Average Review: 3 (3.3)

Classroom Activities and Outcomes Survey

Supplemental Information:

  • Classroom_Activities_and_Outcomes_Survey_part_3.doc (64.5 KB) download

Assessment Type:

self-assessment

Scale:

likert

Publication Date:

Oct 11, 1997

Respondent:

480 undergraduate students

Domain(s) Evaluated:

Engagement, Attitude

Sample items:

This section asks about the progress you believe you've made in a variety of areas as a result of taking this course. Using the scale below, please circle the number that best reflects how much progress you've made in each area.

1=None 2=Slight 3=Moderage 4=A Great Deal

Progress made, because of this course, in your:
a. Understanding of what engineers "do" in industry or as faculty members 1 2 3 4
b. Understanding of engineering as a field that often involves non-technical considerations (e.g., economic, political, ethical, and/or social issues). 1 2 3 4

Reliability:

.87-.93 for each subscale

Validity:

established

Frequency:

rarely

Administration time:

0 minutes

Requires a Computer:

No

Requires Internet Access:

No

Primary reference:

Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, C.L., Parente, J.M., & Bjorklund, S.A. (2001). Collaborative Learning vs. Lecture/Discussion: Students’ Reported Learning Gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), pp.123–130.

Comments:

The survey was originally developed by Patrick T. Terenzini,Carol L. Colbeck, Alberto F. Cabrera at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University. The measure was developed as part of the evaluation of the Engineering Coalition of Schools for Excellence in Education and Leadership (ECSEL Coalition).

Part three of the four-part “Classroom Activities and Outcomes Survey” is featured here. Part three contains 24 questions that ask students to quantify the amount of progress they made in learning skills related to engineering or general scientific inquiry as a result of participating in a specific course or program.

With some alteration, this survey could be adapted for use outside of engineering specific courses or programs. It is also suitable for the adult population in general.

STEM Criteria

Science

Yes

Technology

No

Engineering

Yes

Math

No
Contact

Patrick T. Terenzini
Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University
Email