A Group-based Multiple Assessment Strategy for Construction-related Subjects

Abstract

A review of the theory and literature on learning and assessment over the last thirty years indicates that group-based problem-solving assessment is suitable for construction-related subjects. Construction practices normally involve a multi-disciplinary team to complete a project under a range of constraints and it is contended that these simulations in assignments can train students to acquire real life knowledge and skills. Nonetheless, there has been a lack of research on how this assessment method should be undertaken effectively to motivate student learning, promoting learner autonomy and attainment of learning outcomes, especially under the constraints of limited resources. This research aims to develop an effective assessment framework for construction-related subjects. A theoretical assessment strategy framework was first established, which was then tested by qualitative case study methodology to see if it could explain the success in learning and assessment of a critical case. The research findings show that the theoretical group-based problem-solving assessment could not fully explain the successful assessment of the case. A Full Multiple Assessment Strategy should be applied, in which the group-based problem solving is supplemented by formative assessment at critical stages, guidance and marking by the same tutor, as well as simple and fair collaborative assessment. Such a framework forms the basis on which further research can build to develop effective assessment models for group-based problem-solving subjects in other fields.

Keywords:

• Assessment
• Formative Assessment
• Problem Based Learning
• Group Work

Introduction

Assessment plays a very important role in higher education. It improves the quality of student learning, promotes learner autonomy and enhances teaching approaches. It has two principal functions, namely, advising tutors whether or not learning has been successful, and providing students with feedback so that they can learn and improve their work (Biggs, 1999). Morgan et al. (2004) and Angelo (1999) further indicate the roles and purposes of assessment as follows:

• diagnosing student difficulties;

• measuring improvement over time;

• motivating students to study;

• encouraging tacit learning of disciplinary skills and conventions;

• judging mastery of essential skills and knowledge;

• evaluating the teaching methods.

Assessment is a complicated process requiring thoughtful planning, implementation and monitoring in order to achieve its purposes. Fundamentally the assessment should encourage independent student learning. Moreover, feedback should be provided by tutors and the peer group on such learning so that students can improve their performance (Bloch, 1977). A review of the theory and literature on learning and assessment in higher education over the last thirty years shows that group-based problem-solving assessment should be adopted for construction-related subjects like building, architecture design and civil engineering works (Miller et al., 1998; Morgan et al., 2004) because construction practices normally involve a multi-disciplinary team to complete a project under a range of constraints. It is contended that such kinds of simulation in assignments can train students to acquire real life knowledge and skills.

However, there has been a lack of research on how group-based problem-solving assessment should be undertaken effectively to motivate student learning, promoting learner autonomy and attainment of learning outcomes. Higher Education has undergone a dramatic change in the last thirty years. It has played a major role in a new way of creating knowledge, and now focuses on solving problems and is sensitive to customer needs. University lecturers are now expected to be good at both teaching and research, even with limited resources. Ramsden (2003) calls for developing a university teaching and assessment framework that strives for excellence in the new global higher education context. Miller et al. (1998) state that a mechanism will need to be evolved to ensure fair allocation of marks to individual students according to their contribution to the group. Heathfield (1999) identifies two key problems that need detailed investigation in order to ensure the effectiveness of assessment. These are student preparation for group work and the appropriate and fair allocation of marks for group-work assessed items.

As the number of students entering higher education expands, the size of cohort is continuously increasing (Ramsden, 2003). Teaching and assessment are now virtually team work rather than the task of an individual team member, so it is paramount to establish a reliable and valid assessment framework to cope with larger cohort sizes. This research aims to develop an effective assessment framework for construction-related subjects. The research findings are from a case study on assessment of a construction module at Anglia Ruskin University in the UK which encountered problems of inconsistency in marking between tutors and fair allocation of marks for individual members’ contribution to group work. The findings indicate that although the theoretical group-based problem-solving assessment is suitable for construction-related subjects, it cannot fully explain the success in assessment of the case, as shown by high motivation of students, high learner autonomy, achievement of the learning outcomes and high pass rate. The existing assessment theories should be improved and a Full Multiple Assessment Strategy be adopted, which comprises the following elements:

• group-based work;

• problem-solving on rich cases;

• formative assessment provided at critical stages and supported by transferable skills building;

• flexible assessment for students in diverse contexts;

• guidance and marking by the same tutor;

• simple and fair collaboration assessment.

Such a framework forms the basis to which further research can build to develop effective assessment models for group-based problem-solving subjects in other fields.

In the following section a theoretical assessment framework is developed through literature review in the context of building construction studies. Explanation for choosing case study research methodology and use of a single critical case at Anglia Ruskin University for testing the theoretical framework is given under Research Methodology. In the following Discussion section, the critical case is examined and its empirical results from the post hoc evaluation of assessment are compared with the theoretical framework. Based on the empirical evidence from the case, it is concluded that a full multiple assessment strategy should be adopted for supporting student learning and diversity.

Theoretical Background

A review of the existing learning and assessment theories and literature indicates that the following strategies are relevant to construction-related subjects.

Group-based assessment

The use of a group-based assessment strategy is adopted from time to time to promote learning from teamwork. Miller et al. (1998) and Garvin et al. (1995) argue that this approach can have the following advantages:

• Students gain experience of working in teams, which is likely to be the norm in their future employment.

• Each student can undertake independent, deeper research on a major area within a large and complex project. Students can discuss with and learn from other team members.

• Students find that group projects are more interesting, enjoyable and effective than other forms of learning.

Collier (1985) has investigated many cases and found that successful group work can lead to high motivation of students, as shown by greater learning satisfaction, an active search for information and wider reading in the field studied, a stronger sense of mutual obligation among members and a greater willingness of students to attend carefully to one another. He adds that higher order skills can be developed, as indicated by better capacity for applying concepts in new situations, a more critical approach to reading, a fuller appreciation of the rich variety of opinion and experience and a keener appreciation of the provisional nature of the current state of knowledge.

Because of these advantages, Miller et al. (1998) advocate that group project assignments can be applied to a wide range of subjects under the fields of social science and medicine. Designing and building a model of an architectural or engineering structure through team work is one of the examples highlighted. To ensure an effective group-based assessment, they suggest that an effective assignment project should possess the following characteristics:

• The problem to be solved should be related to real cases in the industry.

• The problem should be solved by a small team of students, which acts as a professional team for tackling a construction project. None of the team members possesses all the necessary knowledge and skills to solve the problem alone, so each one should collaborate with others and contribute to the solution.

• Learner autonomy should be fully promoted. Decisions regarding investigation methods and the respective tasks for each team member are the responsibility of the group rather than being decided by the tutor.

• The assessment must be valid and reliable, which is a main concern of both students and faculty. This is to address the problem of inconsistent marking between tutors, as pointed out by Miller et al. (1998). To ensure fair award of marks for individual team members’ contribution to the group work, Morgan et al. (2004) add that group marks should be carefully moderated by tutors.

Problem solving

It is very important that students should acquire problem solving skills because problems form the basis of everyday activity in the work place, especially professional practice (Morgan et al., 2004). Ryan (1996) lists a sequence of events in the problem solving process, as follows:

• Recognising that a problem exists;

• Understanding the nature of the problem and how it might be addressed;

• Developing a plan to address the problem;

• Acting upon the plan;

• Evaluating the outcome of the action — was the problem resolved?

• Reflecting upon the result — could it have been handled better? Could the problem have been avoided? Might the problem reoccur?

Heywood (2000) advocates that problem solving can develop knowledge through finding solutions for cases that involve a range of problems. It can provide a framework for interdisciplinary studies and thinking because the solutions to professional life’s problems require data from many knowledge areas. Problem solving can increase students’ autonomy and control over their own learning processes, i.e. what they have to study and how. So the role of tutors is mainly to provide feedback and guidance. Being a self-directed learner, problem solving can increase retention of knowledge and create interest in the subject matter and students then become highly motivated, as shown by the research of Norman and Schmidt (1992) who reviewed studies that had compared problem-based learning with conventional curricula.

Morgan et al. (2004) emphasise that when assessing problem solving, many of the conventional methods, including examination, are less appropriate. For an assessment task to have a high level of validity and authenticity, students should be engaged with applied ill-structured case studies and problems in an environment that replicates professional practice as closely as practical. Rich cases should be chosen for assessment because they contain many potential issues that students must order, prioritise and debate to reach a plan to address the problem. Tutors should look for the following evidence in the assessment:

• understanding of the problem;

• identifying what information is required;

• knowledge and concepts underpinning the problem;

• ability to generate ideas and workable solutions and to justify a choice of plan;

• evaluating the success or otherwise of the plan;

• evaluating the problem-solving strategy used;

• reflecting on own learning.

