Professor, Associate Department Head Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
Introduction: Traditional laboratory courses in engineering are often structured with data collection and analysis taking place in small groups. Emphasis is on producing lab reports that reinforce the scientific method. However, these reports can be time consuming to produce and grade, and group work allows some students to complete the course without fully understanding the material. Here, we describe outcomes from two sequential offerings of a Skeletal Biomechanics Laboratory course (BME 3503). The first offering was structured as a traditional laboratory class with group reports. In the second offering the course was restructured to be competency based, with individual student submissions.
Materials and
Methods: Offering 1 consisted of five lab modules, completed in small groups. Grades were determined based on lab reports and lecture quizzes. Offering 2 consisted of the same five modules with data collection completed in groups. Instead of requiring a lab report, each module had 4-5 competencies associated with it. For example, the center of mass lab had the following: (a) Use free-body-diagrams and statics concepts to calculate the center of mass; (b) Derive formulas needed to use a reaction board and explain their meaning; (c) Use the segment method and explain the concept. Labs were graded either based on the standard format (Offering 1) or only on the degree to which the student’s work met the competencies (Offering 2). Student evaluations and grades were assessed as outcomes.
Results, Conclusions, and Discussions:
Results: Thirty-seven students were enrolled in Offering 1, and 34 in Offering 2. Of those, 22 and 20 students completed course evaluations, respectively. In Offering 1 everyone earned an A grade, while in Offering 2 there were 20 A, 6 B and the rest were incomplete or no-record. In Offering 1, students rated the overall course a 3.7 (out of 5) and rated the amount they learned as a 4. They rated the assignment feedback helpfulness as a 3.7. In Offering 2 students rated the overall course a 4.5 the amount they learned as a 4.3, and the assignment feedback helpfulness as a 4.5. When specifically asked about the competency-based grading scheme, students reported, “I liked competency-based grading greatly. It encouraged me to learn how to do each aspect of the lab rather than only a portion by completing a lab report. I also feel like at WPI, work gets unevenly distributed, causing someone to not learn as much as they can solely based on the segment they are assigned. I feel like I got the most out of this course that I could based off the competency grading as an individual rather than as a group”. Some students felt it was too much work turning in individual assignments and that the grading scheme sometimes made it difficult to understand what was expected.
Discussion: Competency-based grading can be implemented in many ways. We piloted one way here and the students reviewed it positively. We also felt that it was easier to assess individual student learning with this scheme, and that grading itself was much faster because of clearly defined rubrics that focused on the most important concepts.
