Exploring fundamental engineering course instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors: A multicase study

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kai Jun Chew, Holly M. Matusovich
{"title":"Exploring fundamental engineering course instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors: A multicase study","authors":"Kai Jun Chew,&nbsp;Holly M. Matusovich","doi":"10.1002/jee.20614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Tests are commonly and heavily used in fundamental engineering courses (FECs) to assess student learning of concepts. With existing literature presenting mixed benefits and disadvantages of testing to students' motivation to learn and documenting widely alternative assessments, the lack of questioning of heavy and common test usage must be addressed to diversify classroom assessment and promote intentionality in test usage.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\n \n <p>This study begins to address the lack of questioning by exploring and uncovering test usage beliefs and behaviors of seven FEC instructors from two engineering departments in a land-grant, public, Research 1 university</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design/Method</h3>\n \n <p>Grounded in the Situated Expectancy–Value Theory (SEVT), we conducted a multicase study. Data include two interviews, course syllabi, and sample tests provided by the participants, and public documents from the institution and departments. We conducted a priori and emergent coding and thematic analysis to identify the beliefs and behaviors before developing individual case summaries for cross-case analysis to identify groupings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Three test usage groups emerged: enthusiastic, default, and questioning. All test usage groups featured tests heavily in their FECs, resulting in varying alignment between these participants' test usage beliefs and behaviors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings reveal the various factors that can shape FEC instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors, and the complexity in terms of alignment. This work lays important implications, including laying the foundations for future scholarship on testing in engineering education research and leveraging findings to begin efforts in diversifying assessment approaches and promoting intentional test usage in FECs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20614","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20614","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Tests are commonly and heavily used in fundamental engineering courses (FECs) to assess student learning of concepts. With existing literature presenting mixed benefits and disadvantages of testing to students' motivation to learn and documenting widely alternative assessments, the lack of questioning of heavy and common test usage must be addressed to diversify classroom assessment and promote intentionality in test usage.

Purpose/Hypothesis

This study begins to address the lack of questioning by exploring and uncovering test usage beliefs and behaviors of seven FEC instructors from two engineering departments in a land-grant, public, Research 1 university

Design/Method

Grounded in the Situated Expectancy–Value Theory (SEVT), we conducted a multicase study. Data include two interviews, course syllabi, and sample tests provided by the participants, and public documents from the institution and departments. We conducted a priori and emergent coding and thematic analysis to identify the beliefs and behaviors before developing individual case summaries for cross-case analysis to identify groupings.

Results

Three test usage groups emerged: enthusiastic, default, and questioning. All test usage groups featured tests heavily in their FECs, resulting in varying alignment between these participants' test usage beliefs and behaviors.

Conclusions

Our findings reveal the various factors that can shape FEC instructors' test usage beliefs and behaviors, and the complexity in terms of alignment. This work lays important implications, including laying the foundations for future scholarship on testing in engineering education research and leveraging findings to begin efforts in diversifying assessment approaches and promoting intentional test usage in FECs.

Abstract Image

探索基础工程课程教师的考试使用信念和行为:多案例研究
背景 在基础工程课程(FECs)中,测试被普遍和大量地用于评估学生对概念的学习。现有文献对测试对学生学习动机的影响利弊参半,并记载了多种可供选择的评估方法,因此,必须解决对大量和普遍使用测试缺乏质疑的问题,以使课堂评估多样化,并促进测试使用的有意性。 目的/假设 本研究通过探索和揭示来自一所公立研究型大学两个工程系的七名 FEC 教师的考试使用信念和行为,开始解决缺乏质疑的问题。 设计/方法 我们以情景期望值理论(SEVT)为基础,开展了一项多案例研究。数据包括两次访谈、课程大纲、参与者提供的抽样测试,以及来自学校和院系的公开文件。我们先进行了先验编码和新兴编码,并进行了主题分析,以确定信念和行为,然后再编写个案摘要,进行交叉分析,以确定分组情况。 结果 出现了三个测试使用群体:热衷型、默认型和质疑型。所有使用测试的群体都在其家庭教育中心中大量使用测试,导致这些参与者使用测试的信念和行为之间的一致性各不相同。 结论 我们的研究结果揭示了影响外国教育中心教师使用测试的信念和行为的各种因素,以及在一致性方面的复杂性。这项工作具有重要的意义,包括为未来工程教育研究中的测试学术研究奠定了基础,并利用研究结果开始努力实现评估方法的多样化,促进在外国工程师培训中心有意识地使用测试。
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
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信