See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321354082

Construction of a questionnaire to know the transparency in the evaluation of

the learning of Engineering students

Conference Paper · October 2017

DOI: 10.1145/3144826.3145370

CITATION READS

1 985

2 authors:

Leticia C. Velasco Juan-Carlos Tójar

University of Malaga University of Malaga
27 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 395 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan-Carlos Tójar on 12 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Construction of a questionnaire to know the transparency in the
evaluation of the learning of Engineering students*

Leticia-Concepción Velasco-Martínez Juan-Carlos Tójar-Hurtado

Universidad de Málaga Universidad de Málaga
Campus de Teatinos Campus de Teatinos
Málaga 29071 Málaga 29071
Spain Spain
leticiav@uma.es jctojar @uma.es
full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
ABSTRACT Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires

prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.

The methodological proposals arising from the European
convergence area raise the need to promote higher levels of
involvement and participation of students in their own TEEM 2017, October 18–20, 2017, Cádiz, Spain
© 2017 Association for Computing Machinery.
evaluation process. Nevertheless, several authors indicate that ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5386-1/17/10…$15.00

there are still insufficient evidences on the levels of https://doi.org/10.1145/3144826.3145370

participation that students have on their own evaluation

process, nor do we see the presence of evaluation practices KEYWORDS
that show the application of an authentic formative and Transparency; evaluation methodology; engineering degrees;
shared evaluation in relation to the acquisition of questionnaire; validation.
competences. Thus, it follows that engineering faculty does ACM Reference format:
not employ patterns of action that are sufficiently transparent
Leticia C. Velasco-Martínez and Juan-Carlos Tojar-Hurtado.
and explicit to promote student interest and understanding.
2017.. In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on
The objective of the study was to validate a measurement
Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality, Cadiz,
instrument that would allow evaluating the transparency of
Spain, October 2017 (TEEM’17), 7 pages.
the methods and evaluation strategies employed by the
10.1145/3144826.3145370
educators of the Engineering degrees. The pilot study, applied
to 50 students of Engineering has been analysed through a
principal components categorical analysis (CATPCA). The 1 INTRODUCTION
seven components in which the model has been structured The methodological proposals arising from the European
show as many relevant dimensions that reflect the factorial convergence area raise the need to promote higher levels of
structure of the questionnaire: transparency, level of involvement and participation of students in their own
information about score, evaluation modalities, feedback from evaluation process. This evaluative approach supposes to
teachers, resources and educational agents, procedures, break with the traditional unidirectional perspective of the
strategies and Guidelines; and material resources that evaluation process in which the student is the protagonist of
educators use.. his own learning and not a mere receiver of knowledge. In this
sense, educators are not considered as the only evaluating
CCS CONCEPTS agent capable of directing and deciding on the procedures,
techniques and evaluation criteria [1].
• General and reference~Reliability • General and
Nevertheless, several authors [2], [3], or [4] indicate that
reference~Measurement • General and
there is still insufficient evidence on the levels of participation
reference~Evaluation • General and reference~Validation
that students have on their own evaluation process, nor do we
• General and reference~Estimation • General and
see the presence of evaluation practices that show the
reference~Design • Social and professional topics~Model
application of an authentic formative and shared evaluation in
curricula • Social and professional topics~Student
relation to the acquisition of competences [5]. In the same
assessment
way, [6] they point out that there is no evidence in the
teaching schedules about the participation of students in the
promotion of supervision, and training of students in
evaluation procedures, in the design and elaboration of
evaluation instruments; and in the possibility of negotiating
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee and agreeing with the students the evaluation criteria.
provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the
TEEM 2017, October 2017, Cádiz Spain
From this perspective, [7] they point out that it is essential
that educators make explicit their preconceptions, purposes
and interests related to the evaluation in order to achieve a
better degree of transparency, commitment and responsibility
in the evaluation process. They also emphasize that involving
students in evaluation processes requires that the rules,
conditions and evaluation criteria are explicit and clear so that
the student can recognize in which moments of his/her
learning process s/he is [8], [9], or [10]. In the same way,
some authors like [11] or [12] indicate that from the
beginning of the course, educators must show their students,
in a transparent and precise way, the learning objectives, the
evaluation criteria and the weight that the activities will have
in the final grade, since it will have more impact on learning
than poorly structured feedback [13]. More concretely, [14]
points out that teaching staff must select methods, tools and
evaluation strategies that allow concrete, clear, detailed and
public criteria to be established to guarantee the objectivity of
the process, as well as fair and equitable treatment for
students. Nevertheless, [15] have found that raising more
explicit and transparent evaluation criteria is problematic in
theory and difficult to develop in practice. In this regard, some
authors [7] and [16] insist that it is not enough to inform
students about the evaluation criteria, but rather it is
necessary to involve them in the construction of these criteria
to promote a more meaningful learning and, therefore, to
make the students more aware of their learning process.
In a study conducted by [17] in the degree of Computer
Engineering, it was emphasized that the lack of transparency
and the use of continuous evaluation are some of the main
problems of the Degree. These authors warn that focusing on
the final result and not making explicit the evaluation criteria
does not favour the continuous monitoring of the students. In
this sense, it is proposed to establish methodologies (e.g.
rubrics) that allow continuous evaluation with feedback at the
key moments of the learning process, establishing an
evaluation protocol based on public and objective criteria.
In this sense, [5] in a study with students of Primary
Education, Pharmacy and different Engineering degrees, also
pointed out that the students value the presence of a
continuous evaluation, ensuring as a key to their evaluation
the use of case studies and problem solving. However, in the
results it can be seen that continuous evaluation, although
considered necessary and valuable, is relegated to the
background because of the preponderance of final exams,
which are the most used as an evaluation methodology, but at
the same time, the least valued by the students for their
competential development.
By contrast, other authors [18] point out that the evaluation
strategies most used and considered useful by students of
Engineering degrees are reports, projects, developmental
tests and oral exams; being, on the contrary, the portfolio, the
observations or the scales of attitudes that have less presence
in the evaluation and less utility are attributed to them by the
2
L.C. Velasco-Martínez & J.C. Tójar-Hurtado
students. These authors state that these results are due to
questions of experimentation and adaptation, that is, the
students value better those evaluation strategies with which
they are accustomed to be evaluated because they are the
most used and, consequently, have acquired more mastery in
the Course of the Degree. From this perspective, one could
conclude that students seem to prefer more traditional
methodologies because they do not know, nor have been
evaluated with other evaluation methods and strategies.
Results that are reaffirmed by previous literature [19] and
[20] point out that educators only use those assessment tools
with which they feel familiar.
The degrees in engineering are a good example of university
studies in which they have been working for competences for
a long time (at least professional skills) [21]. Likewise, these
degrees do not stand out because of a great transparency in
the evaluation. Even, [22], in a study on motivation in
engineering students, indicate that while evaluation can be a
driving force for learning, it can also be used to hinder, or
impede quality learning, even when classes taught by teachers
can be considered of excellent. These authors emphasize in
their results the presence of an assessment model based on a
single exam, with a limited time of realization that includes
different questions to what has been intensely worked in
class. Thus, it follows that engineering faculty does not employ
patterns of action that are sufficiently transparent and explicit
to promote student interest and understanding.
From the above, it can be deduced that conducting a pilot
study in the field of engineering can be very useful to obtain a
solid instrument with which to evaluate transparency of the
evaluation methods in Higher Education. This paper presents
the initial phase of construction of the instrument.
2 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the first stage of this study was to validate a
measurement instrument that would allow to evaluate the
transparency of evaluation methods and strategies designed
by the educators of the Engineering degrees.
2.1 General objective
Construct an instrument capable of evaluating the
transparency of the evaluation methods and strategies used
by teachers in Higher Education.
2.2 Specific objectives
— Construct an instrument / questionnaire with items
related to transparency in the evaluation of the
learning of university students of Engineering from
the dimensions indicated in the related scientific
literature.
— Conduct expert validation of the instrument /
questionnaire on transparency in the evaluation of
learning.
Construction of a questionnaire to know the transparency in the
evaluation of the learning of Engineering students
— Conduct a pilot study with students of different
degrees of engineering applying the questionnaire
on transparency.
— Analyse the reliability and validity of the measure
obtained with the application of the questionnaire
and determine possible improvements in it.
3 METHODS
In order to respond to the objectives of the study, a survey
methodology was used. The study, with a quantitative
approach, involved the elaboration and validation of the
survey. Firstly, validation was done from experts. Finally, the
validation was completed with a pilot study.
3.1 Procedure, techniques of information collection
and analysis
First, from the review of the scientific literature, a first version
of the questionnaire was developed. The instrument was
subjected to expert review (n1=5). Several university
professors specialized in Higher Education evaluation acted as
experts.
After this process of validation of experts, the survey was
tested in a pilot study. For the pilot study was used a sample
composed of 50 students of 4th year of different Engineering
Degrees at the University of Malaga (n2= 50). Sampling was
intentional. For this purpose, the database University of
Engineering students was used. The average age of the sample
was 23 with a standard deviation of 3.32, age ranging from 21
to 37 years old. The sample was composed of 84% male and
14% female, who 60% were students of Industrial
Engineering and 30% of Telecommunications Engineering.
The questionnaire was composed of 66 items that allow to
know the characteristics of the evaluation process of the
different subjects of the Engineering Degrees. These items
were grouped into 13 dimensions: 1) Teaching guides; 2)
Evaluation criteria; 3) Score; 4) Theoretical and / or practical
work (reports, projects, prototypes, etc.); 5) Exam; 6)
Knowledge assessed; 7) Material resources; 8) Management of
the evaluation system; 9) Guidance; 10) Follow-up; 11)
Doubts; 12) Evaluation modalities and 13) Satisfaction in
evaluation.
The items were organized on a Likert scale ranging from 0
(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
The scale was formed by evidence obtained from the scientific
literature and by the evaluation of 5 experts in Education and
Engineering who assessed the adequacy of the items
represented in the questionnaire. After an analysis and
consideration of the contributions of the experts, the final
version of the questionnaire was elaborated.
The experts analyzed qualitatively the instrument /
questionnaire contributing valuations and improvement
proposals that helped to redefine some items. The analysis of
TEEM 2017, October 2017, Cádiz Spain
the pilot study included a reliability study, based on the
Cronbach Alpha coefficient, a principal components factorial
analysis (for metric variables) and a categorical analysis of
principal components (CATPCA) taking into account the
ordinal and nominal nature of the data.
All quantitative data treatment was performed using the
statistical analysis package SPSS v.22 (2013).
4 RESULTS
The validation of experts helped to redefine several items but
did not change the number of them. The valuations suggested
defining and better specifying some of the items to make them
more comprehensible by the students and to resize some of
the variables.
The analysis of the pilot study was started with the Cronbach
Alpha coefficient. The result of this coefficient (2 = 0.923)
indicated a high internal consistency.
The factorial analysis of principal components allowed
obtaining a model of 19 components with a explained
variance of 85.29%. Prior to the accomplishment of this
factorial analysis, a study of the conditions of application
(KMO and Bartlett sphericity test) was carried out. Although
these tests gave positive results, favourable to the principal
component factor analysis, due to the ordinal nature of the
data, we chose to perform a CATPCA. As an added advantage,
the categorical analysis of principal components does not have
as many restrictions in relation to the sample size.
Table 1 presents a summary of the model with Cronbach's
Alpha of each dimension
Table 1: CATPCA model with dimensions and Cronbach’s
Alpha
Variance
Dimension Alpha of Cronbach
Total (autovalue)
1 .944 24.252
2 .919 20.559
3 .890 13.068
4 .867 9.824
5 .827 6.397
6 .822 6.249
7 .784 4.384
Total .997a 84.733
As we can see in Table 1, all dimensions have a high internal
consistency (ranging from .784 to .944). The dimensions of
the model are as follows:
— Dimension 1: Transparency, involvement and
accountability in evaluation.
— Dimension 2: Rating information level.
3
TEEM 2017, October 2017, Cádiz Spain
—
Dimension 3: Characteristics of evaluation
modalities (hetero-evaluation, self-evaluation, co-
evaluation, etc.).
— Dimension 4: Educator Feedback.
— Dimension 5: Educational resources and agents for
acquiring learning (Teaching guides, material, virtual
campus, the educator itself, and other students).
— Dimension 6: Procedures, strategies and plans to
guide the student's integral learning (sharing,
negotiating, evaluating, supporting, orienting,
reviewing, communicating and qualifying).
— Dimension 7: Availability of material resources used
by educators.
The following tables include each dimension with
corresponding items and factor loads:
Table 2: Dimension 1: Transparency, involvement and
accountability in evaluation
Transparency, involvement and
Num. ij
accountability in evaluation
I like educators to agree on the evaluation
13 .814
criteria with students
Educators show examples of exercises,
50 tasks, questions, ... like the ones that later .766
count for the grade
Usually the evaluation criteria are
8 .755
presented in an understandable language
The faculty brings samples of real tasks that
49 .739
are carried out in the professional field
The faculty reorganizes the subject (or
46 parts of it) if it finds gaps in the students' .725
learning
I have clear the criteria of correction that
27 .723
the educator apply in the exams
I usually know the evaluation criteria well
9 in advance of the tests (eg work, .713
examinations, ...)
Generally, the type of exam that is carried
23 out (type test, development, short .708
questions, etc.) is well reflected.
I usually understand the evaluation criteria
19 for the performance of work in the subjects .676
of the Degree
Normally all the evaluation criteria that
7 .671
appear in the teaching guides are fulfilled
The evaluation system is consistent with
44 the objectives, contents and methodology of .639
the subjects of the Degree
When there is the possibility of delivering
22 additional tasks and / or work, I know .634
clearly what contributes to the final grade
The faculty again explains the evaluation
24 .633
system when the exam is approaching
4
L.C. Velasco-Martínez & J.C. Tójar-Hurtado
The weight of the exam in the final grade
30 .625
seems correct
I usually understand the assessment
6 section when I consult it in the teaching .618
guides of the subjects of the Degree
Before the day of the exam, educators
25 usually inform me in class about the weight .609
of each question on the exam
The faculty presents a series of steps,
51 indications or guidelines to carry out .602
evaluable work, reports or practices
I usually agree with the percentages
18 assigned to the different components of the .600
rating
The faculty guides on the level of depth
53 .595
with which to answer the exam questions
Generally I know the information that
1 includes the teaching guides of the subjects .460
of the Degree
I am accustomed to consult the subject of
3 the subject of the Degree in the teaching .477
guides
Before the day of the exam, teachers usually
26 give clues in class about what is more or .442
less important for the exam
The faculty communicates the aspects to
55 improve of the works and other tasks in .406
several moments during their realization
Educators use different channels of
56 information to give evaluation feedback .406
(interviews, meetings, forum, etc.)
The work of the subjects of the Degree is
20 one of the tasks that has more weight in the .403
qualification
Dimension 1 brings together items related to transparency,
involvement and accountability in evaluation (see Table 2).
This first dimension is the clearest, with the highest number of
items (24) and represents the most substantial factor of the
questionnaire.
Table 3: Dimension 2: Rating information level
Num. Rating information level ij
I know the minimum score required to
14 overcome the theoretical part and to be able .966
to add other score
I usually know what each part of the
16 assessment is worth in the sum of the final .916
grade of the subjects of the Degree
I usually understand the assessment section
6 when I consult it in the teaching guides of the .814
subjects of the Degree
15 I know the minimum qualification required .757
Construction of a questionnaire to know the transparency in the
TEEM 2017, October 2017, Cádiz Spain
evaluation of the learning of Engineering students

to overcome the practical part and to be able Table 5: Dimensión 4: Educator Feedback
to add other qualifications
In summary, how would you rate (from 0 to Num. Educator Feedback ij
66 5) the level of satisfaction with the evaluation -.488 Normally, the educators clearly explain the
systems carried out in the Degree? 5 evaluation section of the subjects of the -1.00
Degree
Table 3 shows the items that are related to the level of The faculty communicates the aspects to
information perceived by the students (knowing, 54 improve of the works and other tasks once -.613
understanding). This dimension, represented by 5 items, has they are delivered
been called Rating Information Level. The negative result of I use the tutorials to clarify doubts about
the load of item 66 can be commented as a remarkable fact. 58 the evaluation system of the subjects of the -.524
This result could be taken as an indicator of overall poor Degree
satisfaction with evaluation systems. This result should be To surpass the subjects it is essential to
carefully studied in future investigations. 21 deliver a work (or report, project, -.475
prototype, etc.)
Educators use different channels of
Table 4: Dimension 3: Characteristics of the evaluation 56 information to give evaluation feedback -.432
modalities (hetero-evaluation, self-evaluation, co- (interviews, meetings, forum, etc.)
evaluation, etc.)
The feedback that educators give their students is represented
Num. Characteristics of the evaluation modalities ij
as a factor in dimension 4 (see Table 5). The item that has the
In general, I think it is appropriate for some
63 .816 highest factor load (item number 5, with a load of 1 in
students to score others students
absolute value) is related to a clear explanation of the
Educators usually give instructions for
evaluation by the educators. The negative value of the
52 testing that do NOT correspond to the way .771
factorial load is also a data to continue researching, as it could
they correct
be showing evidence of a feedback deficit in the sample
The faculty takes into account students'
studied.
37 attitudes towards evaluation in their .738
subjects
64
In addition to educator assessment, there is
.728 Table 6: Dimension 5: Resources and educational agents
a chance that students are score themselves for the acquisition of learning (Teaching guides, material,
The exam of the subjects is one of tasks that virtual campus, the teacher itself and, other students).
28 -.572
has more weight in the subjects
Educators, in addition to content, usually Resources and educational agents for the
35 .556 Num. ij
assess skills specific to their subjects acquisition of learning
I usually consult in the teaching guides the The faculty checks if the students have the
38 .672
2 teaching methodology of the subjects of the .490 necessary knowledge before starting a task
Degree I usually use the forums of the Virtual
In the exams also is usually valued the 60 Campus of the University to clarify doubts .556
32 .432 about the subjects
ability to work against time
In general, I think it is appropriate for I use my classmates, rather than the faculty,
65 .423 59 to resolve doubts about the evaluation -.448
students to write notes to themselves
In the exams they are usually evaluated system of the Degree
33 more the rote learning than their .404 The own material used by educators to
understanding 40 teach their subject (e.g. slides) is available -.436
to students
Table 4 includes the items (10) that represent the I usually consult in the teaching guides the
characteristics of the different evaluation modalities: hetero- 4 section of evaluation of the subjects of the -.421
evaluation, self-evaluation, co-evaluation, etc. For example, Degree
the item with a higher factorial load (the number 63 with a In addition to evaluation by educators,
load of .816), speaks of the active participation of students in 62 there is a possibility that students will write .408
the evaluation of their peers (co-evaluation). notes to others
Educators provide additional material or
39 .406
resources if they find gaps in student

5
TEEM 2017, October 2017, Cádiz Spain
learning
In tables 6 to 8 the "most diffuse" dimensions are represented.
Factorial loads are generally minor and a wide variety of
topics are represented at each dimension. For example, in
Table 6, items related to resources and educational agents, for
the acquisition of learning, are collected. Among the items
considered in this dimension are those referred to teaching
guides, virtual campus, faculty and students. In item number
38, with a higher factorial load (.672), it is proposed if the
teachers check if the students have sufficient knowledge or
not before starting a task.
Table 7: Dimension 6: Procedures, strategies and plans to
guide student's comprehensive learning
Procedures, strategies and plans to guide
Num. ij
student's comprehensive learning
Educators use the results of assessments to
make adjustments or improvements to their
45 subject (in the teaching method, the -.685
resources they used, the evaluation
techniques, etc.)
After the correction of a task it is possible to
57 .556
improve the one to deliver a final version
Teachers provide additional material or
39 .475
resources if they find gaps in student learning
It is possible to negotiate the percentages
assigned to the different components of the
17
qualification (work, examination, practices,
.472
etc.)
Educators have planned classes in which
there is no progress agenda, but rather they
47 .472
are dedicated to help and guide in learning,
mistakes or gaps
Educators usually take into account, for the
34 evaluation, questions related to the .416
professional competence of the degree
Dimension 6 includes topics such as procedures, strategies
and plans to guide comprehensive student learning (see Table
7). One of the most representative items of this dimension is
whether educators use the results of assessments to make
adjustments or improvements to their subjects (teaching
methods, resources, assessment techniques, etc.). In this item
the factorial load shows a negative result so it can be
interpreted that the students of the sample have been inclined
to low values in their answers. Although this will have to be
studied in the future more closely, this result could be taken
as an indicator of the difficulty that educators have to make
changes as a consequence of their students' assessments.
6
L.C. Velasco-Martínez & J.C. Tójar-Hurtado
Table 8: Dimension 7: Availability of material resources
used by educators
Num Availability of material resources ij
The material that educators use to teach their
42 subject is available a few days before the .601
subjects are taught
The material that educators use to teach their
43 .498
subject is available after teaching the subjects
The own material used by teachers to teach
40 their subject (e.g. slides) is available to .347
students
All the material used by educators to teach
41 their subject is available at the beginning of the .301
course
Table 8 includes dimension 7. This dimension includes items
related to the availability of material resources used by
educators. For example, item number 42, with the largest
factorial load of this dimension (.601), refers to whether
materials are available a few days before the subject is taught.
In general terms, the results show different dimensions with
well-defined topics and good or acceptable factor loads. The
internal consistency within each dimension (measured by
Cronbach's alpha coefficient) was already a statistical
indicator of this, but the substantive meaning of each
dimension is a qualitatively more powerful indicator of the
structural validity of the questionnaire.
5 CONCLUSIONS
An instrument has been constructed to evaluate the
transparency of the learning assessment systems of
engineering students. The instrument, in the form of Likert-
type scale was constructed from related scientific literature
and education experts.
The two-stage validation process has allowed the instrument
to be debugged based on expert judgment and a pilot study.
The pilot study, applied to 50 students of Engineering, after a
successful analysis of the reliability, has been analysed
through a principal components factorial analysis and a
CATPCA. Both analysis have offered satisfactory solutions. The
CATPCA is a more parsimonious model (less components)
with a similar percentage of explanation of the variance.
The seven components in which the model has been
structured show as many relevant dimensions that reflect the
factorial structure of the questionnaire. In addition to
statistical support, the structure is sustained by the literature
review (transparency in [7] and [17], level of information
about score in [8] [9] and [10], evaluation modalities in [13],
feedback from teachers [13] [14] and [17], resources and
educational agents in [7] [11] and [12], procedures, strategies
and guidelines in [1] [6] [14] [18] [19] and [20]; and material
resources that educators use in [11] and [12]), and what is
more important from a qualitative perspective, all dimensions
 Construction of a questionnaire to know the transparency in the
evaluation of the learning of Engineering students
have a substantive meaning. Therefore, it is possible to affirm
that all the objectives, both general and specific, have been
fulfilled.
In the future, the sample will have to be expanded for new
pilot studies. Likewise, the questionnaire should be applied to
representative samples and effectively prove that the
instrument evaluates the transparency of the evaluation of
learning. Having an instrument of these characteristics,
correctly validated, can be a very important tool for
educational improvement, both in engineering studies and in
other studies of higher education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our thanks to educators and students who have participated
in this work.
REFERENCES
[1] Juan. I. López-Ruíz. 2011. Un giro copernicano en la enseñanza
universitaria: formación por competencias. Revista de Educación, 356 (Dic.
2011), 279-301.
[2] María Soledad Ibarra, Gregorio Rodríguez and Miguel A. Gómez Ruiz. 2012.
La evaluación entre iguales: beneficios y estrategias para su práctica en la
universidad. Revista de Educación, 359 (Sept.-Dic. 2012), 206-231 DOI: 10-
4438/1988-592X-RE-2010-359-092
[3] Victor L. López-Pastor, Juan. C. Manrique-Arribas and Cristina Vallés-Rapp.
2011. La evaluación y la calificación en los nuevos estudios de Grado.
Especial incidencia en la formación inicial del profesorado. Revista
Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 14, 4 (Jun.
2011).
[4] A. Pérez-Pueyo et al. 2008. Evaluación formativa y compartida en la
docencia universitaria y el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior:
cuestiones clave para su puesta en práctica. Revista de Educación, 347
(Sept.-Dic. 2008), 435-451.
[5] Elena Cano-García and Maite Fernández-Ferrer. (Eds.). 2016. Evaluación por
competencias: la perspectiva de las primeras promociones de graduados en el
EEES. Barcelona: Ediciones Octaedro.
[6] Gregorio Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 2012. La voz del estudiante en la
evaluación del aprendizaje: un camino por recorrer en la universidad.
RELIEVE, 18, 2 (2012). DOI: 10.7203/relieve.18.2.1985
[7] Víctor Alvárez-Rojo et al. 2011. Análisis de la participación del alumnado en
View publication stats
TEEM 2017, October 2017, Cádiz Spain
la evaluación de su aprendizaje. Revista Española de Pedagogía. 250 (Sept-
Dic. 2011), 401-425.
[8] Kelly Burton. 2006. Designing criterion-referenced assessment. Journal of
Learning Design, 1, 2 (2006), 73-83. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v1i2.19
[9] Julie Wood et al. 2008. Engaging Students in the Academic Advising Process.
The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 10 (2008), 23-32.
[10] Jorge Pérez et al. 2017. Development of Procedures to Assess Problem-
Solving Competence in Computing Engineering. IEEE Transactions on
Education, 60, 1 (Feb. 2017), 22-28
[11] Aurelio Villa and M. Poblete. 2011. Evaluación de competencias genéricas:
Principios, oportunidades y limitaciones. Bordón, 63 (Feb. 2011), 147-170.
[12] Verónica Villaroel and Daniela Bruna. 2014. Reflexiones en torno a las
competencias genéricas en educación superior: Un desafío pendiente.
Psicoperspectivas, 13, 1 (2011), 24-34.
[13] Concepción Yaniz and Lourdes Villardón. 2012. Modalidades de evaluación
de competencias genéricas en la formación universitaria. Didac, 60 (Jul.-Dic.
2012), 15-19.
[14] ENQA. 2015. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium.
[15] Mark De Vos and Dina Z. Belluigi. 2011. Formative Assessment as
Mediation. Perspectives in Education, 29, 2 (Jun. 2011), 39-47.
[16] Laura J. Leslie and Paul C. Gorman. 2017. Collaborative design of
assessment criteria to improve undergraduate student engagement and
performance. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42, 3 (May. 2017),
286-301. DOI: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7925-9589
[17] Mikel Villamañe et al. 2017. Desarrollo y validación de un conjunto de
rúbricas para la evaluación de Trabajos Fin de Grado. ReVisión, 10, 1 (En.
2017).
[18] Joe Miró, Maite Fernández-Ferrer and Natividad Cabrera. 2015. La opinión
y percepción de los estudiantes en la evaluación por competencias.
ReVisión, 8, 3 (2015), 59-70.
[19] De Miguel, M. (Coord.). 2006. Metodologías de enseñanza y aprendizaje para
el desarrollo de competencias. Orientaciones para el profesorado
universitario ante el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Madrid:
Alianza Editorial.
[20] Amparo Fernández-March, A. 2006. Metodologías activas para la formación
de competencias. Educatio Siglo XXI, 24 (2006), 35-56.
[21] María Martínez et al. 2013. Una propuesta de evaluación de competencias
genéricas en grados de Ingeniería. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11
(Nov. 2013), 113-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2013.5550
[22] Fernández-Jiménez et al. 2013. Educación a distancia: la enseñanza y el
aprendizaje CET (Revista contemporaneidade educacao e tecnologia), 1, 3
(Apr.2013), 49-62.