THE FIRST MEETING (APPROXIMATELY 1 HOUR)

The facilitator presents the students with a problem statement early in the first meeting. Students discuss the problem statement, draw out prior knowledge with reference to the issues raised, and devise initial pathways for developing a response, with the facilitator providing guidance. Students may use a heuristic of asking what they know, what they do not know or unsure of, and what they need to find out, in order for them to start working on their response to the problem. A “worksheet” designed by the problem-crafter to loosely direct students towards useful and related knowledge for the “problem” is normally made available to students. In some instances, there are additional “scaffolds” designed by the problem-crafter for students to interact, with and experience a certain reality. The key outcome of the first meeting is students identifying learning issues via the “problem”. Well-designed problem statement, “worksheet” and “scaffolds” are therefore key to the quality of learning for the students.

STUDY PERIOD I (APPROXIMATELY 1 HOUR)

Students are free to decide how work is allocated and collectively shared in their team during this learning time. They may carry out preliminary research to check the initial ideas generated in their first meeting. They may attempt the learning activities in the “worksheet” and the additional “scaffolds”. They may study any resources suggested by the problem-crafter as well as investigate other resources on their own. Team members may compare notes, and shortlist viable approaches to response to the “problem”, from their initially developed pathways in the first meeting.

THE SECOND MEETING (APPROXIMATELY 1 HOUR)

The students further elaborate on the issues raised, peer teach each other, and make any strategic re-alignments found appropriate for preparing a response to the “problem”. They may continue to engage with the learning activities in the “worksheet” and the additional “scaffolds”. Students may articulate their ideas, reasoning and proposals, with the facilitator guiding them through a greater awareness of their learning processes. The facilitator also checks on the progress of each team by finding what strategies have been employed, what learning obstacles are encountered, and how teams are getting on in their collaborative work. The key emphasis of the second meeting is the process of reflective learning by engagement with others, the learning activities and materials.

STUDY PERIOD II (APPROXIMATELY 2.5 HOURS)

Students in their teams use this time to reflect on what has happened between the two meetings, and how they intend to use the information and strategies to work towards a consolidated, reasoned response to the “problem”. They may conduct further research to refine their ideas and finalise plan on how they want to present their findings to their class. Teams finalise their responses to the problem and prepare their presentations.

THE THIRD MEETING (APPROXIMATELY 2 HOURS)

Each student team is expected to present their response to the problem statement to their class. During these presentations, questions and clarifications are asked by their peers and the facilitator, with each team expected to provide explanations and defend its position on why or how it has adopted a specific approach or viewpoint. Through such intellectual exchanges, students demonstrate and share their understanding of the issues that underpinned the “problem”. The formal session for the day ends with a pre-prepared presentation by the facilitator addressing the established knowledge related to the “problem”. The facilitator may also close any gaps in the discussions of the day and address any important issues or ideas not tackled well in student presentations.

Students then take a short quiz that helps them review the key issues learnt in the day, and also fill up a self and peer evaluation form. Each student also submits a personal reflection on the day’s happenings or learning process by midnight. All these are submitted by students through a web-based learning management system, LEO (Learning Environment Online). The facilitator then assesses holistically the quality of the presentation, learning processes exhibited throughout the day, self and peer evaluation and reflection, to award a daily grade with accompanying written feedback for each of the student.

RUBRICS FOR DAILY ASSESSMENT

>Assessment Rubrics for Team Presentation

The quality of team presentations is guided by the following dimensions:

• Statement of strategy for proposed solution to problem

• Information collation and analysis

• Rationale for problem solving strategy (statement of how the solution was reached)

• Ability to address questioning (for justification of proposed solution)

• Communication or presentation skills (spans the other five dimensions)

• Observations about students' learning attitudes, behaviour, responses and how they communicate with one another

A scale runs from "Rudimentary" to "Exceptional", with specific descriptions of performance indicated for each of the four scale pointers.

>Assessment Rubrics for Peer Evaluation

Students evaluate their peers' performance and contributions within the team according to:

• Level of contribution

• Quality of completion of assigned task

• Performance beyond expectation

• Contribution of useful ideas

These are measured along a Likert Scale of 1-5 (from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree").

>Assessment Rubrics for Self Reflection

Students evaluate their own performance and quality of learning according to:

• How they valued and listened to what others had to say

• The clarity of what they said

• How they encouraged others to share what they thought

• How they pointed out any disagreements or contradiction of ideas that had been raised

• How they pointed our any agreements or connections between ideas that had been raised

• How they suggested a hypothesis or possible solution build on the ideas of the team

• Questions asked that warranted further investigation

These are measured along a Likert Scale of 1-5 (from "Not very well" "To very well").

>Assessment Rubrics for Reflection Journal

The quality of reflection journal is guided by the following dimensions:

• Clarity in reasoning

• Strength to take and express a stance

• Evidence of milestones (over a period of time)

• Awareness of learning preferences

A scale runs from "Rudimentary" to "Exceptional", with specific descriptions of performance indicated for each of the four scale pointers.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNING

Students may exhibit other behaviours throughout the day that are not reflected in the above assessment types, such as:

• Asking good questions that develop, clarify or extend ideas

• Showing enthusiasm (in the context of finding/ analysing resources etc.)

• Shows interest and engagement in the work of others (for e.g. during team presentations)

• Shows ability and effort in working well in teams (for e.g. adjusting to different styles and dynamics in teams)

Facilitators gather as much information and evidence of learning from their observations as well as through class interactions to inform his assessment of the students.

SHORT QUIZ

Short Quiz Students take a short 10-15 minute quiz that allows them to check their understanding of key ideas and issues for the day's “problem”. This quiz serves more of a review for students, and is not taken into consideration when deciding upon the daily grade.