consultancy-step 1

Jennifer Mueller (jmueller@sprise.com)
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:34:00 -0400

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jennifer Mueller: "consultancy-step 2"
• Previous message: Jennifer Mueller: "consultancy-introduction"

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3006880729_159210_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

We will be using the following norms to guide our on-line consultancy.

Modified from Group Norms for a "Library Virtual CFG", initially defined
5/4/96 in Santa Cruz, CA

Group Norms for on-line conversations

1. Be honest.

2. Use "I" statements instead of "you" statements

3. Acknowledge and recognize all ideas.

4. No put-downs

5. Humor, yes; sarcasm, no!

6. Ask clarifying questions.

7. Disagree with ideas, not people

8. Find ways to code on-line messages for special needs. e.g.
"urgent response needed."

9. Try to ask questions, not make statements

10. Generate thinking - rather than make judgements.

The following is Kim's overview of her dilemma for feedback.

How do I better structure and manage the Introduction to Video course to
engage a heterogeneous group of students who possess varying degrees of tim=
e
management skills in individualized, self-directed learning?

Who are the students? 16 students, with varying degrees of video experience
(none at all to a course at another school =AD 1/2 were in my 9th grade
20-session video workshop classes 2 and 3 years ago), interest (two seniors
who plan to major in communications, 3 or 4 with significant talent and
potential, several with high interest, 4 or 5 who need the credit to
graduate and saw this as an easy pass), and commitment (2 or 3 who follow
through on assignments, meet deadlines, are conscientious about engaging
with the concepts and skills, 5 or 6 who can=B9t make deadlines but will do
quality work, 5 or 6 who do the work but not on time and not with quality,
and 2 who are not doing any work). [So the Bell Curve remains evident in
student initiative =AD fodder for a separate inquiry.]

Why do I want to teach this way? Philosophically I believe the more
students are personally involved in planning and taking responsibility for
their own learning, the more engaged they are and the more they retain and
are able to apply and transfer. Practically the heterogeneity of the class
dictated an alternative approach to my past method of teaching, which
involved the same syllabus, schedule, assessment, and teaching methods for
everyone. Pedagogically, I believe as students move toward graduation from
our system, they must be taught the skills to be self-directed learners who
set goals, pursue learning in the most effective manner, assess the
effectiveness of the process, and evaluate the worthiness of the product
based on clearly identified standards and personal benchmarks.

What have I done? Initial surveys (see attached) had students identify
goals, interests, prior knowledge, and learning styles. Individualized
contracts (see attached) were negotiated and weekly reviews of progress
toward the contracted grade have been held. Weekly work plans (see attached=
)
are filled out on Mondays. Group sessions are identified on the schedule,
including teaching sessions (such as editing workshop or storyboard
workshop). I realize at this point one thing I should have done would have
been to have students summarize their weekly accomplishments and compare to
the work plans, with some accountability factor included in their negotiate=
d
grading contract. Students have to check in with me daily and report where
they will be and what they will be doing.
I do follow up, monitoring their activities in the various areas of the
building. I am available for one-on-one assistance beyond the workshops tha=
t
are scheduled throughout the course. Students also may opt for credit for
peer assistance and/or take advantage of peer assistance. Student feedback
has been solicited primarily through class and individual dialogue.
For mid-term Progress Reports I tried another departure from my normal
practices: everyone=B9s grade was bumped up one grade (B to a B+ , for
example). I talked with the class and with each individual student about my
rationale (incentive as opposed to threat) relative to their work (in
progress and incomplete).
Contracts have been renegotiated based on assessment of learning
strengths and styles along with areas each individual is in need of
developing. In some cases, I insisted on heavier weighting of the grade fro=
m
assessments an individual was not strong in, particularly if I felt it was =
a
significant proficiency for video production.
From the beginning, students had the option of choosing a letter grade,
based on assignments, deadlines, and other self-discipline based ongoing
performances, or a Pass/Fail grade, based on exhibition of proficiencies in
the skills and concepts identified at the beginning of the course. All
students chose to work for grades. I am now encouraging some to consider
opting for the Pass/Fail option.

How do the results compare with past classes=B9 performance? I won=B9t
completely know until it is done and we debrief. However, the spread of
student performance is very similar to what every previous video class has
exhibited =AD a couple of conscientious students, a range of modest complianc=
e
with requirements, and usually two students who do nothing or next to
nothing for the trimester and then want to (need to , for graduation!) pull
out a passing grade in the last two weeks of the course. What seems to be
different, at present, is that ALL the students are behind the desired
schedule for their final project work. With one week left before
exhibitions, none have begun editing and only three have completed their
taping, with the rest planning to do so over the weekend.
Student feedback indicated initially that this structure was hard: the=
y
are used to being told what to do, what to learn, and when to do and learn
it. In response I made available more structured sessions with me. A third
of the class chose to attend the workshop sessions I offered and a differen=
t
third of the class had me give them specific assignments for skills tapes
and projects. It will be interesting to correlate this with student
achievements for the trimester.

