传统总结性评价与连续性评价的数据分析——以工程科学系为例

Yanxia Sun
{"title":"传统总结性评价与连续性评价的数据分析——以工程科学系为例","authors":"Yanxia Sun","doi":"10.1109/IICSPI.2018.8690451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Comparing with the traditional summative assessment, the continuous assessment is a minor assessment method in universities around the world. In the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, the Department of Electrical Engineering Science applied the continuous assessment in the past five years in order to achieve better study performance while the Departments of Mechanical Engineering Science and Civil Engineering Science are still using the traditional summative assessment. It is necessary to analyse the performance of these two different assessment methods to find which method is better or more stable. In this paper, the traditional summative assessment and the continuous assessment are investigated and compared based on the pass rate of the modules/subjects of these three departments. The histograms and Wilcoxon signed-rank test are used to analyse the differences of these two assessment methods. From the statistical results of this case study, the pass rate of the traditional summative assessment is more stable than the continuous assessment. Finally the unexpected performance of the continuous assessment is investigated.","PeriodicalId":6673,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE International Conference of Safety Produce Informatization (IICSPI)","volume":"46 1","pages":"531-535"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Data analysis of traditional summative assessment and continuous assessment-Engineering Science Departments case study\",\"authors\":\"Yanxia Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/IICSPI.2018.8690451\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Comparing with the traditional summative assessment, the continuous assessment is a minor assessment method in universities around the world. In the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, the Department of Electrical Engineering Science applied the continuous assessment in the past five years in order to achieve better study performance while the Departments of Mechanical Engineering Science and Civil Engineering Science are still using the traditional summative assessment. It is necessary to analyse the performance of these two different assessment methods to find which method is better or more stable. In this paper, the traditional summative assessment and the continuous assessment are investigated and compared based on the pass rate of the modules/subjects of these three departments. The histograms and Wilcoxon signed-rank test are used to analyse the differences of these two assessment methods. From the statistical results of this case study, the pass rate of the traditional summative assessment is more stable than the continuous assessment. Finally the unexpected performance of the continuous assessment is investigated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 IEEE International Conference of Safety Produce Informatization (IICSPI)\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"531-535\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 IEEE International Conference of Safety Produce Informatization (IICSPI)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/IICSPI.2018.8690451\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE International Conference of Safety Produce Informatization (IICSPI)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IICSPI.2018.8690451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

与传统的总结性考核相比,连续考核是世界各国大学的次要考核方式。在南非约翰内斯堡大学工程与建筑环境学院,为了取得更好的学习成绩,电气工程科学系在过去的五年里采用了连续考核,而机械工程科学系和土木工程科学系仍然使用传统的总结性考核。有必要对这两种不同的评估方法进行性能分析,找出哪种方法更好或更稳定。本文对传统的总结性考核和连续性考核进行了调查比较,以三个系的模块/科目通过率为依据。采用直方图和Wilcoxon sign -rank检验分析两种评价方法的差异。从本案例的统计结果来看,传统总结性考核的通过率比连续性考核的通过率更稳定。最后对连续评估的非预期性能进行了研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Data analysis of traditional summative assessment and continuous assessment-Engineering Science Departments case study
Comparing with the traditional summative assessment, the continuous assessment is a minor assessment method in universities around the world. In the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, the Department of Electrical Engineering Science applied the continuous assessment in the past five years in order to achieve better study performance while the Departments of Mechanical Engineering Science and Civil Engineering Science are still using the traditional summative assessment. It is necessary to analyse the performance of these two different assessment methods to find which method is better or more stable. In this paper, the traditional summative assessment and the continuous assessment are investigated and compared based on the pass rate of the modules/subjects of these three departments. The histograms and Wilcoxon signed-rank test are used to analyse the differences of these two assessment methods. From the statistical results of this case study, the pass rate of the traditional summative assessment is more stable than the continuous assessment. Finally the unexpected performance of the continuous assessment is investigated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信