Qualitative systematic review identifies evolving assessment strategies in engineering education, indicating a response to generative AI and pandemic challenges.
Post secondary education experienced two major disruptions in the past five years that forced us to change the way we do our jobs. First the pandemic shifted us to remote delivery, and then generative AI was released to the public. Many academic institutions provided some form of guidance on how to handle these challenges in hopes that the teaching and learning processes would not be significantly impacted. Both disruptions forced educators to rethink the evaluation and assessment practices used within our programs, as noted in a recent policy review that identified the need to adopt ‘multifaceted evaluation strategies’. It is unclear, however, how, or if, the engineering education community responded to this need. This qualitative systematic review answers ‘What assessment and evaluation strategies are reported in the engineering education and assessment and evaluation literature from 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) until the end of 2024 (two years of generative AI availability)?’ Examined through the lens of the Macro-Meso-Micro (3M) framework for educational change, analysis of 35 conference and journal papers indicate a shift in assessment strategies, techniques, and methods from a focus on content to learning, a move to more continuous and formative assessment, and a choice of assessment practices that meet the evaluation and assessment needs of multiple levels of the 3M framework
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nancy Melin Nelson (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: