One of the most compelling findings from the Future City Project is the consistent upward trajectory demonstrated by every student from pre- to post-assessment. Scores tracked on a 1–5 scale show that all 10 students made measurable gains, with several students — including Sophia, Emma, Isabella, and Lucas — achieving the highest possible post-assessment score of 5.0. This pattern of universal growth speaks to the effectiveness of the project as both an instructional vehicle and an authentic assessment experience.
The pre-assessment scores ranged from 1.0 to 3.0, reflecting the varied prior knowledge and skill levels students brought to the project. By the end of the unit, the lowest post-assessment score was 3.0, and the class average rose substantially. This compression of the lower end of performance — paired with the elevation of high performers — suggests that the project's scaffolded design provided access for struggling learners while still offering challenge and depth for those who entered with stronger foundations.
The essay component asked students to articulate their urban design vision in writing, with scoring centered on three criteria: Thesis Clarity, Evidence Use, and Organization. This task was the most cognitively demanding in terms of academic writing conventions, and the data reflects that complexity. While several students — particularly Emma, Sophia, and Isabella — demonstrated strong command across all three dimensions, others showed notable inconsistency, especially in the integration of evidence and logical organization of ideas.
Students like Liam and Ethan scored at the lower end of the scale across all three essay criteria, suggesting that foundational writing skills may not have been sufficiently pre-taught or reinforced prior to the project. In contrast, Emma and Sophia achieved scores of 5 in both Thesis Clarity and Evidence Use, signaling that high-achieving writers were able to leverage the project's rich content as compelling material for argumentation. The variation in Organization scores — where even mid-range students like Mason scored a 4 — suggests that some structural supports (such as outlines or templates) may have had a partial effect that could be amplified in future iterations.
The oral presentation component evaluated students on Clarity, Audience Engagement, and Use of Visual Aids. Across the cohort, this task yielded some of the highest and most consistent scores, suggesting that students found the presentation format to be a natural and accessible mode of expression for their Future City work. The multimodal nature of the task — combining spoken explanation with visual materials — appeared to support a wider range of learners in demonstrating their understanding effectively.
Emma, Sophia, and Isabella each earned perfect scores of 5 across all three presentation criteria, reflecting exceptional command of public speaking and visual storytelling. Notably, students who scored lower on the essay component — such as Liam and Ethan — still earned scores of 2–3 in Engagement, suggesting that some learners who struggle with written communication are better able to convey ideas verbally or visually. This reinforces the value of multi-modal assessment design in surfacing diverse student strengths that a single-format evaluation would miss.
The model or prototype task served as the most tangible expression of students' Future City visions, assessed on System Labeling, Design Creativity, and Material Use. This component challenged students to move beyond conceptual thinking and translate their ideas into a three-dimensional artifact that clearly communicated how the city's systems functioned and connected. The results were largely positive, with the majority of students performing at the Proficient or Advanced level.
High scorers like Emma, Sophia, and Isabella each earned 5s across all three criteria, demonstrating that the project's most capable students were able to execute sophisticated, well-labeled, and creatively designed models. Mid-range performers such as Ava, Mia, Lucas, and Mason clustered around scores of 4, indicating solid proficiency. The clearest area of concern was System Labeling among lower-performing students — Liam earned a 2 in Design Creativity, and both Liam and Ethan scored a 3 in System Labeling — signaling that explicit instruction in how to identify, diagram, and annotate urban systems would strengthen future iterations of this task.
Taken together, the assessment data from the Future City Project paints an encouraging picture of student learning. Across all three task modalities — essay, presentation, and model — the majority of students demonstrated meaningful growth and performed at or above the Proficient level by the end of the project. The universal increase from pre- to post-assessment scores confirms that the project's structure, pacing, and rubric design were effective in moving learners forward, regardless of their starting point.
The multi-modal task design was a particular strength: students who underperformed on the essay often compensated with stronger presentation and model scores, and vice versa. This suggests that the project successfully created multiple pathways to demonstrating competence — an important feature of equitable, inclusive assessment design. Standout performers such as Emma, Sophia, and Isabella showed consistent excellence across all three tasks, while students like Liam and Ethan showed progress but may benefit from more targeted academic support in future cycles.
Three focused areas emerged as priorities for instructional improvement based on the data:
While students understood the concept of sustainability at a surface level, many struggled to apply it meaningfully within their designs. This gap indicates a need for explicit modeling of how environmental systems — such as water cycles, renewable energy grids, and green infrastructure — connect to and constrain real urban planning decisions. Embedding case studies and design exemplars earlier in the unit may help close this gap.
Essay data revealed inconsistency in organization and evidence use across the cohort. Students generally understood what argument they wanted to make, but many lacked the writing strategies — planning tools, sentence-level scaffolds, revision protocols — needed to execute that argument effectively on the page. This is an instructional design issue as much as a student skill gap.
While presentations and models were creative and visually engaging, some students had difficulty clearly labeling or explaining how their city's systems functioned. Embedding visual literacy instruction — including guided critique of exemplar models and explicit teaching of annotation conventions — into future iterations would strengthen this dimension.
A comprehensive evaluation of student performance in urban planning, sustainable design, and collaborative problem-solving — prepared by Hannah Reagh.