Assessment of final year engineering projects : an AQF8 perspective

Context: In undertaking the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) Project, Assessing Final Year EngineeringProjects (FYEPs): Ensuring Learning and Teaching Standards and AQF Level 8 Outcomes, theproject team identified three key areas which were common and most pertinent in the survey data: curriculum, supervision and assessment. This paper describes a set of assessment guidelines that were developed as a key outcome for the OLT Project in addition to the supporting body of knowledge, good practices and data collected. Purpose: The first phase of the broader project identified a need for greater consideration of how final year projects demonstrate Level 8 learning outcomes required by the Australian Qualifications Framework for 4-year Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) degrees. The purpose of the second phase was to develop and disseminate guidelines that assist academics to create and assess FYEP tasks in relation to the learning outcome areas of knowledge, skills and application. These guidelines are accompanied by exemplar practice as identified from the review of survey data and are designed to assist academics in the design, assessment and moderation of tasks associated with FYEP work. Approach: The wider project methodology was largely qualitative, adopting a case study approach. Data was gathered from 16 universities across Australia (from all states and territories) and included university documentation such as subject outlines, rubrics and student guidelines. Additionally, interviews were conducted with coordinators of final year project subjects. Within these interviews participants were asked specifically about their assessment practices and AQF level 8. Additional data was gathered from participants during a conference workshop designed to explore their understanding of the AQFLevel 8 learning outcome descriptors. The guidelines were developed after mapping this data against the sections of knowledge, skills and application described in the Level 8 learning outcomes. Results: The dissemination of the Assessment Guidelines and exemplar practice is designed to both capture some of the complexities around assessment of FYEPs and progress practice towards AQF8 compliance. It is anticipated that the adoption of the guidelines within institutions will lead to higher quality assessment practices and delivery of AQF level 8 outcomes. Conclusions: Assessment practices in FYEPs vary considerably across institutions and this variance is seen in both the types of tasks set for students and the ways in which they are marked and moderated. The project team has sought to delineate good practice in this area and disseminate guidelines designed to assist in careful thinking about the high standards implied by AQF level 8

Engineering curriculum structure and mapping : accreditation and beyond

In most Australian engineering schools and faculties, engineering programs are not ordered and deliberately structured entities. The University of Tasmania offers undergraduate engineering in twolocations, Hobart's School of Engineering offers eight specialisations and Launceston's National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics (NCMEH) at The Australian Maritime College (AMC) offers three specialisations. Preparing for EA accreditation, the Hobart and Launceston groups co-operated tomake sense of four seemingly disparate elements of engineering curriculum: the TLOs for Engineering, unit learning outcomes (ULOs), unit assessment tasks and the EA's Stage 1 Competency Standard. Inthis paper we describe processes for redeveloping, linkage and auditing of three curriculum elements to build a more cohesive, manageable curriculum structure to meet EA, QA and student expectations

Measuring the quality of nursing clinical placements and the development of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) in a mixed methods co-design project

Background: The quality of nursing clinical placements has been found to vary. Placement evaluation tools for nursing students are available but lack contemporary reviews of clinical settings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a feasible, valid and reliable clinical placement evaluation tool applicable to nursing student placements in Australia. Methods: An exploratory mixed methods co-design project. Phase 1 included a literature review; expert rating of potential question items and Nominal Group Technique meetings with a range of stakeholders for item development. Phase 2 included on-line pilot testing of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) with 1263 nursing students, across all year levels at six Australian Universities and one further education college in 2019–20, to confirm validity, reliability and feasibility. Results: The PET included 19-items (rated on a 5-point agreement scale) and one global satisfaction rating (a 10-point scale). Placements were generally positively rated. The total scale score (19 items) revealed a median student rating of 81 points from a maximum of 95 and a median global satisfaction rating of 9/10. Criterion validity was confirmed by item correlation: Intra-class Correlation Co-efficient ICC =.709; scale total to global score r =.722; and items to total score ranging from.609 to.832. Strong concurrent validity was demonstrated with the Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision Scale (r =.834). Internal reliability was identified and confirmed in two subscale factors: Clinical Environment (Cronbach’s alpha =.94) and Learning Support (alpha =.96). Based on the short time taken to complete the survey (median 3.5 min) and students’ comments, the tool was deemed applicable and feasible. Conclusions: The PET was found to be valid, reliable and feasible. Use of the tool as a quality assurance measure is likely to improve education and practice in clinical environments. Further international evaluation of the instrument is required to fully determine its psychometric properties. © 2020, The Author(s)

The Nominal Group Technique: Generating consensus in nursing research

The purpose of this article is to describe the Nominal Group Technique and its application as a consensus-generating approach in nursing research. The approach incorporates face-to-face meetings to explore opinions, generate ideas, and determine priorities. The nominal group technique process, which is based on a study designed to develop a nursing student clinical placement (clinical practicum) evaluation tool, is described. Advantages of the approach include creative face-to-face discussions with minimal resource demands. The nominal group technique is beneficial and can be used to achieve consensus in nursing research, but a lack of anonymity may preclude the process in some investigations. [J Nurs Educ. 2020;59(2):65-67.]. Copyright 2020, SLACK Incorporated

Irbesartan in Marfan syndrome (AIMS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

Background: Irbesartan, a long acting selective angiotensin-1 receptor inhibitor, in Marfan syndrome might reduce aortic dilatation, which is associated with dissection and rupture. We aimed to determine the effects of irbesartan on the rate of aortic dilatation in children and adults with Marfan syndrome. Methods: We did a placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial at 22 centres in the UK. Individuals aged 6–40 years with clinically confirmed Marfan syndrome were eligible for inclusion. Study participants were all given 75 mg open label irbesartan once daily, then randomly assigned to 150 mg of irbesartan (increased to 300 mg as tolerated) or matching placebo. Aortic diameter was measured by echocardiography at baseline and then annually. All images were analysed by a core laboratory blinded to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the rate of aortic root dilatation. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN90011794. Findings: Between March 14, 2012, and May 1, 2015, 192 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to irbesartan (n=104) or placebo (n=88), and all were followed for up to 5 years. Median age at recruitment was 18 years (IQR 12–28), 99 (52%) were female, mean blood pressure was 110/65 mm Hg (SDs 16 and 12), and 108 (56%) were taking β blockers. Mean baseline aortic root diameter was 34·4 mm in the irbesartan group (SD 5·8) and placebo group (5·5). The mean rate of aortic root dilatation was 0·53 mm per year (95% CI 0·39 to 0·67) in the irbesartan group compared with 0·74 mm per year (0·60 to 0·89) in the placebo group, with a difference in means of −0·22 mm per year (−0·41 to −0·02, p=0·030). The rate of change in aortic Z score was also reduced by irbesartan (difference in means −0·10 per year, 95% CI −0·19 to −0·01, p=0·035). Irbesartan was well tolerated with no observed differences in rates of serious adverse events. Interpretation: Irbesartan is associated with a reduction in the rate of aortic dilatation in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome and could reduce the incidence of aortic complications