Morgan et al. (2004) review a number of cases and find that role-play can be successfully applied in engineering and nursing simulation. Such an approach can ensure deeper understanding of the variety of conflicting perspectives in professional practice. It also helps develop important micro-skills in problem solving such as recognising a plurality of perspectives, negotiating and decision making. Marking criteria should be tailor made to ensure these micro-skills are fully assessed in terms of discussion, role-play outcome and individual student reflection. As reviewed by Morgan et al. (2004), in an engineering case project involving financial, ecological, social and political issues, the students were engaged with different roles in a multi-disciplinary team to work collaboratively at all stages of a project, including briefing, interactive discussion and presentation forum. At the end, a reflection de-debriefing was arranged for students to discuss what they had learnt on the process. Assessment was taken on the interactive discussion and presentation forum stages as well as the de-briefing essay. In another case on nursing practice, it was found that collaboration in problem solving could bring a richer array of ideas and resources to the table where students could argue their cases. Such an approach is particularly relevant for complex situations like the construction process, where compromise is needed to resolve many conflicting issues. Under these circumstances, group work and problem solving should be used in tandem to ensure effective assessment.

Woods et al. (1997) set out to develop problem solving skills for engineering students. They found that students could not solve problems when the context was slightly changed because they relied on sample solutions. Woods el al. (1997) suggest that it is desirable that students should develop subject-independent transferable skills that are fundamental in helping them obtain the best solution to a task subject to some constraints. These are related to basic study skills, self and time management, interpersonal and group communication skills, skills for self assessment, change management, lifelong learning skills and solving well or ill defined problems. These skills should be developed progressively throughout university study. Students acquiring the transferable skills were found to be more confident in problem-solving assessment. Clearly transferable skills are necessary to professional practice as specific knowledge becomes rapidly outdated (Heathfield, 1999) and construction professionals need such skills to communicate and negotiate with other interdisciplinary team members to develop suitable solutions for problems in various contexts.

Formative assessment

The concept of formative assessment is to provide continuous feedback information and comments to learners about their achievement on a task with an aim to improve their learning and performance. Black et al. (2003) point out that formative assessment is not a strong feature in classroom work and therefore undertook a research project to develop good practices, with participation of 36 science, mathematics and English teachers. The results showed that formative practice can be improved in the following ways:

• Students should be encouraged to have frank discussion with teachers to set questions and assessment criteria, the reason being to help them understand the assessment process, plan their work and to focus further effort for improvement.

• Students should be encouraged, through peer and self assessment, to apply criteria to understand how their work might be improved. Through habits and skills of collaboration in peer-assessment, students can develop the objectivity required for effective self assessment, which gives them both a concept of what quality means in specific context and also the motivation to seek improvement.

• Tutors should be fully involved in the process of formative assessment by giving comments and asking open questions for students to follow up. Comments should identify what has been achieved well and what still needs improvement, and give guidance on how to make that improvement. To achieve this, feedback sessions should be held where tutors meet students to discuss their research plan and proposed solutions for the problems.

• Students should be encouraged to do a reflective review of their work so that they can plan their future work effectively.

Rafiq and Fullerton (1996) strongly advocate that peer and self assessment should be used for civil engineering projects in which members are required to make continuous assessments of each stage in their own contributions to a project and the work of other team members. For construction projects, every member of the team monitors, discusses, assesses and criticises the activities of the others throughout all stages of the design process. This is how a real life project develops from initial thoughts and ideas. Formative assessment allows peer and self assessment, and is therefore particularly relevant to construction-related task subjects.

Flexible assessment

There are a wide range of flexible learning options available to students these days, hence a more diverse group of students can now undertake tertiary study whilst having work and family responsibilities (Morgan et al., 2004). This is true for construction-related courses where there are a large number of part-time students seeking higher education to enhance their professional knowledge and skills and to acquire the academic qualification as required by professional bodies for membership.

The group is even more diverse when disabled students are taken into consideration. Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA, 2001), universities in the UK are required to make “reasonable adjustments” in their policies and practices to facilitate the needs of disabled students. The Act requires that additional support should be made to help them attain the standards prescribed by the course. The Quality Assurance Association (QAA) Code of Practice for students with disabilities recommends that support should be focused on study, assessment and examination practices so that their academic progress is not impeded, and that their learning experience is comparable to their peers (QAA, 1999).

