 |
 |
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