There is a disproportionately high amount of drop-outs in mechanical engineering degree programs (cf. Heublein, Hutzsch, Schreiber, Sommer, & Besuch, 2009, p. 159) all over Europe. One of the main causes seems to be performance problems in the basic engineering courses. One such basic sub-section of the engineering sciences is engineering mechanics, (EM). It provides theoretical concepts for application-oriented engineering disciplines (including mechanical engineering).

Ever since, previous research has shown that feedback on learning results is an important building block for effective instruction (e.g. Hattie & Timperley, 2007). A possible measure against high drop-out rates in mechanical engineering could be high-quality feedback on strengths and weaknesses in EM competences. From a student’s perspective good feedback should give answers to the questions “How well have I done?” and “How can I do better?” (c.f. Beaumont, O’Doherty, & Shannon, 2011, p. 673). However, a review of literature shows that a lot of criteria for effective feedback processes have been developed (e.g. Hattie & Timperley, 2007), but little attention has been paid to the question what feedback should be about (content aspect). We argue that feedback processes can only be effective if the information of the lecturer about the students’ state of learning is reliable, valid, and of diagnostic value. In order to provide information of this kind, an EM competence model has been developed as a basis for in-depth assessment.

The intention of this paper is to describe an approach to gather assessment information regarding the desired and actual state of the learning process for particular points in time which can be used for the configuration of EM teaching in the subdomain of statics.

Beaumont, C., O’Doherty, M., & Shannon, L. (2011). Reconceptualising assessment feedback: a key to improving student learning? Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 671–687. doi:10.1080/03075071003731135 Duit, R., Roth, W.M., Komorek, M. & Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering Conceptual Change by Analogies - Between Scylla and Carybdis. Learning and Instruction, 11, 283-303. Frey, A., Hartig, J., & Rupp, A. A. (2009). Booklet Designs in Large-Scale Assessments of Student Achievement: Theory and Practice. Educational measurement: issues and practice, 28(3), 39–53. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487 Heublein, U., Hutzsch, C., Schreiber, J., Sommer, D., & Besuch, G. (2009). Ursachen des Studienabbruchs in Bachelor- und in herkömmlichen Studiengängen: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung von Exmatrikulierten des Studienjahres 2007/08 (HIS:Projektbericht). Hannover. Stavy, R. & Tirosh, D. (2000). How Students (Mis-) Understand Science and Mathematics: Intuitive Rules. Teachers College Press. New York