Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyse the feasibility of an evidential reasoning (ER) method for portfolio assessments and comparison of the results found with those based on a traditional holistic judgement. An ER approach has been incorporated into portfolio assessment of an undergraduate engineering design course delivered as a project-based learning (PBL) course and the calculated utility interval means of the student results compared with weighted rubric means based on a traditional holistic judgement. The findings show the ER method superior to the traditional holistic judgement in that ER is capable of incorporating, firstly, assessors' ignorance of information concerning the portfolio development and content and, secondly, incomplete portfolio information. The ER approach is a commendable alternative to traditional holistic judgement of PBL portfolios, since it provides additional information, increases accuracy and is easier to use.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Dr Fae Martin and Dr Justin Hyde, Central Queensland University, Australia, in developing the mentioned ‘Engineering Design and Management’ course.
About the authors
Martin Jaeger holds a PhD in Civil Engineering (Construction Economy and Management) from the University of Wuppertal, Germany. He spent the last 16 years working as site manager, consultant, and lecturer in Germany and the Middle East, is a University Associate with the University of Tasmania, Australia, and a Senior Lecturer at the Australian College of Kuwait.
Desmond Adair holds a PhD in Aerodynamics from Imperial College. He spent a number of years working as a Senior Research Engineer with NASA in California and NPL in Teddington, England. Dr Adair has also worked for British Aerospace and the UAE Defence Forces in senior education positions and before his present position as Associate Professor with Nazarbayev University, he was a Senior Lecturer and University Associate with the University of Tasmania, Australia.