Skills assessment is a topic within experiential learning teaching pedagogy, such as challenge-based learning (CBL), which calls for attention. Most university teachers know how to assess and judge the knowledge levels of their engineering students but need to learn more about assessing the so-called 21st-century skills (e.g., leadership, problem-solving, empathy, communication) and how the assessment influences the learning process. Therefore, this paper aims to study the connections between the learning process and skills assessment in innovation and entrepreneurship education (I&E) initiatives and discuss how to assess student’s skills in a transparent and safe way. To achieve that scope, we compare and critically discuss four I&E education experiences from the University of Trento (Italy) and Linköping University (Sweden), considering different variables such as learning goals, contents, team formation, teamwork, and expected outcomes. We identify four main findings: (i) facilitation and coaching are an essential ingredient in the courses, (ii) development-oriented feedback from teachers helps students to acquire new knowledge and improve their skills, (iii) formative assessment - both informal and formal - through matrices can help teachers in measuring progressions and difficulties in individual students, (iv) ENTRECOMP framework can support the soft skills evaluation. In conclusion, we underline the importance of assessing skills on two levels (the individual and the team) through recognized and well-described tools. Secondly, personalized self-directed learning tools, such as structured learning reflection and tailor-made learning criteria, are also beneficial but have limitations. Finally, formative assessment matrices, with defined requirements for different levels, also seem helpful.
Pages:
705-719
Affiliations:
University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Keywords:
Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education
Innovation Education
21st-century skills
Self-directed Learning
Formative and Summative Assessment
Challenge-based learning
CDIO Standard 1
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 9
Year:
2023
Reference:
Bacigalupo, M., Weikert Garcia, L., Mansoori, Y., & O’Keeffe, W. (2020). EntreComp Playbook. Entrepreneurial learning beyond the classroom (No. JRC120487). Joint Research Centre (Seville site).:
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.:
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311-317.:
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). The psychological structure of creative writing. Australian Journal of Education, 26(1), 59–70.:
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.:
Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research - REV EDUC RES. 65. 245-281. 10.2307/1170684. :
Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101-116.:
Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., Brodeur, D., & Edstrom, K. (2007). Rethinking engineering education. The CDIO Approach, 302, 60-62.:
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.:
Dewey, J. (1938; 1963). Experience and education, The Kappa, Delta, Pi Lecture Series, Macmillan Publishing company: New York:
EIT (2012) “Catalysing Innovation in the Knowledge Triangle: Practices from the EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities,” European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), https://eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EIT_publication_Final.pdf:
Eldebo, K., Lundvall, C., Norrman, C. A., & Larsson, M. (2022). How to make good teachers great in challenge-based learning. 18th CDIO Proceedings Conference in Reykjavik, Iceland, 13-15 June 2022:
Fiet, J. (2001). The Pedagogical Side of Entrepreneurship Theory. Journal of Business Venturing. 16. 101–117. 10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00042-7. :
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906:
Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st-century skills: What are they, and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245-249.:
Ghiatău, R., Diac, G., & Curelaru, V. (2011). Interaction between summative and formative in higher education assessment: students’ perception. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 220-224.:
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic.:
González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493.:
Gunnarsson, S., & Swartz, M. (2021). Applying the CDIO framework when developing the ECIU University. In 17th International CDIO Proceedings Conference (pp. 106-115).:
Gunnarsson, S., & Swartz, M. (2022). On the connections between the CDIO framework and challenge-based learning. The European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) Conference Proceedings.:
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.:
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Chicago, IL: Follett Publishing Company.:
Knowles, M. (1986). Using learning contracts: Practical approaches to individualizing and structuring learning. London: Jossey-Bass Publications.:
Kohn Rådberg, K., Lundqvist, U., Malmqvist, J., & Hagvall Svensson, O. (2020). From CDIO to challenge-based learning experiences–expanding student learning as well as societal impact? European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(1), 22-37. :
Lau, A. M. S. (2016). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’–A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 509-525.:
Mehic, A. (2022). Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching. Economics Letters, p. 219, 110782.:
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R. & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education, International Journal for Students as Partners, 1 (1). doi:10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119.:
Norrman, C., Lundvall, C., Eldebo, K., Boierts, S. & Stel, F. (2022). Making good challenges great - engaging external parties in CBL activities, 18th CDIO Conference Proceedings in Reykjavik, Iceland, 13-15 June 2022:
Observatory Tecnológico of Educational de Monterrey (2015). Edu Trends: Challenge Based Learning, Oct. 2015, Observatory Tecnológico of Educational de Monterrey. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101581 :
Pérez-Sánchez, E. O., Chavarro-Miranda, F., & Riano-Cruz, J. D. (2020). Challenge-based learning: A ‘entrepreneurship-oriented’ teaching experience. Management in Education, 0892020620969868.:
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Routledge.:
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing Students' Engagement by Increasing Teachers' Autonomy Support¹. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f:
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68:
Scroccaro, A., & Rossi, A. (2022). Self-directed approach as an opportunity to learn in Challenge-based learning (CBL). A CBL experience with cross-disciplinary learners at the University of Trento. Handbook on Challenge-Based Learning. The Emerald Publishing, pp. 227–249, doi:10.1108/978-1-80117-490-920221010.:
Svensäter, G., & Rohlin, M. (2022). Assessment model blending formative and summative assessments using the SOLO taxonomy—European Journal of Dental Education.:
Svensson, T., & Gunnarsson, S. (2005). Using a project model for assessment of CDIO skills. In 1st annual CDIO conference Proceedings (pp.7–8).:
Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change. Paul Hamlyn Foundation. :
Vignoli, M., Balboni, B., Cotoranu, A., Dosi, C., Glisoni, N., Kohler, K., Mincolelli, G., Mäkinen, S., Nordberg, M., & Thong, C. (2021). Inspiring the future change-makers: reflections and ways forward from the Challenge-Based Innovation experiment. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2021.1323:
Vygotsky, L. S. & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.:
Whitmore, J. (1994). Coaching for performance: A practical guide to growing your own skills. Pfeiffer & Company by arrangement with N. Brealy Publ. Yorke, M. Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education 45, 477–501 (2003).:
Zambon, I., M. Cecchini, G. Egidi, M. G. Saporito, & A. Colantoni. 2019. Revolution 4.0: industry vs. agriculture in a future development for SMEs. Processes 7(1): 36.:
on November 27, 2023 - 04:33 frebyst
Conceive
Design
Implement
Operate
