Assessment of Conceptual Design Problems Comprising Design Rationale and Sketches

Sumbul Khan, K. Maheshwary, R. Arlitt, L. Blessing
{"title":"Assessment of Conceptual Design Problems Comprising Design Rationale and Sketches","authors":"Sumbul Khan, K. Maheshwary, R. Arlitt, L. Blessing","doi":"10.1115/detc2020-22376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Conventional forms of design assessment are time consuming for instructors. Crowdsourced assessment of students’ design concepts raises the need of efficient rubrics that facilitate novices to score similar to experts, in reduced time. We investigate rubrics in the context of conceptual design problems, that comprise open-ended questions, requiring students to express their design concepts and supporting rationale using text and sketches. We conducted exploratory post-hoc analysis on assessment data collected by instructors of a Design program at a Singaporean secondary school. Our results suggest that integrated rubrics — that consider both text and sketch component together — are better suited for the assessment of conceptual design problems, than task-specific rubrics, that consider textual and sketch components separately. Evidence from both novice assessors as well as experts suggests that the articulation of design rationale using text is crucial for the assessment of conceptual design problems as it provides assessors input into why design decisions were taken, thus aiding in the evaluation process. Our insights are relevant for developing frameworks that employ crowdsourcing for the assessment of conceptual design problems.","PeriodicalId":158998,"journal":{"name":"Volume 3: 17th International Conference on Design Education (DEC)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 3: 17th International Conference on Design Education (DEC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2020-22376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conventional forms of design assessment are time consuming for instructors. Crowdsourced assessment of students’ design concepts raises the need of efficient rubrics that facilitate novices to score similar to experts, in reduced time. We investigate rubrics in the context of conceptual design problems, that comprise open-ended questions, requiring students to express their design concepts and supporting rationale using text and sketches. We conducted exploratory post-hoc analysis on assessment data collected by instructors of a Design program at a Singaporean secondary school. Our results suggest that integrated rubrics — that consider both text and sketch component together — are better suited for the assessment of conceptual design problems, than task-specific rubrics, that consider textual and sketch components separately. Evidence from both novice assessors as well as experts suggests that the articulation of design rationale using text is crucial for the assessment of conceptual design problems as it provides assessors input into why design decisions were taken, thus aiding in the evaluation process. Our insights are relevant for developing frameworks that employ crowdsourcing for the assessment of conceptual design problems.
概念设计问题的评估,包括设计原理和草图
传统形式的设计评估对教师来说是费时的。对学生设计概念的众包评估提出了有效的标准的需求,这些标准可以帮助新手在更短的时间内获得与专家相似的分数。我们在概念设计问题的背景下研究规则,包括开放式问题,要求学生用文本和草图表达他们的设计概念和支持原理。我们对新加坡一所中学设计课程的教师收集的评估数据进行了探索性的事后分析。我们的研究结果表明,综合准则——同时考虑文本和草图组件——比单独考虑文本和草图组件的特定任务准则更适合于概念性设计问题的评估。来自新手评估者和专家的证据表明,使用文本表达设计原理对于概念性设计问题的评估至关重要,因为它为评估者提供了设计决策的输入,从而有助于评估过程。我们的见解与开发使用众包来评估概念设计问题的框架相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信