https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1IS4L9gBXLgyhFyMkq0JN0xEkGB020s5npm0c-kTtP0kwJYnSF7_mbiUZt9sv&hl=en
Referenced Heather's suggestion as below for the C2 video. So the two examples go from simple observation to deeper specimen classification.
Several things need to discuss with Cathy and our group
1. The way we scaffold and model the students in our videos.
2. Proper video length. I tried to time my script, they are all a bit longer than we first discussed (30 seconds or so), each video may take around 60 to 90 seconds. So I think we need to add it to our interview questions asking them how long is suitable and won't blow the 4th grader's away.
3. For the filming time, it looks like the museum is ready. But I'm wondering if we need to get it done asap or wait for more possible revisions.
One suggestion, we would like to steer away from saying classification schemes are more or less scientific- we want them to understand when they classify or sort what they are doing is scientific, but we would like them to realize there are different levels of sophistication. So you could talk about really easily observed features/characteristics that you can group by, or how you can take some time to really observe specimens and find out a lot more about them and sort them according to those observations, and how that helps you learn and share more with other scientists. I think it is important that it is discussed about how your classification schemes have to be based on observations, and words like “cool”, “scary” or “ugly” can’t work because they may mean things to different people, and don’t really tell us about the specimens.
No comments:
Post a Comment