LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for AMFELLOWS Archives


AMFELLOWS Archives

AMFELLOWS Archives


AMFELLOWS@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AMFELLOWS Home

AMFELLOWS Home

AMFELLOWS  November 1997

AMFELLOWS November 1997

Subject:

The Project's Over--Now What?

From:

WILLIAM FERNEKES <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

American Memory Fellows <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:16:12 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

Hello, Amfellows.  This week our project concluded as the students ended =
their first quarter courses and moved on today, Nov. 7 to new social =
studies classes within our block schedule. =20
Since our last posting, the students concluded their research, developed =
their final products, presented them to the class, and evaluated the =
project, in terms of processes employed, resources utilized, and the =
quality of their final products. =20

The following reflections are very TENTATIVE.  They represent our =
perspective having just concluded the project, but without a careful =
analysis of the students=27 exit evaluations of the project, or a thorough =
revisiting of the work products we collected from selected high, middle =
and low achievers in the class.

Process

1.  Students on the whole felt positive about the structure we established =
for developing the project.  Many commented on the =22scaffolding=22 (Bill =
Tally=27s description, and we think a useful one) we created to guide them =
through the quarter and create the final product.  Some students didn=27t =
like the many papers and instruction sheets we provided to them, but this =
was a minority view.

2.  Students commented favorably on the constant feedback provided to them =
for drafts of their work products.  With few exceptions, they saw this as =
meaningful in developing a better final product, irrespective of its =
format.

3.  Students desired more in-class time to collaborate on their projects.  =
They felt there was a need to have more group work time and they desired =
more individual meetings or q/a sessions with the teachers to get their =
questions answered.  To some degree, this was a challenge because I =
absented myself from the class to permit my student teacher to have =
autonomy in teaching the course, although I retained direction over the =
American Memory Project.

Resources Used

1.  There were mixed responses to the American Memory site and its utility =
as a source depository for the project.  Some students felt it was =
difficult to search the site to get what they needed.  Others had no =
problems whatsoever, and praised its variety and detail. =20

2.  Students expressed some frustration in designing magazines and =
scrapbooks electronically, but felt overall it was a worthy experience to =
attempt to design them using desktop publishing programs.  More time spent =
on helping them learn the design tools for such projects was desired.

3.  A number of students commented that requiring 25 sources (15 primary, =
10 secondary) for the project was excessive. At the same time, others felt =
having a broad range of sources was helpful, as that facilitated the =
development of content depth in their final products.

Quality

1.  Most students felt they were able to successfully learn in depth about =
their topic(s).  More often than not, they were able to demonstrate more =
than superficial understanding both in the written product and their =
presentations.

2.  Some students recognized that they needed to prepare more effectively =
for their oral presentations and q/a sessions with the class about their =
final products.  Since students received individual quality ratings for =
their oral presentations and group ratings for their final products =
(magazine, scrapbook, or powerpoint presentations with outlines), there =
was a balance that some didn=27t manage effectively.

3.  Students felt they received comprehensive evaluations (each project =
and the oral presentations received 3 faculty ratings based upon rubrics =
and rating scales were developed). Only one student felt the evaluations =
were too tough (out of 25).

So, that=27s our report for right now.  Harlene and I have retained the =
final products and we=27ll be providing more data and feedback as we =
pursue the thorough analysis of each student=27s work products this =
November and December.  Periodically, we=27ll post additional reflections =
and findings.

Regarding the =22scaffolding=22 materials and copies of the final =
products, we=27ll send you packages in December with the items employed to =
structure the process, as well as sample student work products.  We =
welcome your feedback and ideas as we prepare to revise the project for =
piloting again from February through May 1998.

See you in Cincinnati=21

Best regards,

Bill Fernekes and Harlene Rosenberg

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2011
May 2011
April 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
August 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
August 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager