KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 55 Sayı: 1

Türkiye’deki Bir Vakıf Üniversitesinde Mühendislik Ders İzlencelerinin Öğrenme Çıktıları ve Ölçme Araçları Açısından İncelenmesi

An Examination of Learning Outcomes and Assessment Instruments in Engineering Course Syllabi at a Foundation University in Türkiye

Şevval Kübra Özer(MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6893-2854
İlknur Bayram(Turkish National Police Academy)0000-0001-8109-8051
Sayfa
154–195
Yayın Tarihi
2026-04-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular öğrenme çıktılarının büyük çoğunluğunun (%65,7) uygulama, analiz, değerlendirme ve yaratma gibi üst düzey bilişsel becerileri vurguladığını göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu durum çalışması Türkiye’deki bir vakıf üniversitesinin mühendislik fakültesinde yer alan öğrenme çıktılarını ve ölçme araçlarını incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Araştırma 2021–2022 akademik yılına ait altı mühendislik bölümünden seçilen 125 ders izlencesine dayanmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular öğrenme çıktılarının büyük çoğunluğunun (%65,7) uygulama, analiz, değerlendirme ve yaratma gibi üst düzey bilişsel becerileri vurguladığını göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2021–2022 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Öğrenme Çıktıları · Ölçme Araçları · Mühendislik Fakültesi

Özet

Bu durum çalışması Türkiye’deki bir vakıf üniversitesinin mühendislik fakültesinde yer alan öğrenme çıktılarını ve ölçme araçlarını incelemektedir. Araştırma 2021–2022 akademik yılına ait altı mühendislik bölümünden seçilen 125 ders izlencesine dayanmaktadır. Toplam 738 öğrenme çıktısı Anderson ve Krathwohl’un (2001) Revize Edilmiş Bloom Taksonomisi’ne göre kodlanmıştır. Öğrenme çıktılarının açıklık ve ölçülebilirlik düzeylerini değerlendirmek üzere bir kontrol listesi kullanılırken, ölçme araçlarındaki çeşitlilik Gibbs ve Dunbar-Goddet’in (2009) sınıflandırması temel alınarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular öğrenme çıktılarının büyük çoğunluğunun (%65,7) uygulama, analiz, değerlendirme ve yaratma gibi üst düzey bilişsel becerileri vurguladığını göstermektedir. Öte yandan bazı öğrenme çıktılarının ölçülemeyen fiiller içermesi veya tek bir öğrenme çıktısı içinde birden fazla davranışa yer verilmesi nedeniyle sorunlu olduğu tespit edilmiştir. İncelenen 125 ders izlencesinin 50’sinde (%40) altıdan fazla öğrenme çıktısı bulunduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçme araçları dikkate alındığında, öğretim üyelerinin çeşitli araçlar kullandığı görülmektedir. En yaygın kullanılan araçlar final sınavları (%96.8), ara sınavlar (%92.8), ödevler (%70.4) ve kısa sınavlar (%46.4) olurken öğrenci merkezli alternatif ölçme araçlarına daha az başvurulduğu belirlenmiştir. Alternatif ölçme araçları kurum tarafından teşvik edilmesine rağmen öğretim üyeleri akran ve öz değerlendirme araçlarından yararlanmayı tercih etmemiştir. Ders izlencelerinin %72’sinde dört ila altı farklı ölçme aracına yer verilmesi öğrenci başarısını ölçmede dengeli ve çok yönlü bir yaklaşım benimsendiğini göstermektedir. Genel olarak, bu çalışma yükseköğretimde ölçülebilir ve gözlemlenebilir öğrenme çıktıları belirlemenin ve ölçme araçlarını çeşitlendirmenin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Abstract

This case study examines the learning outcomes and assessment instruments used in the Faculty of Engineering at a foundation university in Türkiye. Drawing on 125 officially approved course syllabi from six engineering departments during the 2021–2022 academic year, the study investigates a total of 738 learning outcomes, coded by following Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Evaluation checklist was also employed to evaluate the clarity and measurability of these outcomes. The variety of assessment instruments was analyzed using Gibbs and Dunbar-Goddet’s (2009) classification. The findings reveal that most learning outcomes (65.7%) emphasize higher-order cognitive skills such as applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating. However, some outcomes were problematic, featuring non-measurable verbs or multiple behaviors within a single outcome. 50 out of the 125 syllabi (40%) contained more than six learning outcomes. Regarding assessment instruments, faculty members used a diverse set of instruments, most frequently final exams (96.8%), midterm examinations (92.8%), assignments (70.4%) and quizzes (46.4%), while student-centered alternative assessment instruments were used less frequently. Although the institution encourages alternative assessment instruments, instructors tended not to use peer or self-assessment tools. Across syllabi, 72% of courses used four to six different assessment instruments, suggesting balanced, multi-faceted approach to evaluating student achievement. Overall, the study underscores the importance of defining measurable and observable learning outcomes and incorporating an appropriate variety of assessment instruments in higher education.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Özer, Ş. K., Bayram, İ. (2026). Türkiye’deki Bir Vakıf Üniversitesinde Mühendislik Ders İzlencelerinin Öğrenme Çıktıları ve Ölçme Araçları Açısından İncelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 55 Sayı: 1, 154–195. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1633101

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (87)

