to the course’s LOs. Another key aspect of this CBA implementation was the division of course material into three levels or “types”. Type A materials were the most basic building blocks of the course i.e. basic definitions, calculations, and concepts. Type B materials were basic integrative problems e.g. solving a basic 2D or 3D particle or rigid body equilibrium question, or solving a basic truss. Type C materials were advanced or “tricky” integrative problems that probed deeper understanding and required more adaptive problem solving. Students were required to meet competency thresholds for Type A and B materials i.e. theyneeded to exhibit a minimal level of competency in the LOs in order to pass the course.Overall, the class excelled in this assessment format and anecdotal evidence suggests that the students enjoyed it. A summary description of the complete system will be presented in this paper, including how grades were determined, how assessments were conducted and evaluated, how LOs were determined, and how the three levels of material were arranged. As well, basic statisticalresults from the class’ performance will be presented, along with a number of observations made by the instructors and some anecdotal impressions conveyed to them by students. The observed outcomes will be compared with the CBA literature for related STEM contexts, although the remote learning/COVID context did obscure the causes and origins of some of the observed outcomes. Changes that will be made in next year’s implementation of the course will also be discussed.

scholarly journals Design of a Completely New First Year Engineering Program at the University of Saskatchewan – Part II

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel B. Frey ◽  
Sean Maw ◽  
Susan Bens ◽  
Jim Bugg ◽  
Bruce Sparling
Keyword(s):  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Current Status ◽  
First Year ◽  
Final Exam ◽  
Course Scheduling ◽  
Summative Assessments ◽  
Blank Slate ◽  
College Of Engineering ◽  
The University ◽  
Academic Year

Over the last three years, the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Engineering has embarked upon a complete redesign of its first year common program. This project started from a blank slate and posed the question, "If we could design any first year program that we wanted, what would we create?" The goal is to offer a first year program that excites, engages, inspires, and holistically prepares students for learning in subsequent years. At CEEA 2018, Phase I of this project was reviewed with a focus on the content of the new first year. This year, the focus is on the structure of the proposed program and how it aims to satisfy programmatic design objectives. The proposed first year program is highly modular, allowing for more intentional uses of time during the academic year. Course duration and intensity vary and are selected to best serve student learning, rather than conform to the traditional academic schedule. To provide more timely and targeted feedback, summative assessments occur throughout each term allowing course scheduling to extend into the traditional end-of-term final exam period. This paper presents the current structural design of the new first year and the rationale for its significant features. Some of the program design objectives that have been facilitated by this structure include: • strategic sequencing of learning with opportunities to integrate and reinforce essential skills, • multiple, individualized opportunities for students to stumble and recover, • holistic balancing of content and pacing for better student wellbeing, and • comprehensive, well-timed exposure to wide-ranging programmatic choices for students. Throughout this project, the program structure has evolved continuously. This paper will describe the development process, the challenges faced in that process, and the lessons learned. The paper will conclude by describing the current status of the project, and the focus of work currently being undertaken to prepare for implementation.  

scholarly journals Transition to Teaching

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lance Potter ◽  
A. Suzie Henning ◽  
Tara L. Haskins
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Preparation ◽  
Teacher Candidates ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Teacher Preparation Program ◽  
First Year ◽  
Teaching Program ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Teacher Shortages ◽  
Students First ◽  
Competency Based

This article describes lessons learned from the first-year implementation of a Grow Your Own teacher preparation alternative route program, Transition to Teaching. Implemented in a rural area in Washington State facing significant teacher shortages, the Transition to Teaching program reaches potential teachers who may not have access to a four-year college and a high-quality, competency-based teacher preparation program. The Transition to Teaching program fulfills the priority assigned by the state to recruiting and retaining teachers from underrepresented groups. Beginning with describing the design of the program and the application process, we discuss students’ first-year experiences, lessons learned, and solutions developed. Content, strategies, access, and efficiencies are highlighted and advice for new programs is provided. In the end, we prove programs comparable to Transition to Teaching require clear collaboration and coordination as well as oversight to ensure teacher candidates are successful.

scholarly journals Association of a Competency-Based Assessment System With Identification of and Support for Medical Residents in Difficulty

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (7) ◽  
pp. e184581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley Ross ◽  
Natalia M. Binczyk ◽  
Deena M. Hamza ◽  
Shirley Schipper ◽  
Paul Humphries ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Assessment System ◽  
Medical Residents ◽  
Competency Based ◽  
Competency Based Assessment

scholarly journals Challenge-based and Competency-based Assessments in an Undergraduate Programming Course

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (13) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Gaganpreet Sidhu ◽  
Seshasai Srinivasan ◽  
Nasim Muhammad
Keyword(s):  
Small Group ◽  
The Other ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
First Year ◽  
Undergraduate Engineering ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Competency Based ◽  
Functional Prototype ◽  
Assessment Strategies ◽  
Competency Based Assessment

In this work, we investigate an optimal assessment strategy to measure student learning in the first-year undergraduate engineering course at X-Department at X University. Specifically, we evaluate and compare challenge-based and competency-based assessment strategies. In the challenge-based approach, the students are required to design a C++-based application that meet the required design objectives. The competency-based assessment involves assessing learning by asking a variety of pointed questions pertaining to a single or a small group of concepts. After studying the performance of 207 students, we found that in the challenge-based assessment, due to the complex nature of the questions that assess numerous concepts simultaneously, students who are not very thorough with even one or two concepts fared very poorly since they were unable to finish the challenge and present a functional prototype of the program. On the other hand, the competency-based assessment allowed for a more balanced approach in which the students’ learning was reflected more accurately by their performance in the various assessments.

scholarly journals Implementation of Competency Based Educational Strategies into a First-Year Seminar for InterProfessional Healthcare Science Majors

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Snyder ◽  
Amy Murphy-Nugen ◽  
Amy Rose ◽  
Gayle Wells ◽  
Carol MacKusick
Keyword(s):  
Care Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
First Year Experience ◽  
First Year ◽  
Political Awareness ◽  
Health Educator ◽  
Competency Based ◽  
Interprofessional Healthcare ◽  
First Year Seminar

Introduction: The Health Educators Academy at Western Carolina University was developed by the Dean of the College of Health and Human Sciences. Interdisciplinary fellows in the 2015 HEA focused on competency based education (CBE), which naturally incentivizes collaborative, interdisciplinary and interprofessional work. The 2015 Health Educator Academy Fellows researched healthcare competencies and designed curriculum changes that aligned within these parameters. This article discusses the creation of a first-year, interprofessional healthcare course that emphasizes CBE as well as interprofessional practice. Interprofessional Goals: The 2015 Academy Fellows believed that a collaborative course in the first-year curriculum that builds upon integral competencies would help introduce a structure that would support further IPE in later courses. Background of CBE: The recent expansion of CBE in higher education is a result of a number of factors, including changing demographics, the increase in student debt, declining state funding, and the need for accountability markers and improved learning outcomes. First- Year Experience: First-year seminars were first designed to ease the transition to college for students and to increase both retention and persistence to graduation. Proposed CBE Course: Three foundational interprofessional global health competencies domains were implemented into the first-year experience course: collaboration, partnering and communication; ethics; and sociocultural and political awareness. Reflection and Lessons Learned: In reflecting upon the process of designing a first-year interprofessional, competency-based course, the members of the Health Educator Academy organically implemented many educator and curricular best practices that facilitate collaboration in health care delivery. Future Plans: Rather than deal with complex health issues from a single, specialized approach, healthcare providers will need to work as a team to meet the needs of patients as well as the broader community. Courses such as a first-year seminar based on interprofessional competency-based curriculum can begin the process of teaching students to think collaboratively and critically. This type of course will provide some of the tools that students will need once they leave the university and enter the professional realm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document