Activity 2. Analysis and examination of original second world war’s documents  with the realization of oral exposition describing materials analysed. For this activity each group, first of all, have to select some of the documents made available by teachers. Then, they have to analyse the material trying to find out all the historical information (both explicit and implied one). Finally they have to organise and then realize a brief oral presentation about them.

Rubric is useful and it helped me to assess collaborative learning level better. Using the rubric has not made change my mind on the collaborative level of two activities described in module 1.

According to the rubric, in my opinion, the first activity I proposed to my students is a code 3, while the second one is a code 5.

The first activity required just a bit lower level of collaboration from students than the second one because the argument of investigation is familiar  to students and they already have a knowhow about this. Moreover, in the second activty an high level of collaboration is required just in the first step in which they have to reach a shared selection of documents. Each student should make his knowledge,  abilities and skills available to teammates thus suggesting the better documents to choose and analyse. All the phases of the activity, in particular the realisation of the final product (oral presentation) required students interdependent working. 

Activity with low level of student collaboration:
Students work in groups of 2 to write in a T shaped table advantages and disadvantages of social media. They can write their own ideas and search online for more information. One student works on the advantages and the other on the disadvantages and they then show each other what they have found to complete the table. 

This activity requires students to work together for the final product but the students can work independently and they don’t make substantial decisions together. 
Code: 1

Activity with high level of student collaboration:
Students in small groups have to present the advantages and disadvantages of social media. They can choose the way of presentation (e.g. a presentation, a website, a poster, a video) and they all have to work together for the final product. 

Project based on the topic of poverty – code 5 because students work in a group, share responsibilities, make substantive decisions and their work is interdependent. 

https://padlet.com/pusa_h/1h77d1izitd3 

Activity on fantasy novel
My class was divided into three groups of four members each one. For each group I assign the role of each component and I give to the group some material for the research. It was low collaboration because the material was structured and the role already assigned by the teacher.
This activity was code 3, because they did not make substantive decision. In fact the material was in part already decided and so was for work's structure.
Activity 2 -  

Research on Greek history
I divided another class into five groups of four members each one. Each group has chosen an aspect of Greek history to make a research about (politics, war and political expansion, mythology, religion, etc.). Each group had to research material on books and on internet and to create a final digital product. They had to organize themselves, choose their roles and decide how to plan their job. This activity was code 4, because I'm not sure that their work was interdipendent and now, after having seen prof. Butler's video, I see that I should have planned better this aspect.

The other activity I proposed that is a different Shakespearian work for each group. 

Each group was formed by 4 or 5 students, depending on the total number of students in the class. 

After receiving teacher’s general advice, they developed their work by themselves, searching information on books or online. Every student of each group had a precise task. The collaboration was more evident when they put together the information they found to build up the Power Point to show and discuss their work in front of the class. This activity in my opinion is CODE 5 because 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. 

 Here is the link of  My Learning Diary:
https://padlet.com/daria_roni/dlv70y1jhwal

The rubric is a clear and simple way of veryfing if an activity is actually collaborative learning. I think I'll use it to plan my CL activities in the future. The flow-chart structure helps in the assessment phase too.

The students work is interdependent - YES - Students worked on different content and put them together for the final product.

Considering these questions this activity was a code 3, though the students work was interdependent

https://padlet.com/michael_rieseneder/p74dyyzp8ugv

Students  ( 8-10 years old)

Collaborative story with web2 tool StoryBird 

They worked in groups of 2-3 to write a collaborative story using web2 tool StoryBird .( LEVEL 2)

They had to choose an artwork(LEVEL 3) , select some of  the  pictures (LEVEL 3) and write their story, page by page (LEVEL 3).Finally they had to publish and present the final story in the class(LEVEL 3) getting this way feedback from other groups (LEVEL 3)

In the second activity the children collaborated In an environmental project. They had to work in groups, to dream and to share ideas about the issue, they had to explore in order to collect information, to made a plan on how to unite all the information they found, to create a presentation using a digital tool and last but not least to present the results of their project. This job required a group work,  to have shared responsibility, making substantive decisions and their work was interdependent. This could be coded with 5. (High level of collaboration)

 

 

1.      Students DO work together  

2.      Students DO have shared responsibility

3.      Students DO have shared responsibility AND they DO make substantive decisions together about the content, process and product of their work BUT their work is not interdependent

 

the collaborative learning level: 3

 

Realization of a teaching unit of History about Citizenship active in the European vision. 

