A Qualitative Study of a Course Trilogy in Biosystems Engineering Design

Journal of Engineering Education, Jul 2005 by Friesen, Marcia, Taylor, K Lynn, Britton, M G (Ron)

4) Project-based Teaching: Teaching based on evolving projects also presented challenges. In DT III, the instructor repeatedly referred to a deliberate attempt to make the content open-ended and responsive to discussions of "anything that happens to come up in the course." As an example, he may spend time focussing on team function and conflict mediation, if it became apparent that a design team was struggling with these issues. Although DT III students perceived the fluidity in course content and generally showed positive attitudes to their DT learning experiences, they also commented that "all the lectures are very loose-no textbook to follow, no class outline. Sometimes you wonder, 'do they know what they want to teach you?'" This perception also extended to the DT I class, which appears to have a more structured pedagogy. One student commented, "they're trying to get at something, but no one seems to be sure of what it is."

E. Assessment and Evaluation

In this study, student assessment was conceptualized as opportunities for students to receive formal or informal non-graded feedback on their performance from the instructor and from their peers. Student evaluation was conceptualized as opportunities for students to receive graded feedback on their performance from the instructor and from their peers, which would cumulatively comprise their course grade.

1) Assessment: Assessment was built into all three courses in the following ways:

* instructors allotting approximately 80 minutes per week of unstructured class time, in which the instructor would circulate among student design teams;

* instructors providing feedback to design teams on a draft of their final design report;

* instructors debriefing the final design presentations with individual design teams;

* joint brainstorming session with peers;

* the "contracting out" assignment with/by peers;

* regular, short, in-class oral presentations (DT I, peer and instructor assessment); and

* feedback from departmental technicians on their design projects.

Students recognized and appreciated many of these assessment opportunities.

Two instructors also reflected on their own teaching styles as having assessment elements. Specifically, instructors commented on the difficulty in using open class time as an assessment opportunity, as reflected in Thomas' comment that "on the one hand I try to stay back. The students need time to work, and if I'm constantly looking over their shoulder, they don't necessarily feel comfortable just working. So it's a bit of a balance." This dynamic tension is also felt by students: "the prof had experience and knowledge we could have used early on," and several students expressed a desire for more critique in the feedback. A shared sentiment across cohorts was that the quantity and quality of assessment appeared to be related to the instructor's level of expertise in the area of the students' specific design project. When asked for recommendations relative to assessment, all cohorts suggested more structured feedback at defined intervals to ward off procrastination, to show progress, and to receive regular feedback which could be applied to their project.