Overview of Today’s Lesson:
1. Prezi review by peers.
2. Submit group Prezi-tation.
Homework:
1. Review Mr. Wilcox’s observations regarding the time spent in class today.
2. Group scores for the Prezi-tations will be posted soon.
***********
The following observations were made by Mr. Wilcox during today’s group work period. The observations are being made available to students so that they may be aware of the types of observations being made during group work sessions, and understand that they are accountable for their use of time during the class. For today’s group work session, each student receives are participation grade based on observations made by Mr. Wilcox during class.
Prezitation Observations
In general, there was only one group that I felt did a good job with their group prezi-tation times today. This group is C periods’ Klemens, Jeffrey, Michelle, Albert and Jhoonil. Their group spent the time given to them wisely, using it to present each prezi-tation, review the data, discuss issues, and finally assess the final group prezi-tation. As a result, only this group receives full credit for this portion of class work today.
A Period:
In general, most groups this period did not do a good job presenting their prezitations to their group members. Most groups were off task, and members were not usually presenting the information to others. The method of ‘display and read’ (where the presentation is loaded onto the computer and other members of the group are expected to read it) was the method by which most groups chose to review the presentations. This method is not, really, a presentation, and the creator of the prezi-tation takes very little ownership, then in the presentation. Socializing often took precedence over reviewing the content of the prezi-tation.
Instances of note:
Daisy, Jim, Paul, Brennan, and Christine were navigating through a presentation far too quickly to be giving it any serious consideration or time for other members to review the presentation. Facts did not display on the screen long enough to be viewed.
In Michal, Paul, Rika, Maddie, Adlai, and Christine’s group, some members contributed very little to the assessment of each presentation. Michal was among the most active in her group in regards to review the prezi-tations and providing feedback on them.
Irene and Hanna were the most actively involved members of their group, and did significantly more work reviewing the groups prezi-tations than other members of their group.
B Period:
B period groups started well, with groups focused, but several groups quickly slipped into disorder. A large number of groups were spending more time socializing than concentrating on the task at hand, and reviewing the prezi-tations. In general, the prezi-tations that were shown were navigated through very quickly and little time was spent reviewing them – for most groups.
Instances of note:
Alex, Andrew, Leo, and Jed’s group was off task early. I noticed that they were making changes and manipulating a prezitation to be turned in. As the prezitations were due prior to entering class, this is not an appropriate action and is dishonest behavior. To their credit, once I noticed their error, they were much more focused for the remainder of the period.
Chris, Joel, Stephanie, Kat, and Annie’s group was not using time as productively as they should have been. Kat and Annie, however were working moderately and are responsible for the majority of work which was
Of all of the groups, Taijin, Katie, Sabrina, Julia and Eric’s group was the most actively involved in discussing the prezi-tations. Eric, however, was off task on several occasions, either wondering around the room or chatting with members of other groups.
C Period:
Most groups during this period started very well. In general, group members were viewing the presentations that were on screen and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each presentation. This was the best session of the day.
Instances of Note:
Heather, Alisha, Heather, Alisha and Kali’s group, however, quickly switched into the ‘display and read’ method of presentations. Members would log-in, pull up their prezi-tation and then let other members read the data. This method involves almost zero effort on behalf of the presenter, and so is not an acceptable for or presentation. They did make an effort, however, near the end of the period to present again, correcting these mistakes.
Klemens, Jeffrey, Michelle, Albert and Jhoonil’s group did a very good job reviewing the presentations. Students were asking each other questions about the planets and the presentations, giving positive feedback, etc. Ultimately,
Kazuki, Ryan, Josh, Chris, Lydia and Rachel generally were on task and did a fairly adequate job reviewing the presentations. There were times, however, when each member of the group was quite distracted by either members of other groups or other off-topic socializing within the group.
Isaac, Jason, Taylor and Alex’s group also used their time well, reviewing the presentations, discussing various issues associated with each and ultimately choosing a best out of the group.
D Period:
This class started out okay, but like also saw many groups quickly descend into disorder and socializing. Some groups displayed a much more significant involvement in reviewing the prezi-tations than others.
Instances of Note:
Ana, Seon Woo, Alex, Yin and Anna’ group was scanning through the prez-itation too quickly for other members to read the information, nor was he stating the information. Students were often not presenting with the depth that they should have been. Seonwoo was, for a time, interfering with Ana’s attempt to present by manipulating the mouse while she was working.
Rather than using the rubric along with the prez-itation, Ana, Seon Woo, Alex, Yin and Anna’s group quickly filled in the ‘x’s’ on the rubric without thoroughly reviewing the information on the prezi-tation. This is essentially creating a falsified score.
Inga, Hae Soo, SaeJin, Marc, Yuka and Vivian’s group similarly completed the rubric without cross-checking it against the actual presentation. There was not significant effort placed into verifying that each required piece of information was present.
Inga, Hae Soo, SaeJin, Marc, Yuka and Vivian’s group were additionally scanning through the prez-itation too quickly, not allowing enough time for thorough review by peers. The ‘display and read’ method was continued throughout the majority of the presentations. Saejin, rather than assisting with the evaluation of the group prezi-tation, spent time spinning one of the laboratory chairs.
Bryan, Adar, Austin, Angela, and Hana’s group was a little better than most, however like others, the majority of their collaboration was of the ‘display and read’ method rather than thorough presentation by the one who created the prezi-tation. However, this group, Brian in particular, did spend significantly more time verifying that the chosen prezi-tation fulfilled each criteria via use of the rubric.
Matthew, Emily, Serena, Daniel and Peter’s group was among the most on task during this period, however, they were also engaged in the ‘display and read’ method of reviewing the prezi-tations, which does not provide for an adequate review of the content.
