Inquiry:
How can an Instructor in a Shop Environment Accurately and Efficiently
Assess Student Work Ethic and Reward Accordingly?
Mario Avila
90358136
January 29, 2014
Vincent Chan
Ashley Shaw
EPSE 310B 306
Me as a Teacher and my Question
You don’t know me
I have been in leadership roles with school-aged children for as long as I can remember.
From my involvement with Air Cadets, to my directing the school band during the
teachers absence, I have been developing skills and knowledge for instruction and
leading in a variety of settings.
My formal introduction to leadership began in 2003 when I joined Air Cadets and was
assigned as the head of the percussion section. Throughout my cadet career, it was my
responsibility to organize and direct the band, and eventually, the entire 120 cadet
Squadron when I became Squadron Commander nearing the end of my career in 2008.
Throughout this time I was also teaching private drum lessons and taking leadership
roles at school in music class; from helping organize music for the percussion section, to
leading rehearsals when the teacher was away.
My adult experiences with children and youth began in 2007 when I got my first job as a
drum instructor. I was responsible for creating a curriculum for my students, teaching
them the curriculum, and having them perform at the music schools annual recital at the
end of the Year. In 2009 I was hired as a lifeguard and swim Instructor for the City of
Coquitlam and have been working there part time since then. When guarding, it is my
responsibility to ensure that both youth and adult pool patrons are having fun in a safe
and responsible way. When I instruct, I ensure that students learn the required skills to
be prepared for the next level, as well as demonstrate professionalism and water safety
practices.
My journey into education has taken a few changes in direction since I started in 2008.
After graduation, I pursued music at Capilano University where I studied jazz with the
intention of one day becoming a high school music teacher. After 2 years in the program,
my musical knowledge and judgment had greatly increased, and it came to my attention
how weak many high school musicians are. I concluded that listening to learning
musicians would be an uncomfortable process and that I could not dedicate the
foreseeable future to this career choice.
It was at this time that I reconnected with my high school electronics teacher and
mentor. He had often complimented my tutoring skills and had recommended that I
pursue teaching tech ed. even before my time at Capilano. After a brief conversation, I
decided to take his advice and apply to the Technology Teacher Education program at
BCIT.
My experience with assessment comes mostly from my experience teaching swimming
lessons. In this setting, students pass or fail a level based on their ability to compete
specified skills. The criteria is entirely formative, and little is left for interpretation by the
teacher. With that said, I often find myself questioning if a student would truly benefit
from taking a level again based on their current abilities.
For example, a student who is comfortable performing a front glide, (swimming through
the water with hands and arms locked and straight above their head), but cannot float on
their front (a lower tier skill) would not be eligible to pass level 1 because of his/her
inability to float. However, that student will never need to float again, as that skill is used
only as an introduction to the experience of buoyancy, and if he/she can glide, floating
becomes redundant. I would pass that student despite his/her inability to float because
there is little to gain from repeating the level.
In a shop environment, student ability can be blurred in a similar way. Many assignments
given tend to be open ended and do not require any specific set of skills. From the use
of power tools like the drill press, band saw or table saw, to simple planning and layout
of a project, different levels of skill and a large variety of process are possible and need
to be assessed so an accurate grade can be given. Another issue with student
assessment is that project completion is not an indicator of hard work and learning. A
student can easily spend an entire term working as hard as possible in and out of class,
and still not complete and self directed project. It is obvious that a student who put in a
large amount of hard work but did not finish a project in time should be rewarded with a
higher grade than a student who finished a project, but put in a minimal amount of effort.
From that, I’ve concluded that I would like to reward students for hard work regardless of
their level of success (within reason). Even if a student is unable to complete a project, I
feel he/she should be given praise and encouragement to continue to work hard. The
challenge then it seems is accurately assessing that work ethic.
Another issue that is addressed in this paper is student motivation. Some students will
be motivated no matter what happens, but other will need some encouragement. I want
to know how students can be motivated to work hard every day without being nagged or
harassed. Riding students isn’t fun or effective in motivating, and is ultimately a waste of
time for an instructor as there are other things they could be doing with that time.
The final aspect to this paper is efficiency of evaluation. Once I can motivate a student to
work, and assess that students work habits, I need to be able to apply it. Assuming a set
of some 150-200 students, spending only 5 minutes performing this assessment adds up
quickly to over 16 hours of marking, which is simply not plausible to do. So performing
assessment efficiently is a necessity. It is from that thought process that I came to ask
my inquiry question.
How can an instructor in a shop environment accurately and efficiently assess student
work ethic and reward accordingly?
Some Definitions
Speak my language
Before we dive into the body of this paper, I’d like to take a moment to define some
terminology that appears throughout the research I have encountered.

Shop:
Shop refers to any of the classes that might fall under the umbrella of technology
education. Below are some of the more popular courses, but this is by no means
is an inclusive list.

o
Wood, Cabinetry, Joinery
o
Power Tech.
o
Metal
o
Automotive
o
Drafting, 3D modeling
o
Electronics
Work Ethic:
This is how hard a student applies him/herself in class and how driven they are to
complete a project. This is not the measurement of produced work, but the time
and effort put into that work.

Assessment:
The process of measuring an individual’s success in a particular skill or base of
knowledge. For the purpose of this paper, assessment is the practice we are
trying to master to measure a students work ethic. Often defined into 3 separate
sections.
o
Initial Assessment:
This is a form of assessment conducted before any teaching has taken
place. Most often used as a benchmark for students’ current level of
proficiency in a skill.
o
Formative Assessment:
Assessment that might take place as a project is being carried out. This is
the assessment we tend to be concerned about in a shop environment.
o
Summative Assessment:
A typical test or exam used to put a number to a students’ learning from a
course. Great for math – Not often as effective in a subjective evaluation
environment that shop classes provide.
(Black & William, 1998).

(Project) Difficulty
This is pretty self explanatory, but I wanted to illustrate some of the factors that
might affect the difficulty of a project.
o
Technicality of a project to function at a minimum standard
o
Execution of a project

Is it pretty?

Does it work well and consistently? Is it better than planned?

Is the student aware of ways the project could be adjusted for
better functionality next time?
o
Prior knowledge of the field

It is not uncommon for a student to select a project he/she has
never worked on before attempting the endeavor.

…or that the instructor has ever attempted.
Design:
There are several stages and elements that take place when an individual
attempts to design and build something new. This includes, but is not limited to:
o
Problem Identification
o
Development and Production
o
Ideation and Brainstorming
o
Troubleshooting
o
Information Collection and
o
Wash, Rinse, Repeat… A lot.
o
Research
(jump from any step to any other,
Sketching and Drawing
at any time)
It is important to understand that although there is a logical and desired
progression of design, in practical application, design does not progress in a
linear fashion. Please note that the word ‘process’ was chosen intentionally as
any stage of development can jump to any other stage at a whim. Below is a
picture to help illustrate this idea.
(Build It, 2008)
The Problem
Ain’t nobody got time for that
Shop classes are one of the spaces in schooling that almost always employs a
distinctive classroom management and teaching style. Where many subject areas
prescribe learning, shop classes tend to learn more toward facilitating discovery and
experimentation.
In the historical or typical classroom, there is the perception of the teacher as the holder
of knowledge, and the student as the receiver. This is a place where the teacher
describes knowledge, assigns labour, and the student consumes information and
completes assignments prescribed by the teacher. This style makes a lot of logistical
sense in classes where there are definite right and wrong answers (or where right and
wrong is chosen by the teacher). It is a simple network and knowledge can be easily
acquired by asking the teacher. This does however require the teacher to be infallible.
Should the instructor be wrong, than how can he/she be trusted to bring facts to the
classroom? The ultimate result a classroom of subordinates obeying and consuming
rather than a community of learners (Tekkaya & Sungur, 2006).
Your typical shop class tends to have a different format. The teacher is still a holder of
knowledge and tends to know more about classroom subject matter than the students,
but he/she acts more as a hub for that learning. The goal of this instructor is to facilitate
learning. By providing an environment where the students have the tools and practical
knowledge to develop and produce what each individual imagines and designs, it is less
likely that the teaching will have all of the knowledge necessary to guide students
through their projects. As a result, students need to either discover solutions to design
problems on their own, or rely on other students to help come to plausible solutions to
design challenges.
Because of this management style, it is extremely difficult for a teacher to keep track of
his students on a minute-to-minute basis. Even in a structured shop environment where
every student is working on the same project, it is common for students with questions to
form a “tail” behind the teacher of students queuing with a variety of problems for the
instructor. This is exaggerated further with individualized projects. Also, the project style
of the classroom tends to produce more (or at least different than students are used to)
work, which requires additional help. Needless to say, the teacher is keeping busy
throughout the classroom without the added pressure of checking in on students who
aren’t underfoot, and students who are not self motivated can easily fall out of focus and
spend class time not being productive with no teacher intervention or immediate
consequence. Not to mention the questionable class sizes, concerns about safety
practices, necessity to have materials when every student is making something different,
and having to do all of this for under $5 per student, per term (often experienced in
urban BC school settings).
All of this is to say, an instructor needs to be able to do everything that needs to be done
efficiently, and there are several unique aspects involved with teaching shop.
A Solution?
If at first you don’t succeed, try reading the instructions
There are two issues to address.
1. Teacher workload
2. Student output
There are several things that can be done to reduce a teachers’ classroom workload.
Shop organization and project/material planning, and delegation are the most notable. If
the shop is organized, students can better solve simpler issues they will encounter.
“Where are the screws?”
“Where is the hammer?”
“Why can’t I use a hammer on screws?”
“Where is a screwdriver?”
These are all questions that can be easily avoided simply by putting the screws and
screwdrivers together in a location where all of the students are aware.
Tools aren’t the only things that need organization. Stock and other materials are best
used when they are available for student consumption (but not so available as to
encourage or allow wastefulness). By having appropriate stock and hardware available
in an organized fashion prior to assignments, students can better acquire material
themselves and ask fewer questions to the instructor.
Delegation is another great strategy employed by instructors to reduce a teachers’
workload. A position such as a tool room attendant can be a great way to increase
student responsibility and ownership of a class and build a sense of community in the
room. A daily rotation of students whose job it is to distribute and reclaim tools as well as
keep the tool room organized is a great way to accomplish all the things mentioned
above. There is a special advantage of this method is student ownership of class space.
By giving them responsibility, they are more likely to perform more and higher quality
work. Students who find themselves intrinsically motivated perform better (Brown &
Hirshfeld, 2008). This is key when it comes to producing higher student output and
increasing work ethic. But how can an instructor increase motivation in students? Every
student is different, and this previously mentioned tool room solution only affects one
student a day.
Test scores seem to be a reasonable go to for the increase student motivation. After all,
high grades should be something all students strive to achieve. A grade is a structured
way to reward good work and behavior, and gives opportunity to critique poor and
unwanted behavior. From that however, come some issues. Students tend to have 4
conceptions on assessment.
1. Assessment makes students accountable
2. Assessment is irrelevant because it is bad or unfair
3. Assessment improves the quality of learning
4. Assessment is enjoyable
(Brown & Hirshfeld, 2008)
Brown and Herschfeld’s study was performed to determine how different assessment
conceptions would affect test scores. He found that when students believed that
assessment was holding them accountable, they performed better than the other
options. It is interesting to note that even when students found assessment enjoyable,
their test scores did not improve. This implies that enjoyment in a classroom is not the
main factor when it comes to student learning, but keeping students accountable for their
actions will.
So we know that to keep students working, we want them to feel accountable, and we
want them to motivate themselves. What is the best way to do that?
I propose 2 strategies.
1. Large and Small-Scale Presentations.
This solution provides several benefits to a shop teacher. As mentioned above,
the goal is to keep students feeling accountable for their actions, and there is no
better way to instill accountability than for a student to be judged by their peers.
For less creative projects, sharing work with the class is likely to take enough
time and have the desired effect. Either a gallery walk where all work is made
visible with students’ names attached, or individual presentations to the rest of
the class seem reasonable.
For larger projects, sharing with the school would be more appropriate. Moving a
class set of projects to a hub area of the school such as the courtyard or main
lobby would not only bring attention to the students work, but also to the class
itself, allowing for advertising of the class and hopefully boosting enrollment in
coming terms.
These strategies are intended mainly to address quality final output. Though the
idea of peer judgment would surely increase motivation, unless presentations
were very close in time, it is less likely to address work ethic.
2. Daily Self Evaluation.
Daily evaluation keeps all work accounted for and self-evaluation produces
higher motivation (McMillan, Cohen, Abrams, Cauley, Pannozzo, & Hearn, 2010).
This has great classroom management potential. The idea for this strategy is to
take a students’ assessment of their work ethic in the previous class. At the end
of each day, students will give a mark to themselves (a scale of 1-5 works well)
on how hard they worked that day by calling names and receiving their
evaluation. This number is not based on completed work (as development often
produces days where nothing is made) but simply on how much effort was put
into working that day.
This also helps with students’ self-dismissing. Students will learn that classes
end with self-evaluation, and they will be trained to wait in class until this task is
complete. Because the instructor calls out names and students reply aloud, this
keeps students further accountable in front of their peers, and requires the rest of
the class to be silent, allowing for announcements before final dismissal.
Potential Issues
Problem?
I see two notable issues that my suggestions present.
1. Peers Observing Peers
2. Student Dishonesty
Because presentations are engrained in my suggestion so strongly, there will inevitably
be students who are uncomfortable with making presentations. In general, students do
not have a problem standing up and talking in front of the class, but some do. I plan to
deal with this on an individual basis and make adjustments to presentations as
necessary.
With regards to self-evaluation, there is obvious concern about students giving false
information to increase this grade. As a rule, people tend to be mostly honest (Ariely,
2009). Should this not be true for an individual, fortunately, there is a simple fix. Because
the instructor is there observing each class, and should be watching every student, it
should not be terribly difficult to witness the students who are not working hard, and the
students who are. Also, there is a certain type of student when an instructor might
expect dishonesty from, and those students simple should be given more attention and
consideration when receiving evaluation using this method. Should dishonesty take
place, a discussion between the teacher and student is appropriate, and beyond that,
case-by-case response is best.
Summing it Up

I heard you like bullets
Because of the nature of shop environments, it is difficult to assess student work
ethic from day to day.

Students who are self motivated are more likely to work harder and produce
more in class time.

Students can become more motivated if they are held accountable for their
actions and assess themselves.

Large and small-scale presentations are effective ways to hold students
accountable.

Large-scale presentations increase course awareness in the school and can aid
in increasing course enrollment.

Daily self-evaluation is an effective way to increase class time productivity.

Students tend to be honest.

Most problems are foreseeable, and therefore avoidable. Individuals should be
dealt with on an individual basis.

Having students self evaluate is an effective way to increase intrinsic motivation.

Daily self-evaluation is an efficient and accurate way to document student work
ethic and give a grade that reflects that effort.
References
Oodles of References
Ariely, D. (2009, Mar). Our buggy moral code. Retrieved Jan 22, 2014, from TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html
BC Ministry of Education. (2002). Technology Education 11 and 12 Metal Fabrication
and Machining Integrated Resourse Package. BC, Canada.
BC Ministry of Education. (2009, March). Reporting Student Progress: Policy and
Practice. BC, Canada.
Black, Paul, & William, Dylan (October 1998). "Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards
Through Classroom Assessment."Phi Beta Kappan. Available at PDKintl.org.
Retrieved January 28, 2009.
Brown, G. T., & Hirshfeld, G. H. (2008, February 13). Students' cenceptions of
assessment: Links to outcomes. Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Davidson, J. (2009). Exhibitions: Connecting Classroom Assessment With Culminating
Demonstrations of Mastery. USA.
Design. (2008). (SRI International.) Retrieved Jan 22, 2014, from Build It:
http://buildit.sri.com/curric/design.html
Haigh, M., & Dixon, H. (2007, September 3). ‘Why am I doing these things?’: engaging in
classroom-based inquiry around formative assessment. Auckland, New Zealand.
Jans, S. (1997). Improving Adolescents' Motivation through the Use of Creative
Teaching in the Industrial Arts.
Kelley, T. R., & Wicklein, R. C. (2009). Examination of Assessment Practices for
Engineering Design Projects in Secondary Technology Education (First article in
three-part series). USA.
Kelley, T. R., & Wicklein, R. C. (2009). Examination of Assessment Practices for
Engineering Design Projects in Secondary Technology Education (Second article
in three-part series). USA.
Lombardi, A. R., Conley, D. T., Seburn, M. A., & Downs, A. M. (2013, June 28).
Assessment for Effective Intervention.
McMillan, J. H., Cohen, J., Abrams, L., Cauley, K., Pannozzo, G., & Hearn, J. (2010,
January 5). Understanding Secondary Teachers’ Formative Assessment
Practices and Their Relationship to Student Motivation. Virginia, USA.
Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2006). Effects of Problem-Based Learning and Traditional
Instruction on Self-Regulated Learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 99
(5), 307-317.