Assessment Plan, Version 23 - Projects

Around this time every summer I reflect on the way I graded my students' work the previous school year and make some tweaks. Since I just finished year 22 teaching physics that means this is likely the 23rd version of my grading plan. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration but about 7 years ago I learned about standards based grading and it completely changed the way I think about learning and assessment. Also, I just listened again to Jennifer Gonzalez' podcast How Accurate Are Your Grades? and was reminded of the type of assessment I hope to continue moving forward toward. A few thoughts about our physics projects based on her ideas:

✮ The grade on an assignment should match the learning students are
supposed to be doing in your class. ✮  

As she talked about her daughter's volcano project I was thinking about the projects in my classes, starting with our quiz board project.

I love having these examples above the cabinets in our classroom, letting students see the fun designs that have been created in the past. But the point of the project is to demonstrate an understanding of electricity and circuits, so why do I applaud the fancy-looking ones most?

This disconnect was mentioned in a student reflection; this student liked the challenge of the project but didn't like having to incorporate a theme. The project was worth 60 points and as long as the theme was incorporated significantly or in three separate ways, then the 5 "theme" points were earned. But incorporating a theme has no connection to physics knowledge so why is that part of the grade? I suppose that I value creativity and making things look "good" in my own work, and so I want to encourage students who also think that way. The student mentioned above incorporated the circuitry from a prank toy that shocks someone when they grab a stick of gum. That group learned much more than most groups but their design wouldn't likely make the "wall of fame" because it didn't look great. (They wanted to keep it anyway.) I'll need to keep thinking about this one...

✮ How much of the grade depends on outside resources? ✮  

When I show examples from previous years, I do make a point of talking about the designs that pushed past the standard requirements — those that included a buzzer, or switches, or a selector dial — but those student groups likely had help from a parent or some other mentor, and they definitely had the resources to seek out and purchase the extra parts, just like the podcast mentioned. Last year I removed credit for doing these sorts of extra things, but barely anyone tried to push past the minimum. This year, there were required parts that would earn a "B" (not the buzzers, switches, etc.) and options for going past that level to earn an "A". These options were based on learning something new. Figuring out how to wire new electrical components was one option but researching an aspect of electricity that we don't cover was another, or coming in at lunch or after school to learn to solder, or trying a more difficult method of wiring. I think this was better — although students who had access to outside resources could use them, it wasn't the only route to excellence. I will be brainstorming more options and asking my students for their ideas when we come to this project next spring.

I've wondered too about whether it would be better to only assess the process of learning during a project rather than whether the end-goal was met. Most of the projects in my class require some building skills — build a musical instrument, build a catapult, build a toothpick bridge. The goal is to apply the physics ideas we are studying to a physical scenario and constructing an actual thing is engaging for many students, but the analysis of the design should be the focus. This is my approach to labs — the grade is not based on how correct the results are; only the quality of the analysis is assessed — but with projects there is always a performance grade. In the past I've worried how I could encourage the cool performance results but still keep design thinking clearly as the goal? Maybe I'm not showing enough belief in the underlying motivations of my students — here I am writing a blog entry on a beautiful summer day and I'm not paid extra for it. Why shouldn't I expect a student to want to move forward, to take a risk, if the challenge is truly engaging and empowering?

⇜ ⇝ ⇜ ⇝ ⇜ ⇝ ⇜ ⇝ ⇜ ⇝ ⇜ ⇝ 

In my AP physics class this past year, we tried out the idea of Passion Projects. I plan to create a different post entirely devoted to that experience, but one off-shoot relates to these ramblings. After students spent the first three months learning about whatever they wanted to learn, I offered a diversion — I "assigned" one of our traditional projects and students could compete, but there would be no grade tied to the results. Students simply switched the documentation of their learning to the design and construction process of this challenge instead. (By the way, the documentation could be a Google Doc, a paper notebook, a website, a page of their online portfolio — I was open to any idea as long as they had a plan and kept me in the loop.)

Some background: The King of the Hill requires students to use junk to build a vehicle that can move up an incline. At the top of the incline, the vehicle encounters another team's entry and the goal is to end with your vehicle past the crest of this hill.

In the past, students have built fairly traditional rubber band cars or mousetrap cars, and 7 of the 9 groups followed this pattern this year.


But this year there were also two very unusual designs. The one shown on the left (below) actually started with the ramp positioned vertically. The ramp was released at the starting line, falling onto the actual ramp, and then the car rolled horizontally along the ramp-upon-a-ramp. This group won the round robin tournament without using the ramp and then almost literally crushed the competition in an exhibition afterward. (See the video below.) They spent hours — I would estimate at least 20 hours — of work at lunch, after school, and outside of school, enjoying the process. And they earned no higher of a grade by winning the competition.


The design on the right started in the position shown in the photo. When it was released, one side was meant to move forward up the incline and the other rolled back. It worked great on the floor, but it failed completely on the ramp; they couldn't even enter the competition. They also spent extra hours working on this outside of school, enjoying the process. And they earned no lower of a grade by not being able to bring a functioning car to the competition.

There were some great comments from students after this experience. I should have asked for quotes, but basically both groups believed that they would never have tried something so unusual if there had been a grade connected to the results. They wouldn't have risked their grade in the class and would have built a traditional car. And some of the other groups wished that they had tried something more daring, rather than take the safe route. At the start of this summer I read Daniel Pink's Drive and now this all makes so much sense. My goal for the future is to continue to find ways to build my students' intrinsic drive — I can't wait to see next year's designs.

In case you're interested, here's the final run of the King of the Hill and an exhibition round with the extra ramp.