A purposeful approach has been taken to match teaching pedagogies (techniques), learning experiences, and assessment methods to various types of students learning in undergraduate aerospace propulsion courses at the junior-level at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and senior-level at Oklahoma State University (OSU), Stillwater, OK. Prior studies in the scholarship of teaching and learning have shown the benefits of matching assessment methods, as well as teaching pedagogies and learning experiences, to the types of students learning associated with desired educational outcomes. Literature suggests the best method for teaching and assessing student’ cognitive learning is through explanation and presentation. Oral assessments have been implemented at the Air Force Academy and Oklahoma State University to evaluate students' cognitive learning in undergraduate aerospace propulsion and power courses. An oral midterm exam was performed to assess students' acquisition knowledge and understanding of fundamental concepts, the type of learning occurring early in course lesson sequences. End-of-semester design project poster sessions and presentations served as summative oral assessments of students' creative thinking, decision making, and professional judgment. Conversely, two written midterm exams and a final exam primarily focused on assessing students' problem solving skills and less on comprehensive knowledge. Oral assessments also served as reflective thinking experiences that reinforced student learning. Student feedback on oral assessment methods was collected through surveys conducted after each assessment. Survey results not only revealed the effectiveness of using oral assessments but also on how to improve their design and implementation, including the use of information technology (IT) and broader curricular employment.

References

References
1.
Davis
,
B.
,
1993
,
Tools for Teaching
,
Jossey-Bass Publishers
,
San Francisco, CA
.
2.
Jacobs
,
L. C.
, and
Chase
,
C. I.
,
1992
,
Developing and Using Tests Effectively: A Guide for Faculty
,
Jossey-Bass Publishers
,
San Francisco, CA
.
3.
Bloom
,
B. S.
, ed.,
1956
,
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals
, Vol.
1
:
Cognitive Domain
,
McKay, New York
.
4.
Davis
,
J.
, and
Arend
,
B.
,
2013
,
Facilitating Seven Ways of Learning
,
Stylus Publishing LLC
,
Sterling, VA
.
5.
Huxham
,
M.
,
Campbell
,
F.
, and
Westwood
,
J.
,
2010
, “
Oral versus Written Assessments: a Test of Student Performance and Attitudes
,”
Assess. Eval. Higher Educ.
,
37
(
1
), pp.
125
136
.
6.
Magin
,
D.
, and
Helmore
,
P.
,
2010
, “
Peer and Teacher Assessments of Oral Presentation Skills: How Reliable Are They?
,”
Stud. Higher Educ.
,
26
(
3
), pp.
287
298
.
7.
Boyer
,
K. M.
,
Rouser
,
K. P.
, and
Lawrence
,
T. J.
,
2005
, “
Development of an Aero-Thermodynamics Course to Aid an Undergraduate Propulsion Track
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2005-68383.
8.
Rouser
,
K. P.
,
Boyer
,
K. M.
, and
Byerley
,
A. R.
,
2006
, “
A Contextual Framework for Enhancing an Undergraduate Thermo-Propulsion Sequence
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2006-90477.
You do not currently have access to this content.