Advertisement

Quantifying Quality of Learning During Teaching an Undergraduate Unit: Manufacturing Processes

  • A. PramanikEmail author
  • M. N. Islam
Chapter
Part of the Materials Forming, Machining and Tribology book series (MFMT)

Abstract

Multiple-choice questions have been introduced in the Manufacturing Processes 233 unit at Curtin University recently to assess students’ learning in this core subject. The questions were set based on the learning outcomes proposed in the unit outline. There are three learning outcomes of this unit. This paper investigates students’ learning capability and approach of answering questions based on the learning outcomes. The analysis was performed by interpreting the students’ answers in the midterm and final examinations. It was found that students’ overall learning in this unit was reasonably good. However, students performed better in the area where knowledge can be applied directly to the workplace. On the other hand, students are marginally weaker in understanding theoretical and analytical facts of the subject matter.

Keywords

Learning Outcome Computer Numerical Control Optical Character Recognition Computer Numerical Control Machine Analytical Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Trigwell KR (ed) (1992) Information for UTS staff on assessment. University of Technology, Sydney: UTS Working Party on Assessment. http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/assessment/types/mcq/
  2. 2.
    Velan GM, Jones P, McNeil HP, Kumar RK (2008) Integrated online formative assessments in the biomedical sciences for medical students: benefits for learning. BMC Med Educ 8(1):52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalziel J, Gazzard S (2012) The future of multiple choice questions in learning: formative assessment, interactive teaching modules and student-created questions within WebMCQ. In: Proceedings of the Australian conference on science and mathematics education (formerly UniServe Science Conference)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coate LE (1990) TQM on campus: implementing total quality management in a university setting. Bus Officer 24(5):26–35Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cope R, Sherr L (1991) Total quality management for organizations: concepts and tools, a handbook for tertiary education, technical and further education. National Centre for Research and Development Ltd, LeabrookGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornesky R, McCool S, Byrnes L, Weber R (1991) Implementing total quality management in higher education. Magna Publications, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodlad S (1995) The quest for quality – sixteen forms of heresy in higher education. SRHE and Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng YC, Tam WM (1997) Multi-models of quality in education. Qual Assur Educ 5(1):22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pounder J (1999) Institutional performance in higher education: is quality a relevant concept. Qual Assur Educ 7(3):14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vroeijenstijn T (1992) External quality assessment, servant of two masters?, the netherlands university perspective. Falmer Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sahney S, Banwet DK, Karunes S (2004) Conceptualizing total quality management in higher education. TQM Mag 16(2):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jonassen D, Strobel J, Lee CB (2006) Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. J Eng Educ 95(2):139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonassen DH (1997) Instructional design model for well structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educ Technol: Res Dev 45 (1):65–95Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringCurtin UniversityBentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations