Cognitive Domain Performance for Non-Laboratory Embedded and Laboratory Embedded Course

Rohaya Alias, Noraida Mohd Saim, Nur Asmaliza Mohd Noor, Siti Hawa Rosli

Abstract


This paper describes the students’ performance in terms of the cognitive domain for non-laboratory embedded courses and laboratory embedded courses. The study sample consisted of the students enrolled in the non-laboratory embedded courses (Hydraulics and Soil Mechanics) and laboratory embedded courses (Basic Hydraulics and Basic Soil Mechanics) for Diploma in Civil Engineering programme. The cognitive assessment based on the level of cognitive of Bloom's Taxonomy which composes of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Methods of cognitive assessment for non-laboratory embedded courses differ from laboratory embedded courses. The cognitive assessment for non-laboratory embedded courses comes from 60% of the final exam, 30% of the test, and 10% of the assignment. Meanwhile, the cognitive assessment for laboratory embedded course is only through 60% of the final exam. The other evaluations for this course are 30% of practical tests (psychomotor domain) and 10% of laboratory observation (affective domain). Since the assessment methods are different, this study was carried out to evaluate the students' performance on the cognitive domain for both courses. The percentage of students’ marks in the coursework and final exam were analysed using a descriptive statistic to measure the students’ performance. The results revealed that the students who through non-laboratory embedded-courses scored a good result in final examination compared to laboratory embedded-courses. Hence, the findings of this study might help educators identifying the reliable and effective assessment method to improve the achievement of learning outcomes.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.4.13


Keywords


assessment; cognitive domain; descriptive statistic; students’ marks; students’ performance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ajumunisha, A. B. A., & Tholappan, A. (2018). Psychomotor domain of bloom’s taxonomy in teacher education. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 6(3), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1299766

Anaf, Y. S., & Yamin, S. B. (2014). Difference and similarity of continuous assessment in Malaysian and Nigerian universities. Journal Education Practice, 5(1), 73-82.

Antoni, P., Fermin, S. C., Nuria, S., & David, L. (2019). Cooperative learning and embedded active learning methodologies for improving students’ motivation and academic results. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(6A), 1-8.

Barkley, A. (2006). The determinants of college student performance: The role of the assessment method. Paper presented at the WAEA annual meeting, Alaska, USA.

Bednar, A., & Levie, W. H. (1993). Attitude-change principles. In M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioural and cognitive sciences (pp. 283-304). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Board of Engineer Malaysia (BEM). (2019). Engineering Technology Accreditation Council Manual 2019. Retrieved from: http://bem.org.my/engineering-technology-accreditation-council

Brown, G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. Routledge. New York: USA.

Burns, J., & Bracey, P. (2001). Boys’ underachievement: Issue, challenges and possibilities wats forward. Westminster Studies in Education, 24(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140672010240206

Clark, M. A., Oakley, E., & Adam, H. (2006). The gender achievement gap challenge. ASASchool Counselor, 43(3), 20-25.

Cho, J., & Baek, W. (2019). Identifying factors affecting the quality of the teaching in basic science education: Physics, biological, sciences, mathematics, chemistry. Sustainability, 11(3958), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11143958

Cho, D., & Cho, J. (2017). Does more accurate knowledge of course grade impact teaching evaluation?. Education Finance Policy, 12, 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00197

Chung, B. M. (1994). The taxonomy in the republic of Korea. In Anderson, L. W., and Sosiak, L. A. (Eds), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective, Ninety-third yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 363–173). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Finn, A. S., Kraft, M. A., West, M. R., Leonard, J. A., Bish, C. E., Martin, R. E., Sheridan, M. A., Gabrieli, C. F. O., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2014). Cognitive skills, student achievement test and schools. Psychological Science, 25(3), 736-744. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797613516008

Gowrishankar, K., Mritha, R., & Elanchezian, C. (2014). Assessment of learning domains to improve student’s learning in higher education. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 6(4), 27-33.

Gregory, A. D. L. (2019). Academic performance and assessment. Educational Psychology, 39(6), 705-708. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01443410.2019.1625522

Hairuddin, H., Abdul Wafi, A. R., Noorazman, A. S., Siti Noor Fazelah, M. N., & Adibah Aishah, M. S. (2018). The effectiveness of cognitive and psychomotor domain of culinary art students’ performance after internship in private colleges. MATEC Web of Conferences 150 (05021), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815005021

Hassan, O. A. B. (2011). Learning theories and assessment of methodologies-an engineering educational perspective. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4), 327â€339. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.591486

Jones, B., Ruff, C., & Parett, M. (2013). The impact of engineering identification and stereotypes on undergraduate women’s achievement and persistence in engineering. Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 471-493.

Joscha, L., & Thomas, A. D. (2012). School context and the gender gap in educational achievement. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 463-485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412440802

Kasilingan, G., Ramalingam, M., & Chinnavan, E. (2014). Assessing the learning domain to improve student's learning in higher education. Journal of Young Pharmacist, 6(4), 27-33.

Lewy, A., & Bathory, Z. (1994). The taxonomy of educational objectives and continental Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. In Anderson, L. W., and Sosiak, L. A (Eds), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective, ninety-third yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 146–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MOE. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025, Preschool to post-secondary education. Retrieved from: https://www.moe.gov.my/menumedia/mediacetak/penerbitan/dasar/1207-malaysia-education-blueprint-2013-2025/file

Muniapan, B. (2007). Issue and Challenges of Management Education in Malaysia. Working Paper, Curtin University of Technology, 1-12. Retrieved from: http://eprints.um.edu.my/31/1/balakrishnan.pdf

Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C., Cavallo, D., Machover, T, Resnick, M., Roy, D., & Strohecker, C. (2004). Affective learning-a manifesto. B T Technology Journal, 22(4), 253-269. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:bttj.0000047603.37042.33

Postlethwaite, T. N. (1994). Validity vs utility: Personal experiences with the taxonomy. In Anderson, L. W., and Sosiak, L. A (Eds), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective, ninety-third yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 174-180). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sacristán-Díaz, M., Garrido-Vega, P., Alfalla-Luque, R., & María-del-Mar, G. Z. (2016). The effects of teaching and assessment methods on academic performance: a study of an Operations Management course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(5), 497-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1008546

Schuijers, J. A., McDonald, S. J., Julien, B. L., Lexis, L. A., Thomas, C. J., Chan, S., & Samiric, T. (2013). The effectiveness of separating theory and practicum as a conduit to learning physiology. Advance Physiological Education, 37, 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00161.2012

Shelena, S.N., Mazniha, B., & Rosni, R. (2017). Rubric for measuring psychomotor and affective learning domain. Pertanika Journal Social Science & Humanities, 25(S), 101-108.

Smith, P., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Strobel, J., Morris, C. W., Klingler, L., Pan, R. C., Dyehouse, M., & Weber, N. (2011). Engineering as a caring and empathetic discipline: Conceptualizations and comparisons. Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011-Madrid.

Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning. Bolton, MA: Anker.

The Glossary of Education Reform. (2015). Assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.edglossary.org/assessment/

University of New South Wales. (2017, April 18). Using assessment rubrics. Retrieved from: https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/printpdf/546

Vergis, A., & Hardy, K. (2009). Principles of assessment: A primer for medical educators in the clinical years. International Journal of Medical Education, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5580/2720


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493