In this case, the level of collaboration required was good: the students just knew what they were doing and had to link the various parts of the work I had shown to them. Students had to be careful to have good and effective relationships that would make them reach the ultimate goal that was achieved well. This activity required a job of about three months.

 

In this learning activity, 

 

1.      Students DO work together  

2.      Students DO have shared responsibility

3.      Students DO have shared responsibility AND they DO make substantive decisions together about the content, process and product of their work BUT their work is not interdependent

4.      AND their work is interdependent

 

the collaborative learning level: 4

Realization of a didactic project against bullying. In this case, the work required a higher cooperative level because students had to do different activities (make videoclip, use the internet, make drawings, make theater performances) in small groups that would later have to be reunited in a final product. This type of project took longer than the first activity of about six months. The final product was very satisfactory and the class involved was also rewarded by the competition jury.

 
Collaboration: Rubric

 

The rubric I used did not make me wonder if the activities you wrote in Form 1 represent low / high levels of collaboration with students. I have already used a similar rubrics to design my activities and, therefore, my judgment on the student collaboration levels was already defined. The rubric references are very important that relate to the evaluation of group dynamics and how to evaluate the degree of collaboration students have. I use similar rubrics since five years and I will continue to use it in the future.

(Are there megalithic monuments similar to Nuraghi, Menir and dolmen in other primitive peoples?) and invite them to find an answer by means of a research collectiv work. Later the four groups will present their research and after a confrontation will develop a shared summary  digital document with the class.

Aimsto know the monuments megalithic in Sardinia and to know the culture that created them;

OutcomesKnowledge: learn about the prehistory of Sardinia and know how to make comparisons with other cultures.

Low level of collaboration - grammar exercises to solve in Pair work – I would put it in level 2, because it is a very strict and oriented work,  focussed on a specific content and not in a complete learning process.

The rubric will help me to change some activities and create projects that will allow students to share responsibility, to make substantive decisions and that their work will be interdependent.

In the first activity (“when I ask them to jointly work out a multiple-choice questionnaire”) they only work together in pairs or groups to accomplish the task, but they have to discuss between them the answers and, according to the rubric, they have to share responsibility for the choices they make: “Share responsibility is more than simply helping each other: students must collectively own the work and be mutually responsible for its outcome. So, in this activity, students do have shared responsibility, but they are not required to make substantive decisions together.

About the second activity (“I think writing in pairs with colleagues from another European country articles on their customs, traditions, habits, tastes, etc., to publish in a online magazine”) I still think that requires high level of collaboration, taking into account that requires greater negotiation, mutual understanding, leading to more complex collaboration to achieve a specific common object. So, according the rubric, in this activity students: worked in groups that included people from outside the classroom, and they worked together by using technology to share ideas or resources (google docs); students have shared responsibility because the students and the outside participants were mutually responsible for the outcome of the work; students have make substantive decisions together when they resolved important issues that guided their work together and used their knowledge of an issue to take a stance on a topic they have written about; students’ work was interdependent when all students have participated in order for the team success, they all have participated, negotiated and agreed on the process, design, and conclusions of their work.

After doing this analysis, and knowing better the rubric, I realized that they made me understand collaborative learning much better, and now I see that sometimes the learning activities I have planned were just a simple kind of group work in a low level of collaboration. The rubric will be useful and will help me planning much better my next collaborative learning scenarios. 