Hence, there is always a need for flexible and special arrangements for teaching and assessment to be made to accommodate various students’ functional and physical differences to ensure learning equity (Evans, 1994). To ensure inclusive assessment, Morgan et al. (2004) point out that the following checkpoints should be considered:

• The assessment challenges should be reasonable for all of the students.

• The assessment should allow flexible venues and times to suit the students’ circumstances, especially submission deadline for part-time students.

• There should be an appropriate amount of formative assessment to meet the needs of different level of achievement and abilities. For example, more guidance support from tutors should be provided to assist disabled students with hearing and visual disabilities. Disability awareness training about equal opportunity should be provided to all students to ensure peer and self assessment are effectively conducted.

• Students should be able to bring their own background and experiences to bear on the assessment task. Part-time students should be allowed to use the cases in their own professional practice for problem-solving assignment. This flexibility is particularly suitable to the part-time students working in construction industry. International students should be given opportunities to bring the good practices of their own country to enrich the research.

Consistent and fair marking

As the number of people entering higher education expands, the programme cohorts and class sizes increase quite substantially. Teaching and assessment are now virtually team work rather than individual effort. Consequently valid and reliable assessment becomes difficult to achieve when the tutors are faced with larger class sizes but with fewer resources. This means that they have to be creative and come up with effective alternative assessment and marking practices.

To ensure consistency in marking, Morgan et al. (2004) suggest that marking criteria and grading standards should be made clear and explicit to all those marking common assessment items. Moderation in marking is also useful for ensuring consistency. Markers can compare their grading practices and identify their implicit values in assessing students. With these provisions, disputes and complaints from students have been reduced but problems still come up from time to time because of different interpretations of values in marking.

Following the concerns of his students on assessment of group projects in a social studies programme, Heathfield (1999) identified two key problems that need attention, namely, fair allocation of grades for group work assessed items, and student preparation for group work (learning transferable skills). For fair allocation of marks, Heathfield suggests that the mark for assignments should be adjusted for individual members according to their contribution to the group. The group should undertake the peer assessment themselves, using five indicators to measure contributions. These include regular attendance at group meetings, contribution of ideas for the task, reading and researching material for the task, organising and analysing the material, as well as practical contribution to the end product. Earl (1986) took another approach in assessing a group of students studying mathematical modelling. Each team received a ‘Base Mark’ for each member of the team, which was used to measure the quality of its mathematical modelling. ‘Peer Marks’, equal in weighting to Base Marks in group activity, were submitted by each student in the group for all other members according to their contribution. However, there were no precise criteria for assessing the contribution of their peers. A similar approach was adopted by Rafiq and Fullerton (1996) for assessing their civil engineering students and the peer mark was assessed based on the student’s contribution to the group discussion and decision making.

Despite these approaches, which aimed to allocate fair marks to individuals, there are bound to be some disputes amongst team members on their own contribution in the peer assessment process.

Summary

The review indicates that the following theoretical assessment strategy framework should be suitable for construction-related subjects:

• group work;

• problem solving;

• formative assessment;

• flexible assessment;

• consistent marking between multiple markers;

• fair allocation of marks based on individuals’ contribution.

Research Methodology

This research aims to develop an effective assessment framework for construction-related subjects. Descriptive case study methodology was used to test the theoretical framework developed in the previous section. Fellows and Liu (2003) and Yin (2003) both state that case study research can be used to investigate phenomena within real context and can therefore draw rich conclusions. A single case of the Department of the Built Environment at Anglia Ruskin University in the UK was examined. Yin (2003) points out that the single-case designs can be used to generalise findings to theory. The theory can then become a vehicle for examining other cases. Consequently, the single-case approach can make significant contribution to knowledge and theory building. One rationale for a single case is when it represents the ‘critical case’ in testing a well-formulated theory. The theory has a clear set of propositions and conditions within which the propositions apply. A critical case refers to the one which may meet all of the conditions for testing the theory. The department in this study represents a critical case for testing the theoretical assessment framework for two reasons. First, it runs traditional construction-related courses in surveying, architecture, civil engineering, construction management, and housing fields. Second, all these professional courses focus on understanding and application of theories and principles to tackle practical issues and problems in different contexts and situations, thus providing a condition for testing the theoretical assessment framework which is based on group work and problem solving. An advanced construction module related to framed buildings, which was run in Semester 2 of 2005/06, was chosen for this study because it was taught across all the multi-disciplinary fields, and the key learning outcome was to apply the fundamental design, construction and environmental science knowledge to solve problems in the complex built environment. This learning outcome is common to construction-related subjects.

To achieve the key learning outcome and to promote learner autonomy, the module assignment therefore required the students to form multi-disciplinary teams to design and propose an environmentally friendly office under certain site and legislative constraints as well as specific client requirements. Evaluation of this group-based problem-solving assessment was undertaken by informal interviews with all of the student groups and by seeking feedback from the external examiners to find out if the assessment was successful and effective and why. The empirical results in the assessment of the module were compared with the theoretical framework so as to verify whether it is valid or needs to be improved.

Discussion of the Case Study

Context and assessment strategy

The construction module was run in Semester 2 between January and May 2006 for a large cohort of 206 students studying graduate diploma, degree and higher national diploma courses in architecture, engineering, surveying and construction management. There were only three members of multi-disciplinary staff (an architect, a building surveyor and a building services engineer) and twelve teaching weeks. Despite these constraints, a number of learning outcomes needed to be achieved as follows:

• Explain how typical medium to high rise framed buildings are constructed to resist the external elements and accommodate their intended purposes.

• Describe both the functions and performance of typical materials and components during construction and use, and their energy and environmental implications.

• Describe how the site constraints, soil conditions and previous use are investigated, and how these factors may influence design and construction.

• Be able to communicate and collaborate with team members, and apply the knowledge of design, construction and environmental science to produce well founded proposals.

• Apply report writing skills to present recommendations to clients clearly and precisely.

As the learning outcomes are related to practical knowledge and skills necessary for construction projects, a group-based problem-solving assessment was set to ask the students to design and construct a prestigious but environmentally friendly office block on a site with a number of technical constraints. Role-play was used to enhance the effects of group work. Each student acted as an architect, a building services engineer or a structural engineer, and undertook an individual specific task on building, environmental or structural design, thus simulating the multi-disciplinary team in real life practice. As discussed in the section on ‘Theoretical Background’, this multiple assessment strategy based on group work, problem solving and role-play is fully advocated by Morgan et al. (2004). Such a strategy can enable students to have a deeper understanding of the variety of conflicting perspectives in professional life. Students also develop important micro-skills in problem solving, such as recognising a plurality of perspectives, negotiating and decision making. The strategy is confirmed by Heywood (2000) as promoting interdisciplinary studies and thinking as well as learner autonomy.

The key to success for problem-solving assessment, as stated by Morgan et al. (2004), is to provide teaching to support the development of the transferable micro-skills in an incremental way. In the Year 1 study skills module, basic study skills, time management, interpersonal and group communication, self and peer assessment, change management and lifelong learning skills were introduced. The teaching team further developed these micro-skills in the context of construction projects in this Year 2 module. Students were taught the importance of an interdisciplinary approach for construction projects, team communication and problem-solving skills for well or ill defined tasks.

The assignment was a formative assessment. Students were required to attend formative feedback sessions run by the teaching team members, undertake their own peer and self assessment, and submit a final written report for marking and grading their overall performance. Because there were 206 students (51 groups) in the cohort but only three tutors available, students were encouraged to collaborate as a team and to have their own peer and self assessment based on a set of open and clear assessment criteria given in the marking scheme. Peer and self assessment were considered to be essential for multi-disciplinary engineering courses by Rafiq and Fullerton (1996). Because of the tight resources and teaching time, feedback and guidance were provided by the tutors at the critical stages of the design process, i.e. briefing, sketch design and detailed design in Weeks 1, 4 and 8 of the 12 week semester. In the guidance sessions, each group discussed their progress, proposals and problems encountered with the tutors. Comments were given on what had been done well and what still needed improvement, and guidance was given on how to make that improvement. This gave opportunities for the students to follow up comments and revise their plan for the learning process. No formal marks were provided to the students. As revealed in the research project to improve formative practice conducted by Black et al. (2003), constructive comments are far more valuable to student learning than feedback by marking because students can focus on their strengths and weaknesses to improve their performance rather than comparing their marks with others.

