首页> 外文学位 >Known-Groups Validity and Generalizability of a Measure of Engineering Design.
【24h】

Known-Groups Validity and Generalizability of a Measure of Engineering Design.

机译:工程设计度量的已知群体有效性和可概括性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Numerous reports have increased national awareness of the need to improve K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in order to meet the needs of our increasingly technological workforce (e.g., Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014; National Academy of Science, 2007; The President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, 2010). Engaging Youth through Engineering (EYE) modules were developed to increase interest and proficiency in STEM fields in middle schools in Mobile, Alabama (Harlan, Pruet, Van Haneghan, & Dean, 2014). The modules covered relevant engineering design challenges integrated into existing science and mathematics curricula and focused on the engineering design process. Initial results were promising and showed that the EYE program was affecting students' engineering design performance and attitudes in some areas, when compared to a control group (Harlan, Van Haneghan, Dean, & Pruet, 2015). However, the assessment instruments for used measuring engineering design performance require further validity and reliability research before researchers can be confident in their interpretations based on assessment data. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of three engineering design performance assessments developed for the EYE initiative.;Known-groups validity was tested by comparing engineering design scores from a middle school data set, collected by Harlan et al. (2015), with scores from two groups of college students (i.e., college freshmen with little to no engineering experience and senior engineering students). As expected, senior engineering students had better engineering design performance than the other groups (measured by the engineering design assessments developed for the EYE program). However, the assessment instruments used to measure engineering design performance yielded inconsistent results when comparing the groups with less engineering experience. There were also inconsistencies in group differences when comparing scores on four dimensions of engineering design (i.e., depth and breadth of thinking, teams and expertise, critical evaluation of a design, and use of data and research).;A generalizability analysis was used to evaluate the reliability of the three assessment instruments completed by the college students. When considering total performance scores, there was enough generalizability across people, independent of rater and form, to suggest the instruments measured a general underlying engineering design construct. Generalizability coefficients were lower and inconsistent when considering each engineering dimension individually. Overall, the data suggest that total scores from the three engineering design assessments yield reliable results but have weak to moderate validity. Recommendations for future research are discusses including revisions to the assessments and scoring criteria to increase reliability for engineering dimensions, conducting a generalizability study with middle school students, and testing the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments with additional populations.
机译:为了满足我们日益发展的技术劳动力的需求,许多报告已经提高了国家对改善科学,技术,工程和数学(STEM)的K-12教育的需求的认识(例如,Honey,Pearson和Schweingruber,2014年;美国国家科学院,2007年;美国总统科学技术顾问委员会,2010年。开发了“通过工程吸引青年”(EYE)模块,以提高阿拉巴马州莫比尔的中学对STEM领域的兴趣和熟练程度(Harlan,Pruet,Van Haneghan和Dean,2014年)。这些模块涵盖了已集成到现有科学和数学课程中的相关工程设计挑战,并侧重于工程设计过程。初步结果令人鼓舞,并表明,与对照组相比,EYE计划在某些领域影响学生的工程设计性能和态度(Harlan,Van Haneghan,Dean和Pruet,2015)。但是,在使研究人员对基于评估数据的解释充满信心之前,用于测量工程设计性能的评估工具需要进一步的有效性和可靠性研究。这项研究的目的是评估针对EYE计划开发的三个工程设计性能评估的心理计量学特性。通过比较中学数据集(Harlan等人)收集的工程设计得分,测试了已知群体的有效性。 (2015年),分为两组大学生(即,几乎没有工程经验或没有工程经验的大学新生和高级工程学学生)的分数。不出所料,高级工程专业的学生在工程设计方面的表现要优于其他组(通过针对EYE计划开发的工程设计评估来衡量)。但是,在比较具有较少工程经验的小组时,用于测量工程设计性能的评估工具得出的结果不一致。在比较工程设计的四个维度(即,思想的深度和广度,团队和专业知识,对设计的批判性评估以及数据和研究的使用)时,小组差异也存在不一致之处。评估大学生完成的三种评估工具的可靠性。当考虑总体性能得分时,在人与人之间有足够的通用性,而与评估者和形式无关,这表明这些工具衡量的是总体上基础工程设计的结构。单独考虑每个工程尺寸时,可推广性系数较低且不一致。总体而言,数据表明,来自三个工程设计评估的总分得出可靠的结果,但具有弱到中等的有效性。讨论了有关未来研究的建议,包括对评估和评分标准的修订,以提高工程尺寸的可靠性,与中学生进行普遍性研究,并在其他人群中测试评估工具的心理计量学特性。

著录项

  • 作者

    Hibberts, Mary F.;

  • 作者单位

    University of South Alabama.;

  • 授予单位 University of South Alabama.;
  • 学科 Instructional design.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2017
  • 页码 118 p.
  • 总页数 118
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 药物化学;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:38:45

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号