Articfact+1a



Develop common assessments (benchmark,formative, summative) for all courses.

During the summer and fall of this year I have developed and applied common assessments to all of the courses that I teach. Students take a pre-test to evaluate their abilities and knowledge then at the end of the class take a post test. The measure of learning can be reviewed and charted to allow adjustments in the curriculum or teaching methods.

Below is an example of such an analysis: **Computer Design **


 * Name || Pre-Exam || Final Exam || Marking Period || Final Grade || Percentage of Student Growth ||  ||
 * Bardi, Alec || 30 || 91 || 89.38 || 89.7 || 299.00% ||  ||
 * Bayer, Jacklyn || 56 || 92 || 94.94 || 94.35 || 168.48% ||  ||
 * Burgoon, Justin || 52 || 88 || 90.37 || 89.9 || 172.88% ||  ||
 * Byra, Drew || 60 || 92 || 93.58 || 93.26 || 155.43% ||  ||
 * Cronce, Mackenzie || 60 || 94 || 97.41 || 96.73 || 161.22% ||  ||
 * DellaVella, Nicholas || 69 || 88 || 88.89 || 88.71 || 128.57% ||  ||
 * DeOre, Anthony || 74 || 92 || 93.46 || 93.17 || 125.91% ||  ||
 * Dudjak, Nicole || 66 || 92 || 95.43 || 94.74 || 143.55% ||  ||
 * Ginder, Kameron || 67 || 92 || 82.78 || 84.62 || 126.30% ||  ||
 * Godin, Ryan || 67 || 86 || 88.89 || 88.31 || 131.81% ||  ||
 * Haines, Ryan || 65 || 86 || 94.44 || 92.75 || 142.69% ||  ||
 * LaManna, Beau || 69 || 89 || 95.68 || 94.34 || 136.72% ||  ||
 * Mantineo, Blase || 79 || 85 || 86.3 || 86.04 || 108.91% ||  ||
 * Ortega Diaz, Marcos || 69 || 89 || 89.75 || 89.6 || 129.86% ||  ||
 * Rallis, Paul || 75 || 91 || 90.86 || 90.89 || 121.19% ||  ||
 * Rapalo, Patricia || 41 || 81 || 94.57 || 91.86 || 224.05% ||  ||
 * Rugg, Ian || 54 || 87 || 87.04 || 87.03 || 161.17% ||  ||
 * Wargo, Alex || 51 || 92 || 93.95 || 93.56 || 183.45% ||  ||
 * Webb, Brandon || 62 || 94 || 90.99 || 91.59 || 147.73% ||  ||
 * Wehrle, Michael || 65 || 94 || 90 || 90.8 || 139.69% ||  ||
 * Zemlachenko, Michael || 58 || 96 || 88.27 || 89.82 || 154.86% ||  ||
 * Average Scores || 61.38 || 90.05 || 91.28 || 91.04 || 155.40% ||  ||
 * Average Scores || 61.38 || 90.05 || 91.28 || 91.04 || 155.40% ||  ||
 * Average Scores || 61.38 || 90.05 || 91.28 || 91.04 || 155.40% ||  ||

**Introduction to Technology **


 * Name || Pre-exam || Final Exam || Marking Period || Final Grade || Percentage of Student Growth ||
 * Cicala, Alexander || 24 || 88 || 91.8 || 91.04 || 379.33% ||
 * DeCicco, Austin || 9 || 68 || 71.16 || 70.53 || 783.67% ||
 * Dyer, Andrew || 24 || 90 || 92.3 || 91.84 || 382.67% ||
 * Fimiani, Justin || 23 || 73 || 91.7 || 87.96 || 382.43% ||
 * Giles, Keith || 28 || 72 || 89.5 || 86 || 307.14% ||
 * Ginder, Kristopher || 15 || 78 || 78.8 || 78.64 || 524.27% ||
 * Given, Joel || 38 || 85 || 95.9 || 93.72 || 246.63% ||
 * Hughes, Connor || 28 || 90 || 94.5 || 93.6 || 334.29% ||
 * Kuphal, Andrew || 8 || 50 || 84.8 || 77.84 || 973.00% ||
 * Mennito, Anthony || 15 || 56 || 84 || 78.4 || 522.67% ||
 * Nicholas, Gordon || 11 || 80 || 89.4 || 87.52 || 795.64% ||
 * Rastelli, Connor || 11 || 83 || 81.7 || 81.96 || 745.09% ||
 * Rutledge, Jack || 11 || 73 || 86.5 || 83.8 || 761.82% ||
 * Shah, Soham || 5 || 94 || 90.3 || 91.04 || 1820.80% ||
 * Szwed, Jesse || 71 || 95 || 92.6 || 93.08 || 131.10% ||
 * Thomas, Ana || 11 || 94 || 92.1 || 92.48 || 840.73% ||
 * Warrington, Jeffrey || 21 || 85 || 93.1 || 91.48 || 435.62% ||
 * Wisniewski, George || 13 || 89 || 88.7 || 88.76 || 682.77% ||
 * Average Score || 20.33 || 80.17 || 88.27 || 86.65 ||  ||

As part of student learning, growth must be measured to be able to make the statement that learning has occurred. The ability to determine student learning can be measured by several different methods. The method demonstrated above is a straight forward example of the progress made by students as they progress through a course.

 As the student enters the class, they take a pre-test that demonstrates their existing knowledge. The score acquired in the pre-testing is not a summative assessment but a tool to measure growth. At the end of the course, the students are once again tested to establish the knowledge learned in the class. The percentage of student growth is calculated by comparing the pre-test again the final grade. The percentage justifies the level of learning obtained by the student for the duration that the student has been in the class.

Reflections I have chosen to include this piece to help demonstrate the level of student learning prior to the start of class and after the class is complete. I struggled with the concept of pre-testing students and comparing their growth in this manner for several reasons. First, blind testing students on information may be considered fair when placing students at a certain academic level. However, in a technical elective, we generally expect that the students are not familiar with our material. Secondly, the pre-test is a multiple choice, true / false exam which gives the student the possibility of guessing the right answer. Third, my classes generally has a large amount of students with Individual Education Plans in place and may struggle taking any type of test.

In my opinion, the results above do show growth in the general area of tested information. The difficulty comes from the questions, "Is this the best way to assess growth". Particularly for my classes, I would have to say no. I feel that a different type of pre-test and post test can be developed that can indicate a more substantial measure of growth.  In the future, I would like to develop a starter activity for the drawing classes that I teach that would evaluate their present knowledge of technical drawing and ability to develop a design solution to a problem. At the completion of the course, I would ask them to complete a similar assignment now armed with the knowledge gained in the class. I believe this would provide a better perspective on the growth of the student. Even a class such as Inventions & Innovations and Introduction to Technology would benefit from a starter activity that would assess the students present knowledge of "Systems".