--MS_Mac_OE_3006880729_159210_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

We will be using the following norms to guide our on-line consultancy.

Modified from Group Norms for a "Library Virtual CFG", initially = defined 5/4/96 in Santa Cruz, CA

Group Norms for on-line conversations

1. Be honest.

2. Use "I" statements instead of "you" statements

3. Acknowledge and recognize all ideas.

4. No put-downs

5. Humor, yes; sarcasm, no!

6. Ask clarifying questions.

7. Disagree with ideas, not people

8. Find ways to code on-line messages for special needs. e.g.
"urgent response needed."

9. Try to ask questions, not make statements

10. Generate thinking - rather than make judgements.

The following is Kim's overview of her dilemma for feedback.<= BR>
How do I better structure and manage the Introduction to Video course to en= gage a heterogeneous group of students who possess varying degrees of time m= anagement skills in individualized, self-directed learning?

Who are the students? 16 students, with varying degrees of video = experience (none at all to a course at another school =AD 1/2 were in my 9= th grade 20-session video workshop classes 2 and 3 years ago), interest (two seniors who plan to major in communications, 3 or 4 with significant= talent and potential, several with high interest, 4 or 5 who need the credi= t to graduate and saw this as an easy pass), and commitment (2= or 3 who follow through on assignments, meet deadlines, are conscientious a= bout engaging with the concepts and skills, 5 or 6 who can=B9t make deadlines = but will do quality work, 5 or 6 who do the work but not on time and not wit= h quality, and 2 who are not doing any work).  [So the Bell Curve remai= ns evident in student initiative =AD fodder for a separate inquiry.]

Why do I want to teach this way?  Philosophically I beli= eve the more students are personally involved in planning and taking respons= ibility for their own learning, the more engaged they are and the more they = retain and are able to apply and transfer.  Practically the hete= rogeneity of the class dictated an alternative approach to my past method of= teaching, which involved the same syllabus, schedule, assessment, and teach= ing methods for everyone. Pedagogically, I believe as students move t= oward graduation from our system, they must be taught the skills to be self-= directed learners who set goals, pursue learning in the most effective manne= r, assess the effectiveness of the process, and evaluate the worthiness of t= he product based on clearly identified standards and personal benchmarks.
What have I done?  Initial surveys (see attached) had st= udents identify goals, interests, prior knowledge, and learning styles. I= ndividualized contracts (see attached) were negotiated and weekly review= s of progress toward the contracted grade have been held. Weekly work pla= ns (see attached) are filled out on Mondays. Group sessions are identifi= ed on the schedule, including teaching sessions (such as editing workshop or= storyboard workshop).  I realize at this point one thing I should have= done would have been to have students summarize their weekly accomplishment= s and compare to the work plans, with some accountability factor included in= their negotiated grading contract. Students have to check in with me dai= ly and report where they will be and what they will be doing.
   I do follow up, monitoring their activities in the= various areas of the building. I am available for one-on-one assistance<= /U> beyond the workshops that are scheduled throughout the course. St= udents also may opt for credit for peer assistance and/or take advantage of = peer assistance. Student feedback has been solicited primarily throug= h class and individual dialogue.
    For mid-term Progress Reports I tried anothe= r departure from my normal practices: everyone=B9s grade was bumped up =  one grade (B to a B+ , for example). I talked with the class and with = each individual student about my rationale (incentive as opposed to threat) = relative to their work (in progress and incomplete).
    Contracts have been renegotiated based on as= sessment of learning strengths and styles along with areas each individual i= s in need of developing. In some cases, I insisted on heavier weighting of t= he grade from assessments an individual was not strong in, particularly if I= felt it was a significant proficiency for video production.
   From the beginning, students had the option of choosin= g a letter grade, based on assignments, deadlines, and other self-discip= line based ongoing performances, or a Pass/Fail grade, based on exhibition o= f proficiencies in the skills and concepts identified at the beginning of th= e course. All students chose to work for grades. I am now encouraging some t= o consider opting for the Pass/Fail option.

How do the results compare with past classes=B9 performance?  I w= on=B9t completely know until it is done and we debrief. However, the spread of= student performance is very similar to what every previous video class has = exhibited =AD a couple of conscientious students, a range of modest compliance= with requirements, and usually two students who do nothing or next to nothi= ng for the trimester and then want to (need to , for graduation!) pul= l out a passing grade in the last two weeks of the course. What seems to be = different, at present, is that ALL the students are behind the desired sched= ule for their final project work. With one week left before exhibitions, non= e have begun editing and only three have completed their taping, with the re= st planning to do so over the weekend.
     Student feedback indicated initially that thi= s structure was hard: they are used to being told what to do, what to learn,= and when to do and learn it. In response I made available more structured s= essions with me. A third of the class chose to attend the workshop sessions = I offered and a different third of the class had me give them specific assig= nments for skills tapes and projects. It will be interesting to correlate th= is with student achievements for the trimester.