The primary purpose of administering tests and conducting laboratory projects is twofold: (1) to measure the degree of the students' learning and comprehension, and (2) to enhance learning. Often, the first intended outcome is attained but the second purpose is ignored. The most prevalent testing procedure is to schedule or announce a test and give the students some idea what material will be included. The students then study the indicated material hoping they will be prepared. Usually, they do not know what type of questions they will encounter so their studying is more generalized than specific, or they may try to memorize everything using their short-term memory ability. Each individual student then completes the written test document. The test is graded by the instructor or assistant, and several days later, the scores are posted using some confidential method. When time is not allocated for students to review the test to learn which specific questions may have been answered wrong, the learning aspect of test administration is defeated. Often, laboratory and experiential projects are treated similarly. Once they are graded and returned to the students, many days may have passed and the course topic area has changed. Time is not normally allocated for review of the project results. AN ALTERNATIVE Four courses in Organizational Leadership and Supervision (OLS) and one Electrical Engineering Technology (EET) course at Purdue University experimented with their test administration, scoring and project procedures. The four OLS courses used fifty item tests which included true-false, multiple-choice, fill-in-theblank and complete-the-sentence type of questions. During the class session immediately prior to the test, the students were allowed ten minutes to preview the test document. In this way they knew the type of questions which would be asked, as well as the degree and breadth of content to be covered. Each test was closed-book and closed-notes and only covered material introduced since the prior test. The three EET tests included multiple-choice items, problem calculations and applications. Each test was inclusive of covered material since the beginning of the course; however, use of the textbook and notes was allowed.

Three technology disciplines used a Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) modified network for student teams to develop learning contracts. The adult learning andragogy approach 1 was followed emphasizing student self-direction in their own learning, shared experiences, near-term application and performance feedback.The PERT methodology was used in Computer Technology, Electrical Engineering Technology and Organizational Leadership courses in which student teams determined their final learning objectives, interim benchmark targets, and individual responsibilities in fulfilling these contracts. At each benchmark 360 O evaluations were performed including team peers, instructor and lab assistants to provide timely feedback allowing for student and team improvement. Preliminary results indicate (1) improved learning, (2) increased acceptance of responsibility, and (3) a significant understanding of how team members must function to attain the desired results.