Phase 2: Implementation
After the implementation of phase 1, I had realized that students collaborative effectiveness could be helped through establishing norms. Phase 2 focuses on this aspect as well as implementing it through two group projects.
The purpose of phase 2 was to see how norms could improve collaboration in groups. I was also interested to see how I could make community building more intentional through the creation of these norms.
Challenging students to go deeper
During the first part of phase 2 I challenged students to get to know each other better. During phase 1, I had students ask each other “how was your weekend?” and “what did you do during the weekend?” I found that this gave the students limited interactions and it did not necessarily help them get to know each other better and build relationships. So during this sharing time, I gave them 10 minutes to share with the people around them their names and an interesting fact about themselves.
After they shared this, I randomly picked a few students to see if they could name the students around them and the interesting facts. This was both entertaining as well as enlightening, I learned several things about students, and they were learning about each other constantly during that time.
I then asked my students: “Do you know what a norm is?”
I got various responses, “it’s like a rule right? is it like something that is normal? oh I got it, it’s an expectation!”
Creating norms for collaboration
After explaining that a norm is a standard or an expectation, I instructed them to write down norms that they would want to set as a class for group work. I told them that these were norms that we would be using and that they would be held accountable for during the final two projects for the year. Once they had finished brainstorming, I asked them to share with their partners, and then share with the class if there were any good norms that we could use for the class. After about 5 minutes of discussion, we came up with a set of 5 norms for the project (figure 9).
The purpose of phase 2 was to see how norms could improve collaboration in groups. I was also interested to see how I could make community building more intentional through the creation of these norms.
Challenging students to go deeper
During the first part of phase 2 I challenged students to get to know each other better. During phase 1, I had students ask each other “how was your weekend?” and “what did you do during the weekend?” I found that this gave the students limited interactions and it did not necessarily help them get to know each other better and build relationships. So during this sharing time, I gave them 10 minutes to share with the people around them their names and an interesting fact about themselves.
After they shared this, I randomly picked a few students to see if they could name the students around them and the interesting facts. This was both entertaining as well as enlightening, I learned several things about students, and they were learning about each other constantly during that time.
I then asked my students: “Do you know what a norm is?”
I got various responses, “it’s like a rule right? is it like something that is normal? oh I got it, it’s an expectation!”
Creating norms for collaboration
After explaining that a norm is a standard or an expectation, I instructed them to write down norms that they would want to set as a class for group work. I told them that these were norms that we would be using and that they would be held accountable for during the final two projects for the year. Once they had finished brainstorming, I asked them to share with their partners, and then share with the class if there were any good norms that we could use for the class. After about 5 minutes of discussion, we came up with a set of 5 norms for the project (figure 9).
Figure 9 - 1st set of norms
Active Listening: An essential collaborative skill
Project 1: A Civil Rights Movement Project
Students were asked to work in their partners to do a research project. The instructions were that students were asked to choose 3 events, 1 historical figure, and 1 civil rights group to research. Students were then asked to develop an Adobe Slate presentation on 1 of their topics and had to present using a 2-3 minute presentation.
To practice and develop their active listening skills, I incorporated a requirement for students to ask a question at the end of each presentation. Student’s participation grade was determined through the depth of the questions that they asked. The question had to show that they were listening during the presentation. This accomplished two things: (1) it made sure that the students who were presenting on the topic knew the information, and (2) it also challenged the students who were listening to critically think about the topic that was presented on.
In addition to that change, I also simplified the note taking process from the projects in phase 1. Where many of the projects in phase 1 required students to fill out a graphic organizer as a method of note taking, I decided to ask students to create a timeline on paper. This also accomplished two things: (1) it made sure that each student’s work was their own and, (2) it allowed for each student to pay more attention to the presentations by requiring them to write a simple 1-2 sentence summary on the event.
[Day 1] We spent this day primarily focusing on learning about each other to build relationships, and it was used to establish the norms.
[Day 2] I observed the students to see how collaboration was taking place within the groups. I took notes to see how groups were splitting up the work and how groups were interacting.
[Day 3] I wanted to see if students were engaged with each other in the creation of the slate projects. Since the Slate needed to be on one iPad and was not shareable, students were forced to be working together. This made the Slate an excellent collaboration tool.
State mandated testing occurred for a week in between these projects
Refining community and collaboration with a final project
Project 2: 1960s-2010 Slate Project
Prior to this final project, I asked students to reflect upon the last project and the strengths and weaknesses that they individually as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their partners. This was done through a quick write and I asked them to be honest and constructive with what they wrote. I told them that the feedback that they should be giving themselves and their partner should be something that they could take and change about the way they worked together. I gave them two examples of feedback and asked them which was constructive and which was not.
After they finished the quick write, I asked them to share what they wrote with their partners. I told them to take the feedback and try to understand it and improve rather than get offended. This took about 5 minutes, as many of the pairs actually had meaningful conversations about the way the past project worked out. This was important because they had not had time to reflect on the past project because they immediately went into Smarter Balanced Testing.
Once the class had finished giving feedback to each other, we revisited the norms that we had created prior to the last project. I asked them if there were any norms that they wanted to take out, change, or add. After a short discussion the class clarified a couple of the norms and also decided to add two more norms. Figure 10 shows the changes in bold as well as the added norms.
