Student-directed projects are a promising approach to supporting powerful learning, yet uncertainty about how to assess these projects presents a barrier to widespread incorporation in K-12 classrooms. Drawing on interviews with computer science teachers and an interdisciplinary literature review, Karen Brennan, Sarah Blum-Smith, and Paulina Haduong offer four principles to guide assessment of student-directed projects: recognizing the individuality of the learner, illuminating process, engaging multiple perspectives, and cultivating capacity for personal judgment. They describe the research behind these principles and provide and example of what they look like in practice.
BliksteinP. (2018). Pre-college computer science education: A survey of the field. Google LLC.
3.
BrennanK. (2015). Beyond right or wrong: Challenges of including creative design activities in the classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23 (3), 279–299.
4.
BrocatoK. (2009). Studio based learning: Proposing, critiquing, iterating our way to person-centeredness for better classroom management. Theory Intro Practice, 48 (2), 138–146.
5.
CennamoK.BrandtC. (2012). The “right kind of telling”: Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60 (5), 839–858.
6.
EarlL.M. (2012). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Corwin Press.
7.
EisnerE.W. (2004). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education?International Journal of Education & the Arts, 5 (4).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Cultivating interest and competencies in computing: Authentic experiences and design factors. The National Academies Press.
13.
OrrS. (2010). Collaborating or fighting for the marks?Students’ experiences of group work assessment in the creative arts. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (3), 301–313.
14.
OzakiC.C.WorleyD.CherryE. (2015). Assessing the work: An exploration of assessment in the musical theatre arts. Research & Practice in Assessment, 10 (Summer 2015), 12–29.
15.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
16.
RichardsR. (2010). Everyday creativity: Process and way of life — Four key issues. In KaufmanJ.C.SternbergR.J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 189–215). Cambridge University Press.
17.
RobinsonM.EllisV. (2000). Writing in English and responding to writing. In Sefton-GreenJ.SinkerR. (Eds.), Evaluating creativity: Making and learning by young people (pp. 79–97). Routledge.
18.
RossJ.A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11 (1), Article 10.
19.
SadauskasJ.TinappleD.OlsonL.AtkinsonR. (2013). CritViz: A network peer critique structure for large classrooms. In HerringtonJ.CourosA.IrvineV. (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2013 — World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1437–1445). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
20.
Sefton-GreenJ.SinkerR. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluating creativity: Making and learning by young people. Routledge.
21.
TaggartG.L.PhiferS.J.NixonJ.A.WoodM. (Eds.). (1999). Rubrics: A handbook for construction and use. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
22.
ZhangF.SchunnC.D.BaikadiA. (2017). Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews. Instructional Science, 45 (5), 679–707. doi:10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6
