# data[].attributes.body
1. What went well?
- Student-content interaction was engaging for students, because of the hands-on experience (drawing diagrams)
- Use of technology was suitable for the sharing of responses.

2. What could have been done diferently and why?
- Perhaps to include self-assessment rubrics for students to assess their own work.
- Promote self-directed learning.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What went well?
-Teacher-Student interaction through feedback on their assigned tasks.

-Student-student interaction through interactive thinking tool.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What went well?
- Production part went well as students took ownership of their learning, and successfully annotated their diagrams.
2. What could have been done differently and why?
- Perhaps a different platform like Nearpod could be used instead for showing of the video.
- On Nearpod, the video can be chunked up in order for teacher to put in place timely checks to enhance the acquisition of content

# data[].attributes.body
1. What went well?
-Videos used were appropriate for acquisition of knowledge.

-Interesting use of world map for students to pin the different types of rain.
-Practice through worksheet.

2. What can be done differently?
-Perhaps more opportunities for students to collaborate?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What went well?
-Information was nicely scaffolded for students.

-Students were able to learn together, at their own pace, through technology.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What went well?
- The annotating of diagrams enabled students to check their own understanding and learn together.

2. What could have been done differently?
-