Work in Progress: Using Outcomes-Based Assessment in an Introductory Structural Engineering Course

A new introductory structural engineering course has been developed at The University of Wisconsin-Platteville (UW-Platteville). The course follows Mechanics of Materials in the structures curriculum, where a traditional curriculum would typically provide a structural analysis course. While this course introduces methods of structural analysis, it does so in the context of structural materials (steel, reinforced concrete, masonry and timber) and design so as to remove the unnatural distinction between analysis and design. In addition to the innovative design of the course, the grading of the course is also of note. Grades are not determined based on a typical “points” system. Instead, an outcomes-based grading scheme is used in which students must demonstrate mastery of specific concepts to pass the class. Mastery of additional outcomes beyond these specific concepts leads to a higher grade. This paper focusses on the outcomes-based grading used in the course and the students reactions to the grading scheme. Results of preliminary assessment indicate that outcomes-based grading may create greater uncertainty in students regarding their final grades and can lead to the perception that final grades do not reflect their true knowledge of the material. Outcomes-based assessment can help students to better anticipate what they will be tested on, but a well-organized traditional “pointsbased” grading scheme can accomplish this just as well. Background UW-Platteville is a mid-sized public university with a sizeable college of engineering. The Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) is one of the largest departments on campus with approximately 475 students. Each student majoring in civil engineering must choose an emphasis area (e.g., construction, geotechnical, etc.). All students take junior-level courses in each emphasis area and then complete senior-level technical electives in their respective emphasis areas. As part of recent curriculum revisions, CEE department faculty recently revamped the structural engineering course sequence as shown in Table 1, which shows courses required of all civil engineering students regardless of emphasis area. As can be seen in Table 1, the more typical analysis (CEE 3100) then design (CEE 3150) sequence of courses was changed to a series of courses on structural engineering (CEE 3110 and 3160). These structural engineering courses blend analysis and design by studying how engineering materials (steel, reinforced concrete, masonry, and timber) are used in the built environment. In addition, the courses seek to help students understand buildings and other structures as systems of interconnected structural elements and of interconnecting functions (structural support, functionality, environment, etc.). The courses greatly increase students’ exposure to structural codes by incorporating the AISC steel specification, ACI concrete code, American Wood Council wood specification, and the ASCE code on structural loads. In addition to the change in the course sequence, a new grading scheme was adopted for the two structural engineering courses. Grades are not determined based on a typical “points” system. P ge 24393.2 Instead, an outcomes-based grading scheme is used in which students must demonstrate mastery of specified learning outcomes to pass the class. To illustrate how the outcomes are defined and implemented, Table 2 lists the outcomes that were covered on the first exam. (The full list of outcomes for the course is given in the syllabus, which is provided as Appendix A.) The letter in the outcome label (“A”, “B”, or “C”) indicates the grade level for the outcome. The final grade for the course was then determined by the number of outcomes passed on the examinations. Students were required to demonstrate proficiency in all “C”-level objectives to earn a grade of “C-”. To earn a “C” students must pass all “C”level objectives and an additional three objectives. The specifics requirements for each grade are listed in the syllabus in Appendix A. Table 1 Changes to the structural engineering sequence for all civil engineering students at UW-Platteville Original Structures Sequence New Structures Sequence GE 2130 Statics GE 2130 Statics (no change) GE 2340 Mechanics of Materials GE 2340 Mechanics of Materials (no change) CEE 3100 Structural Analysis CEE 3110 Introduction to Structural Engineering CEE 3150 Reinforced Concrete Design CEE 3160 Intermediate Structural Engineering In the first offering of the course, students had to demonstrate mastery of each of the following outcomes to pass the class. Technical Design Skills: Find the design moment (Mu) for a simply-supported floor beam that supports uniform dead and live loads Design either a wood or steel beam to support a given moment and shear Calculate the moment capacity of a simple reinforced concrete beam For a reinforced concrete beam of