The Use of Co-Assessment in Motivating Tutorial Attendance, Preparation and Participation in Engineering Subjects
Summit, R., Venables, A., Australasian Journal of Engineering Education
It is a well-reported problem in the education literature that "students undertaking university courses skip classes on a not infrequent basis" and that "non-attendance at university is an ongoing problem that appears to transcend country, university and discipline" (Cleary-Holdforth, 2007). Yet there is much evidence that university students should attend scheduled classes to optimise their learning and eventual grades (Moore et al, 2008). This is particularly true when it comes to sessions offered in support of lectures, such as tutorials and laboratory classes. Tutorials provide a focus for discussion around salient lecture content and importantly, they provide opportunities for students to practise their problem solving and communication skills (Biggs & Tang, 2007).
Tutorials are of particular importance in engineering education because of the applied nature of the subjects taught. O'Moore & Baldock (2007) asserted that "problem-based learning and tutorial assignments are essential for student learning in engineering courses" and that without regular practice, the required skills are difficult to acquire. Alpay (2001) noted that the applied nature of engineering and science subjects means that students require a good understanding of mathematical concepts and their applications.
The many benefits of tutorials can only occur when students attend regularly, come suitably prepared and actively participate. However, many studies have indicated that this does not happen. For example, both Fry (1990) and Sisson & Warton (2005) reported that although students were instructed to tackle problems at home and then seek assistance during tutorials, it was found, to their detriment, that most students were making a first attempt at problems during the tutorials. Many researchers have concluded that most students need a motivator to complete tutorial problems on a regular basis.
A number of studies have shown a positive relationship between tutorial attendance and overall assessment performance (Gatherer & Manning, 1998; Longhurst, 1999; Sharma et al, 2005; Cohn & Johnson, 2006), while other studies have been able to show that student attendance is a useful predictor of participation and overall performance (McCarey et al, 2007; Smith, 2008). Using data collected over three consecutive semesters, covering five core units (in mathematics, statistics and physics) of the mining engineering program at the Western Australian School of Mines (WASM), a significant linear relationship (at the 0.01 level) was obtained with a positive correlation of 0.67 (figure 1). Further evidence would be needed to establish causal effect here, but that is not the focus of this study. Note that the 10 and 90 percentiles shown in figure 1 indicate that minimal tutorial attendance was needed for some students to pass units, while others failed units despite regular attendance. It therefore makes sense that a program to motivate tutorial attendance should be aimed at the majority of students.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Academic staff at WASM noted that students who failed to avail themselves of the full benefits of practice and feedback afforded by the tutorial sessions were impacted negatively in their understanding of concepts and in their subsequent grades. To address these concerns, it was necessary for academic staff to find a mechanism to help overcome these issues. This paper describes an intervention designed to tackle the problem of poor tutorial attendances and performances at WASM. Peer tutoring together with peer and tutor assessments were incorporated in the intervention, which was conducted with several cohorts of students. An evaluation of the intervention using student feedback surveys is reported in this paper.
2 SEARCHING FOR A SOLUTION
Typically, in engineering and technical subjects, students are expected to develop their skills by regularly completing given sets of practice problems. Tutorials work best when students come prepared by having first attempted problems before the session. By so doing, they are effectively completing the first step of what has been described by O'Moore & Baldock (2007) as the tutorial learning cycle of attempt-solution-review (figure 2). Poor learning outcomes occur if the cycle is not completed. The "attempt" portion of the cycle will be omitted if students are provided with detailed solutions to problems before first attempting them. Students may argue that this is a more efficient use of their limited time. Some students expect that solutions be provided in tutorials (Sisson & Warton, 2005), yet their tutors argue that supplying solutions in tutorials simply becomes another demonstration of an example. Students who do not review their attempts at tutorial problems do not benefit from feedback available from self-assessment, peers or the tutor. By reflecting on the way they have attempted a problem, students can achieve a higher level of understanding, and feedback is an integral part of this reflective process. O'Moore & Baldock (2007) found clear evidence that the review phase of the cycle was not completed when over 40% of tutorial assignments remained uncollected by their owners at the end of the semester. We have found similar disturbing behaviours at WASM.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
In order to help improve this situation, a search of the education literature revealed two possible strategies that could be applied, namely peer tutoring and peer assessment. Peer tutoring is a process whereby students assist fellow students to study and learn through joint discussion and illustration of content. As early as 1981, Boud (1981) argued for the use of peer tutoring as a means of promoting the development of autonomous learning habits in students. This is supported by work done by Bloom (1984) and his doctoral students, who found that peer-tutored students were grade-advantaged when compared to students taught in more traditional ways. As noted by Alpay (2001), "students should have opportunities to demonstrate their own understanding to peers, and discuss underlying issues of course materials", and tutorials could provide the framework where this might occur. Over time, peer tutoring has been implemented in many undergraduate settings (for a listing see Houston & Lazenblatt, 1996). Of particular interest and relevance to staff at WASM is a study of an engineering maths course at Queensland University of Technology (Coutis et al, 1999). In an effort to improve technical communication skills and deep learning in students, a mandatory peer tutoring scheme was introduced that aimed at encouraging students to take a more active role in the learning process.
The second strategy, peer assessment, has likewise been well reported in the education literature as a mechanism that promotes student learning. In their review of 48 quantitative peer assessment studies, Falchikov & Goldfinch (2000) found that peer assessment was almost a "world-wide phenomenon", spanning many discipline areas including science and …
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: The Use of Co-Assessment in Motivating Tutorial Attendance, Preparation and Participation in Engineering Subjects. Contributors: Summit, R. - Author, Venables, A. - Author. Journal title: Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. Volume: 17. Issue: 2 Publication date: October 2011. Page number: 79+. © 2010 The Institution of Engineers, Australia. COPYRIGHT 2011 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.