Your Mission: Proposing a digital tool to optimize the student assessment process for the educational staff
- Supporting Teachers
- Enhancing Transparency for Parents
- Monitoring Children's Development
Most schools in the city of St.Gallen use a unified assessment grid instead of grades to evaluate students throughout the year. In every test, teachers document the results by marking a certain number of learning objectives/competency levels (placing crosses). While this practice is well-established, what’s missing is a modern digital tool that allows for
- Entering evaluations,
- Logging observations about students during lessons,
- Accessing an overview of assessed competences over the year,
- Selecting from a catalog of possible competencies to assess (interface with the curriculum),
- Creating the ability to refine competency levels into specific learning objectives, individualized for each class, to enhance student evaluation.
What is the expected final product? A contemporary digital tool that:
- Facilitates the entry of evaluations and observations,
- Provides an overview of assessed competencies,
- Offers a selection from catalog of assessable competency levels tied to the curriculum,
- Eases the process of deriving report card grades for teachers, offering a better alternative to the e. g. paper-based evaluation system, without automatically converting evaluations into grades,
- Assists in demonstrating a student’s current progress during parent-teacher meetings.
Standardized Evaluation Grid (example)
Unstructured data:
- Analog evaluation of two different subjects
- Lehrplan21 on website
Structured data: (all only acessible after user registration)
- Lehrplan21: All subjects, their competences, etc
- Überfachliche Kompetenzen: Interdisciplinary competences
- Bildung Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Education in sustainable development (joinable with Lehrplan21 (by "querverweis"))
- Structured evaluation for German and Maths
Personal "data":
- Up to 4 teachers that are available to answer questions
Creativity & Innovation (20%)
- Is something completely new or does it at least take a new approach to an old problem?
- How creative or innovating is the idea?
- How did the team deal with existing solutions that try to solve the same problem and how does that position their solution?
Usefulness (20%)
- How important and relevant is the use case of the prototype to address an identified problem?
- Is it something people would actually use?
- Is the solution practical for a heterogenous group of people?
- Does it meet a real need for a heterogenous group of people?
Technical complexity (20%)
- How technically impressive / elaborate is the solution?
- Have complex techniques, algorithms or combinations of different data and components been used?
- Is appropriate technology and methodology used?
Execution and Design (20%)
- How usable is the hack in its current state?
- How easy and intuitive is the solution to use?
- Does everything seem to work?
- How well designed is the hack?
- Has the team incorporated thoughts regarding usability and design?
Presentation (20%)
- How attractively is the project presented?
- Can the team explain in an understandable way what their solution actually does, what it is for and why it is important?
- Do the presentation and demo show how the hack meets the evaluation criteria?
Nicola Wullschleger, Mariia Kolisnyk, Rahel Rusterholz and Marco Käppeli will be glad to answer your questions during the Deep Dive, during the partner slots and other availabilities.
You are winning a Paragliding flight over eastern Switzerland!