given dimensions and loads, determine required area of steel, select bars, and draw a bar layout conforming to ACI rules Calculate one of the following: roof live load, rain load, or snow load One of the following: o Check adequacy of steel tension braces for a braced frame with given connection details and loads o Design steel compression members for a braced frame or given building column o Check the capacity of a masonry shear wall * A “C-” is the lowest passing grade for courses within the civil engineering program. A lower grade would require that the student repeat the class to graduate from the program. † This outcome was in the original syllabus, but was dropped as a requirement to pass the class. ‡ Masonry shear walls were not covered because of time limitations, so this option was removed. P ge 24393.3 Table 2 Outcomes covered on the first examination Outcome Students must be able to: Sub‐skills necessary for this objective: C‐1.1 Find the design moment (Mu) for a simply‐ supported floor beam that supports uniform dead and live loads Interpret a simple one‐way slab system (lecture 4) Locate material weights in ASCE 7 or other sources and determine resulting load in psf or plf (lecture 6) Determine the live loads for a given occupancy (lecture 7) Calculate linear load from floor load (review 1) Solve the statics of the beam (review 1) Apply the load combination (lecture 8) B‐1.2 Find the FBD for a floor beam that is part of a complex load path Interpret a complex floor framing arrangement (lecture 4) Delineate the tributary area for the required member (lecture 4) Potentially combine loads (lecture 8) A‐1.2 Solve the design moment for a floor beam that is part of a complex load path Must be able to complete all of outcome B‐1.2 Solve the statics of the beam (review 1) B‐1.3 Apply live load reduction correctly Determine tributary area (lecture 4) Apply the live load reduction formula (lecture 7) A‐1.3 Demonstrate comprehen‐ sion of floor loads A short answer question will be used to spot‐check com‐ prehension of the dead or live loads (lectures 6‐7) Non-Technical Knowledge and Comprehension: Demonstrate basic knowledge of roof systems by identifying and stating the purpose of selected (non-structural) roof components Critically assess steel and/or wood alternative technical design solutions for a nontechnical attribute Professional Behavior: Zero instances of academic misconduct 85% of homework completed and no prolonged and unexcused absences This new grading scheme was designed to meet the following goals: 1. Create a more holistic approach to teaching the material, 2. Ensure that core competencies for follow-on courses are met, 3. Better define differences in final grades based on student competency, 4. Distinguish content for general civil engineering students as compared to students with a structural engineering emphasis, and 5. Simplify assessment for ABET and departmental purposes—passing the class indicates that students have attained important curricular outcomes. P ge 24393.4 The focus of this paper will be on the outcomes-based assessment used in the class. Literature Review Numerous secondary education teachers have embraced outcomes-based assessment, which is a grading scheme that requires students to pass lower level content before (or while) achieving higher level content. This type of grading is found in many science disciplines at the K–12 level, but the authors found very few cases where university faculty members have embraced it. Many K–12 schools have adopted outcomes-based assessment “to address the problem of traditional grades not adequately assessing student content mastery and students’ lack of awareness regarding their strengths and weaknesses.” In their study, Knaack, et al., found that when students clearly knew the outcomes, they found grading fairer and less mysterious, and they were more likely to “work diligently to accomplish the goal set before them.” At K–12 levels, parents also felt that outcomes-based assessment meant they were less in the dark about their children’s grades. College students, though, are responsible for their own studies, and outcomesbased assessment helps them directly interpret both the meaning of a certain grade and the level of understanding they have attained. Some academic blogs have featured discussion on the topic (typically in secondary education), but very little research has appeared in peer-reviewed publications. Nonetheless, the college level is similar to the K–12 level in that “[s]tandards-based grading sets high standards for students and puts them in charge of their own learning by letting them set goals based on specific learning standards.” Undoubtedly, that outcomes-based assessment can “communicate expectations” clearly and directly is something many students have found refreshing. In an article that defines four recommendations for implementing outcomes-based assessment, Marzano and Heflebower claim that by getting rid of all “omnibus grading,” student