GROUP PROJECT REPORT (to be completed by your project team)
Check out Dealing with Data lecture notes
as you are completing the results and evaluation sections.
Length of report: 5 pages text maximum, plus cover page, graphics (tables, figures), and
two appendices. The instrument is Appendix A; the list of test-takers is Appendix B.
Project teams will develop an assessment instrument for measuring either (1) one or more
of the five domains of emotional intelligence (p. 43, EI) and four interpersonal abilities (p.
118, EI) or (2) visual thinking, as discussed in NM Ch. 4 or (3) scientific thinking, as
discussed in NM Ch. 5.
The assessment instrument should produce numerical scores, and include at least two
different subtests that use a different method of assessment. Instruments may include
paper-and-pencil questionnaires with objective choice, Likert-type scales, or open
response; require people to create products, perform tasks, or solve problems; and rely on
objective or subjective scoring. Group members should try out an early draft of their
instrument on themselves and others in their class group, and will also have a chance to
assess classmates with their final instrument during regularly scheduled class time. Make
assessments on at least 10 people.
* Note: Include a space for classmates to indicate their group number and initials so that
they can get participation credit for completing the assessment. Also include a place at the
end of the assessment for people to make comments about the instrument.
The project report should (1) introduce the type of thinking or domain of intelligence
being assessed, referring to class readings and at least one other reference consulted, (2)
present the instrument and explain the rationale behind its design, (3) summarize the data
verbally, numerically, and visually; (4) evaluate what worked well and what was
problematic, (5) tell us what you learned and suggest ways you might change the
instrument to improve it. Note: Label the five sections with headings in the report as
follows: Introduction; Instrument; Results; Evaluation; Discussion.
Introduction. Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind, on reserve at Knight library, has
chapters on spatial intelligence (which corresponds to John-Steiner's visual thinking),
logical-mathematical intelligence (which corresponds to John-Steiner's scientific
thinking), and personal intelligences (which corresponds to emotional intelligence). This
may be a useful "other reference" for many of you. Cite references as follows (Goleman,
1995) or (Gardner, 1993).
Instrument. Be sure to explain how the scoring works. If items require a judgment about
performance, what were the guidelines for determining a score? Were multiple judges
used? If you are measuring more than one aspect of thinking, specify which parts of the
assessment measure which domain. Include a copy of the blank assessment instrument as
Appendix A. There is no need to attach all tests completed by classmates -- just
summarize the data in section 3. Include as Appendix B a list of students who completed
the assessment, giving both group number and initials.
Results. Be sure to tell us how many people were assessed, and how the test was
administered. Give at least one measure of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and of
variability (range or standard deviation). Provide a graph that shows the distribution of
scores. Excel is a useful program for generating statistics and graphs. If you used
multiple judges to generate scores of products or performances, how consistent were their
Evaluation. What worked well and what was problematic? Every instrument has its
strengths and weaknesses. Keep in mind the desirable attributes for a test: it should be
valid, reliable, and easy to administer and score in a standard way. Were people confused
by your instructions? Do you think all of your items were valid measures? Why or why
not? Consult the comments of test-takers give at the end of the test to help identify
problems with the instrument, as well as aspects that worked well. Note: It usually takes
many different attempts and revisions, and months or years, to develop a good
Discussion. What did you learn from this project? If you had a chance to revise your
instrument, what would you change, and why?
Grading. There are 60 points possible for the group project. Each of the 5 sections is
worth 10 points, and the writing quality will also be graded on a 10-point scale. Unclear
writing, grammatical errors, and typos will knock down the writing score. Strive for clear,
concise, error-free writing.
To be eligible for the full 60 points: A one-page plan for the group project is due in
class Wed, Oct. 28. This should describe your plan for the assessment instrument, and
also specify the division of labor among project team members. Failure to turn this in ON
TIME is an automatic 2-point deduction. On Friday, Nov 13, teams should bring 3
copies of their draft assessment instrument to class. Other members of your class group
will try it out and give you feedback. Failure to bring this draft to class is an automatic 2-point deduction from the group project grade.
Important note on grading. Scores on the group project may differ across project team
members. On the last day of class, we will ask team members to evaluate the contribution
of themselves and other members of the team. Ideally, everyone on the group contributed
equally to the project. However, if members report that contributions were unequal, and
one team member doesn't deserve the full grade, we will adjust scores accordingly.
Due Friday, Dec 4 (last day of class). Late papers have an automatic 10-point deduction (out of 60 points possible). No papers accepted after noon, Monday Dec 7. (Turn in late papers at 131 Straub. Note that this office closes promptly at noon for lunch.)