Abstract:

Assessment methods in higher education significantly influence students’ learning strategies, motivation, and academic outcomes. In engineering disciplines, where knowledge is structured around distinct conceptual blocks, the method used to aggregate marks can affect both the fairness of evaluation and its alignment with intended learning outcomes. Traditionally, the arithmetic mean allows compensation between stronger and weaker areas, but may overlook the necessity for balanced mastery in foundational topics.

This study presents a comparative analysis of arithmetic versus geometric mean in the evaluation of Thermotechnics, a third-year course in the Degree in Industrial Technology Engineering, taught at the Faculty of Engineering Bilbao, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). The course is divided into three core content blocks: conduction, convection, and radiation heat transfer. These topics are each assessed with a specific problem in the written exam (final exam). The total grade is determined by incorporating the scores obtained in laboratory, computer and seminar classes (continuous assessment). To sum the continuous assessment score, students must achieve a minimum of 4/10 in the final exam. This is currently calculated using the geometric mean of the three problems.

The study utilised data from four academic years (2021/2022 to 2024/2025), encompassing approximately 280 students annually across Spanish, Basque, and English teaching groups. The study recalculates exam outcomes using both criteria, arithmetic and geometric means. The geometric mean penalizes uneven performance, ensuring a minimum level of competence in all blocks, whereas the arithmetic mean permits partial compensation between strong and weak areas. This difference highlights how assessment design can directly shape student behaviour, influencing whether learners adopt selective study strategies or strive for balanced proficiency.

The findings underscore that the selection of averaging method is pedagogically significant and not merely a technical detail. It affects equity, and the strategic orientation of students’ learning. By examining this case, the work contributes to the broader debate on assessment in engineering education, calling for faculties to critically reflect on whether their evaluation practices should prioritize specialization, compensation, or balanced mastery of fundamental knowledge areas.

Keywords:

Higher Education, Engineering, Assessment criteria, Arithmetic Mean, Geometric Mean, Thermotechnics.