This cohort was large and had a diverse mixture of full-time, part-time, international and disabled students. Flexible teaching and assessment were designed to accommodate their backgrounds and needs, especially to comply with the Special Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA, 2001), which requires the universities in the UK to make “reasonable adjustments” in their policies and practices to facilitate the needs of disabled students. The assignment was handed out in Week 1 and students were required to hand in their assignment in Week 12, the last week of the semester. This provided the students with maximum time for individual research, group discussion and preparation of the final report. The arrangement was particularly helpful to the part-time students who had job and family responsibilities. The guidance and feedback sessions in Weeks 1, 4 and 8 also provided opportunities to facilitate peer assessment for these part-time students who might not have time to meet others. There was one disabled student with hearing and visual difficulties. To accommodate his learning needs, a helper from the student services office was arranged to attend lectures along with him so that he could follow the theories underpinning the assignment task. The helper also attended the feedback and guidance sessions, and proof read his work.

Morgan et al. (2004) suggest that students should be able to bring in their own cases to promote learner autonomy and to enrich research work. Part-time students can use cases in their own professional practice for problem-solving assignments. International students are valuable to bring in overseas cases showing international perspectives. The scenario for this assignment was carefully set by the teaching team in order that the essential interdisciplinary tasks for a typical building construction project were well covered. Owing to the constraints of limited teaching time and a large cohort, students were not encouraged to use their own cases for the assignment because such an option required additional time to check and make sure that the proposed case was suitable to produce all the necessary learning outcomes, which was not allowed by the assignment timeframe.

Key issues

Inconsistent marking between tutors was a key issue raised by the students and the external examiners in the previous academic year 2004/05. The problems involved were inconsistent marking between markers and that the advice given by one tutor did not match the view of the actual marker. It is likely that they were due to different interpretation of values in marking by various markers. Special attention was recommended by the external examiners to improve the marking system. Although marking criteria and grading standards could be made clear and explicit to the markers, problems might still come up because of the inevitable different interpretation of values in marking. To tackle this problem, it was arranged by the module leader that individual teaching team members became responsible for lecturing, tutoring and marking their related interdisciplinary task in the assignment. In other words, guidance and marking were provided by the same tutor.

In this assessment, individual and group marks were given to each student to measure his/her research effort and collaborative contribution to the group. The weightings were 75/25 respectively. As discussed in the section on ‘Theoretical Background’, Heathfield (1999), Earl (1986) and Rafiq and Fullerton (1996) suggest that a fair mark should be awarded to individual students according to their contribution to the group work. Nonetheless, it is suggested that the mark allocation should be conducted by peer assessment, there are bound to be some disputes amongst team members on their own contribution. Consequently, it was decided that an equal group mark be given to all members to reward the collaborative team effort. To avoid the ‘free-rider’ problem, all teams were encouraged to work collaboratively in order to achieve the benefits of group work. Team members were required to undertake their research vigorously and to discuss with their own group to work out the final proposals. The executive summary, discussion and conclusion sections of the final report were prepared by the whole group. This collaboration assessment was simple and fair so became readily acceptable to all groups. Only two free-riders were reported at the early stage of the assignment. The tutors took immediate action to remind them the rationale and advantages of the group-based project. The groups involved were asked to take minutes of their progress meetings, and with the help from tutors, they could monitor the input of individual team members effectively. Thereafter, all team members made an effort towards the group task and the free-rider problem was resolved.

Evaluation of the assessment strategy

Evaluation of the assessment strategy of this module was obtained by the module leader from a series of informal interviews with each of the 51 student groups and feedback from four external examiners. The evaluation results are summarised as follows:

• The students found that the group-based problem-solving assignment was challenging to their critical thinking on conflicting issues in the real case scenario. They enjoyed learner autonomy and could plan to develop solutions amongst themselves through discussion and negotiation. Thus they were highly motivated. This deep learning process enabled them to retain the knowledge and skills learnt, as confirmed by all of the student groups.

• Peer and self assessment supplemented by tutor feedback sessions at the critical stages were particularly useful in the formative assessment process because the students had sufficient opportunities to understand their strengths and weaknesses and to focus on improving their performance.

• Arranging individual teaching team members for lecturing, tutoring and marking their related interdisciplinary task in the assignment was found to be effective in ensuring consistent feedback and marking by all of the student groups and the external examiners.

• The approach of providing group and individual marks was appropriate to measure individual and group efforts. Allocation of an equal group mark to all team members based on collaboration was said to be simple, fair and acceptable.

• The external examiners were impressed by the quality of work and commended the high pass rate of 92%. Both the students and the external examiners found that the marking system had been greatly improved and were very pleased that the inconsistency problems in marking and guidance were resolved.

• Despite the positive feedback, the students suggested that they should be given the flexibility to use their own cases for the assignment provided it could enable them to achieve all the learning outcomes. This could enable them to bring their work experience in the construction process to enrich learning amongst students.

• Students sometimes did not attend the formative guidance sessions because they were not compulsory. Morgan et al. (2004) suggest that one way to make formative assessment count is simply to make it compulsory. In fact, compulsory formative assessment was incorporated in another similar project-based building construction module at Final Year level where students were required to attend all feedback sessions and to take discussion minutes for submission in their final report for assessment. Consequently the passing rate could achieve 100%.

Judging from this positive feedback, the multiple assessment strategies for this module can be said to be successful and effective in promoting learner autonomy, motivating students and achieving learning outcomes. All of the student groups confirmed that they enjoyed the self-directed learning and could apply communication and team work skills to solve the problem. They also acquired the fundamental knowledge of framed buildings and sustainable design as well as report writing skills, as illustrated by their well founded design proposals and precise reports. The external examiners were all very pleased with the results, having a pass rate of 92%, a decile range of marks between 51–75 and a median mark of 63.

The theoretical assessment framework established in the previous section is appropriate but cannot fully explain the successful post hoc evaluation of this building construction module taught under limited teaching staff and time. An effective formative practice should be based on peer and self assessment supplemented by tutor feedback given at critical stages. Lectures should include an element of transferable skills so that students can learn to apply the skills of analysing different perspectives, negotiating and decision making in the context of interdisciplinary problem solving in construction practice. Disabled students should be provided with intensive assistance for lectures, assignment feedback and written submission. Consistent marking should be effectively achieved by using the same tutor for guidance and marking the related task in the assignment, as agreed by all of the student groups and the external examiners. Individual and group marks should be awarded to encourage individual research effort and collaboration for group work. An equal mark for all team members in respect of collaboration assessment is simple, fair and acceptable to students. As such, this approach is more effective and efficient for assessing group marks. Further steps for enhancing this multiple assessment strategy include allowing students to use their own cases for problem-solving assignments so that they can bring in their experience and skills to share with others, and to make the formative assessment compulsory, whether graded or ungraded.

Based on this experience, the study found that student learning and diversity can be well supported by a multiple assessment strategy using group-based problem-solving assignment projects.

Conclusions

Because the learning outcomes of construction-related subjects are usually related to the practical knowledge and skills required for construction projects, there is a strong argument that their assessment should be based on a group-based problem-solving assignment rather than traditional examination. The case study demonstrates that the existing assessment theories should be improved to suit construction-related subjects. A Full Multiple Assessment Strategy should be adopted, which can achieve the objectives of student motivation, learning autonomy and learning outcomes. This strategy comprises the following elements:

• group-based work;

• problem-solving based on rich cases and supported by transferable skills;

• formative assessment provided at critical stages;

• flexible assessment for students in diverse contexts;

• guidance and marking by the same tutor;

• simple and fair collaboration assessment.

Formative assessment should be adopted to provide regular feedback to improve student learning, based on peer and self assessment by students themselves and supplemented by tutor guidance provided at the critical stages of briefing, sketch design and detailed design. Given the constraint of tight resources faced in higher education nowadays, this strategy allows tutors to provide students with sufficient feedback. Compulsory formative assessment can be adopted to ensure students attend all feedback sessions to make the most of formative assessment. This can be achieved by asking them to record discussion results and take minutes for submission in their final report for assessment.

The Full Multiple Assessment Framework was developed from the empirical results of the critical case at Anglia Ruskin University. It is not the intention of this study to form a universal assessment framework for construction-related subjects in all other institutions. It is recommended that before the framework is implemented in other institutions, it should be refined by examining the strengths and weaknesses of the existing assessment system using the qualitative case study approach adopted by this research.

The Full Multiple Assessment Framework can also form the basis on which further research can build to develop effective assessment models for group-based problem-solving subjects in other fields like social science and medicine. To develop an effective assessment framework for professional courses, key research questions should cover the existing assessment strategy and its context, key issues and problems encountered, feedback from students and external examiners, and adaptation of the group-based multiple assessment framework to suit a specific context.