Session F4H
Comparing the Effectiveness of Evaluating
Practical Capabilities Through Hands-On On-Line
Exercises Versus Conventional Methods
Isabel Garcia, Alfonso Duran and Manuel Castro
igarcia@ing.uc3m.es, duran@ing.uc3m.es, mcastro@ieec.uned.es
Abstract - Two interrelated methodological
transformations involved in the current transition of
European universities towards the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) are the role of applied
capabilities and the evaluation process. In this context
this paper presents the results of a structured
comparison, throughout a five course period, of the
impact of alternative evaluation methods in courses
aimed at the development of applied engineering
capabilities. The comparison perspective is twofold: how
accurately does the evaluation method measure the
competence level attained by the students, and how does
it affect their active learning. The experiment was
conducted in a simulation course from the Industrial
Engineering curriculum and the aim was the evaluation
of the capability of using a simulation software.
Evaluation was traditionally based on a written final
exam and two other evaluation methods were then
introduced: Computer exam and team project
assignment. The assessment of the evaluation methods
was carried out by both faculty members and students
(through anonymous surveys). Results suggest that both
group assignments and computer exam perform far
better, in this environment, than written exams. The
comparison between group assignments and computer
exam is less straightforward, being dependant on which
criterion is being appraised.
Index Terms – Evaluating capabilities, on-line testing,
evaluation methodologies, problem based learning.
INTRODUCTION
The current transition of European universities towards the
European Higher Education Area (EHEA) requires a move
towards student-centered higher education and away from
teacher driven provision, as well as a renewed emphasis on
employability and the development of transferable skills and
capabilities [1], [2], [3]. Out of the many methodological
transformations involved, two significant and interrelated
components are the role of applied capabilities and the
assessment of learning outcomes.
EHEA’s recommendations encourage a shift from the highly
theoretical approach widespread in most national higher
education systems, such as the Spanish university system,
978-1-4244-1970-8/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F4H-18
towards placing a higher emphasis on applied capabilities.
That is in turn related to the major overhaul proposed for the
evaluation procedures; the currently prevailing approach
based solely on written final exams is postulated to
encourage learning by rote and being inappropriate for
appraising applied capabilities. According to the European
University Association’s Trends V report to the Conference
of Ministers of Education meeting in London on 17/18 May
2007 to discuss the culmination of the Bologna process by
2010, a majority of the participating institutions continue to
rely on traditional end-of-year examinations to assess
student knowledge [2]. Progress is, however, being made, as
shown by the comparison with the equivalent Trends III
report figures.
The recently approved legal framework aimed at revamping
the Spanish higher education system to adapt it to the
EHEA’s requirements highlights the focus on the
development of capabilities, as opposed to the mere
accumulation of knowledge, and the need to establish
appropriate evaluation procedures for these capabilities [4].
In the USA, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET), among the criteria it applies for
accrediting engineering programs during the 2007-2008
accreditation cycle, requires that Engineering programs
demonstrate that their students attain applied capabilities
such as “an ability to design and conduct experiments, as
well as to analyze and interpret data” and “an ability to use
the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
necessary for engineering practice” [5]. It also requires the
implementation of an appropriate assessment process, with
documented results, that demonstrates that the degree of
achievement of these capabilities is being measured. There
are, however, some worrying indicators, such as the
sustained “grade inflation” reported for a wide sample of US
universities [6].
Appropriate assessment and evaluation procedures
contribute to the effectiveness of the educational process
through two complementary mechanisms. On the one hand,
student’s expectations about the evaluation system heavily
condition their chosen course of action. On the other hand,
the evaluation’s results will only be used in order to
continuously improve the educational process if the quality
October 22 – 25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY

of the evaluation is perceived as being high. Additionally, in
highly competitive educational environments, such as the
Spanish engineering schools, evaluation procedures also
determine which students do and which ones do not finally
get the engineering degree; the net impact of this filtering is
again contingent on the appropriateness of the assessment
and evaluation procedures.
The choice of the most appropriate assessment method(s) is
dependant on a number of parameters, such as the specific
educational outcome to be measured and the resources
available, since the resource requirements by the various
assessment approaches differ widely. Proponents of mastery
exams point at options, such as applying Item Response
Theory to analyze the exam results in order to assess student
learning and the focus on the feedback loop to continuously
improve the educational program, that can lead to an overall
satisfactory result under certain circumstances [7]. However,
for some educational outcomes, such as ABET’s “soft”
professional skills, conventional assessment approaches are
clearly not up to the task [8].
OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Within this framework, the research project presented in this
paper was started in 2003 at the Engineering School of the
University Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M). Its goal was the
structured comparison, in courses in which some of the
objectives are linked to acquiring practical capabilities in the
use of a software tool, of the impact of alternative evaluation
methods. The incidence of the evaluation methods was
compared from two perspectives: how accurately do they
measure the actual competence level attained, and how do
they affect active learning by the students. These two basic
perspectives had to be complemented with an estimation of
resource consumption, in terms of both student time and
instructor time, and the parameters on which this resource
usage was dependent (e.g. number of students enrolled) in
order to understand the feasibility of their implementation.
The course chosen, “Quantitative Methods in Management
II”, from the Industrial Engineering curriculum, covers
discrete event simulation and optimization (60% of the
credits devoted to simulation and 40% to optimization). The
experiment was conducted over the discrete event simulation
part of the course. As programming is unavoidable in
simulation, a substantial part of the student’s effort is
devoted to developing the capability of constructing models
and carrying out experiments using a commercial simulation
software package (Witness®). Traditionally the evaluation
was solely based on a written final exam. This approach fits
well for theoretical and numerical exercises, but it was
considered less adequate for assessing the capabilities
associated to the use of a software tool.
978-1-4244-1970-8/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F4H-19
Session F4H
Two other evaluation methods were then introduced. Group
project assignment (team development of a simulation
project) was used as a major evaluation element for two
years. The other three years, the evaluation involved a
practical, computer based exam, whereby students were
summoned into a computer lab and assigned a practical case,
for which they individually had to develop a model and
carry out experiments using the simulation software. The
resulting model was then uploaded to the instructor’s system
for grading.
The results have been appraised from both perspectives
(measurement accuracy and impact on active learning).
Assessments were carried out by both faculty members and
students (through anonymous surveys). In each case, the first
year was considered a “warm-up” period, during which
initial difficulties were ironed out, thus comparative
measurements took place in the second year. Therefore,
there are three sets of data to be compared: pre-2003 data
from the steady-state, final examination based alternative,
and data from 2004 and 2006 corresponding to the second
year of the alternative evaluation methods.
ASSESSMENT THROUGH A PRACTICAL, COMPUTER BASED
EXAM
Until 2002, grading for this course was based on a
conventional written final exam. Since a large percentage of
the coursework was devoted to hands-on simulation work in
the laboratory, 40% of the simulation part of the written
exam consisted of questions aimed at assessing the
competence of the students in actually designing and
developing simulation models. Additionally, attendance to
the practical sessions was monitored, and students were
required to carry out a set of structured exercises utilizing
the simulation software.
To overcome the limitations of written exams in assessing
this type of applied capability, the simulation evaluation was
then split into two different exams. Theoretical concepts
were still tested through a conventional written final exam,
accounting for 50% of the grade. For the remaining 50%, an
on-line, computer based exam was designed.
For the computer exam design there was little former
experience from which to benefit. So a careful design phase
was required before implementation. The exam takes place
in the same labs as the practical sessions. This has two main
advantages: the students are familiar with the context, which
contributes to reduce the stress of facing this new exam, and
the reliability of the computers has been evaluated before the
exam so that the real capacity of the lab (in terms of number
of computers expected to be available) is known and the
corrective actions in case of a computer failure can be better
planned.
October 22 – 25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY

Students are given approx. one and a half hours to perform
individually a set of simulation/ programming/
experimenting exercises, taking as a starting point a file that
is copied over the network into each student’s PC directory
when they log in. Instructions for the exercises are handed
out in paper. Exercises of diverse complexity are included to
facilitate the discrimination of the various levels of
acquisition of the capabilities. At the end of the exercise the
students are asked to upload their exercises to a server using
an ftp client application.
A special profile was created for the exam. It gives access
exclusively to a network-served Witness® license, a
predetermined directory in the PC local disk and the ftp
client application. The ftp application is configured so that
file downloading and overwriting are forbidden and only file
uploading is allowed. Additionally, access to removable
media such as USB is disabled. This special profile along
with the use of various exercises versions, guarantee that the
students actually work individually. The possibility of
copying among the students was one of the concerns about
this type of exam, since it opens new ways of interaction
when compared to the written exam (e.g. exchanging
solutions through the server or through e-mail). The
proximity of the computers in the lab and the vertical
position of the screens are also specific characteristics in
these exams.
Session F4H
order of the construction of the system in the two versions.
For example, if the students are asked to program a
manufacturing system, it could have a transportation
subsystem and a processing subsystem. In version A the
transportation could be first and the processing second, and
in version B the opposite sequence. To give coherence to
both systems (the one in version A and the “inverted” in
version B) the systems may be described as being different,
as long as the logic of the model to be programmed remains
the same. For example, in system A the transportation
subsystem could be the arrival of a material to the plant, and
in system B it could be transportation of the final product to
the warehouse. To facilitate this approach several start up
files are copied to every PC, and in the instruction sheet the
students are asked to work only with the one which
corresponds to the version of the exam they receive.
Figure 1 shows an example of a start up working file.

The experience gained in the first year in which the system

was implemented showed how critical it was that the whole
examination process was thoroughly familiar for the students
beforehand. Thus, practical sessions had to precisely mimic
the examination environment, including downloading the
initial files and uploading the final result. Uploading to the
assigned location in the server the file containing the work
carried out during each practical session provided an
additional way to monitor progress throughout the course,
and allowed for longer exercises, that could be solved over
several consecutive practical sessions. FIGURE 1
WORKING FILE.

The type of exercises students are asked to solve reach the

same degree of complexity as the ones solved in the
practical sessions. To save time and concentrate on the
valuable part of the exercises, some of the programming is
already given in the starting up file that gets copied when
they log in. The paper instructions ask the students to
complete the programming following a specific sequence
until the simulation model of a simple production or service
system is completed (e.g. a manufacturing area of a plant).
For some questions (typically validation proofs) the students
are asked to complement the file solution with an
explanation that they must write on the instruction sheet.
Usually, two different versions of the exam are given to the
students, to prevent them from copying. The versions are
carefully designed so that the complexity of the exercises is
the same. This can be accomplished, for example, by
dividing the system in two subsystems and inverting the
978-1-4244-1970-8/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F4H-20
ASSESSMENT THROUGH A GROUP PROJECT ASSIGNMENT
As an alternative to the computer-based practical exam, a
group project assignment was used for two years.
All students were asked to study through simulation a
specific type of system. For example, in 2006 (when the
survey of this type of evaluation was conducted), the
students were asked to choose a gas station in their vicinity
whose “as is” and “to be” queue designs were to be
simulated. The use of the same type of system for all the
groups allowed for a highly standardized level of complexity
in all phases of the project. The likelihood of one team
copying the work of another team was reduced, by forcing
each team to choose a different gas station. This design
October 22 – 25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY

resulted from the experience gained from the first edition of
the project assignment (academic year 2005). On that
occasion, each group chose a different system. As a result,
some of the groups were more fortunate than others in their
election, in terms of feasibility of the study, interest of the
results…These difficulties also affected the faculty
members, leading to a higher effort in coordination and
supervision.
Another remarkable characteristic of the design of the
project assignment is that individual members of the team
had the freedom to specialize in specific tasks of the project
assignment, although they were asked to have a reasonable
knowledge of the overall project. In the report they were
asked to make explicit the work distribution among the
members of the group.
Even though the project assignment is basically an
alternative to the written conventional exam for the
evaluation of the practical capabilities of using the
simulation software, it should be highlighted that it also
helped to attain other important and difficult to fulfill
objectives. Therefore the design of the assignment
incorporates a variety of objectives. Besides the evaluation
of the practical capabilities in the use of simulation software,
the most important objective stems from the opportunity of
working on an integrative applied problem, which gives
participants the opportunity to work in the modeling of real
systems, applying the theoretical contents of the course, and
developing a complete study from beginning to the end.
Other complementary objectives are team working and
improving oral and written capabilities.
The main disadvantage of this approach it that it is much
more resource consuming, for both students and faculty,
than the other alternatives. It requires, for example, team
work, which has a value on itself, but leads to problems in
evaluation. Even if the possibility of copying the assignment
among groups is not an issue thanks to its design, there is the
risk that some students within the team act as free-riders. To
reduce the impact of this potential risk, the group assignment
accounted for only 33,3% of the 50% of the grade that was
devoted to the practical capability. The remaining 16,7%
was evaluated through a question related to the assignment
but included in the individual, conventional written final
exam. Theoretical concepts, accounting for the remaining
50% of the grade, were tested through conventional
questions in this same written final exam.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As described above, three sets of data were used for the
comparison: 2002 data representing the steady state while
using only the conventional written final exam, data for the
second year in which the computer-based practical exam
was used and data for the second year in which the group
978-1-4244-1970-8/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F4H-21
Session F4H
project assignment was used. In computer exam as well as in
project assignment, the first year was considered a “warm-
up” period and was therefore excluded. Quantitative data
included average grades for the capability-oriented and for
the theoretical concepts-oriented part of the grade.
Participating students varied according to the year, between
34 and 57. Anonymous surveys, encompassing both closed
and open questions, were filled up by the students in the
second year of using the computer-based practical exam and
in the second year of using the group project assignment.
Faculty members involved in the exercise were also
interviewed.
On a 10 point scale, average grades for the capability-
oriented part of the grade were 3,8 for the 2002 data
(conventional written final exam, in which this part had a
40% weight) and 7,2 for the second year of using the
computer-based practical exam (when this part accounted for
50% of the grade). As for the second year of using the group
project assignment, the average grade for the assignment
itself, that accounted for 33,3% of the total grade, was 7,6,
while as the assignment-related individual question in the
written exam, that accounted for another 16,7%, had an
average score of 8,1. Average scores for the theoretical
concepts-oriented part of the grade were similar in the first
two cases (conventional written final exam and computer-
based practical exam), with values of 5,4 and 5,5, whereas
for the project assignment case it was higher, 6,8. This
higher result is not surprising, as team project assignment is
expected to have a positive impact on the students
understanding of the theoretical concepts.
Survey questions requested students to compare the
alternative evaluation method they were using (computer
based practical exam or group project assignment) with the
conventional written final exam, that they were all familiar
with since that is the assessment method most commonly
used at the UC3M. Students were not asked to compare
computer based practical exam with group project
assignment since they had only experienced one of the
approaches. This comparison encompassed, for the closed
questions, learning outcomes, motivation, soft skills
development and workload requirements. Open questions
enquired about the perceived strong and weak points.
Student feedback was generally very positive regarding
learning outcomes, motivation and soft skills development.
Thus, on a 5-level Likert item inquiring whether the
adoption of a computer based practical exam (as opposed to
a conventional written final exam) increased the student’s
motivation to proactively engage in the practical sessions,
71% of the respondents agreed (responses 4 or 5). Average
score was 3,77, standard deviation 1,19.
Similarly, 86% answered that it had led to a higher level of
knowledge of the software tool, and 84% considered that
October 22 – 25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY

unsupervised individual, proactive work at the lab had been
useful for their preparation.
However, only 30% thought that it had led to a better grasp
of the theoretical concepts; that result is consistent with the
negligible impact observed on the average scores for the
theoretical concepts-oriented part of the grade (5,5 vs. 5,4
with the conventional exam).
On the other hand, workload requirements were perceived
by 54% of the students to be higher than with traditional
methods.
Session F4H
criteria is being appraised. While computer exam allows for
a more accurate individual evaluation of the practical
capacity of software use, group assignment adds up other
important formative assets related to the whole of the course
(not only the practical capability of software use).
However, increased workload requirements for both students
and instructors, particularly for the group assignment option,
require careful resource planning before implementation.
REFERENCES

As for the open questions, in the case of the computer based
practical exam, most students stated that this evaluation
procedure was more appropriate for the subject matter, and
therefore provided a fairer and more precise assessment. A
significant number of responses also stated that it led to a
deeper learning, even though it required additional effort.
83% of the students were in favor of maintaining the
computer based practical test, while as only 10% preferred a
conventional written final exam and 7% had mixed feelings.
Regarding the project assignment, student feedback was
quite similar, highlighting the positive impact on the
learning outcome. However, in this case the perception that
workload requirements were higher than with traditional
methods was much more acute; 100% of the students
thought so, and over 50% described the workload
requirements as “a lot heavier”.
From the faculty members’ perspective, the feedback was
very similar, with a very positive perception of the
effectiveness of the alternative evaluation methods in
promoting the active learning of the students but at the same
time leading to a much heavier assessment workload,
particularly for the project assignment option. As for their
ability to precisely and fairly measuring the knowledge
acquired by the students, both methods were considered
superior to conventional exams. The project assignment and
computer based practical exam allowed the faculty to
properly assess the level acquired by the students, although
in the case of group assignment what was accurately graded
was the team as a whole, not the individuals. In an attempt to
mitigate this intra-team blurness, 16,7% of the grade was
evaluated through an individual, assignment-related question
in the final exam.
[1] Crosier, D, Purser, L, Smidt, H, "Trends V: Universities shaping the
European Higher Education Area", European University Association
report, 2007.
[2] Education Ministers of Bologna Process countries, "London
Communiqué - Towards the European Higher Education Area:
responding to challenges in a globalised world", 2007.
[3] Huba, M E, Freed, J, " Learner-centered assessment on college
campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning", Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn-Bacon , 2000.
[4] Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia de España, "Real Decreto
1393/2007, de 29 de octubre, por el que se establece la ordenación de
las enseñanzas universitarias oficiales", Boletín Oficial del Estado,
No. 260, 2007, pp. 44037-44048.
[5] ABET, "Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Effective for
evaluations during the 2007-2008 accreditation cycle ", Engineering
Accreditation Commission, Baltimore, MD, 2007
[6] Rojstaczer, S , "Grade Inflation at American Colleges and
Universities", Accesible at www.gradeinflation.com/, 2003.
[7] Qualters, D M et al., "Improving Learning in First-Year Engineering
Courses Through Interdisciplinary Collaborative Assessment",
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 97, No 1, 2008.
[8] Shuman, L J, Besterfield-Sacre, M, McGourty, J. " The ABET
“Professional Skills” – Can They Be Taught? Can They Be
Assessed?", Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 94, No 1, 2005,
pp. 41-55.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that both group assignments and computer

exam perform far better, in this environment, than the
traditional written exams. The comparison between group
assignments and computer exam is less straightforward since
their relative impact is dependant on which of the chosen
978-1-4244-1970-8/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE October 22 – 25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY
38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F4H-22