Projected Grades – 6 Weeks to Go

We are now in the final 6-week stretch of the 2017/2018 school year! I have been running various projections for end-of-semester and end-of-year grades.

Principles of Applied Engineering

Projected Year - 6 Weeks - PAE(1)
Projected Year – 6 Weeks – PAE (1st Period)
Projected Year - 6 Weeks - PAE(5)
Projected Year – 6 Weeks – PAE (5th Period)
Projected Year - 6 Weeks - PAE(All)
Projected Year – 6 Weeks – PAE (All Sections)

With a total of 46 students enrolled in PAE, I can handle a failure rate of 4.35%. I not happy with that number as there is no excuse for failure of this class beyond simply not turning in assignments. Hopefully, these failing students will pull-up their grades in the final 6-weeks of instruction and be able to pass for the year.

Computer Science 1

Projected Year - 6 Weeks - CS1(2)
Projected Year – 6 Weeks – CS1 (2nd Period A Day)
Projected Year - 6 Weeks - CS1(4)
Projected Year – 6 Weeks – CS1 (4th Period A Day)
Projected Year - 6 Weeks - CS1(All)
Projected Year – 6 Weeks – CS1 (All Sections)

As you can see, my 4th Period A Day class has all A’s and B’s in the class. They have an overall class average of 93.59. In contrast, my 2nd Period A Day class has an overall class average of 85.15.

There are a total of 28 students currently enrolled in CS1. I am not satisfied with a failure rate of 7.1%. There is absolutely no excuse for this rate beyond students not submitting work. As with PAE, I am hopeful that the students pull their grades up and are able to pass for the year.

Lesson Plans – Week of 2018-04-01

Lesson Plans – Week of 2018-04-01

  • (1 A/B) Principles of Applied Engineering
  • (2A) Computer Science 1
  • (2B) Computer Science 2
  • (3A) Robotics 1 / Robotics 2 / FTC 11242
  • (3B) Robotics 1 / Robotics 2 / FTC 12645
  • (4A) Computer Science 1
  • (5 A/B) Principles of Applied Engineering

Eric Evans – Planboard Week – 2018-04-01

Lesson Plans – Week of 2018-03-25

Lesson Plans – Week of 2018-03-25

  • (1 A/B) Principles of Applied Engineering
  • (2A) Computer Science 1
  • (2B) Computer Science 2
  • (3A) Robotics 1 / Robotics 2 / FTC 11242
  • (3B) Robotics 1 / Robotics 2 / FTC 12645
  • (4A) Computer Science 1
  • (5 A/B) Principles of Applied Engineering

Eric Evans – Planboard Week – 2018-03-25

Lesson Plans – Week of 2018-03-18

Lesson Plans – Week of 2018-03-18

  • (1 A/B) Principles of Applied Engineering
  • (2A) Computer Science 1
  • (2B) Computer Science 2
  • (3A) Robotics 1 / Robotics 2 / FTC 11242
  • (3B) Robotics 1 / Robotics 2 / FTC 12645
  • (4A) Computer Science 1
  • (5 A/B) Principles of Applied Engineering

Eric Evans – Planboard Week – 2018-03-18

Q3 Grade Distribution 2017/2018

Today, we are closing the 3Q grading period for the 2017/2018 school year. I have a total of 134 students with 50 of them enrolled in either Robotics 1 or Robotics 2.

Through my career, I have seen many students slip with their grades during this grading cycle. Regretfully, this trend has not abated much this year.

Robotics 1, Robotics 2, and Computer Science 2 have 100% of students passing. But the more curriculum-based courses have failures.

As you can see, Computer Science 1 has an overall failure rate of 13.33% (4 of 30 students). 75% of those failures come from one class period as a result of failure to complete a major multi-part project involving 2-dimensional arrays in Python.

The vast majority of the class (73%) received an A. The majority of those (63%) came from a single class period.

All-in-all, I am happy with the performance of both sections as we had some difficult concepts to cover during this grading period.

As you can see, Principles of Applied Engineering has an overall failure rate of 4.26% (2 of 47 students). The failures are evenly distributed between both sections of this course.

One section comprised 60% of the A’s, 42% of the B’s and 55% of the C’s. The other section was 40%, 58%, and 45% respectively.

This grading period, we covered mechanical, materials, and electrical engineering. Many students struggled with mechanical engineering and their grades reflected those challenges.

Interactive Circuits Lab

Today in PAE, we did an interactive circuits lab. I assigned the students to create 3 different circuits from the PHET Interactive Circuit Construction Kit: DC – Virtual Lab hosted by University of Colorado – Boulder.

Circuit 1 was a simple series circuit consisting of two lights, two batteries, and a switch:

Circuit 2 was a somewhat easy series circuit consisting of one light, three batteries, a switch, and a 120 Ohm resistor:

Circuit 3 was a parallel circuit consisting of three lights, each controlled independently with a switch:

Circuit 4 was a parallel circuit identical to circuit 3, but had a series “master switch” in it:

Circuit 5 was a short circuit with an over-heated power supply:

The students appeared to have fun with the lab and were engaged the entire class time. Thank you UC-Boulder for this nice interactive tool!

Working with Resistor Color Bands

Today, in PAE, we did a lab where we were looking at resistor color bands.

With this particular resistor, we have color band 1 is green, color band 2 is violet, color band 3 is red, and color band 4 if silver.

On bands 1 and 2, the colors represent the following:

Color Value
Black 0
Brown 1
Red 2
Orange 3
Yellow 4
Green 5
Blue 6
Violet 7
Gray 8
White 9

The 3rd band represents the multiplier.

Color Value
Black 1
Brown 1 x 101
Red 1 x 102
Orange 1 x 103
Yellow 1 x 104
Green 1 x 105
Blue 1 x 106
Violet 1 x 107
Gold 1 x 10-1
Silver 1 x 10-2

The final band relates to the tolerance.

Color Value
Blank +/- 20%
Silver +/- 10%
Gold +/- 5%

So, the example above would be the following values:

5 , 7 , 1 x 102 , +-/10%

That would be 57 x 1010Ω with a tolerable variance of +/- 10%.

10% of 57 x 1010Ω is 57Ω. So to calculate the total range, we would do the following:

57 x 1010Ω + 57Ω = Upper Range

57 x 1010Ω – 57Ω = Lower Range

So, the resistor in the example would have a total operating range of:

627Ω to 513Ω