  1. Adam, S. (2004, July). Using learning outcomes: A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education. Report for the Bologna Seminar: Using Learning Outcomes, Edinburgh, Scotland.
  2. Adam, S. (2008). Learning outcomes: Current developments in Europe – Update on the issues and applications of learning outcomes associated with the Bologna Process. Scottish Government. https://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/Bol_semin/Edinburgh/S_ADam_back_pap.pdf
  3. Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. A&C Black.
  4. Allen, E. E. (1995). Active learning and teaching: Improving postsecondary library instruction. The Reference Librarian, 24(51-52), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v24n51_10
  5. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman.
  6. Attard, A., Di Iorio, E., Geven, K., & Santa, R. (2010). Student-centred learning – toolkit for students, staff and higher education institutions. European Students Union. https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SCL_toolkit_ESU_EI.compressed.pdf
  7. Battersby, M. (1999). So, what’s a learning outcome anyway? Centre for Curriculum, Transfer, and Technology.
  8. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
  9. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2010, February). Applying constructive alignment to outcomes-based teaching and learning. In Training material for “quality teaching for learning in higher education” workshop for master trainers, Ministry of Higher Education, Kuala Lumpur (Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 23–25).
  10. Bingham, J. (1999). Guide to developing learning outcomes. The Learning and Teaching Institute, Sheffield Hallam University.
  11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  12. Brookhart, S. M., & Nitko, A. J. (2019). Educational assessment of students. Pearson.
  13. Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J. J. A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. (2014). Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964
  14. Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). Sage.
  15. Burtner, J. (2000, April). The changing role of assessment in engineering education: A review of the literature. In Proceedings of the ASEE 2000 Southeast Section Conference (pp. 1–9).
  16. Busch, C., De Maret, P. S., Flynn, T., Kellum, R., Le, S., Meyers, B., Saunders, M., White, R., & Palmquist, M. (2012). Content analysis. Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=61
  17. Buyurgan, N., & Kiassat, C. (2017). Developing a new industrial engineering curriculum using a systems engineering approach. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 1263–1276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1287665
  18. Chance, B., & Peck, R. (2015). From curriculum guidelines to learning outcomes: Assessment at the program level. The American Statistician, 69(4), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2015.1077730
  19. Clark, R. A. (2002). Learning outcomes: The bottom line. Communication Education, 51(4), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520216531
  20. Cowan, J. (2009). Improving students’ learning outcomes. In C. Nygaard, C. Holtham, & N. Courtney (Eds.), Improving students’ learning outcomes (pp. 9–16). Copenhagen Business School Press.
  21. Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. Springer.
  22. Crespo, R. M., Najjar, J., Derntl, M., Leony, D., Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P.,. & Kloos, C. D. (2010, April). Aligning assessment with learning outcomes in outcome-based education. In IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference (pp. 1239–1246). IEEE.
  23. Cullen, R., & Harris, M. (2009). Assessing learner‐centeredness through course syllabi. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956018
  24. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–436). Sage.
  25. Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2015). Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551
  26. Despeisse, M. (2018). Teaching sustainability leadership in manufacturing: A reflection on the educational benefits of the board game factory heroes. Procedia CIRP, 69, 621-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.130
  27. Dobbins, K., Brooks, S., Scott, J. J., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. (2016). Understanding and enacting learning outcomes: The academic's perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1217–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.966668
  28. Ellis, G. (2004). Rough guide to learning outcomes. Teesside University, Centre for Learning and Quality Enhancement.
  29. Engin, O., Uluağaç, F., Çağlı, S. D., & Karaman, S. (2023). Türkiye’de mühendislik eğitimi veren yükseköğretim kurumlarında kalite süreçlerinin analizi. Harran Üniversitesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 8(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.46578/humder.1351705
  30. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00734.x
  31. Fiegel, G. L. (2013). Incorporating learning outcomes into an introductory geotechnical engineering course. European Journal of Engineering Education 38(3), 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.794200
  32. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2008). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. Routledge.
  33. Gaertner, H. (2014). Effects of student feedback as a method of self-evaluating the quality of teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.04.003
  34. Gibbs, G., & Dunbar‐Goddet, H. (2009). Characterising programme‐level assessment environments that support learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802071114
  35. Goodwin, A., Chittle, L., Dixon, J. C., & Andrews, D. M. (2018). Taking stock and effecting change: Curriculum evaluation through a review of course syllabi. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412397
  36. Hadjianastasis, M. (2017). Learning outcomes in higher education: Assumptions, positions and the views of early-career staff in the UK system. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2250–2266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1141402
  37. Hartel, R. W., & Foegeding, E. A. (2004). Learning: Objectives, competencies, or outcomes? Journal of Food Science Education, 3(4), 69–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4329.2004.tb00047
  38. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2017). History of English language teacher training and English language testing and evaluation (ELTE) education in Turkey. In Y. Bayyurt, & N. S. Sifakis (Eds.), English language education policies and practices in the Mediterranean countries and beyond (pp. 227–257). Peter Lang.
  39. Havnes, A., & Prøitz, T. S. (2016). Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9243-z
  40. Higher Education Quality Council of Turkey. (2022). Higher education evaluation and quality assurance status report. https://www.yokak.gov.tr/documents/StatusReports/StatusReport2021.pdf
  41. Hussey, T., & Smith P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510309399
  42. Jenkins, A., & Unwin, D. (2001). How to write learning outcomes? In writing learning outcomes for the core curriculum. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/format/outcomes.html
  43. Jessop, T., & Tomas, C. (2017). The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 990–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1217501
  44. Kennedy, D. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. University College Cork. https://hdl.handle.net/10468/1613
  45. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  46. Lipnevich, A. A., Panadero, E., Gjicali, K., & Fraile, J. (2021). What’s on the syllabus? An analysis of assessment criteria in first year courses across US and Spanish universities. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(4), 675–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09357-9
  47. Maher, A. (2004). Learning outcomes in higher education: Implications for curriculum design and student learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 3(2), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.3794/johlste.32.78
  48. Marios, H. (2017). Learning outcomes in higher education: Assumptions, positions and the views of early-career staff in the UK system. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2250–2266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1141402
  49. McDowell, L., White, S., & Davis, H. C. (2004). Changing assessment practice in engineering: How can understanding lecturer perspectives help? European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790310001633151
  50. Meda, L., & Swart, A. J. (2018). Analysing learning outcomes in an electrical engineering curriculum using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom’s Taxonomy. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1378169
  51. Merced, M., Stutman, Z. E., & Mann, S. T. (2018). Teaching the history of psychology: A content analysis of course syllabi from doctor of psychology programs. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717729909
  52. Miranda, F. J. (2025). Accreditation and quality assurance in higher education institutions: a systematic literature review and a research agenda. Quality in Higher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2025.2553983
  53. Moon, J. (2002). The module and programme handbook: A practical resource for linking levels, learning outcomes and assessment. Kogan Page Limited.
  54. Moshtari, M., & Safarpour, A. (2024). Challenges and strategies for the internationalization of higher education in low-income East African countries, Higher Education, 87(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00994-1
  55. Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5
  56. Panadero, E., Fraile, J., Fernández Ruiz, J., Castilla-Estévez, D., & Ruiz, M. A. (2019). Spanish university assessment practices: Examination tradition with diversity by faculty. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1512553
  57. Patil, A., & Codner, G. (2007). Accreditation of engineering education: review, observations and proposal for global accreditation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 639–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701520594
  58. Popham, W. J. (2006). All about accountability/needed: A dose of assessment literacy. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 84–85.
  59. Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory into Practice, 48(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536
  60. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013
  61. Quesada-Serra, V., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S. (2016). What are we missing? Spanish lecturers’ perceptions of their assessment practices. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.930353
  62. Rodríguez-Gómez, G., Quesada-Serra, V., & Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S. (2016). Learning-oriented e-assessment: The effects of a training and guidance programme on lecturers’ perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in higher education, 41(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.979132
  63. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? Kogan Page.
  64. Ruben, B. D. (2018). Quality in higher education. Routledge.
  65. Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria‐based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264262
  66. Schefer-Wenzl, S., & Miladinovic, I. (2020). Integrating 21st century skills in higher education engineering curricula. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 13(2), 77. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v13i2.17011
  67. Schoepp, K. (2019). The state of course learning outcomes at leading universities. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1392500
  68. Sin, C. (2014). Lost in translation: The meaning of learning outcomes across national and institutional policy contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1823–1837. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.806463
  69. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
  70. Stanny, C., Gonzalez, M., & McGowan, B. (2015). Assessing the culture of teaching and learning through a syllabus review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 898–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956684
  71. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and Procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications.
  72. Subheesh, N. P., & Sethy, S. S. (2018, June). Assessment and evaluation practices in engineering education: A global perspective. In 2018 3rd International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISPEE.2018.8593451
  73. Subheesh, N. P., & Sethy, S. S. (2020). Learning through assessment and feedback Practices: A critical review of engineering education settings. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/114157
  74. Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. Anker.
  75. Swart, A. (2014). Ensuring the sustainability of an engineering curriculum: A case study from a telecommunications course. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(11), 47–56.
  76. Swart, A. J., & Daneti, M. (2019, April). Analyzing learning outcomes for electronic fundamentals using Bloom’s taxonomy. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 39–44). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725137
  77. Tomas, C., & Jessop, T. (2019). Struggling and juggling: A comparison of student assessment loads across research and teaching-intensive universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463355
  78. Torun, A., & Si̇pahi̇, S. (2021). Learning outcomes and accereditation in interior design undergraduate education. Atlas Journal, 7(38), 1454–1472. https://doi.org/10.31568/atlas.636
  79. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004
  80. Vos, H. (2000). How to assess for improvement of learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(3), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/030437900438658
  81. Webb, N. M., Herman, J. L., & Webb, N. L. (2007). Alignment of mathematics state‐level standards and assessments: The role of reviewer agreement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00091.x
  82. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994
  83. Wittstrom, K., Cone, C., Salazar, K., Bond, R., & Dominguez, K. (2010). Alignment of pharmacotherapy course assessments with course objectives. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(5), 76. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj740576
  84. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.
  85. Yolcu, H. H. (2019). Malzeme bilimi ve nano mühendislik programının öğrenme çıktılarının analizi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 9(3), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2019.356
  86. Yüksel, H.S., & Gündüz, N. (2017). Formative and summative assessment in higher education: Opinions and practices of instructors. European Journal of Education Studies, 3, 336–356. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.832999
  87. Crespo, R. M., Najjar, J., Derntl, M., Leony, D., Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P.,. & Kloos, C. D. (2010, April). Aligning assessment with learning outcomes in outcome-based education. In IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference (pp. 1239–1246). IEEE.