In Classroom

Consistently Applied Criteria

 

• Breaking down the criteria into actionable steps allowed students to rely on each other, fact check against the rubric, and gave room for students to assist each other with any help from the teacher.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

• Besides breaking down the criteria into manageable parts, there were explicit connections between the design thinking process on Google Classroom. I had applied what I learned from classroom observations and got improvement in work completion rates.
• Peer to Peer feedback increased after implementing the post-it criteria. Students were giving each other productive feedback to help their classmates meet the criteria for each project.

Outside Classroom

 

• During our inquiry rounds, we looked for activities align in specific stages in the design process, anything related to 5D’s posted, and were students aware of which stage they were in.
• This led to refining activities in the classroom, 5D related material posted on walls, posting assignments that told the students where they were in the design stage.
• Presentations of our learning with UA Maker Faculty were also geared to the design thinking process.
• The information gathered from these sessions created discussions that lead to changes in my classroom. From what stage of the design process is the class engaging with, to what is the specific activity that students are doing, and what evidence do we have of differing levels of student engagement and rigor.
• Assessments like the Foundation of Computer Science Checklist that I created with another teacher came to fruition.
• Lastly, the development of the portfolio website that is continuously growing and changing to accommodate students needs in the classroom.