Sunday, January 22, 2006

I had presented my problem to the participants, together with the participants and facilitator we have formulated ceratain strategies, which I would like to share it with all ppse members.

The learning objectives given to the ICSE class for a prentation on electrochemical cells is as under:
Content
1.Students should be able to understand what is oxidation and reduction.
2. They should be able to differentiate between the two processes.
3. They should be able to understand the construction and working of an electrochemical cell.
4. They should be able to understand the application of the concept.

Assessmnet Criteria
1. Effective understanding of all the learning objectives.
2. Evidence of research.
3. Collaborative effort and time management.

Guidelines given to the students.
1. Presentation time should not exceed ten minutes
2. Presentation should reflect proper understanding of all the learning objectives.
3. Presentation could be a power point or any other type.

I had explained the learning objectives to the participants and the facilitator. I had informed the participants about the reference books and internet sites given by me to the students for the project. I had informed them that the assessment was done by Mrs. Madhusudhan. The assessment sheet was also presented for the participants perusal. The students were put to viva questions by the judge as well as students from 9 IGCSE.
My sample work was presentation on the Hydrogen Cell as fuel cell. It was a pwer point presentation with animated pictures.
The participants were Anu, Joel, Bala, Vijaya. Koshy was the facilitator and Kalpana Surya Narayanan was the mentor.
My Key questions were as under:
1. How to assess if enough research is done by all the students?
2. How to assess if learning has actually happened?
3. What could be done to overcome the fear of addresing a gathering during the presentation?

After the presentation the clarifying questions asked were

Did I allot the students independent work or was it decided by the students?
Was adding Bibilography suggested to the students?
Was periodic guidance given to the students before the final presentation?
Did any mock presentation take place before the final?

I had explained the clarifying questions, different electrochemical cells were suggested to them. They chose from the options given to them. Bibilography was not suggested by me. periodic guidance was given to the students who approached me. I had informed that no mock session had taken place before the final.

The participant discussion is as follows.
Recording of bibilography was emphasised. Viva questions could be asked from the books mentioned in bibilography. Contribution to each student could be made by the teacher, and by the students. If the students decide, then it should be informed to the teacher. Constant monitoring should be done by the teacher. It is essential to document all the preparatory study done by each student. Fear factor is not important as it was not mentioned in the learning objectives. Changing guidelines to suit the students need. Most of them felt work was competent enough. Individual viva questions should be given to each one of them. Smaller group could be easily monitored.

Reflection by the presenter
Bibilography is important. Constant monitoring all the groups is essential. Constant counselling should be given to the student who has a fear for presentation. A mock presentation could be conducted prior to the final presentation. Guidelines could be modified to suit the student' need.

Collaborative Stragies that could be implemented
1. Smaller group is not always possible as the no of hours required would exceed the time available.
2. Concept should be the same but applications can be different.
3. In the learning objectives presentation criteria also should be specified.
4. Match assessment criteria to learning objectives.
5. To save time some topics from the syllabus could be used for presentation.
6. Preparatory work should be checked to find if enough research work is done individually.
7. Presentation need not be always beyond the context.
8. periodic monitoring has to be done to all the students, prior to the presentation to check if learning is actually happening.
9. Insist on bibilography.
10. After presentation the interaction could be limited to student and teacher.

During debreifing session the facilitator and the presenter thanked all the participants.

4 Comments:

Blogger Shuchi Grover said...

Hema, sounds like I missed a good CASW session. Kalpana mentioned being very impressed by this new "tool" that the PPSE teachers now have.

I hope it went well for you and that you found it to be worthwhile. Did you come away feeling satisfied? Do reflect a little bit along those lines. Would you do anything differently if you had another chance? Or...?

Good Luck with the implementation and your follow-up CASW session.

Shuchi

1:47 AM  
Blogger Tara Kini said...

Hema, you seemed to have presented the context of your sample work very clearly and the key questions are relevant and quite generic.

It is not very clear to me what your plan for implementation is after the CASW session. There seem to be a number of points, but what will be the main focus that accrues from your key questions?

Do write about how you felt after the session as Shuchi has suggested. That will be a valuable record for you and for the CASW process. We could compare it with your feeling after the second CASW session. That should give an idea of how effective the process is.

8:16 AM  
Blogger a.v.koshy said...

that's a good write up, hema,only the debriefing session should have been explained more....

5:43 AM  
Blogger Raji Nair said...

Hema, I loved your reflection - "Guidelines could be modified to suit the student' need."It shows your committment to ensure better student understanding. All the best on the implementation process.

4:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home