I played them part of this student podcast from uptonben We talked about the good things we heard: music, multiple speakers, enthusiasm, and interviews.
Then I had one student write down our requirements on the board:
- 45 points total
- must have a written script before you are allowed to record
- podcast should be 2-4 minutes in length (-5points/ 15 seconds off)
- Introduce yourselves with first names only. (2 points)
- Explain the project-what were the requirements/goals. (5 points)
- Explain how you made your tower and your design ideas. (5 points)
- Tell about your results-weight of tower, sand, and efficiency (5 points)
- Explain what you learned. (5 points)
- Creativity and making it interesting (8 points)
- Cooperation (15 points)
- Music is extra credit-5 points
Matt Townsley, who always gives me great pushback, asked me on twitter:
"Also in the spirit of reporting learning, how many of your podcast points are based on process/requirements vs. learning/content?"
My response is that 20 points are for the learning/content of the podcast and 10 points are for style (intro. plus creativity). The cooperation points are for effort and are primarily to make sure that both partners are doing their fair share of the podcast. So a little less than half of the points are for learning/ content from this perspective.
But this is a technology class and learning how to make a podcast is also a learning objective for me. The students have already received a grade of 140 possible points on the Balsa Project itself for things like research, drawings, construction, and how much sand their tower held before breaking. Therefore the purpose of the podcast is two-fold: to report their learning from the Balsa Tower project and to learn how to make a podcast. So in my opinion all of the points represent learning/content.
Finally I do not believe that true assessment of student learning can always be measured. Some of my top students tried some experimental designs. They looked cooler than the rest of the class's towers and were voted by almost every member of the class as most likely to be the champion. Ultimately they were failures as designs and broke under the weight of the bucket with no sand.
These students definitely learned about design from their failure, probably more than the rest of the class even though their grade may not reflect it.