An Assessment Framework for Engineering Education Systems

Rouvrais, Siegfried; Lassudrie, Claire

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13036-1_22

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Existing evaluation frameworks were informal and unsuitable for continual quality enhancement. A potential solution arose through the proposal of a novel assessment model and measurement methodology rooted in the CDIO Standard [47].…”

Section: ) Automatic Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Literature Review of Student Assessment Framework in Software Engineering Courses

Fauzan,

Siahaan,

Solekhah

et al. 2023

J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Bus. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Software engineering are courses comprising various project types, including simple assignments completed in supervised settings and more complex tasks undertaken independently by students, without the oversight of a constant teacher or lab assistant. The imperative need arises for a comprehensive assessment framework to validate the fulfillment of learning objectives and facilitate the measurement of student outcomes, particularly in computer science and software engineering. This leads to the delineation of an appropriate assessment structure and pattern. Objective: This study aimed to acquire the expertise required for assessing student performance in computer science and software engineering courses. Methods: A comprehensive literature review spanning from 2012 to October 2021 was conducted, resulting in the identification of 20 papers addressing the assessment framework in software engineering and computer science courses. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were meticulously applied in two rounds of assessment to identify the most pertinent studies for this investigation. Results: The results showed multiple methods for assessing software engineering and computer science courses, including the Assessment Matrix, Automatic Assessment, CDIO, Cooperative Thinking, formative and summative assessment, Game, Generative Learning Robot, NIMSAD, SECAT, Self-assessment and Peer-assessment, SonarQube Tools, WRENCH, and SEP-CyLE. Conclusion: The evaluation framework for software engineering and computer science courses required further refinement, ultimately leading to the selection of the most suitable technique, known as learning framework. Keywords: Computer science course, Software engineering course, Student assessment, Systematic literature review

show abstract

Section: ) Automatic Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Literature Review of Student Assessment Framework in Software Engineering Courses

Fauzan,

Siahaan,

Solekhah

et al. 2023

J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Bus. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The process measurement framework conforms to the requirements of ISO/IEC 33003 and is applicable to any domain, e.g. HEI programmes as proposed by Rouvrais and Lassudrie (2014). The process measurement framework may be included in any process assessment model for the assessment of process capability.…”

Section: An Iso Reference For Maturity Assessment Of Process Capabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative quality enhancement in engineering education: an overview of operational models at a programme level

Bennedsen

Rouvrais

Roslöf

et al. 2018

European Journal of Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the tension between quality assurance and quality enhancement in engineering education at programme level. It acknowledges that accreditation has evolved for many years, but does not agilely support innovation or implement changes in educational programmes. Existing quality assurance systems, institutional collaboration networks, as well as new innovative quality enhancement models and processes are described, contrasted and synthesised. Quality enhancement is analysed based on its function as a source of inspiration and dissemination of good practice. The article reflects on a novel and more collaborative approach to quality enhancement, built on the foundations of specific pedagogical standards and rubrics (e.g. CDIO). One solution leading to real continuous quality enhancement could be flexible and agile evaluation processes. These are founded on measurement and rating frameworks and complemented with quality assurance for engineering education. Incremental enhancement is based on relevant needs identified collaboratively between programmes.

show abstract

“…An accreditation system typically consists of a measurement framework and an assessment model and process [14]. The assessment process describes how and when the assessment is done (how data is collected and validated and how the planning is done).…”

Section: B Process Maturity For Quality Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was developed for firms but can be applied to any kind of organization. (p.98) As such, today's accreditation systems tend to follow models like EFQM [16], or Capability Maturity Model (for software development) [17] generically formalized in ISO 330xx series [18], [14].…”

Section: B Process Maturity For Quality Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding good friends to learn from and to inspire

Bennedsen

Rouvrais

2016

2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This innovative practice paper presents a selfevaluation model for study programs or institutions linked with a unique quality enhancement process. It focuses on enhancement at the study program level but can be used at different levels. The study program evaluates itself on 28 criteria. Based on such self-evaluation, it identifies a subset of the criteria it would like to improve. The improvement process has at its heart a cross-sparring collaborative and iterative approach, whereby paired study programs are to learn and inspire each other by being critical and constructive friends. This paper focus on the pairing-how can a good match be made so that there will be new insights and inspirations? The criteria draws upon an international super-set of criteria from engineering accreditation systems like ABET, EUR-ACE, CEAB or Engineers Australia, and is extensible. They are scored on process maturity levels as found in the most recent ISO/IEC 33020:2015 series, and complemented by contextual parameters such as the size of the study program, disciplinary main focus or geography. The authors propose a pairing algorithm to find the best match for (engineering) study programs that want to learn from and to inspire each other. Based on four pilots conducted in the fall 2015, this paper reflects on the pairing of eight accredited engineering study programs.

show abstract

An Assessment Framework for Engineering Education Systems

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

A Systematic Literature Review of Student Assessment Framework in Software Engineering Courses

A Systematic Literature Review of Student Assessment Framework in Software Engineering Courses

Collaborative quality enhancement in engineering education: an overview of operational models at a programme level

Finding good friends to learn from and to inspire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About