Advertisement

The Impact of Alternative Assessments in Assessing the Seventh Component of the Washington Accord’s Knowledge Profile

  • Peck Loo Kiew
  • Chia Pao LiewEmail author
  • Marlia Puteh
  • Kim Geok Tan
Conference paper
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1134)

Abstract

Engineering is an essential activity in meeting the needs of the people, enhancing the economic development as well as providing services to the society. Engineering practices safeguard people’s health, safety, the environment and manage risks throughout the entire lifecycle of a system. Such knowledge is categorised as the seventh curriculum component of the Washington Accord (WA)’s Knowledge Profile. In Malaysia, this component of knowledge profile is commonly assessed via traditional assessments such as written assignments or end-of-semester examination. Such assessments, however, do not promote the holistic outcomes as well as the students’ learning process. This paper presents the application of alternative assessments in assessing the mentioned curriculum component among the engineering students in Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Malaysia. The effectiveness and acceptance of alternative assessments by focusing on authentic and flipped assessment methods were investigated. The qualitative analysis conducted on 208 engineering students revealed positive experience towards the implementation of alternative assessments, acknowledging that these assessment approaches promote cooperative learning and reinforce their understanding of the course materials in an active manner. Similarly, the quantitative analysis supported the effectiveness of alternative assessments with improvement of 6.6 to 7.8% in all course outcomes.

Keywords

Authentic assessment Flipped assessment Outcomes-based assessment Knowledge profile Washington Accord 

References

  1. 1.
    Iqbal, A., Manarvi, I.A.: Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions for alternative assessment techniques: a case study of Pakistani Universities. Int. J. Teach. Case Stud. 3, 131–146 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ewell, P.T.: Assessment, Accountability, and Improvement: Revisiting the Tension. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, pp. 1–23, November 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryan, P.: Quality assurance in higher education: a review of literature. High. Learn. Res. Commun. 5(4) (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i4.257
  4. 4.
    Woyessa, Y., Tonder, S.P.V., Jaarsveldt, D.: Alternative student assessment in engineering education: lecturers’ perceptions and practices. In: 2nd International Multi-conference on Engineering and Technological Innovation, IMETI 2009, Orlando, Florida, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mills, J.E., Treagust, D.F.: Engineering education, is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australas. J. Eng. Educ. 4, 1–16 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boud, D.: Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Stud. High. Educ. 15, 101–111 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohamad Uri, N.F., Abd Aziz, M.S.: Alternative assessment: exploring the effectiveness of self-assessment practice among engineering students. Akademika 87, 141–152 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quansah, F.: Traditional or performance assessment: what is the right way in assessing leaners? Res. Hum. Soc. Sci. 8, 21–24 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maarek, J.M.I., Kay, B.: Assessment of performance and student feedback in the flipped classroom. In: 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington (2015).  https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23602
  10. 10.
    Hamisah Tapsir, S., Puteh, M.: Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0: Future-Proof Talents. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Malaysia (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IEA: Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies Version 3, 21 June 2013. http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/Policy/Graduate-Attributes-and-ProfessionalCompetencies.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2018
  12. 12.
    Liew, C.P.: A Sustainable Framework for Assessing the Engineering Accreditation Council’s Programme Outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia (2019)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biggs, J.: Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 2nd edn. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart, J., Shanmugam, S., Seenan, C.: Developing 21st century graduate attributes: incorporating novel teaching strategies in a physiotherapy curriculum. Eur. J. Physiother. 18(3), 194–199 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amineh, R.J., Asl, H.D.: Review of constructivism and social constructivism. J. Soc. Sci. Lit. Lang. 1(1), 9–16 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Economic Forum: Deep Shift Technology Tipping Points and Societal Impact, Survey Report, September 2015. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC15_Technological_Tipping_Points_report_2015.pdf. Accessed 13 Sept 2018
  17. 17.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expended Source-Book, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Çaliskan, H., Kasikçi, Y.: The application of traditional and alternative assessment and evaluation tools by teachers in social studies. Procedia Soc. Behav Sci. 2, 4152–4156 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peck Loo Kiew
    • 1
  • Chia Pao Liew
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Marlia Puteh
    • 4
  • Kim Geok Tan
    • 5
  1. 1.UCSI UniversityKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Tunku Abdul Rahman University CollegeKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Engineering Accreditation Department, Board of EngineersKuala LumpurMalaysia
  4. 4.Centre for Engineering EducationUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudaiMalaysia
  5. 5.Multimedia UniversityMalaccaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations