Tag Archives: Rowshan

New ideas!

How do we begin building group dynamics in the small or large group? Facilitators have shared with me some great ice-breakers and have left the supplies in the grey drawer:

a. Throwing ball competition (from Shaya and Emily bought the plastic balls): This is for the small group. You divide the mini-group into 2 and each group is one one side of the room with an imaginary line between the two. In 1 minute, each team will throw the balls to the other group (you get to time this activity). After the minute is over, the winner will have the least number of balls on their side.

b. Knots (from Kieran and the supplies are in the set up is already done): This is for the large group. You divide the large group into 3 (4 participants in each table). There will be four cups on the table and the participants has to use an orange string (each person holds one side of the string) to maneuver the cups in a certain pattern – i.e. as a row, stack up after another, or pyramid. The winning team will finish the task first.

c. Story-telling (Cole and Serb): This is for the small group. Each person gets to pick one word to write down on a piece of paper. A snowball fight begins and each individual receives one piece of paper. As a group, a story has to be formed as each individual contributes one/two sentences using the word they have picked.

d. Charades (Kieran): This is for the small group. The group is divided into two and each group 'presents' together. In the group of three people, two people will act out what is written on the powerpoint slides (i.e. Kolbs Cycle) and the other individual has to guess the word written.

e. Ninja (Deb, Kyle, Jeff): This is for the small group. Each individual gets one 'action' – to block/attack the other person using their arms. This is done in quick succession and the winner is the person who isn't 'hit'.

f. How would you describe me in 3 words (Rowshan): This is for the large group. Each person has a piece of paper and they will talk to 3 other individuals. When each chat is done, they will write 3 words to describe the individual.

As with any activity, these will require modifications based on the participants and grouping.

Online module participation checklist

To follow up the participation on each online module, we used an Excel spreadsheet. The names and emails of all the participants were the left columns and on the right we had a column for each online module. We dynamically checked off the names of each participant who had left a comment. This way, we had a visual measure of the participation and could also identify and contact individual participants if necessary.

We added this as a second sheet to the registration list spreadsheet and shared it on Dropbox. I now think maybe it would be even more efficient if we make a single Excel Google doc including the registration list, online module participation checklist, and the dynamic schedule (explained below by Jens).

Recording the creative feedback on video

On Day 3, I gave the participants the option to have their creative feedback recorded on video. As they all consented, we basically had self-facilitated feedback cycles at the end of which I might add a question or two to expand on an important topic that had come up either in the feedback cycle, or something that was discussed in our 1-on-1 reflection with the instructors. I copied the feedback video along with their mini lesson and gave it to them at the end of the day.

Active Learning Techniques lottery

At the end of the Day 2 small group session, I suggested that each participant pick a specific active learning technique that they have liked among those introduced in the preceding two days, and challenge themselves to use it in their Day 3 mini-lesson. The suggestion was received with enthusiasm and actually one of our participants came up with a fun way to do it: using the cuttings of the handout of active learning techniques, we crumpled them into balls and put them in a bowl. Each participant then could draw a couple of techniques out of the bowl (these were 14 techniques that they had worked on both on the online module as well as the theme session on the same morning, so they were reasonably familiar with all of the techniques.) I greatly encouraged them to use their ‘lottery techniques’ in the following mini-lesson, if they felt comfortable.

This activity was essentially meant as a reflective practice to get them to take one step further from just reading about, summarizing and even evaluating the active learning technique, and seriously consider them for application in near future. I was pleasantly surprised the next day when I saw that most of them had really incorporated the lottery techniques in their lesson and were happy about the experience!

Using post-it check lists on the doors to keep the facilitators informed of the other small group’s progress

In order to make sure both small groups finish around the same time on the occasions we needed to go back to the large group on a specific time, we used the following simple tool. We posted a half-page check list, like the one shown below, on the door of each room with a marker close at hand. This way, each facilitator could simply check off the stage and min-lesson they had just completed. This proved to be a convenient way of knowing where the other group is at without interrupting them, and adjusting the cycle pace if necessary.

Outdoor mini-lessons and experimenting with time flexibility in mini-lessons

We had a lively participant who decided on delivering outdoor mini-lessons on two occasions. Considering the beautiful day as well as the anticipated effect on boosting group dynamics, I happily went along with the suggestion, taking a flipchart and the camera with me. On the second occasion, which was on Day 3, the outdoor lesson (which was the first lesson of the day), as well as the following two lessons, went notably overtime. As, on the one hand, the instructors were earnestly taking new challenges and pushing their boundaries, and on the other, the learners were highly involved and excited to see their peer’s progress, I decided not to interrupt the lessons. The first three cycles went approximately half an hour overtime. The participants, however, were all cool with having a shortened lunch break, so we started back on time. What really thrilled me was that, following the morning sessions, the participants were so in-tune that we were able to finish each of the remaining cycles within 25-30 minutes, with full participation and exhaustive feedback. We ended up by not only totally making up for the extra time we ‘invested’ in the morning, but even with an extra 30 minutes which were dedicated to a free discussion on some of the interesting topics that had come up in our small group . For me this was a great experience showing that trusting the process and leaning toward well-formed group dynamics can pay off in enriching the feedback content as well as improving the small group timing.

Achieving higher-level LOs within shorter theme sessions (30 minutes or less), through focused use of online modules

In our ISW on June 6, 13 and 14, 2015, we have been able to successfully deliver 30-minute theme sessions while achieving learning objectives on higher Bloom’s level (application, analysis and evaluation). This was made possible by consistently building up the face-to-face sessions based on the activities on the online module.

We provided all the necessary resources and definitions on the online module and asked a few questions to make sure they use the resources and respond on basic Bloom levels. We tried to show our presence on the online module, by checking on the comments and providing encouraging comments and rephrased summaries. In the face-to-face sessions, we built up the activities almost entirely based on the resources provided on the online module, as well as the participants’ responses to the questions. Using this approach, the need to spend time on introducing the concepts in the face-to-face session was minimized, and also, the participants were more motivated and could more easily relate to the activities they were doing.

For example, in the session on Learning Objectives, the definitions and guidelines for preparing LOs were provided online. On the online module, we also asked them to provide a sample LO from their first mini-lesson, and also comment on at least one other participant’s LO. Their participation was really impressive, and we also tried to encourage them by replying to the comments. In the face-to-face session, after a short bridge, we gave each participant a “Learning Objective Evaluation Sheet”, which was basically an anonymous LO from another participant (copied directly from their own online responses). We then divided them into 4 groups and asked them to evaluate the LOs given to them, by giving them a score from 1-10, and also by providing suggestions for improvement. By passing the sheets around within each group, eventually we ended up with their LOs being peer-reviewed by three other participants with specific suggestions for improvement from each reviewer. We asked them to leave the anonymous sheets on a table as they left, so that the author of each LO could have a chance to pick up their sheet and use the suggestions. It was amazing to see that 10 out of 12 participants took their peer-reviewed LOs. The effect of the session was apparent by seeing their LOs on their mini-lessons, which were among the best Day 1 LOs I have ever seen.

The whole session took less than 30 minutes. Using a similar approach for other theme sessions, we were able to have the lunch break between 12 and 12:30, while having at least two mini-lessons before lunch on all of the three days.