This section concludes my inquiry proposal/plan. What remains now is to put this system into test mode this September, see whether or not the front load justifies the outcomes.

Introduction

Originally, this inquiry was focused on how one might objectively assess a student’s physical project based work with respect to prior knowledge they brought to the classroom, and also measure their growth in process with respect to the design wheel and social emotional development. The subject matter was chosen based on my experience at BCIT, where marks were constantly in question by the student’s as they were allegedly curved on subjective expectations relating to prior experience. For example, I was frequently assigned grades in the 80-90 percent range for decent though unspectacular projects, while the red seal carpenters in the group frequently scored high 70’s to mid 80’s for quite obviously superior work. This of course led me to ponder the inevitable dilemmas of how to grade student work under similar criteria, and how to justify those grades should my decisions come into question. I was and still continue to run on the assumption that many new teachers like me will run into similar dilemmas, so the inquiry has now focused down to creating a simple “handbook” that addresses key assessment strategies in a practical manner, and is adaptable to individual assessors needs.

I was relying on my long practicum to garner information and strategies to help with this project, but found that the focus on assessment at my school was very small, with the demographic dictating that connection with students to help them stay engaged in school as opposed to skipping and subsequently disappearing was paramount. This schoolwide focus left me cobbling bits of research, most of which belong to Kimberly Zumach from her Master’s dissertation on the new curriculum, and some practical strategies from the master teachers I worked with at the school. The actual handbook is something I will develop in the field this year, but the following descriptions will provide the initial framework, based on Zumach’s ideas and my field observations.

Key assessment areas

As outlined in the new BC curriculum, areas to be assessed include the core competencies, curricular competencies, big ideas, and content. In determining pertinent assessment methods it was necessary to alter the pyramidal focus hierarchy of “for, of, and as learning” (summative vs. Formative) to accommodate for the extremely high focus on safety, especially in technology education and the middle grades. The focus areas can easily be altered to accommodate more experienced secondary students throughout the process. This traditional model shows a shift in focus from assessment oflearning to asand for, but the safety component must follow a focus similar to the traditional model (fig. 3.1) as safety is a no-compromise mastery only concept in most areas of technology education. Beyond this safety element though, the reconfigured model of figure 3.2 is followed.

(image from a web page by Jessica Rome at: etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Assessment_as_Learning)

The key components to be assessed, along with the assessment type are summarized in the chart below for clarity:

Although all of the above components are valuable, it is necessary to assign some form of weight to them in order of importance. The following chart is merely an outline to be altered as needed, but does give the basic idea of hierarchy of importance:

There is of course some inherent crossover here such as behaviour and employability within safety, respecting diversity within behaviour and employability, or the dependency of the project completion mark embedded in the process.

Methods

In delivering the instructional material, I have decided on the following methods:

1. Teacher centric instruction
2. Summative safety assessments
3. Rubrics
4. Project based learning
5. E-portfolio

The following is a short summary of each method, indicating how it falls into the overall assessment picture:

Teacher centred instruction

The respecting diversity program, or a condensed version of it, should be presented to the students as part of the initial class expectations. Rubrics on behaviour and employability can also be piggybacked on this program, and developed with the students to promote the first exercise in community classroom environment.

• Competencies addressed: Core
• Assessment type: Formative

Multiple safety demo’s for general shop, hand tools, and power tools will be a large part of the class term. During demo’s, questions should be posed to students, and students should be prompted to re-iterate the main points repeatedly until confidence and mastery is apparent.

• Competencies addressed: Core, curricular, content
• Assessment type: Formative

Formal safety assessments

These are exactly what they sound like – formal summative assessments to demonstrate mastery after repeated formative assessment within safety demonstrations. I prefer the online quizzes which teachers can customize to their needs, although paper is an equally effective medium and can be signed by both parties to prove mastery should liability issues arise

• Competencies addressed: Curricular, content
• Assessment type: Summative

Following these assessments, establishing protocols such as having students orally reiterate the key safety rules of a piece of equipment before first use are suggested (strongly encouraged).

• Competencies addressed: Core, curricular, content
• Assessment type: Formative

Rubrics

Many types of rubrics are possible in the tech ed realm, but I believe the following two to be of most use in generalizing the expectations of students in a shop environment: Employability and Behaviour.

• Competencies addressed: Core, curricular
• Assessment type: Summative and Formative, depends on use and integration

Additionally, specific rubrics for projects may be used as well. These should reflect the criteria for the e-portfolio parameters outlined below. Here, the focus should lie within the process, not the product so frequent formative assessments in line with the rubric should be apparent.

• Competencies addressed: Core, curricular, big ideas, content
• Assessment type: Formative and summative

See sample rubrics attached as second file

E-portfolio

The tie in factor for assessment lies in the presentation and utilization of the e-portfolio. There are several online formats available including MyEd, freshgrade, portfoliogen etc. My main contribution to this was in borrowing the HACCP assessment format (hazard analysis and critical control points), specifically the critical control points to give the students several checkpoints along the way to assess, correct, design/modify, and reflect. The idea here is that the curriculum and those who drive it have no interest in finished product, only process. My observations however are that students are VERY interested in finished products, so a focus on process, design, observation, corrections etc. serves both needs equally (ie: the finished product takes care of itself quality wise, if the process control points are utilized).

• Competencies addressed: Core, curricular, big ideas, content
• Assessment type: Primarily formative, with a self and teacher assessed final “summative” mark

Another key idea is that the learning process is self assessed and corrected by the students, utilizing an assessment as learning structure and meta cognition practice as they reflect on each CCP. The assessments also guide the teacher as assessment for learning, allowing modifications to be made if certain concepts come up continuously unclear and problematic.

Conclusions

As stated, this is an ongoing project. Using the framework outlined here, I will test, modify, and assess the usefulness of this assessment system in my first year of teaching this fall. Most of the observations were simply ideas that came to me as I watched the assessment process in action, but I owe a debt of gratitude to the 5 teachers I worked with this spring who’s ideas past and present contributed many of the nuances to the proposed system. Please find attached the power point presentation that breaks down the main ideas in a condensed format, adding a visual augment that hopefully clarifies the concepts.

A Method of Objective Assessment:

(For the Inclusion of Inquiry Based Learning in Project Based Units).

Introduction

An argument by long time technology education (shop) teachers is that they have always practiced inquiry-based learning. While this is true in principle, many tech ed teachers still feel more comfortable with a lopsided proportion of prescriptive projects versus self guided and directed inquiry driven projects. Having said that, a certain amount of prescribed, instructor guided project work is essential in the tech ed shop, if for no other reason than the high level of importance allotted to safety. Basic safety principles do not lend themselves well to inquiry based learning in practice, so a degree of guided instruction is, in my opinion, non negotiable when it comes to introducing power and hand tools. Once the class as a whole has moved beyond safety and into the first project, the seeds of inquiry based learning can be integrated into what will ideally become a lifetime of creative and critical thinking skills that can transfer into the quick thinking and highly adaptable traits required in the modern post secondary and working world.

Assessment Methods

The basis of this paper is how can we properly assess for not only project based learning outcomes, but for the process as it relates to the curricular competencies, and inquiry based learning as it relates to these and core competencies/big ideas. It is essentially a blend of many assessment methods new and old, with an emphasis on practicality for the new teacher. The paper will focus on a multi-part assessment that is weighted heavily toward process and inquiry based concepts, and includes techniques such as:

1. Beginning of unit reflection on what “chosen ADST skill” means to the student.
2. Instructor and student generated rubric – broad coverage aligned with the learning outcomes and lectures on safety, teamwork, the classroom community and core competencies, and finished projects (lesser weight).
3. Ongoing teacher observations and logging, low inference, cross sectional data.
4. Zumach’s (2016) 10 step handbook for assessment of inquiry based learning
   1. Including assessment “for” and “as” learning through frequent feedback.
5. End of term reflection on progress in process, for the students to compare and self assess.
   1. Including peer assessment of group dynamic.

Process

Near the beginning of an ADST unit (woodwork for example), the instructor will initiate an individual student self-reflection to get a sense of what they are feeling as they enter the shop for the first (or perhaps not) time. Questions can be simple and open ended such as: “What do you think of or feel when you see all the power tools?” or “What type of projects do you imagine yourself making out of wood?”. These initial reflections will be held by the instructor until the end of term, and will give the students an opportunity to observe and reflect upon the skills, competencies, and social skills they have acquired throughout the unit when compared to their final reflection at the end.

Zumach (2016) states that a rubric or a single letter grade cannot capture the depth of inquiry-based learning that students acquire in an entire term; I likewise believe this to be true. Assessment of process must share an equal depth and breadth if it is to capture all of its facets, so the more traditional rubric should focus on a more broad outline of operations of the individual student relating to the classroom as a community, with a focus on personal & social and communication core competencies, for example:

• Assessment of your partner and group safety captain.
• Awareness of others and surroundings via class safety reports.
• Consistent use of PPE and machine safety protocols.
• General performance in a group dynamic

These operations and behaviours should be outlined and reinforced in lectures, discussions, and learning outcome in the form of low stakes quizzes, as well as tracked for “assessment for learning” adjustments by way of low inference logging by the instructor (described next). The only summative assessment used will be in the form of a safety test, which must be re-taken until a minimum standard (usually 80%).

With the bulk of the post safety unit comprised of inquiry based learning, frequent observations, low inference incident logging, and frequent feedback can be used as an augment to the rubric as an assessment for learning process. Intermittent self-assessment as described by Davies should also be frequently integrated for the “assessment as learning” component of feedback, a process that has garnered much attention and positive feedback over the past few years (2007). Designing the rubric to guide your prescribed learning outcomes, and subsequently refining and defining it transparently with the rest of the class will add validity and student buy in by supporting your “class as a community” centered pedagogy in a practical, fair, and equitable way.

