Home / Scientific Constructive Alignment

 
  • Scientific Constructive Alignment

    Significant reduction of work is achievedby avoiding the creation of additional assessments specifically for outcomes measurement through the design ofcurricular grade giving assessments that include scientific constructive alignment for realistic learning outcomes measurement. While designing any assessment related to a specific course content the concerned engineering faculty member at IU would consider measurement of the most appropriate performance criteria. For scientific constructive alignment (concept of scientifically designing assessments with multiple performance criteria allocated fixed proportions of the total score is in addition to what is mentioned regarding constructive alignment by Biggs & Tang, 2007; Houghton, 2004) the contribution of various performance criteria to the total score of an assessment would be defined during assessment design. The performance criteria of interest to be measured by a specific assessment would be given a nearly 70% or more share in the total score distribution and the effect of grading results of the other performance criteria on the total score would be thus rendered negligible. Figure below shows an example where a sample unique assessment (quiz 2) with high relative coverage (Q2 7 points) is designed with maximum coverage (70%) of a specific PI_5_12 mapping to a CO3, ABET SO5. 

    Print

    For cases where it is not possible to assign a nearly 70% or more share to a certain performance criteria in an entire assessment, the Assignment Setup Module of EvalTools® 6 is used to split a question or sub question of an assessment for achieving 70% high relative coverage of a specific performance criteria. Figure below indicates examples of implementation of splitting of assessments to questions, sub questions using EvalTools® 6 Assignment Setup Module to obtain maximum relative coverage and measurement of a specific PI mapping to a certain CO and ABET SO. 

    Print

    Such assessments or set of questions are said to be unique since they are just used once for measurement of a certain PI. This methodology of implementing unique assessments with high relative coverage of PIs mapping to COs and ABET SOs would ensure realistic measurement of outcomes assessment data for comprehensive continuous improvement.Refer Figure below for comparative study of tools using FCAR + EAMU vector methodology, scientific constructive alignment versus generic rubrics.

    Print