Image created for the project.

1-Type of assessment: formative and summative.

Formative: we intend to assess the collaborative work of each student inside the international working team to improve the adquisition of competencies.

Summative: we want to assess the products during the school year to know if the student acquired the competencies for the academic evaluation.

2-Time for assessment: continuous assessment.

The project has been included in the schedule of several subjects at different educational levels (Classical languages and ICT in Secondary and Post-Secondary education), therefore, it has counted both for the mark of each partial evaluation and for the final grade of each student.

3-Scope of the assessment: students, families and teachers.

The assessment has taken into account both the project participants and their families.

4-Tools for the assessment: rubrics, surveys and video about students`opinion.

4a-Rubrics:

Project logo: Assessment rubric for the logo

1st Product: Assessment rubric for the Classical Bestiary.

2nd Product: Assessment rubric for the Female Monster Museum.

3rd Product:

Assesment rubric for Dr. Van Helsing guide.

Assessment rubric for Dr. Van Helsing presentation.

4b-Surveys:

Satisfaction survey for students and commented results.

Satisfaction survey for teachers and commented results.

Satisfaction survey for families and commented results.

4c-Video on students`oppinion:

5-Project`s results:

Here are the results obtained by the students in the final academic evaluation of the project.

Achievement indicators: 

Very poor: grade point average is less than 2

Poor: grade point average is equal to or higher than 2 or less than 4

Medium: grade point average is equal to or higher than 4 or less than 6

High: grade point average is equal to or higher than 6 or less than 8

Very high: grade point average is equal to or higher than 8

Chart of project outcomes:

The degree of achievement of the objectives in the final assessment has been highly satisfactory:

Very High:  44.2 %

High: 16.2 %

Medium:  14 %

Poor: 20.6 %

Very poor: 5 %