In an engineering course, students’ motivation during an exam can be understood through the framework of their “achievement goals,” which can be divided into performance and mastery goal orientations. Performance goals are associated with seeking high performance and avoiding low performance. Mastery goals are associated with developing skills and increasing understanding. We hypothesize that in large courses, the structure of exams—as high-value assessments—has a large influence on students’ goal orientation. This study investigates the use of an alternative exam structure in a sophomore-level aerospace engineering course at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The instructors gave students six quizzes and an optional final exam, rather than the traditional three midterm and comprehensive final exam format historically used in the course and similar courses in the curriculum. The optional final exam allowed students to correct mistakes and misconceptions from up to three of the midterm quizzes. The researchers queried students with a survey regarding both assessment formats to determine differences in perceived goal structures surrounding them. From 112 responses, survey results indicate a noticeable difference in student attitude towards the traditional and alternative assessment formats. Students generally perceived the alternative format to be more mastery-oriented than the traditional format and perceive the traditional format as being more performance-oriented than the alternative format. In our discussion, we point out how these findings could help instructors design more focused assessments that target different achievement goal structures, without sacrificing the efficiency and rigor of administering traditional exams to large engineering classes.
Connor Ott is a recent graduate of the University of Colorado Boulder where he received a bachelor's and master's degree in Aerospace Engineering Sciences. His research primarily focuses on assessment in large engineering courses and ways to improve their effectiveness as feedback for students and instructors. He currently works as an aerospace engineer designing satellite missions at Advanced Space in Westminster, Colorado.
Dr. Kathryn Wingate is an associate teaching professor at University of Colorado Boulder, where she teaches design and mechanics courses. She holds her PhD in mechanical engineering, and worked at NGAS as a materials scientist.
Aaron W. Johnson is an Assistant Professor in the Aerospace Engineering Department and a Core Faculty member of the Engineering Education Research Program at the University of Michigan. His design-based research focuses on how to re-contextualize engineering science engineering courses to better reflect and prepare students for the reality of ill-defined, sociotechnical engineering practice. Current projects include studying and designing classroom interventions around macroethical issues in aerospace engineering and the productive beginnings of engineering judgment as students create and use mathematical models. Aaron holds a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Michigan and a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prior to re-joining Michigan, he was an instructor in Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.