Present: Everyone + Scott

We started this meeting off by discussing a draft rubric that Mike sent out. We next had an update from Scott about the telescopes we will use for the starter activity. We followed with a discussion of our activity through the lenses, and finally we assigned tentative facilitation roles for the inquiry.

Assessment Rubric:

Mike sent out an engineering-focused rubric which can be found on the wiki.
This rubric focuses on observing and assessing the students throughout the design and construction process.

The suggestion is made by Scott that a good place for assessment would be when the students present their design to the review panel of engineers.
This will be a separate rubric, and will assess the students on their presentation. This will be the rubric that satisfies the broader PDP assessment guideline for this year.
(Someone needs to start working on this- Betsy and Sarah maybe?)

Another suggestion: we should look at Mike's rubric and make sure all of the goals on their are clearly stated in our design.

Starters:

Scott has tested the telescopes (there are 7) and them functional.
They do not have a lot of light collecting area, and have a small field of view- things for students to improve on?
Mike will start incorporating the instructions that came with the telescopes into a starter worksheet.

Lenses:

Sonnett looked at the Assessment lens
Good:
--our assessment is flexible
--Lots of chances to assess- self-assessment and group assessment , facilitator assessment, peer assessment
Could be better:
--We could improve our organization.
---In our rubrics and facilitating, need an idea of things to look out for (evidence?)
---We need more planning for facilitation- think about our role as facilitator/supervisor- how far do we want to take this role?
Also, if we have several assessments need to plan well for them and consider our own time management

Betsy looked at the Knowledge lens
Good:
--good engineering process skills
--authentic engineering experience
Could be better:
--how do we convey goals to the learners?
         talk to them after the starters?
         give them a draft copy of mike's rubric? (BLANK?) This seem unwise- don't want to distract or terrify them.
         So, how much do we share with them? And when?

This led to a good discussion of including activities to promote students metacognition or 'meta-moments' into this inquiry (and the others)
One thing that seems important is preparing students for the presenting they will be doing.
We should design a meta-moment for our inquiry
Perhaps: How to present to an outside group

John looked at the Diversity lens
--Suggests that an important additional goal is to understand that your audience may have different perspectives, backgrounds, understanding.
Be sensitive to the background of the audience

Heather looked at the Community lens
Good:
--A sense of community is built by our engineering design- working in groups, relying on each-other, learning to communicate effectively
This sense of community is also culturally important to Hawaiian students
--Our goals of documentation and communication also promote community by leading all students to a common understanding of the material
Could be better:
-We need to think about how to facilitate cooperation and deal with problems for students working together (This will be addressed some at facilitation workshop)

Suggested facilitation roles:

Day 1 float: Betsy
Day 2 float: Mike

Facilitators: John, Sonnett, Heather

Synthesis: Mike

Additional coordination behind the scenes: Sarah Anderson, Mike, Betsy

Homework: Take at least two goals on our online design template and add evidence for them.

Other action items: Design of Starter worksheet (Mike) Rubric for assesing students presentations to engineers (Betsy, Sonnett?) Incorporating meta moments (Sonnett?) and revisiting our goals through Mike's assessment rubric. Also, proof of concept testing for making telescopes out of available materials (Manoa group)

Next meeting: Thursday at 1pm HST/ 4pm Pacific.
    This meeting will focus more on wrapping up roles and logistics for the other two inquiries: CLS and Optics.