In the second example about a high learning of collaboration students are required to work together, sharing responsibility in the decision of choosing the most significant key points; after their research on Internet they write down their final choices and debate them in class, thus making substantive decisions together. Finally, they are asked to debate in class with the other groups and write a final report about the topic to be published in the school journal: their work is with no doubt interdependent.    Code 5
https://padlet.com/lmidiri/qjpahuve915e

The activity was designed for a Comenius project we took part in a few years ago. The students worked together in groups of mixed nationalities and the language of communication was English. Learners used ICT to communicate (the Twinspace, emails and social networks). They had shared responsibility because each group had to produce something (a logo for the project, a presentation, a short video, an audio file, etc.). The students were relatively free to choose the “process” of their work. On the contrary, the content was usually proposed by the international teachers. Students had to make a few substantive decisions, even though most of the activity was guided and monitored by the teachers. I find it difficult to say whether the students’ work was interdependent. I suspect some students worked harder than others and it was difficult to monitor such a heterogeneous group with students living in different countries.

The whole class read a simplified version of Alices’s Adventures in Wonderland during their summer holiday. At the beginning of the school year, we studied how to write a good review. The students worked together in pairs and analysed a series of reviews trying to discuss and identify the structure of a good review and its main characteristics. The students were then asked to work together and write detailed instructions on what a good review should contain and what it should be like. Each student was then asked to write a review for the book and to publish it on a Padlet I had previously prepared. 

Finally, I formed different pairs and asked the students to read each other's reviews and do an exercise of "peer evaluation" assessing their schoolmates' work and giving useful advice on how to improve each other's work. I am uncertain about the code here. I think it is probably code 2. Professor Butler says that reading each other’s work and giving feedback does not count as “shared responsibility”. Now that I think of it, I have a question. What if my activity had contemplated “making substantive decisions together”? If step 2 is missing, is the activity always code 2?

 https://padlet.com/c_sollazzo/xgf0cgsxel9o

·         Students work in groups: they divide the questions in 2 and who finishes first will try to help his colleague.

·         Students have not shared responsibility: When the pairs divide the questions each one has to work on, they usually divide it in half, not concerning on the content of each question.

·         Students do not make substantive decisions together.

·         Students work is not interdependent.
According to the rubric, in my opinion, this activity is a level 2.

· Scenario 2 – High level of collaboration
Students do their own crossword puzzle using the definitions that were given in the classroom. Together they choose the definitions and respective description and make the final product with their crossword puzzle. In groups, they also had to respond to each other’s groups’ crossword puzzles.

·         Students work in groups: they choose with whom they want to work with.

·         Students have shared responsibility: first they research individually on the definitions they want to approach and then try to bring their own proposals of the crossword puzzle to the group.

·         Students make substantive decisions together, because they have to agree on what the definitions they will approach, and then make together their crossword puzzle.

·         Students work is not interdependent, since they work together.
According to the rubric, in my opinion, this activity is a level 4.

In this activity students worked together in groups of heterogeneous level regarding to their maths abilities and knowledges to solve some problem solving questions. 

 Activity 2 (high level of collaboration) – Code 4

The  second activity is an inquiry based learning activity in which  students had to find out  Coulomb’s law by using a virtual lab and constructing table and graphic to represent data and guess, after discussion and comparison of data, the relationship. In this situation   students envelope  competencies that can be manifested only in interaction.
https://padlet.com/cambridgesiciliani/2sjc6qtei9ux

 Scenario Overview: It is envisaged that the collaborative project outlined in detail below will involve collaboration between students . All students  will research what they need to do in order to organise and mount an exhibition of their own unique responses to a theme that the teacher will set them or agreed between teacher and students.  Students use BrainPOP resources to identify and explore various types of natural disasters. Students will explain whether natural disasters are weather-related or geology-related. Next, they’ll research a self-selected or teacher-selected natural disaster using BrainPOP resources, and complete a graphic organizer explaining the cause/effect relationships behind the selected disaster

LEARNING ACTIVITY : 

