Y. Chua (2020).  THE USE OF AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT IN CDIO PROJECT . Volume 1, pp.246-267.

In engineering education, it is of great concern that students may not be capable of transferring the skills they have gained from their education to real-world problems. The industry is also encouraging the Polytechnics to expose students to multifaceted, complex problems where there are no fixed standard answers to one problem. These apprehensions have given rise to the use of authentic assessment in CDIO for the Year-3 module Structural BIM eSubmission in the Diploma in Civil Engineering with Business. These paper aims to discuss the use of authentic assessment in CDIO project in the module Structural BIM eSubmission and how it can help to prepare students for the industry by providing opportunities for them to use the knowledge gained from the 35 modules they learned over the last two years to work on a real-world project (three-storey high bungalow house), a CDIO project through the stages of Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate. Authentic assessment is infused into this project, aiming to achieve the four elements highlighted by Gulikers et al. (2004) as follows:

(a) product and performance produced in real-life 

(b) making valid inferences 

(c) a full array of tasks and multiple indicators of learning

(d) presentation of work

This paper also discussed the potential of the CDIO project with an authentic assessment to adequately assess all the capacities and outcomes we want to recognise and help in student's learning and its success factor for implementation. AA has the potential to adequately assess all the capacities and outcomes we want to recognise and helps in student's learning. We should work towards minimising the impact of the above-discussed problems because, at the polytechnic level, we have more valid reasons, resources, and support from the industry to drive AA.

Authors (New): 
Yina Chua
Volume 1, pp.246-267
Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore
Civil Engineering
authentic assessment
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 9
CDIO Standard 11
Baker, E. L., & O'Neil Jr, H. F. (1994). Performance assessment and equity: A view from the USA. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 1(1), 11-26.: 
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluation of the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.: 
Biggs, J. (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education, 32, 347-364.: 
Cronin, J. F. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 78-80.: 
Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.: 
Earl, L. M., & LeMahieu, P. G. (1997). Rethinking assessment and accountability. ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT-YEARBOOK-, 149-168.: 
Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, Th. & Kirschner, P. (2004) A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment, Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-85.: 
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Schmidt, M. (2002). Perspectives on alternative assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 69-95.: 
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works?. Change: the magazine of higher learning, 30(4), 26-35.: 
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the no child left behind act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.: 
Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. Jossey-Bass.: 
Lombardi, M.M (2007), Approaches that work: How authentic learning is transforming higher education, Educause Learning Initiative, ELI Paper 5, 
McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., & Iyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly?. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 106-117.: 
Mehlinger, H. D. (1995). School reform in the information age. Media Management Services, Inc., 105 Terry Drive, Suite 120, Newtown, PA 18940-3425.: 
Messick, S. (1994) The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments, Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.: 
Newmann, F. M., & Associates (1996) Authentic achievement:Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (San Franscisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass): 
Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996) Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280-312.: 
Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (1993) Five standards for authentic instruction, Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.: 
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 69(1), 21-51.: 
Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. Jossey-Bass.: 
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). What is backward design. Understanding by design, 1, 7-19.: 
Go to top