IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/adf/journl/yid298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing education results evaluation system on the basis of CDIO standards

Author

Listed:
  • N. Ershova
  • K. Jarasov

Abstract

The article discusses the experience of higher education institution management from the perspective of improving the quality of the educational process through the formation of an integrated assessment system of learning outcomes. Being a case study, the article reveals the stages of designing the system on the example of master's program with major "Computer Science and Engineering", implemented at Petrozavodsk State University. The aim of the article is to describe the stages of designing a flexible system of educational process quality con­trol in particular of the learning outcomes assessment system that meets the basic requirements of the Federal State Educa­tion Standard (FSES). The methodological basis of this work is the set of standards of a worldwide CDIO initiative. Despite the standards' commitment to the reform of engineering edu­cation, it is shown that their criteria do not contradict the new generation requirements of the FSES for all majors and allow forbuilding a complete system of learning outcomes assessment based on self-evaluation of university educational programs by main stakeholders: students, teachers, employers, graduates. The process of designing the system of learning outcomes assessment inevitably raises some issues related to the lack of methodological recommendations and practical experience of the majority of teachers, complexity of the process and every­one's high responsibility for the result. There were some prob­lems with assessment tools of learning outcomes on the compe­tence approach in the implementation of educational programs (EP), with the assessment of learning outcomes during the na­tional accreditation and mechanisms of consideration of pub­lic and professional-public educational programs evaluation. According to the authors, it is necessary to develop recom­mendations for the compilation of local regulations for assess­ing the quality of educational programs in terms of common approaches to the definition of the stages of formation, proce­dures, indexes, forms and methods, the scale of evaluation of assessment tools complex. The article formulates practical recommendations on the description of the stages of designing the educational programs evaluation system: definition of evaluation objectives, evalu­ation criteria (indicators); presentation form of the results of achieving the objectives for the program as a whole, as well as for each of the disciplines of the curriculum; the choice of ef­fective methods of learning evaluation, corresponding to dif­ferent categories of educational outcomes. The article's practical results are shown on the example of learning outcomes assessment of educational program "Com­puter Science and Engineering" (Master). The value of this paper is a detailed description of experi­ence in the development and implementation of the learning outcomes assessment system, as well as of experience in man­aging such a system. The authors pay attention to the impor­tance of the annual self-evaluation of the university for the con­tinuous improvement of the educational process

Suggested Citation

  • N. Ershova & K. Jarasov, 0. "Managing education results evaluation system on the basis of CDIO standards," University Management: Practice and Analysis, Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»; Non-Commercial Partnership “University Management: Practice and, issue 5.
  • Handle: RePEc:adf:journl:y::id:298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.umj.ru/jour/article/viewFile/298/299
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:adf:journl:y::id:298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ð ÐµÐ´Ð°ÐºÑ†Ð¸Ñ (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.