-            ( sharing ideas )  : Share teacher and student experiences of exhibitions. Decide on the theme to be explored (e.g. Nature, Science ) Decide on the student groupings (suggest groups of 3) and the roles within the groups. Decide on the format that the science work  will be presented in;

-          ( structuring thoughts ) :   students decide in groups of 3 the mode of artistic presentation (e.g painting, digital, photography etc, and they create a storyboard of natural disasters; 

-          ( free discussion ) :  give students a copy of the Activity page . Have them guess the name of each natural disaster pictured and write their answers. Provide several minutes for them to complete the 'Think About It' section and then facilitate a class discussion on student responses, tying recent natural disasters to the dialogue. Play again the movie for the class. Pause as needed for discussion and for students to fill in their activity sheet;

-          ( investigation ) : ask students to suggest other ways to categorize the different disasters ( What , When ; Why );

-          ( collaboration ) GROUP ACTIVITY ( high level of collaboration ) : students research and record informations, prepare material to share with other students, they work on cards, puzzles, games and they partecipate in cooperative group activities;

-          (developing or  practising)  : Students , in pair or in group, create a poster on natural disasters;  students reflect on how best to proceed to the final presentation;

COLLABORATION :  agree the groups and the roles within the groups; share findings within their subject area in real time and virtually; students collaborate in collating all feedback to support the work of the final phase; students collaborate to complete the final products.

ASSESSMENT : Teacher will offer feedback to group members based on observation; students seek feedback from other peers; teacher will offer feedback on the final artefacts; students will seek peer feedback on the same; teacher will offer advice on what steps to take for the next phase; teacher assessment based on observation of the level of collaborative activity and the development in collaborative skills.

 

 

 

 

Then follow the collaboration with the preschool class. Together we teach lessons, most of the time. They have symbolic themes: ex. for next week's work we need fruit and vegetables. So everyone will bring fruits and vegetables that we will describe together.

The latest collaboration is in projects with other teachers: eTwinning, or local projects. We organize joint visits and activities. I like it very much because we will be able to learn from our colleagues' experience. https://padlet.com/ispiriuliana/14rpistsaygz

The children were ten and so they were divided into two groups.

Each group discussed the issues they wanted to deal with (enviromental, social projects.  etc). All students suggested a subject. After the discussion and after all the views were heard, each group chose one. Then all students were asked to choose one of the two subjects. The students, then,  searched for collaborators into E -twinning page. The first group searched for partner’s from different countries and the second group checked the projects’ aims. Also they have rejected some of them due to the timetable. Finally they reached to the project: The traditional game of our area 
Students:
 Worked together Shared responsibilities Made substantive decisions
Interdependent work
Code 5


Activity 2
Make a poster
I asked the students to read a fairy tale and to make a relative poster. 

They worked in pairs and each pair painted a piece of the poster. 

 

 

6thgrade learners had to decide on the assessment rubric of their work. They also had to form groups according to their preferred research area of the syllabus. They needed to discuss on what they were going to research and then as a group decide what they would include in their presentations. They needed to decide on how they were going to present their material -the end product- to the rest of the class and also neede to arrange how this presentation was going to be conducted. Finally, they also neede to revise their material again in order to prepare a game/quiz, etc, that they would prepare for their fellow students. At the end of the process they had to self assess themselves, their goup work, their performance and their end product.

 collaboration - CODE 5

 knowledge construction – CODE 4

 self-regulation – CODE 4

 real-world problem-solving and innovation – CODE 2

 the use of ICT for learning – CODE 3

 collaboration – CODE 2

 knowledge construction – CODE 1

 self-regulation – CODE 4

 real-world problem-solving and innovation – CODE 1

 the use of ICT for learning – CODE 5

The high collaboration activity is: CODE 4

I would improve this activities by adding: During the production of the presentation  each member of the group should give feedback to all group about their work and should agree on the final product, especially the conclusions. 

low level: code 5, because there was only one document for them all and everyone was responsible for his part as a piece of the whole.

