Formative and Summative Assessment Techniques for Continuous Agricultural Technology Classroom Improvement
Date
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Since 1905, the Department of Agricultural Engineering, now the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (ABE), has been a leader in providing engineering solutions to agricultural problems in the United States and the world. The department’s original mission was to mechanize agriculture. That mission has evolved to encompass a global view of the entire food production system–the wise management of natural resources in the production, processing, storage, handling, and use of food fiber and other biological products.
History
In 1905 Agricultural Engineering was recognized as a subdivision of the Department of Agronomy, and in 1907 it was recognized as a unique department. It was renamed the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in 1990. The department merged with the Department of Industrial Education and Technology in 2004.
Dates of Existence
1905–present
Historical Names
- Department of Agricultural Engineering (1907–1990)
Related Units
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (parent college)
- College of Engineering (parent college)
- Department of Industrial Education and Technology, (merged, 2004)
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract
Four formative and summative learning assessment tools were used in two terms of an agricultural technology course. The formative assessment tools were a weekly e-mail feedback journal and a midterm electronic-survey. The summative assessment tools were a focus group and a student evaluation of instruction form administered at the end of each term. The weekly e-mail feedback journal and midterm e-survey assessments enabled several course adjustments during each course term, e.g., adjusting the content of the next class based on e-mail feedback, offering more real-world examples, and providing more example problems. The focus groups were used to explore more deeply students' perceptions of both the course and the formative assessments. The student evaluation of instruction form did not provide as much useful information about student learning and course improvement as the other assessments. Using multiple formative and summative classroom assessment techniques for a course had a synergistic effect on gaining insights into the teaching-learning process.
Comments
This article is from NACTA Journal, 48, no. 2 (June 2004): 33–41, used with permission from NACTA or North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture.