Team
Mars chaired the VS2 on Oct 9. I chaired one breakout with Deepak. We
shared the task so that each chaired one full presentation with
discussion and we split the tasks in the third presentation. Overall,
this went very smoothly. We received good feedback from our role and
we were able to keep the timing.
The
teams were able to construct the 40 minutes freely in terms of length
and order of the presentation, activities, and discussion, and it
worked well with the topics. Teams have adopted new learning tools,
e.g. Popplet, from EduTech course, and it was fun testing them, even
if it may work better in a different context. Technically things went
very smoothly compared to the first time, and communication was good
(e.g. if everyone are around etc). Generally there was little time
for discussion, but we heard interesting comments and ideas. Some
teams sent part of their materials, questions, and video links very
late, after the deadline, and some other requests were also made very
late. This makes it difficult for the chair group to adjust them at
last minute.
Deepak
pointed out that the presentations were more interactive than the
previous session. The bonus was that the various methods used
required active participation. Time management was appropriate and
the rules for video was really a good idea to use. It prevented using
long videos. In order to use various tools during the presentation,
discussions in between were also effective. The different AC sessions
proved to be more effective than breakouts. There were hardly any
technical problems throughout the session.
The
idea of using Popplet was a courageous one. It is indeed a helpful
tool but there was uncertainty in our breakout as to know exactly we
were supposed to do. Instructions were not very clear. Everyone was
wondering for the first few minutes, and after a while we discovered
we were supposed to put any thoughts we would like to discuss.
Everybody started putting their random thoughts and one Popplet was
hidden under the other. It was hard to follow any discussion trail,
but the comments were interesting. Overall, the session was
productive and seems that we all are learning to apply various
methods and teaching styles.
On
Teemu's opinion, the sessions used much more creative methods –
joint working, collaboration and open discussion. This was very
fruitful, much more than in session #1. I think it is great to see
people experimenting with different methods. The presenters
had taken time to connect their topics into real life examples. This
was very useful and helped comprehension substantially. There were
some technical issues: e.g. some slides had very small font. It would
be beneficial to have everything in sufficiently large font. Also, it
was sometimes a little confusing as the presenters did not always
explain what the next stage of collaboration was to be. The tutor and
one participant did not have access to the Popplet. We solved this by
sharing the screen so they could at least see what was going on.
Beside
some individual computer problems it was satisfying to observe how
the groups had made the presentations. They were all interactive and
involved us in the same level, contrary to the last time. For
the next sessions we should cooperate more with other groups in order
to not present the same issue, since Jupiter and Earth had the same
picture and almost the same issue which they discussed. Sandra
suggested that we should also avoid writing the answers for the
discussion on chat box since it takes time to write and may be
confusing. The chairperson has to follow the ongoing chat while while
the group i s presenting. Video can be watched beforehand, but the
other preliminary material, such as videos, pdf's, links for blogs,
should be delivered to the people at least one week before the
presentation. One day or night before is way too late. Beside this,
the teams put together inspiring and interesting presentations. As
Teemu mentioned, using a common examples helped a lot.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti