# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1 (Low collaboration activity): Code 1

Activity 2 (High collaboration activity): Code 4

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1-creative writing -scores 4 - students discussed in groups features of genres; then they had to compose short stories .

Activity 2-discussion-scores  4  topics and roles chosen by students, reseaching to document and sustain their opinions, find evidences and materials to support their point of view.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1-creative writing -scores 4 - students discussed in groups features of genres; then they had to compose short stories .

Activity 2-discussion-scores  4  topics and roles chosen by students, reseaching to document and sustain their opinions, find evidences and materials to support their point of view.

# data[].attributes.body
Present something that makes you think of London. Write 5 to 10 lines about it and publish it on Padlet.

# data[].attributes.body
01011010010110102

# data[].attributes.body
jshd

# data[].attributes.body
4
Students DO have shared responsibility AND they DO make substantive decisions together about the content, process, or product of their work BUT their work is not interdependent.

4
The learning activity’s main requirement IS knowledge construction  AND the learning activity DOES require students to apply their knowledge in a new context  BUT the learning activity does NOT have learning goals in more than one subject.

5
Students use ICT to support knowledge construction AND the ICT is required for constructing this knowledge AND students do create an ICT product for authentic users.

# data[].attributes.body
Naber lan emine

# data[].attributes.body
Code 4 to role plays and Code 3 to debates

# data[].attributes.body
First learning activity: Code 1: Low level of collaboration:  students prepare a presentation about their passion, the other students listen and in the and provide peer assessment.
The collaboration here is only in the assessment phase.
Second Learning activity. Code 5 High level of collaboration: students, in groups, turned a book into a graphic novel. To do so, they had to share responsibility and make substantive decisions together, their work was interdependent,

# data[].attributes.body
First learning activity: Code1
Low level of collaboration:  students prepare a presentation about their passion, the other students listen and in the and provide peer assessment.
The collaboration here is only in the assessment phase.
2) High level of collaboration: students, in groups, turned a book into a graphic novel. To do so, they had to share responsibility and make substantive decisions together, their work was interdependent,

# data[].attributes.body
1st learning activity - Creating a Portfolio: Code 2;
2nd learning activity - Creating a tourist guidebook: Code 5.

You can find the full descriptions here: https://padlet.com/helenaliberato/rz99scj5wxvk
(3rd column, Module 1)

When analizing the rubric and my previous assessement of low/high level activity, they did not change. I consider the rubric to be of high interest to any teacher as it can easily guide us on the type of learning activities we want to create and present to our students.
In the future, I will take the rubric into consideration and share it with my peers. I think it will also help us with the creation of intercurricular projects.

# data[].attributes.body
Using padlet in class for activities can be useful for low level students too. They solve many problems by activating low level of students.

# data[].attributes.body
https://v.gd/QrErzV
Goal

Creation of an inclusive tourist itinerary in downtown Oporto for a two days of visit (students, using a design partner, will design, test and reformulate a tourist route that is accessible to all, despite the existence of a disability).

Activity "On the way to" is a high level activity. (Code 5)

The learning diary in Padle is a low level activity.(Code 1)

# data[].attributes.body
1st Activity: (Low Level of Collaboration) – Code 1
Students did not work together as they could just divide their activity in parts and each one work separately at one part.

2nd Activity: (High Level of Collaboration) – Code 4
Students worked together to decide their theme/activity and overall aspects. They share responsibilities to carry out their activity. They got prepared to present and answer classmates’ questions as a debate. But their work was not interdependent.

My Learning Diary Link: https://padlet.com/elefki1/gdano4b3fnps

I found the use of rubric really useful! It helps me understand better how to create next collaborative activities. I am going to use it in the future as it really inspires me!

# data[].attributes.body
Learning Activity
Low level collaboration
Students work in couples and present an organization chart of ecosystems.

21 CLD:   code 2
High level of collaboration:
Students work in groups of 4 members. Each group analyzes a type of ecosystem (e.g. marine, land, river etc) of Greece. Each member( responsibility) of the group undertakes to find plant, animals populations of the ecosystem, relationships and interactions . Finally each group presents a collage work (Desicions). The final  goal is the construction of a map of ecosystems in Greece.
( interdependent ).
21 CLD:  code 5

# data[].attributes.body
First activity: code 2
Second activity: code 5
The rubric helps to organise a full-planed scenario and gives you useful information of how to assess the students. Rubric also helped me to undrstand the full meaning of collaborative learning and solved my queries.

# data[].attributes.body
activity  1 - low level of collaboration code 2
activity 2 - high level of collaboration code 5

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/vigcin/pamu0gcbho80

# data[].attributes.body
The scenario has been very useful for focusing and reflecting on the processes to be activated. Every aspect is important to build the ability to know how to work together.
https://padlet.com/monicafabri_art_3cost/kdnydtuhwkoa

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1 - The Hangman - code 2

Activity 2 - Food for Thought - code 5

More  coming soon on my diary:

https://simonettaslearningdiary.blogspot.it/

# data[].attributes.body
Activity one 'Where do you come from? -  scores 2 - Students do work together but they do not have shared responsibility. They are divided into groups but they have to find alone the answers and one students gathers them all in a shared padlet.
Activity 2 Presentation about students' school, town and country to project partners from different countries, This activity scores 5.  Students have shared responsibility, they make substantive decisions together about the content, process, or product of their work and their work is interdependent. Each group has a different topic for presentation.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1-creative writing -scores 4 - students discussed in groups features of genres; then they had to compose short stories .

Activity 2-discussion-scores  4  topics and roles chosen by students, reseaching to document and sustain their opinions, find evidences and materials to support their point of view.

# data[].attributes.body
Low level of collaboration - 1
High level of collaboration - 5

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1: 4
Activity 2: 5

https://www.sutori.com/item/untitled-725b-6c52

# data[].attributes.body
The activities were not as collaborative as I thought. The first activity -2, the second - 4.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1, robotics, 5. Activity 2, Scratch, at this moment 1.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1  - low level got 2 and activity 2- high level got 5. Everything like i first thought but the rubric is very helpful to clarify the type of collaboration.

# data[].attributes.body
creative writing - 5 --> students discussed in groups features of genres; then they had to compose short stories (new groups made of one student from each of the previous groups) . I thought it was low level since the product required an individual contribution, but the creation of the product is a collective effort.

discussion - 5 --> topics and roles chosen by students, reseaching to document and sustain their opinions, find evidences and materials to support their point of view.  The whole class was involved and any single contribution changed the result.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1 - n. 2
Acitivity 2 - n. 5

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1- scores 2
Activity 2- scores 5
due to decission making, interaction, participation
see more https://padlet.com/alexandranakou/nhmyay0ilzup

# data[].attributes.body
ACTIVITY 1 - score 5
ACTIVITY 2 - score 1
Collaborative fairy tales (code 5)
Students worked in groups and collaboratively shared every step of this learning activity. Being the final work a performance, the output of the activity was shared too.

Building History (code 1)
Students in the class worked as a whole, not in pairs or groups. The final output was the sum of every single contribution but was not collaboratively built.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethical shopping (code 5)
Students worked in 3 groups of 4-5 to investigate the problem, find their own solutions as groups,  create a collaborative document as a class about impacts of shopping on the environment, people and animals and possible solutions.

Writing an itinerary (code 3)
In groups of 4-6 students wrote their itinerary for a six-day tour in their country. Each person writes about one section of the tour. Then they present their tour to the class.

# data[].attributes.body
No, I think I got it right from the start.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1 - 5
Activity 2 - 2

# data[].attributes.body
My two activities are as follows:
"Most of the activities I did last year required a low level of cooperation. They started with a brief, participatory explanation of the subject for me, followed by individual study by the pupils. Obviously, this type of activity does not greatly affect pupils' motivation." Code 1 because students were not required to work in a group
"An important activity has been the construction of groups of pupils who have collaborated to solve problems on the recurrence of numbers and the results have been very satisfactory. The evaluation of this work was individual, using open tests." Code 5 because students were required to share responsibilities, make important decisions together and their work was interdependent.

# data[].attributes.body
the fisrt activity described is the description of students' daily routine and even if they did it at school working with their classmates every student wrote about him/herself. so the code is 2.
the second activity isthe   work in groups when they described our town for an e-twinning project in which the code is 5.

# data[].attributes.body
Ismailli, Azerbaijan

High level of collaboration- 5
Low level of collaboration-2

# data[].attributes.body
The questions game is low level of collaboration as it only reached a code 3. Students worked together and had shared responsibility, but didn't make substantive decisions.
Whereas, the Arthur and the Round Table project reached a code 5: students worked together in group and then together as a class as all the groups needed the results of the reseach of other groups to finalize their production.

This rubric is very useful to pre-assess the level of collaboration of an activity when planning it. I'll surely use it when designing a collaborative project. However, I don't really know how that might work in the facts, because even if designed for a high level of collaboration, there might still be "strong" and "weak" members in a team, the fisrt ones leading and influencing decisions, when the others would just follow.

https://nathpino.atavist.com/my-learning-diary

# data[].attributes.body
Level 1 of collaboration - All students in a row make free throw in Basketball on their turn.
Level 5 of collaboration
- Teams of 6 players play volleyball against each other with defined positions and tactics choosen by them.
My paddle with more information for this question is here!e

# data[].attributes.body
High level of collaboration- 5
Low level of collaboration-2

# data[].attributes.body
Actually I have never thought of a rubric like the one presented but personally I think now that it'll be really useful. Sharing the same code makes things clearer. Anyone reads such rubric can easily understand what kind of activity it is.
I don't know  if I've changed my mind yet but surely I'm more careful about the type of the activity I'm going to give them and try to medidate on it.
So, high level: code 5
low level:  code 3

# data[].attributes.body
Activity low level of collaboration - Code 2
Activity high level of collaboration - Code 5

# data[].attributes.body
activity 1 -code 5
activity 2 -code 1

# data[].attributes.body
HIGH LEVEL COLLABORATION ACTIVITY-Students need to create a story together/they need to use an app called TOONTASTIC for the final outcome. I would mark it as a 5.

LOW LEVEL COLLABORATION ACTIVITY-Students need to find different pictured beginning with the learned sound. I would mark it as a 2 or 3.

https://padlet.com/ketuxx/ry7na8q3asqz

# data[].attributes.body
Low level of collaboration: “ Wood’s animals” 1: code 2, because each student works single, only  during the end  the students  interact  by questiontime.

High level of collaboration: Rinascimento in Italia 2: code 5, because the students cooperate, prepare all materials and plan, research problem and hypotesis, improve the group dynamicts.

# data[].attributes.body
*when students write for and against essay and correct each others work and give feedback-1

*when students write for and against essay in pairs or bigger groups-5 (all structure is presesnt: working together-shared responsibility- substantive decisions (content decision-what arguments they will provide, formulating the thesis statement ; process decision-how they will divide work- interdependent work-common result “final essay“).

# data[].attributes.body
First activity- CODE  5

SCIENCE- Life Cycle and Part Function
Second Activity-  A CLIL lesson on Alice in Wonderland- CODE 5

# data[].attributes.body
I had selected two Etwinning projects. for the one called "Aulas sin fronteras/Classrooms without limits" I classify it with a 4 because  they  have shared responsibility AND studnets made substantive decisions together about the content, process, or product of their work BUT their work was not interdependent. and it works not only with my students but with Spanish student partners too.
for the other Etwinning project: "Dime cómo eras y te dirè quien eres", I classify it with a 3, because  Students have shared responsibility BUT they were NOT required to make substantive decisions together and they did not work as a real collaborative team all along the project time, neither among them or with their Spanish partners.

# data[].attributes.body
Step 1 of Activity: Code 2
Step 2 of Activity: Code 5
https://padlet.com/ilacrisere/r7uog4f16neh

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1(High Level of collaboration) - code 4
During the learning activity, I realized that some students worked independently from the group and as a teacher I intervened to fit the material.
Activity 2(Low Level of collaboration) - code 3
For activity 2 it was not necessary to make substantive decisions together and they could work independently.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 1 is code 5 (the students collaborate and decide together)
Activity 2 is code 5 (teacher guide students)

# data[].attributes.body
first activity has code 2 and second code 5

# data[].attributes.body
First activity has code 2 and second code 5

# data[].attributes.body
The first activity has code 2, and second code 5

# data[].attributes.body
Groupwork in activity 1: code 5 – groupwork to make a cake. The students have to collaborate and decide together the food, the preparation, the presentation with digital devices. The give each other feedback. They take shared responsibility. They take substantive decisions. Their work is interdependent.

Groupwork in activity 2: code 2 – pairwork to drill some language functions. The students are more guided and are not in control of their product. They give each other feedback. They do not take shared responsibility. They do not take substantive decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
Low collaboration: Students had to present one country from the middleages in Europe, but each student got the speciffic aspect : monasteries, dynasties, economy, everyday life. They did their search individualy, only read it as a group. They never got together to create a presentatation together. code 1

High level of collaboration :Students were divided in groups, and without  lecturing by me, had to find out about one part of the medieval society. One group was discovering nobles, another peasants, third knights, fourth royals. They had to learn about their lives, relations and present it in a form of roll play. Group had to become a team in order to do that, and it was very fun! code 5

# data[].attributes.body
Activity one is code 5 because they shared responsibility, made decisions and their work is interdipendent; activity n 2 is  code 2 because they worked together, they shared responsibility but everything was organized by the teachers ( the topic of the posters, the sources, the materials ..) so they didn't make substantative decisions. Moreover they worked together but they had chosen the other students to work with.
The rubric has helped me to think about the different levels of substantative decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
low level of collaboration - code 2
hight level of callaboration - code 4

# data[].attributes.body
Activity 2 code 5
Students worked in groups, shared responsability, made substantive decision and goals for the final product. The rubric helps the teacher to assess the level of collaboration and performance.

# data[].attributes.body
The first activity (high level) has code 5.
The second activity (low level) has code 2.
I think that the rubric is useful to think and re-think the shape odf the learning activity
First activity (5):
Last year I created a learning activity with my students of the second year in a vocational school (15 years old).
I teach Maths and the activity was about the geometric transformations (symmetry, rotation, and translation)
Second Activity (2)
In low collaboration
I frequently divide my students into groups to solve problems or equations. In each group, there is one student more expert than others who can help students with some difficulties. This is a low level of collaboration because the expert students guide the others.
More on https://padlet.com/DRubagotti/afdxzltu7pdd

# data[].attributes.body
The first activity with a low level of collaboration has a code 2 because students do work together but they don't have shared responsibility. The secondo activity with the high level has a code 5.
This rubric made me think better and I will use it for every collaborative activity.

# data[].attributes.body
The first activity, the guide of Catania, code 5.Students worked in groups, they had shared responsibility, they made important decisions and their work was interdipendent.
The second activity code 1.
The rubric is very useful to understand what a collaborative activity really is.

# data[].attributes.body
First activity is code 2 and the second one code 3

# data[].attributes.body
activity 1 - code 1 ( watch a movie)

I must change some of the activities to use the 5 code.

# data[].attributes.body
1st activity- Code1 (students worked individually)
2nd activity- code 5 (Students are working in pairs or groups, they have shared responsibility, they are making substantive decisions and their work is interdependent.)
Rubric is useful for supporting students' learning. It develops students' abilities. It is useful for teachers to evaluate students' performance.

# data[].attributes.body
First activity- CODE  5

SCIENCE- Life Cycle and Part Function

I  talked  to my students  about the story “The tiny seed” and discuss the big ideas, providing them some  key vocabulary words. After, they   watched the video “ The life cycle of a plant” ,  discussed about the topic and    drew a picture  of the life cycle of a plant in their journals , writing  some information about it. Students were also  provided with some captivating websites where  to  find useful information about their topic.

https://www.turtlediary.com/video/plant-parts-and-their-function.html

http://extension.illinois.edu/gpe/case1/c1facts2a.html

In a  second  phase they can create an Anchor Chart to   recall information learned from the lesson before. But  the most exciting activity is  Voice Thread, an interactive  tool that allows users  to add immages and audio and  share information  around media. So the students can  create   their voice thread and  learn how to  add comments.

https://voicethread.com/share/5828489/
As  homework  they  talk to their parents about the importance of the plants  and  ask them about  different ways that people use plants.  The day after,  the students  share  and compare answers. Finally they  create another Anchor Chart for plant parts and functions and  reflect  on how the lesson went and how the use of technological tools have  helped them to have a better understanding of the lesson.

Second Activity-
A CLIL lesson on Alice in Wonderland- CODE 5

In  the first phase  of warming  up ,  I have  showed  my students, of  11/12 years old, a spidegram to introduce  the key words  and  the main characters  on a Padlet   and let them talk about what do they had  already  known about the story.  In this introductory lesson students used all four skills and  worked individually and with partners.  Before watching the Disney video, I  explained to them  that the Disney version of “Alice in Wonderland” is based on the children’s book by the English author Lewis Carroll called “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”.

After watching the video, students  worked in group of 3/4 to find out  the main features of the  characters that Alice encounters  in Wonderland. So they  found out what role each character played , what type of character it was or  how it helped Alice or frightened her.

Then they  wrote  their information about the scenes they had  liked  much more,  drew  the cover of their book and printed and coloured pictures of the  main characters.

Students were  provided of a variety of tasks  , taking into account the learning purpose and learner styles and preferences.  After reading the graded  reader  book,  the students  were inspired to make their storybooks, which they  wrote and illustrated.

In addition,  divided in small groups  they also realized a Power Point presentation : a  group   wrote the text,  a second group   searched  animated immages and a third one   searched  the music. This experience was  extremely positive for students and for  teacher.

https://padlet.com/nicolina_graziano/y0zfvpziuff6

# data[].attributes.body
I can surely affirm that in the low llevel of collaboration activity the cose was 3 ( Students work together, they have shared responsibility but they are not required to make substantial decisions together)
In the activity where they wew required a high level of collaboration in some groups we had code 4, in another code 5 but in two groups only code 2 because they didn't manage to share responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the activities that I have read I assessed Learning activity 1 and 2. In both cases I did not find that there was very much collaborative learning. Using the rubric I assigned 1 to lesson 1 and 2 to lesson 2. In terms of my own lessons, I assigned 1 to both. Time to think again!

# data[].attributes.headline
Jeane de Fatima - Rio de Janeiro - Brasil

# data[].attributes.subject
Jeane de Fatima - Rio de Janeiro - Brasil

# data[].attributes.body
Students are provided with a stimulus task relating to asteroids impacting on a planetary body. Students collaborate to research the issues surrounding the task. Emerging from their issue, they pose a problem statement that they would like to investigate experimentally

Excelent
http://www.europeanschoolnetacademy.eu/documents/10180/0/NCCA_Scenario_Asteroids+impacts+and+craters.pdf/e854377c-8471-4a00-b990-cc62ba089326

# data[].attributes.body
My 1st- code 4
Students do have shared responsibility, and they do make substantive decisions together about the content, process, or product of their work, but their work is not interdependent.
My 2nd- code 5
Students do have shared responsibility, and they do make substantive decisions together about the content, process, or product of their work, and their work is interdependent.
More in: https://spark.adobe.com/page/pgdincvklb9aR/

# data[].attributes.body
My first contact was a disaster. The mark is 1

The second was perfect. Mark 5

Low level of collaboration appears when we have lightly contact between the teams. When the pupils react live the collaboration is more effective and productive.

# data[].attributes.body
LOW: MATHS - The students work in pairs at school, we are all doing oral exercises.Following an order set by the teacher, each couple says loudly their results. They have to understand what are the required contents of the table and calculate, following an example.
code 2: they just work in pairs
code 3: they work in pairs and they share the responsibility to use, or not to use, the calculator. The teacher did not give any instruction about HOW to calculate.

HIGH: PHYSICS - working in groups at school and at home, preparing a lesson on a new topic that has to be explained to the rest of the class.
code 5: they decide to split the group of 4 in two couples. They collect and share in classroom all the stuff they found about the topics. The decide where to work (mainly at school but also some work has to be done at home). They decide to use a Prezi presentation and fix a date when to arrange all the scripts and the pics together.They all plan the order of each presentation and who will do it.
https://padlet.com/francesca_calderoni1/pf2ougf77426

# data[].attributes.body
1st - code 3
2nd - code 4
The rubric as well as the samples help me better plan my lessons.

# data[].attributes.body
Activity with low level of collaboration - Resolution of mathematical challenges in pairs. Level 2 (Students DO work together  but  they do not  have shared responsibility.)

Activity with highest level of collaboration - Students in groups of 4 elements define a word that they consider fundamental for life in the school / in the class. In the group they chose the word, presented to the group and justified the reason.
It was a very interesting activity that resulted in a joint panel. Level 5 (Students do have shared responsibility and  they do make substantive decisions together about the content, process, or product of their work and  their work is interdependent.)

In some groups, it was difficult to manage negotiation, share responsibilities and make final product decisions.

https://padlet.com/martaisabelconstantino/nowmfhem3ra4

# data[].attributes.body
20 students distinguish 5 groups. Once you have made preliminary notifications about the subject, distribute the gains groups. I would like to do research from the groups and, as a result, to do their job distribution (Code 1). I follow the work of the students according to their task distribution (Code 2). Students strive to reach a common point on the project they will develop. I will follow this effort (Code 3).At the end of the week, they conduct meetings outside the classroom, either in person or on the Internet, to complete their research. (Code4). They deliver their next week's project. (Code5)

# data[].attributes.body
https://v.gd/7JrFC9
I think that in their work a lot of my students reached the level 5 in their work. Some groups were able to share responsibility and make decisions, working together in a good way. A few people are less indipendent and reached level 2. If I consider the work done, the work reach level

# data[].attributes.body
As I didn´t explain the collaborative activity I have done with my ss, I will sum up what was done: the class was divided into small groups of 3/4 ss and then each group had to create a map of the world. It was a primary English class and the ss were learning countries and nationalities. The teacher provided materials and a computer with an Internet connection so that they could add cultural facts, pictures and research information. They could also do their own research at home.
In my opinion, this activity was a code 5 because ss had to share responsibility and they made substantive decisions together about the product of their work and their work was interdependent.

# data[].attributes.body
Thinking on my high collaboration activity on the basis of the rubric shown I think these could be levels:
Code 1: they had to work in group.
Code 2: they shared responsibility because they made a common product and they had to share their knowledge.
Code 3: about the content and the product.
Code 4: they worked interdependently, every member had to study its content and share it with the others member of the group.
http://learningdesigner.org/viewer.php?uri=/shared/fid/b7b9cf1d8613a0ad96682bb79b686df70a3b6f6ae8f7b4ba1b103537b6f4995e

# data[].attributes.headline
Zita, Budapest - Checking my activity with the rubric

# data[].attributes.subject
Zita, Budapest - Checking my activity with the rubric

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/zita_zsemberovszky/86jqsqo6rugh
During the activity they work in small team. Their responsibility is shared only during activity 1, 3 and 6.
Substantive decisions are made  only in activity 1, 2, 3, 4.
Students' work is interdependent only in activity 1, 3 and 4.
It means there are certain points during the collaborative learning activity that shows it needs to be modified in order to become more collaborative according the rubric...

# data[].attributes.body
This rubric helped me to evaluate in a more effective way the type of collaboration of the activities that i wrote about in module 1.

# data[].attributes.body
See https://padlet.com/profleila/coteachlearn the post titled "An example of a learning activity" and the connected posts.

# data[].attributes.body
Learning activity 1 (describing an ancient civilization): code 2, because students don't share responsibility, at the end they just have to put together different information about the chosen civilization.
Learning activity 2 ( a wreck on a desert island: how to stay there and how to get away from there): code 5, because students have to share responsibilities, to make important decision together and they are interdependent.

# data[].attributes.body
High level of collaboration Code 5

Students were able to communicate effectively and appropriately. The group worked well together to achieve objectives and each member contributed in a valuable way to the activity

Low level of collaboration Code 2

The group did not collaborate on communication well. Some members worked independently without regards to objectives or priorities

# data[].attributes.body
The first activity is code two because they didn't share responsibility. But the second activity is code 3 because they didn't work independently. The rubric is useful to understand what a collaborative learning activity really is.

# data[].attributes.body
High level of collaboration. A guided tour in Siena with a French partner class. Code 5
Low level of collaboration: Knowing Etruscan Civilization: Code 4.
Using rubrics has helped me in evaluating the two experiences and focusing on what didn't worked in the second one. Pupils had to present a final product, but every group was working separately and most of the work could be done by a single student.
This way of proceeding caused some conflicts between students.
In the future I will check the level of collaboration of a collaborative learning activity on the rubric, to reach the highest code.

# data[].attributes.body
Higher level of collaboration: if the group have to present the result of their work: the task was to prepare the presentation about the HW components (every group had different task).  CODE 5
Lower level of collaboration: the members help each other in learning but they have not mutual work result to show: before test I split the class in groups for repeating. CODE 1
This rubric helps us not to wonder and has doubts.

# data[].attributes.body
I ve read the rubrics and samples.It has changed my mind  and give me newhelpful ideas and examples. 1st code is good for low level,after organizing team work we  can  deliver thir rubrict to students by the way they can orgaize their studies and share their  duties,responsibilities.Then coordinator teacher knows how to control team studies and assess students studies steps.

# data[].attributes.body
low level: code 1
high level: code 5

Using rubrics is more objective.It is easy to evaluate by using rubrics.

# data[].attributes.body
This rubric helped me to evaluate in a more effective way the type of collaboration of the activities that I wrote about in module 1. The questions made me think about how the students were working and what level of collaboration they were in. It didn't change a lot my way of looking at the activity but made me think in a more concrete way. Applying the rubric helps to find out in what level the students are in.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vito, Italy,With reference to the activity proposed in Module 1 Learning activity, I consider the following:.Activity 1code 2Activities 2 code 3 -4Activities 3 code 5

# data[].attributes.subject
Vito, Italy,With reference to the activity proposed in Module 1 Learning activity, I consider the following:.Activity 1code 2Activities 2 code 3 -4Activities 3 code 5

# data[].attributes.body
1-level activity (low) code 1
2nd activity (high) code 4

 I think that ITEC materials that I used for a while to use my lessons are really useful. and very exemplary.

# data[].attributes.body
First activity- CODE  5

“ Life Cycle and Part Function”

I  talked  to my students  about the story “The tiny seed” and discuss the big ideas, providing them some  key vocabulary words. After, they   watched the video “ The life cycle of a plant” ,  discussed about the topic and    drew a picture  of the life cycle of a plant in their journals , writing  some information about it. Students were also  provided with some captivating websites where  to  find useful information about their topic.

https://www.turtlediary.com/video/plant-parts-and-their-function.html

http://extension.illinois.edu/gpe/case1/c1facts2a.html

In a  second  phase they can create an Anchor Chart to   recall information learned from the lesson before. But  the most exciting activity is  Voice Thread, an interactive  tool that allows users  to add immages and audio and  share information  around media. So the students can  create   their voice thread and  learn how to  add comments.

https://voicethread.com/share/5828489/

As  homework  they  talk to their parents about the importance of the plants  and  ask them about  different ways that people use plants.  The day after,  the students  share  and compare answers. Finally they  create another Anchor Chart for plant parts and functions and  reflect  on how the lesson went and how the use of technological tools have  helped them to have a better understanding of the lesson.

Second activity- CODE 5
A CLIL lesson on "Alice in Wonderland"

In  the first phase  of warming  up ,   the teacher  showed  the students  a spidegram to introduce  the key words  and  the main characters  on a Padlet   and let them talk about what do they had  already  known  of the story.  In this introductory lesson students used all four skills and  worked individually and with partners .  Before watching the Disney video , the teacher  explained to them  that the Disney version of “Alice in Wonderland” is based on the children’s book by the English author Lewis Carroll called “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”.

After watching the video,  students  worked in pairs to find out  the main features of the  characters that Alice encounters  in Wonderland. So they  found out what role each character plays , what type of character it is or  how it helps Alice or frightens her.

Then they  wrote  their information about the scenes they had  liked  much more,  drew  the cover of their book and printed and coloured pictures of the  main characters.

Students were  provided of a variety of tasks  , taking into account the learning purpose and learner styles and preferences.

After reading the graded  reader  book,  the students  were inspired to make their storybooks, which they  wrote and illustrated.

In addition,  divided in small groups  they realized a Power Point presentation : a  group   wrote the text,  a second group   searched  animated immages and a third one   searched  the music. This experience was  extremely positive for students and for  teacher.

https://padlet.com/nicolina_graziano/y0zfvpziuff6