I have never built a "lesson plan" but have developed training for Soldiers on other occasions. The Army has a terrific methodology for developing and assessing training. They use an online resource called the Army Training Network. (I would include a link but it is access protected) The training is broken into hierarchys with individual tasks supporting small unit collective tasks which support larger unit tasks. Each of the tasks comes with a pre-loaded Tasks, Conditions, and Standards that makes training development and evaluation very simple and effective. It also has the advantage of ensuring that all Soldiers around the world are training to the same standard and the same conditions.
When I started looking for a wiki subject this one seemed to fit very well. I also used some of the principles discussed by West and West for effective wiki utilization. The rubric is from Rubistar (rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=NewRubric ) which is also discussed in the West text.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Use a wiki to develop an identification and treatment plan for cold injuries
Task: In a small group, students develop an identification and treatment plan for cold injuries
Lesson Duration:
4-6 contact hours
Target Audience:
Students who are working in field that requires knowledge of first aid or who will be living or working in cold environments
Objective Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the lesson learners will be able to:
- Identify the five different types of cold injuries
- Chilblain
- Frostbite
- Immersion foot
- Snow blindness
- Hypothermia
- Identify the symptoms and causes of the injuries
- Identify the correct first aid and treatment procedures for the injuries
Materials Required:
Computer with internet access, students must be made aware of this requirement prior to signing up for the course.
Presentation/Procedure:
- Instructor should develop and provide an icebreaker for students. The icebreaker should require pictures and some (limited) personal information from students in order to provide a better understanding of group structure.
- Instructor will introduce the topic to the learners and provide a link to the wiki site that will be used during the lesson.
- Resources for developing a wiki should be made available for students, some examples are:
- http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/34248/how-to-create-a-wiki-without-any-technical-know-how-using-google-sites/
- www.wikispaces.com/
- http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-Wiki
- Instructor should provide a basic scaffolding to provide basic research and format ideas for students. Students should be encouraged to provide pictures and descriptions for each type of injury as well as develop a small practical exercise to assess learning outcomes. Instructor must refrain from editing students work, advice may be provided if sought but all edits should come from students.
Suggested Learning Activities:
- Students should utilize established, reviewed publications and references for their site. Exampes are
- FM 4-25.11 (FM 21-11) First Aid
- http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1278523-overview
- www.marines.mil/unit/tecom/fmtbn-e/.../Cold%20injuries.doc
- Students should build multiple pages to address the different cold injuries.
Rubric: 16 Possible points from categories listed below.
CATEGORY
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
Sources
|
Source information collected for all graphics, facts and quotes. All documented in desired format.
|
Source information collected for all graphics, facts and quotes. Most documented in desired format.
|
Source information collected for graphics, facts and quotes, but not documented in desired format.
|
Very little or no source information was collected.
|
Content
|
Covers topic in-depth with details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent.
|
Includes essential knowledge about the topic. Subject knowledge appears to be good.
|
Includes essential information about the topic but there are 1-2 factual errors.
|
Content is minimal OR there are several factual errors.
|
Organization
|
Content is well organized and presented in a clear and logical manner.
|
Content is organized but is not clear and intuitive.
|
Content is logically organized for the most part.
|
There was no clear or logical organizational structure, just lots of facts.
|
Workload
|
The workload is divided and shared equally by all team members.
|
The workload is divided and shared fairly by all team members, though workloads may vary from person to person.
|
The workload was divided, but one person in the group is viewed as not doing his/her fair share of the work.
|
The workload was not divided OR several people in the group are viewed as not doing their fair share of the work.
|
Great job on your first lesson plan. I struggled with the assessment part, so I am glad you included a rubric. I noticed that the one in the book has the entire group assessed as a group on every element with no individual grades. I felt that penalized the entire group if one member of the group did not carry his or her weight. I have been in groups where we had a group member not participate. I worked so hard on that project and the end result was something I was very proud of and deserving of an A. Should I not get an A because a group member checked out? I still met the requirements of the assignment and I have no control over another adult. In your rubric, you only have one element of the assessment that is a group grade. So, based on your rubric, a group would need 14.4 points to have 90%, or an A. Assuming they received all points for the first three categories, a 2 on group workload would still give them an A for their work, but not much wiggle room. They would have to have 4's on every other element.
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't mean to pick apart your work here; you did a great job. I am just really conflicted on how to handle this issue as an instructor. I am on my 5th wiki project (with a great group) and over the course of this program this issue has come up in conversations more than once, so I am looking for any guidance possible. Do you have any insight?
Individual grades for group projects are difficult at best. One collaborative project that I worked on (not a wiki) in an Army course had the students provide an "assessment" of the work provided by the other students in the group. This is an effective method as long as the other students are honest about the level of participation by other group members (not usually an issue in the Army). I have gone through some of the same issues as you in group projects. For group projects I have a mentality of "carry the wounded and shoot the stragglers". If a group member is trying, but maybe overwhelmed with other projects I think that it is entirely appropriate to help them out. If however, someone is just checked out and not participating it is incumbent on the group to make the instructor aware of the situation.
DeleteI like the icebreaker you put in here- Like West and West (2009) say, "online icebreakers and trial runs are excellent exercises in trust and confidence building" (p.44). When groups communicate openly, relationships are formed and work will get accomplished.
ReplyDeleteThe worst thing to do in a wiki project is to not speak to your fellow group members. This happened to me once on a project. It was my first time working on a wiki and we communicated very little. When we finally did communicate, my partner broke my trust when he said he would do "x-y-z" and ended up doing nothing of the sort. It ended up being a one sided wiki where I did 90% of the work. I got the good grade and he did not. But the experience left a bad taste in my mouth when it came to collaborative projects. Luckily I have a great wiki group at present! :)
Reference:
West, J. and West, M. (2009). Using Wikis for Online Collaboration: The Power of the Read-Write Web. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The ability to get to know your group is important. Knowing what challenges that other group members are facing personally and professionally certainly make it easier to understand what is going on in the group dynamic. I know that there have been times where I needed some extra help on a project and I sure appreciated the group members that helped me out. When I have extra bandwidth available I feel that it is an obligation to help out those who need a little extra support. Ice breakers can help develop this understanding in a group.
DeleteI know there are differences between a lesson plan and a training plan. As this is your first lesson plan, hope it's a good experience.
ReplyDeleteIndividual vs. group grades... Icebreaker activities...Communicate each other's strength and weakness as early as possible...All are good strategies for encouraging students to build team effort. Good questions and good responses.
My question for you Chip is your "4-6 contact hours"... Is that all the time the students have to complete their wiki project including the icebreaker activities, the time for them to learn how to develop a wiki page, the time for them to research, the time for them to brainstorm, and the time for them to build? If so, it may be a challenge for those students who have less experience with wiki.
Also, will students use the grading rubric to evaluate each other's contributions or only the instructor will use it? Because the purpose of using wiki is to foster group collaboration and collaborative knowledge construction, I prefer to have students do peer evaluation in addition to the instructor evaluation. What do you think? It is not clear in your plan. The purpose of peer-evaluation is not to catch those who may cheat on the team but to let them know upfront that there is a cost for not contributing to the team. I also agree with what you said about "carry the wounded and shoot the stragglers". Though it is a little bit harsh on those students, I do think thost students who work hard deserve a better grade.