The Wiley Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education Learning and Teaching. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ

       Human capacity and demography (Franco et al. 2019): This is related to the development of human capital and associated demography with elated human resources.

       Consumption and production (UNESCO 2019): This is directly associated with the economy and also indirectly impacts the area of education.

       Decarburization and energy (Coughlan 2011): The impact of OBE also lies in responsibility toward nature by utilizing energy optimally.

       Food, biosphere, and water (Marshall and Oxfam Education 2019).

       Smart cities (Carminati et al. 2021) (Ullo and Sinha 2021).

       Digital revolution (UNESCO 2016).

      All the above domains are correlated with SDG 4 one way or another because education and its transformation affect all the above sectors of growth and sustainability. Human capacity and human resources at the top of the list are the most precious resource that governs all other domains because the enhanced human capital will add to every other domain of the transformation listed in the TWI2050.

      3.2.3 Question Level Mapping with CEOs and COs

      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.

      3.2.4 Topic Level Mapping

      As we know, each program has a number of courses and each course has a set of topics that are covered during the conduction of semester. So, when we discuss CEOs and COs, we should also reach up to the topic level for mapping; this would strengthen the mapping outcome and assessment of SLOs in the students. For example, the course ECE 4X09 has the following objectives:

       To understand basics of signals and systems (CEO1).

       To interpret the working of system and its characteristics (CEO2).

       To enumerate the examples of practical systems and their elementary processing (CEO3).

      The same course has following learning outcomes to be attained at the completion of the course:

       The students will be able to define and identify various types of signals and systems (CO1).

       Students will be able to explain the real‐time applications of various systems (CO2).

       Students will be able to simulate the signals and design typical systems for real‐time applications.

      The next stage is mapping between objectives and outcomes, and the COs can be realized in all the course topics, especially in the way the topics are handled during delivery of course. The major topics or the course are definition, types, and classification of signals and systems; elementary signals; representation of signals; definition and characteristics of systems; signal processing using ordinary filters; transforms used in signal processing. If these topics are mapped into any of COs, that would be the best possible scenario for attainment of learning outcomes in the students. There might be more ways to evaluate SLOs in addition to those we have discussed in previous sections and used in our case studies. For example, homework, research projects, essays, report writing, case study analysis, independent study, and other verbal quizzes.

3.3 Current Research on OBE

We explored the amount of research contributions in recent years in the area of OBE, SLOs, and sustainable goals in higher education. These contributions include research papers, articles, patents, and others. We have attempted to find out the research impact in these research fields, exploring some important databases, namely Google Scholar, Science Direct, ACM Digital Library, and Wiley Library. Our findings are summarized in Table 3.4, where it is very clear that the research impact in OBE in general is higher than that of SLOs. While investigating the amount of research, we observed that generalized theories and significance are much researched, in comparison with the actual assessment tools and their impact, especially in the areas of SLOs. Overall, research activities in a focused manner, need to be much strengthened.

Table 3.4 Research impact in OBE (last five years).

Research area	Number of research contributions
Google Scholar	Science Direct	ACM Digital Library	Wiley Library
Outcome‐based education (OBE)	901 000	191 213	152 932	142 247
Assessment СКАЧАТЬ В начало < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 > В конец