My high level collaborative learning activity (Frozen theatrical picture about Immigration), that I have suggested, has score 5, because pupils do have shared responsibility, do make substantive decisions together about the content and the final product of their work and their work is interdependent.

The rubric confirmed my answer in module 1. Now, I have a rubric to assessment the level of collaboration among pupils in any learning activity, which I design. 

look for information in a technical text. 

.So, at the first time, they receive a paper with the the task or link to web. They decide the best way to solve the problem . Then they develop the prodoct , at the end they discuss the results with tha classmate and the teacher. The teacher is a scaffolding during all collaborative learning.

The first activity I wrote about in module 1 was “An interview”, according the rubric  - code 2 .
High level of collaboration work - code 5
https://padlet.com/irina_golosova2/6t1wjbh17xtd

In this activity: 

Students work together to accomplish the tasks.

Students share responsibilities, because they have to discuss between them and they are responsibly for the choices

Students made decisions, nevertheless they are not required to make substantive decisions together, because I provided the topics that students would have to develop.

Student´s work was not interdependent, because they can only decide to present some aspects of the work required, it means that their decisions do not affect the rest of their work.

 I coded second activity  with 5.
 

Students work together in groups using google drive to share their work and give each other feedback

Students have shared responsibilities, because they were mutually responsible for the outcomes. 

Students have to make substantive decisions together through  the process and about the final product and their work is interdependent, since they have to find solutions to achieve this sostenible goal. Students must participate  for the team to succeed.

 

they are working together,
they have shared responsibility,
they making substantive decisions and they are working interdependently

 The second activity. Code 5. Students must create a report on their work. This is the site where they place their information. They independently choose a platform, they discuss the design and choose the information. https://www.smore.com/gccc3 

  Low cooperation level learning activity - Exchange of Christmas cards with Spanish school the code is 1 because they worked in a group and discussed the results but did not imply shared responsibility or substantive decisions and was not reflected in the results.
To the High cooperation level learning avtivity - Construction of an accordion book for the BIC competition the code is code 5. They worked in groups, shared responsibilities, made substantive decisions, interdependently, to achieve a common goal: to participate in a national competition.
https://padlet.com/luciamealhada/1aivhw19vxr7

·         Do they have shared responsibility?

·         Do they make substantive decisions?

·         Is their work interdependent?

The activity that required a low level of collaboration I mentioned in Module 1 was making a mind map. The students worked in small groups (3 students) and shared responsibilities in preparing the map. They jotted down the words that came to their mind related to the topic together and then one student was in charge of looking for the pictures and the other two prepared the captions. The captions were then edited by all the members of the group and the final layout of the map was decided.

I may say that the second point (shared responsibility       2) was the most difficult to accomplish. Not in all groups the members gave their contribution as expected; in one group  some students exploited their mates’ work and in two groups some students had to be reminded frequently what they had been asked to do. Two groups managed to make the final product as required.

This task was quite demanding. The students worked in pairs and wrote down the recipe of a local dish in L2. The whole class selected the best ones and then in groups of five they edited them and prepared the script for a video (responsibilities were shared). They decided to record the video in the kitchen lab to show the preparation of the dishes. One / two students from each group were chosen by the students to explain the recipes. A student recorded the activity and a video for each recipe was made by each group. The recipes and the videos were uploaded on an ebook. The ebook was made in cooperation with mates from other European schools.

This activity was engaging. The students showed enthusiasm above all when they had to prepare the videos. All students worked willingly even the less motivated ones, they worked in pairs and in groups, they shared responsibilities (though some had to be monitored and stimulated), they made decisions, and their work was interdependent. It was not easy to get to the end, the learning path was not smooth, but in the end the students were satisfied with their work, which doesn’t often happen in less involving lessons. 

“ 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. 

 

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

 

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

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.

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.

 

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

 

 

 

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

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.

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

*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“).

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.

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.

Activity 2 - Food for Thought - code 5

More  coming soon on my diary:

https://simonettaslearningdiary.blogspot.it/

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

2^nd 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!

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)