Mock Bid Letting for Learning Assessment
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 125, Issue 3
Abstract
A mock bid letting process is described that provides an assessment of student learning in construction process design. A case study is presented where students submitted mock bids at an Iowa Department of Transportation bid letting according to the same rules and under the same conditions as industry professionals. Assessment was provided because the bids were read aloud and compared with professional bids. Student bids were in the range of professional bids or slightly higher. The reasons for success are discussed, and planned changes for future mock bid lettings are listed.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers, 2nd Ed., Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
2.
Clough, R. H., and Sears, G. A. (1994). Construction contracting, 6th Ed., Wiley, New York.
3.
Engineering criteria 2000: Criteria for accrediting programs in engineering in the United.” (1998). 2nd Ed., Engineering Accreditation Commission, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. Baltimore, 〈http://www.abet.org/EAC/eac2000.html〉.
4.
Eschenbach, T. G., and Ra, J. W. (1997). “Shift from lecture/exam paradigm in engineering management education.”J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 13(6), 42–49.
5.
Ewell, P. T. (1998). “National trends in assessing student learning.” J. Engrg. Educ., 87(2), 107–114.
6.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Co., Edina, Minn.
7.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1998). “Maximizing instruction through cooperative learning.” Prism, 7(6), 24–29.
8.
Lamancusa, J. S., Jorgensen, J. E., and Zayas-Castro, J. L. (1997). “The learning factory—A new approach to integrating design and manufacturing into the engineering curriculum.” J. Engrg. Educ., 86(2), 103–112.
9.
Peterson, G. D. (1997). “Engineering criteria 2000: A bold new change agent.” Prism, 7(1), 30–31.
10.
Popham, J. W. (1997). “What's wrong—and what's right—with rubrics.” Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72–75.
11.
Russell, J., and Yao, J. T. P. (1996). “Consensus! Students need more management education.”J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 12(6), 17–29.
12.
Shaeiwitz, J. A. (1998). “Classroom assessment.” J. Engrg. Educ., 87(2), 179–184.
13.
cSousa, D. R. ( 1995). How the brain learns: A classroom teacher's guide. National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, Va., 16, 26–27.
14.
Sullivan, F. J., and Baren, R. (1998). “Simulating the workplace in an engineering technology course: A rhetorical model.” J. Engrg. Educ., 87(3), 279–284.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 125 • Issue 3 • July 1999
Pages: 103 - 107
History
Received: Jul 10, 1998
Published online: Jul 1, 1999
Published in print: Jul 1999
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.