Search

ChatGPT, a sophisticated online chatbot, sent shockwaves through many sectors once reports filtered through that it could pass exams. In higher education, it has raised many questions about the authenticity of assessment and challenges in detecting plagiarism. Amongst the resulting frenetic hubbub, hints of potential opportunities in how ChatGPT could support learning and the development of critical thinking have also emerged. In this paper, we examine how ChatGPT may affect assessment in engineering education by exploring ChatGPT responses to existing assessment prompts from ten subjects across seven Australian universities. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of current assessment practice and discuss opportunities on how ChatGPT can be used to facilitate learning. As artificial intelligence is rapidly improving, this analysis sets a benchmark for ChatGPT's performance as of early 2023 in responding to engineering education assessment prompts. ChatGPT did pass some subjects and excelled with some assessment types. Findings suggest that changes in current practice are needed, as typically with little modification to the input prompts, ChatGPT could generate passable responses to many of the assessments, and it is only going to get better as future versions are trained on larger data sets.

The literature on laboratory objectives in engineering education research is scattered and inconsistent. Systematic literature reviews identified the need for better understanding. This paper ranks the laboratory learning objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains to improve scaffolding. It provides an opportunity for reflection, a pathway to confirm assessment alignment, and opens future research areas. To accomplish this, the Laboratory Learning Objectives Measurement (LLOM) instrument is used to survey 160 academics from around the world representing 18 engineering disciplines. The results suggest that the collective ranking order does represent a framework that can be used broadly. However, for greater alignment with consensus thinking, discipline rankings should be used. The cognitive domain was deemed the most important. These results provide the community's opinion and may not necessarily be best practice, providing an opportunity for reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The laboratory, an integral component of engineering education, can be conducted via traditional, online or mixed modes. Within these modes is a diverse range of implementation formats, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Empirical evidence investigating laboratory learning is rather scattered, with objectives measurement focused on the innovation in question (e.g., new simulation or experiment). Recently, a clearer picture of the most important laboratory learning objectives has formed. Missing is an understanding of whether academics implementing laboratories across different modes think about learning objectives differently. Using a survey based on the Laboratory Learning Objectives Measurement instrument, academics from a diverse range of engineering disciplines from across the world undertook a ranking exercise. The findings show that those implementing traditional and mixed laboratories align closely in their ranking choices, while those implementing online-only laboratories think about the objectives slightly differently. These findings provide an opportunity for reflection, enabling engineering educators to refine the alignment of their teaching modes, implementations and assessments with their intended learning objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]