SKCG High School, Gurandi, January 20th, 2012

Purpose of visit: observe a collaborative project on "Archimedes Principle" and "global warming."

Name of the teacher: Karuna Sriram

Lesson plan based on the Samartha format

·       Micro lesson planning not available

·       TLM used: black board, charts and computer

·       Topic introduced indirectly

·       Questions posed to the class and students individuals

·       Pressure in inversely proportional to area - this was explained very effectively through a simple experiment using pegs

·       Another simple experiment using a spring balance, stone, beaker and a measuring tube was used to prove that the loss of weight of the stone,inside water is equivalent to the water displaced

·       I posed some questions to the students to check their understanding and they could answer them confidently

·       Edukit was used

·       Student groups themselves repeated the experiment

·       Observation Notes were taken by students

·       Some very intelligent and probing questions were posed by both the students as well as the teachers   like the one posed by a student - as why does iron sink while a gigantic ship made of the same material, floats in water. The teacher explained this very clearly, which the students could understand.

·       The teacher asked as to why the amount of weight loss inside water is equivalent to the water displaced by connecting it with the "law of conservation of mass and energy" which the students were not able to comprehend

Project Name: Global Warming

Name of the teacher: Y Shiv Kumar

·       Topic introduced indirectly

·       TLM used: map, charts, pictures, black board, computer, model etc.

·       Questions posed to class

·       Students were involved and the atmosphere was interactive

·       Edukit used but the teacher initially read out in English from the animation available which later rectified and instead of reading he explained the gist of the same

·       Tasks and assignments were given as part of the project. A number of critical questions had been prepared in advance by the teacher which wee used by the various groups to pose questions to the other groups

·       Lesson plan was not available

Critical Remarks

·       There was a preparatory plan but it was not thorough as a lesson plan was not available in case of the latter while it was available in case of the former

·       Observation check list was not available and documentation was sketchy in both the cases

·       Relevant hard spots were addressed in both the cases

·       Pedagogic technique: Activity Based Learning in both the cases although the former displayed a lot of creativity and made the student delve deeper by triggering critical thinking

·       Group formation, demonstration evident In both the cases while hands on activity and experimentation was done as part of the former

·       Although group formation was evident there was no clear role allocation in both the cases

·       Project execution: Most of the steps were followed

·       What I observed was more of a lab transaction based on engaged learning rather than a collaborative project