Project 1: A Civil Rights Movement Project
Students were asked to work in their partners to do a research project. The instructions were that students were asked to choose 3 events, 1 historical figure, and 1 civil rights group to research. Students were then asked to develop an Adobe Slate presentation on 1 of their topics and had to present using a 2-3 minute presentation.
To practice and develop their active listening skills, I incorporated a requirement for students to ask a question at the end of each presentation. Student’s participation grade was determined through the depth of the questions that they asked. The question had to show that they were listening during the presentation. This accomplished two things: (1) it made sure that the students who were presenting on the topic knew the information, and (2) it also challenged the students who were listening to critically think about the topic that was presented on.
In addition to that change, I also simplified the note taking process from the projects in phase 1. Where many of the projects in phase 1 required students to fill out a graphic organizer as a method of note taking, I decided to ask students to create a timeline on paper. This also accomplished two things: (1) it made sure that each student’s work was their own and, (2) it allowed for each student to pay more attention to the presentations by requiring them to write a simple 1-2 sentence summary on the event.
[Day 1] We spent this day primarily focusing on learning about each other to build relationships, and it was used to establish the norms.
[Day 2] I observed the students to see how collaboration was taking place within the groups. I took notes to see how groups were splitting up the work and how groups were interacting.
[Day 3] I wanted to see if students were engaged with each other in the creation of the slate projects. Since the Slate needed to be on one iPad and was not shareable, students were forced to be working together. This made the Slate an excellent collaboration tool.
State mandated testing occurred for a week in between these projects
Refining community and collaboration with a final project
Project 2: 1960s-2010 Slate Project
Prior to this final project, I asked students to reflect upon the last project and the strengths and weaknesses that they individually as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their partners. This was done through a quick write and I asked them to be honest and constructive with what they wrote. I told them that the feedback that they should be giving themselves and their partner should be something that they could take and change about the way they worked together. I gave them two examples of feedback and asked them which was constructive and which was not.
- You suck and projects
- You could talk more so I can understand your thoughts
After they finished the quick write, I asked them to share what they wrote with their partners. I told them to take the feedback and try to understand it and improve rather than get offended. This took about 5 minutes, as many of the pairs actually had meaningful conversations about the way the past project worked out. This was important because they had not had time to reflect on the past project because they immediately went into Smarter Balanced Testing.
Once the class had finished giving feedback to each other, we revisited the norms that we had created prior to the last project. I asked them if there were any norms that they wanted to take out, change, or add. After a short discussion the class clarified a couple of the norms and also decided to add two more norms. Figure 10 shows the changes in bold as well as the added norms.
Figure 10 - 2nd set of norms
For the final project, students were once again asked to work with the partners (those who sat next to them) to create a Slate project. I believed that this second project was a way to help students continue to collaborate through recognizing norms. This second project would allow me to see if there was improvement in the way groups were collaborating with each other.
For this project they were given a big list of events that occurred in various categories (technology, culture, politics, entertainment). They were asked to select 3 events per decade and create a timeline on a Slate. This meant that there were going to be 15 events per timeline.
[Day 1] We spent the first half of the period giving each other feedback, introducing the new norms, as well as introducing the project. Since the project gave students a long list of events to choose from, the rest of the period was spent primarily choosing which topics they wanted to research on.
[Day 2] I spent the day observing if they were following the norms that they had created. It was surprising how many of the students began to interact more with each other.
[Day 3] I checked with each of the groups to see how they were collaborating and whether or not they were helping each other with research and creating their Slate presentations.
During the last day of the project, many students were asking if they could come in at lunch to work on their projects together. This was a big shift from, “can I come in to work on my project” to “can we come and work on it together?” This shift in vocabulary from an individual mindset to the group mindset was a clear result of the collaboration that was occurring in the classroom. I decided to open up the classroom at lunch, and was thoroughly surprised by the amount of groups that came in to work together. More than half of my students spent some time in my classroom to work on their projects together. Since there weren’t enough iPads (it is usually one per person), students had no problem working together on a single iPad.
At the end of the project, I gave them a student feedback form that asked them questions on what they thought about collaboration.
I have included the results of phase 2 implementation in the following section, "Phase 2: Results and Findings."
For this project they were given a big list of events that occurred in various categories (technology, culture, politics, entertainment). They were asked to select 3 events per decade and create a timeline on a Slate. This meant that there were going to be 15 events per timeline.
[Day 1] We spent the first half of the period giving each other feedback, introducing the new norms, as well as introducing the project. Since the project gave students a long list of events to choose from, the rest of the period was spent primarily choosing which topics they wanted to research on.
[Day 2] I spent the day observing if they were following the norms that they had created. It was surprising how many of the students began to interact more with each other.
[Day 3] I checked with each of the groups to see how they were collaborating and whether or not they were helping each other with research and creating their Slate presentations.
During the last day of the project, many students were asking if they could come in at lunch to work on their projects together. This was a big shift from, “can I come in to work on my project” to “can we come and work on it together?” This shift in vocabulary from an individual mindset to the group mindset was a clear result of the collaboration that was occurring in the classroom. I decided to open up the classroom at lunch, and was thoroughly surprised by the amount of groups that came in to work together. More than half of my students spent some time in my classroom to work on their projects together. Since there weren’t enough iPads (it is usually one per person), students had no problem working together on a single iPad.
At the end of the project, I gave them a student feedback form that asked them questions on what they thought about collaboration.
I have included the results of phase 2 implementation in the following section, "Phase 2: Results and Findings."