Читать книгу The Wiley Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education Learning and Teaching - Группа авторов - Страница 43

Mapping becomes very relevant when it is performed at the question level, as each question in the test or in any of a course's examination component will be associated with one of more specific objectives and outcomes, that is CEOs and COs, the latter being expected to be attained on completion of the course. The COs will be subset of POs of the program under which the course is offered. For example, in a course called Signal Processing (ECE 4X09), named as SP, there are number of examination components and CE is one of them. In the CE, there are the following questions:

 Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q7, Q9 are descriptive questions.

 Q3, Q6, Q8 are objective questions.

 Q10 is a numerical question.

The questions are set in such a manner that each question aims at assessing a certain SLO or CO in the student. The questions which are descriptive can have multiple parts, such as (a), (b), etc., or a single conceptual or design question. In either case, each question or part of the question must aim at assessment of a specific outcome of the student, which requires a lot of participation and effort from the teacher concerned with the course. In the course SP, if the COs articulated by the faculty are CO1, CO2, and CO3 and the objectives are CEO1, CEO2, CEO3, and CEO4, it becomes essential that each question be mapped with some CEOs, and attainment of a particular CO or multiple COs should be carefully evaluated while examining the answer book of a candidate. So, in the course SP, the following observations were reported:

 Q10 was associated with CO3 and it was evaluated whether the student has developed this. This indicates the ability of applying a problem statement and the data given, and solving the problem accordingly. The CO3 was mapped with CEO1 and CEO2 and it was found that the extent of the correlation was 77% while mapping the CEO1 and CO3. For mapping between CEO2 and CO3, the situation was found to be somewhat bleak, namely at 54%.

 The objective questions Q3, Q6, and Q8 were mainly associated with CO1 for attaining some fundamental knowledge of signal processing. The objective questions were not direct or rote‐learning based but required lot of thinking and analysis. The students could answer these questions only if the course was fundamentally strong for the candidate. In addition, the mapping was estimated between CO1 and the related objectives CEO2. For questions Q3, Q6, and Q8, we observed the percentage of mapping as 34, 67, and 46% respectively for one candidate among 120 students. This indicates that the attainment for this student is satisfactory in Q6 but needs improvement for the other two questions.

 Similarly, we performed the analysis and mapping assessment for Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q7, and Q9 which are descriptive questions.