Inquiry Based Learning

It is important for new teachers to also have a working definition of inquiry in addition to the many charts and spirals that describe the process. I found personally that the term “Inquiry Based Learning” was never actually defined for me, and as a result caused me much distress and uncertainty whenever it was mentioned in passing or during lecture.

Zumach (2016) defines inquiry-based instruction as:

Inquiry-based instruction can involve learners investigating real-world problems, developing questioning, research and communication skills, collaborating within and beyond the classroom, and developing a deep understanding of content knowledge. This learning is often integrated into a public setting where the students have the opportunity to contribute to expanding a general knowledge of how the world works (Stephenson, 2015). This method of instruction is often anchored with an essential question that is explored through a guided, partially guided or open inquiry (Wiggins, 2005) (p. 5).

Another more student centred definition is culled from the M.O.E:

Inquiry is the mindset students use to build their own knowledge and understanding through an active, open-minded exploration into a meaningful question, problem, or issue. (Ministry of Education, 2015).

Outlined in Zumach’s assessment of inquiry based learning handbook are several facets of learning that are derived from the core competencies, along with composite additions relating to higher order taxonomic thinking based on curricular competencies (2016):

1. Personal Responsibility and Awareness

1. Personal Identity
2. Communication
3. Critical Thinking
4. Creative Thinking
5. Reflecting
6. Collaborating
7. Social Responsibility

IX/X.      Understand: Explain and Understand: Apply.

Zumach (2016) provides a series of lesson plan examples to teach and asses these specific facets in the realms of “for” and “as” learning, used in conjunction with the student self-assessment protocols that require meta cognition to understand, disseminate, and ultimately describe their thoughts (Davies, 2007). To implement a practical handbook such as this would certainly be a challenge to the novice teacher, but at the very least it still provides a framework for progression in the assessment of inquiry process. Many concepts ranging from the entry and exit reflections, rubric of learning outcomes, and assessment for and as learning overlap and merge with the learning facets, and as such could be well defined as similar tools in different contexts – a toolbox to assist the new teacher in building effective, reliable, and valid assessment models for their own ADST (or other) classroom’s.

Conclusion

At the onset of the inquiry proposal, I was seeking an assessment method specific to ADST and its (perceived) nuances, but discovered that properly designed and implemented assessment strategies are not only more universal in their structure (owing to the focus of transferable knowledge through inquiry based learning), but less esoteric and more practical when put in the context of sample lesson plans to address the facets of learning. During the upcoming practicum, I will attempt to test the method and observe how closely the outcome aligns with the objective, and report further findings in the final phase of the inquiry project.

Reference List

Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning: a role for summative assessment? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 103-110.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015). Glossary of curriculum terms. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/pdf/glossary.pdf

Davies, A. (2007). Making classroom assessment work (2nd ed.). Courtenay, BC: Connections Pub.

Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379. doi:10.1080/0969594970040304

Zumach, K. (2016). Assessment in inquiry-based learning: the rationale and design of a handbook for teaching and assessing key learning facets (Doctoral dissertation, Electronic version published by Vancouver Island University). Retrieved from https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/2924/Zumach.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Original outline of key concepts from 450B:

4. Key concepts to explore:

1. Objective assessment of a students understanding and application of the curricular competencies in respect to making (Biggs, 1998).
   1. How do students utilize this design wheel? Is it effective in producing the best result they can achieve at any given point on their learning spectrum?
2. Objective assessment of a students physically manufactured product (equity or equality).
   1. Based on a student’s level of background or baseline knowledge, is their level of progression (gap from start to finish) equal? If not, what is a fair and objective assessment of their final level (project or knowledge).
3. Assessment of a student’s social/emotional and personal development.
   1. Has the assessment of the students work or progress helped or hindered them in the social and emotional development sphere?

Within these key concepts, a built-in problem arises from the lack of literature relating directly to assessment of the newly integrated curricular competencies. As a result, the focus of fair and equitable assessment based upon current curricula in general may be an avenue to explore via comparative and similar study’s (Biggs, 1998)

5. As we transition away from averaging numbers and assigning finite letter grades (Zumach, 2016), how do we re-educate parents on a system they are un-familiar with and leery of the merit? The very nature of the subjective and biased nature of a human instructor calls into play the level of objectivity in any assessment.

Furthermore, cultural differences in students, their individual habitus (and age), and how ingrained the culture is will be important factors in SEL, and personal and social development in the classroom. How do you foster a preservation of the culture while simultaneously fostering a sense of belonging in the new culture? Integrating non-english speaking parents into the students’ assessment process is of primary importance in this arena.