|
| Assessment domain | Description | Some suggested questions |
|
| (I) Knowledge domain | Students acquire knowledge of the subject, an understanding of relationships between the bodies of knowledge and give reasons for their approach to solving the problem. | Did our students understand the form and function of the body systems including specific organs or parts well enough to complete this exercise? Based on organ diagrams or models were the students able to disprove or verify some of the supporting theories used in the discussion of various re-designs? What kinds of explanations did students offer for the relationships they observed and understood? Do they show a clear understanding of the anatomy? Do they show a clear understanding of the physiology? Can they explain the relationship between design, structure and function? |
|
| (II) Process domain | Students learn how to collect, organize, and analyze data, develop strategies for building rational arguments and thoughts, state problems and generate valid conclusions, participate in team-work, and interpret meaning from the project.
| In what form did creativity show itself in each group? Did each member of the group contribute? How did members of a given group of students compile data and information? Since this is not only a team effort of information collection but also a grade dependent project, creativity should be considered. For example, if muscles are being studied, consideration of the “extra” effort of going to a gym by the team or conducting video interviews of athletes should be taken into account. Was there cooperation in putting the information together? How efficient was each group in presenting and communicating the collected data and information? Were their delivery of statements and arguments smooth and coherent? |
|
|
(III) Creative domain | Students apply imagination and creative thinking to the project, cultivate abilities to recognize, evaluate, use data and information provided by the other parts of the role play, and learn to modify a given design as needed. | This is often illustrated during the “Process Domain” stage as well. In what new ways did students use objects and ideas generated during the enactment of the learning activity to increase their understanding? The “judge” evaluates the importance of one re-design over another based on the creativity of the group members and the communication skills of the presenters. The vestigial vermiform appendix, because of a poem written and then read with such emotional force about its uses, was voted most important organ of digestion over all the other organs of digestion. How imaginative were students in identifying relevant problems, solutions, and conceptualizing new ideas? New twists are always tied with creativity. Challenging the students to deliver their information in another format (convincing presentation, poem, song,) may help them increase their communication skills as well as “bend” their knowledge of the subject matter and thus retain more of this self-gathered information. |
|
| (IV) Attitudinal domain | Students learn to listen closely and comprehend the other members of teams, group discussions, or parts of the role playing. They also learn cooperation in a group performance and self-evaluation. | This is a least a two-fold section: group to audience attitudes and also among members of the group itself (group dynamics). Were the group members able to effectively communicate their feelings of why their organ is important to the rest of the class and judges? How persuasives were group members in articulating their positions in order to change the attitudes of the others? Could they effectively defend the importance of one design over another? How smoothly did each group function? Did students' sensitivity and respect for others develop during the process? How might the choice of the part to re-design or approach of presentation style reflect this sensitivity? Did members of the group demonstrate skills and abilities to resolve conflicts with others constructively? How might each group have functioned more effectively? |
|
| (V) Application and connection domain | Students learn to generate alternative approaches, problem-solving strategies, and solutions. | Did students come up with practical solutions/explanations? How well did the students integrate knowledge from different disciplines in their redesigns and applications? Was a consensus negotiated? Using the different aspects of science to explain a redesign shows a higher level of understanding of the subject. Physics and chemistry are the obvious companions to the anatomy and physiology. Math references may also be infused into the re-design’s descriptions (use of pH scale within the stomach or blood). Ecology can be incorporated (define pollution as an excess of a chemical and then talk about how the stomach reacts with an excess of caffeine from 5 cups of coffee!).
Referencing correctly is a required and honest attribute for all people. In this day and age of cut/paste from computers, it is extremely important and correct to give credit to the people who did the actual work. Are current references used? (It seems every two months there are “breakthroughs” in brain biology.)
Bringing it “home” with a personal example is usually remembered by the other students and therefore aids in learning. To what extent did the students utilize their personal experiences and collective group understanding in making decisions related to the activity? Did the students construct viable solutions and compromises? |
|
