Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment in Problem-Based Learning Using Mobile Technologies

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Mobile Technologies and Applications for the Internet of Things (IMCL 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 909))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper, the authors present the assessment methodology on a problem-based learning (PBL) course offered at McMaster University. In the PBL model implemented in this course, student groups work on solving weekly problems. They make various decisions but are aware that, while trying to solve an open-ended problem, there are multiple solutions. At the end of each week, all groups present their solution to the problem. Each presentation is followed by peer evaluations using paper-based rubrics provided by the instructor. The assessment approach proposed in this paper is to develop a mobile application that replaces the paper-based peer evaluation and captures students’ interest in providing an accurate assessment of their peers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2011). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Centea, D, Singh, I., & Yuen, T. K. M. (2015, May 31–June 3). A framework of the bachelor of technology concept and its significant experiential learning component. In Proceeding of the Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference (CEEA 2015). Hamilton.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Balan, L, Centea, D., Yuen, T. K. M., & Singh, I. (2015, May 31–June 3). Capstone projects with limited budget as an effective method for experiential learning. In Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference (CEEA 2015). Hamilton. Paper #150.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buck, J. R., & Wage, K. E. (2005). Active and cooperative learning in signal processing courses. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 22(2), 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springer Series on Medical Education.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Centea, D., & Srinivasan, S. (2015, July 6–9). Problem based learning in the conceptual design of hybrid electric vehicles. In Development of a Global Network for PBL and Engineering Education—Proceeding of the Conference on the Learner in Engineering Education (IJCLEE 2015) (pp. 149–154). Donostia/San Sebastian, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lima, R. M., Mesquita, D., Fernandes, S., Marihno-Araujo, C., & Tabelo, M. L. (2015, July 6–9). Modelling the assessment of transversal competencies in project based learning. In Development of a Global Network for PBL and Engineering Education (pp. 12–23). Donostia/San Sebastian.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., et al. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Retrieved August 15, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228640855.

  16. Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord’s constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., et al. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. Cell Biology Education, 6, 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Srinivasan, S., & Centea, D. (2015, July 6–9). Applicability of principles of cognitive science in active learning pedagogies, active teachers—active students. In Proceedings of the 13th Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop (ALE), International Joint Conference on the Learner in Engineering Education (IJCLEE 2015) (pp. 99–104). Donostia/San Sebastian, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Centea, D., Yuen, T., & Mehrtash, M. (2016, July 6–8). Implementing a vehicle dynamics curriculum with significant active learning components. In Sustainability in Engineering Education—Proceeding of the 8th International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education and 14th Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop (PAEE/ALE’2016) (pp. 189–198). Guimarães, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1), 135–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McCreary, C. L., Golde, M. F., & Koeske, R. (2006). Peer instruction in the general chemistry laboratory: Assessment of student learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 804–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bonwell, C. C., & James, A. E. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Retrieved August 16, 2018, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf.

  25. Reynolds, F. (1997). Studying psychology at degree level: Would problem-based learning enhance students’ experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kolmos, A., & Hoolgard, J. E. (2007, June 22–24). Alignment of PBL and assessment. In 1st International Conference on Research in Engineering Education (pp. 1–9). Honolulu.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Centea, D., & Srinivasan, S. (2016). A Comprehensive assessment strategy for a PBL environment. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences (IJIRES), 3(6), 2349–5219.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bojinova, E., & Oigara, J. (2011). Teaching and learning with clickers: Are clickers good for students? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bojinova, E., & OIgara, J. (2013). Teaching and learning with clickers in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 154–165.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Coca, D., & SliÅ¡ko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online Student Response System). The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J), 6(3), 1801–1813.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., & Manzoor, U. (2015). Using Socrative and smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. International Journal of Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE), 3(4), 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wash, P. (2014). Taking advantage of mobile devices: Using Socrative in the classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 3(1), 99–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dakka, S. M. (2015). Using Socrative to enhance in-class student engagement and collaboration. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE), 4(3), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Alemohammad, H., & Shahini, M. (2013, November 15–21). Use of mobile devices as an interactive method in a mechatronics engineering course: A case study. In Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition IMECE2013, Education and Globalization (Vol. 5). Can Diego, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lucke, T., Keyssner, U., & Dunn, P. (2013). The use of a classroom response system to more effectively flip the classroom. In 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 491–495).

    Google Scholar 

  38. De Vos, M. (2018). Using electronic voting systems with ResponseWare to improve student learning and enhance the student learning experience—Final report. Retrieved August 14, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267250288.

  39. Gong, Z., & Wallace, J. D. (2012). A comparative analysis of iPad and other m-learning technologies: Exploring students’ view of adoption, potentials, and challenges. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 13(1), 2–29.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Popescu, O., Chezan, L. C., Jovanovic, V. M., & Ayala, O. M. (2015, June 14–17). The use of polleverywhere in engineering technology classes to student stimulate critical thinking and motivation. In 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Making Value for Society. Seattle, WA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tregonning, A. M., Doherty, D. A., Hornbuckle, J., & Dickinson, J. (2012). The audience response system and knowledge gain: A prospective study. Medical Teacher, 34(4), 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wu, X., & Gao, Y. (2011). Applying the extended technology acceptance model to the use of clickers in student learning: Some evidence from macroeconomics classes. American Journal of Business Education, 4(7), 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Whitehead, C., & Ray, L. (2018). Using the iClicker classroom response system to enhance student involvement and learning. Retrieved August 15, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265192585.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Dan Centea & Seshasai Srinivasan

Authors
  1. Dan Centea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seshasai Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Centea .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Villach, Austria

    Michael E. Auer

  2. Department of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Centea, D., Srinivasan, S. (2019). Assessment in Problem-Based Learning Using Mobile Technologies. In: Auer, M., Tsiatsos, T. (eds) Mobile Technologies and Applications for the Internet of Things. IMCL 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 909. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11434-3_37

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation