Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentative-driven assessments in engineering: a challenge-based learning approach to the evaluation of competencies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work explores the design and application of argumentative-driven assessments (ADA) within the context of challenge-based learning as a mechanism of feedback and evaluation of knowledge and competencies. It discusses a combined model that integrates the essential elements of challenge-based learning with the Toulmin argumentative structure. This work attends the need for a step-by-step guide and overall recommendations for the ADA design (including an evaluation rubric) that includes a mid-term ADA in the Mechanical Vibrations challenge based on the proposed guidelines. The ADA's implementation showed that the students developed competencies related to critical thinking, problem-solving, engineering design, and data analysis. The students proposed different solutions to the open-engineering problem while backing each assumption with relevant information and calculation. ADA offers the students the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to predict and discuss different scenarios in the challenge. The ADA-challenge design and implementation's results suggest that contextual argumentation with immersion is essential to promote a sense of purpose in the students. ADAs are essential tools that facilitate identifying and evaluating the development levels of various competencies while providing a forum for students to discuss, express, and apply acquired knowledge. ADAs can also improve the students' learning experience by providing continuous feedback in the context of conceptual and structural scaffolding. The ultimate goal is to give the students the relevant feedback that correctly identifies their achievements and monitors their progress and opportunity areas in their learning process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://tec.mx/en/model-tec21.

References

  1. Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F.M., Heitink, M.C., Kippers, W.B., Veldkamp, B.P.: Formative assessment: a systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. Int. J. Educ. Res. 103, 101602 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gómez-Gasquet, P., Verdecho, M.J., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R., Alfaro-Saiz, J.J.: Formative assessment framework proposal for transversal competencies: application to analysis and problem-solving competence. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 11, 334 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rakoczy, K., Pinger, P., Hochweber, J., Klieme, E., Schütze, B., Besser, M.: Formative assessment in mathematics: mediated by feedback’s perceived usefulness and students’ self-efficacy. Learn. Instruc. 60, 154–165 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rivers, M.L., Dunlosky, J., Joynes, R.: The contribution of classroom exams to the formative evaluation of concept-level knowledge. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 59, 101806 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buelin, J., Ernst, J.V., Clark, D.T.E., Aerop, C., Kelly, D.P., DeLuca, V.W.: Formative evaluation techniques. Technol. Eng. Teach. 78, 21–23 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., Chu, S.K.W.: The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: an interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Comput. Educ. 145, 103–729 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nichols, M., Cator, K., Torres, M.: Challenge Based Learning Guide. Digital Promise, Redwood City (2016)

  8. Morales-Avalos, J.R., Heredia-Escorza, Y.: The academia-industry relationship: igniting innovation in engineering schools. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 13, 1297–1312 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00581-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Md. Khambari, M.N.: Instilling innovativeness, building character, and enforcing camaraderie through interest-driven challenge-based learning approach. Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 14, 19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0115-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Savery, J.R.: Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdiscip. J. Probl. Learn. (2006). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Amelia, R., Budiasih, E., Yahmin, G.: Promoting the scientific argumentation skills of students using ADI-S and ADI models in chemical kinetics teaching. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, p. 020001 (2020)

  12. Walker, J.P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., Zimmerman, C.O.: Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: the impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 41, 74–81 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Academic Vicerectory Tecnologico de Monterrey: Internal Reports on Argumentative Assessments. Monterrey, Mexico (2020)

  14. Waychal, P., Mohanty, R.P., Verma, A.: Determinants of innovation as a competence: an empirical study. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 5, 192 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2011.038781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harrell, M., Wetzel, D.: Using argument diagramming to teach critical thinking in a first-year writing course. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education, pp. 213–232. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2015)

  16. Hannafin, M.J., Land, S.M.: Technology and student-centered learning in higher education: issues and practices. J. Comput. High. Educ. 12, 3–30 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Apple: Challenge Based Learning: A Classroom Guide. Apple, Inc. (2010)

  18. Membrillo-Hernández, J., Ramírez-Cadena, J., Martínez-Acosta, M., Cruz-Gómez, E., Muñoz-Díaz, E., Elizalde, H.: Challenge based learning: the importance of world-leading companies as training partners. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 13, 1103–1113 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00569-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. hqpbl.org: High-Quality Project-Based Learning Framework. https://hqpbl.org/

  20. Savery, J.R., Duffy, T.M.: Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educ. Technol. 35, 31–38 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2307/44428296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chan, T.-W., Looi, C.-K., Chen, W., Wong, L.-H., Chang, B., Liao, C.C.Y., Cheng, H., Chen, Z.-H., Liu, C.-C., Kong, S.-C., Jeong, H., Mason, J., So, H.-J., Murthy, S., Yu, F.-Y., Wong, S.L., King, R.B., Gu, X., Wang, M., Wu, L., Huang, R., Lam, R., Ogata, H.: Interest-driven creator theory: towards a theory of learning design for Asia in the twenty-first century. J. Comput. Educ. 5, 435–461 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0122-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press (2003)

  23. van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.H.M.: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht (2014)

  24. Kadayifci, H., Yalcin-Celik, A.: Implementation of argument-driven inquiry as an instructional model in a general chemistry laboratory course. Sci. Educ. Int. 27, 369–390 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Elder, L., Paul, R.: The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking—Concepts and Tools (2019)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Scientometrics team led by Nathalie María Galeano Sánchez and the Faculty Development and Innovative Education Center for the pedagogic support during this work. The authors would like to acknowledge the technical support of Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the production of this work. The current project was funded by Tecnologico de Monterrey and Fundación FEMSA Foundation (Grant No. 0020206BB3, CAMPUSCITY project). The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and the technical support of Vicerrectoria Academica y de Innovacion Educativa of the Tecnologico de Monterrey in the production of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849, Monterrey, N.L., Mexico

    Enrique A. López-Guajardo, Ricardo A. Ramirez-Mendoza, Adriana Vargas-Martinez, Wang Jianhong, Armando Roman-Flores & Genaro Zavala

  2. Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, No. 86, Hongqi Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jianxi Province, People’s Republic of China

    Ricardo A. Ramirez-Mendoza & Wang Jianhong

  3. Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Andres Bello, Antonio Varas 880, 7500973, Santiago, Chile

    Genaro Zavala

Authors
  1. Enrique A. López-Guajardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo A. Ramirez-Mendoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adriana Vargas-Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wang Jianhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Armando Roman-Flores
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Genaro Zavala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enrique A. López-Guajardo or Ricardo A. Ramirez-Mendoza.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López-Guajardo, E.A., Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A., Vargas-Martinez, A. et al. Argumentative-driven assessments in engineering: a challenge-based learning approach to the evaluation of competencies. Int J Interact Des Manuf 17, 79–91 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-01188-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-01188-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation