Comments Snezana Bogavac Mihajlovic

PROJECT DESIGN RUBRIC

HOLOCAUST AND PHILOSOPHY WITH STUDENTS OF 1ST BACCALAUREATE

Discussion Holocaust (history) Film: The final solution Formalized opinion of the students	Lacks Features of Effective PBL The project has one or more the following problems in each area	Needs Further Development The project  includes some features of effective PBL but has some weaknesses	Includes Features of effective PBL The project has the    following strengths
Historical account (Holocaust) Little communicative competence in Wannsee Conference Building opinion	●Students learning goals are not clear and specific; the project is not focused enough in have strategies to convice the peers. The most important is integrate history an human rights. ●The project   does not   explicitly target scaffold the development of expression skills. The students must remember the best way to express their opinion.	●The project is focused on standards-derived Knowledge and understanding, basically because it shows unethical practices in the execution of meetings (Wannsee Conference) ●Success skills are targeted, but there may be too many to be adequately taught and assessed.	●The project is focused on teaching specific and important Knowledge (Holocaust and 2n world war) understanding (building an opinion) and  skills (good communication, discussion). ●Important success skills are explicitly targeted to be taught and assessed (history), such as critical thinking/problem solving (the discussion makes the student reflect for to find a good explanation for the history event), collaboration (the students must heard their peers), and self-management (each opinion must be express with formality).
Understanding and forgiving through discussion with their peers the serious consequences that were derived  from the Holocaust	●The project is not focused on a central problem or question (there is still no consensus theory about the holocaust) it is not engaging to students (it sounds too complex or “academic” like it came from a textbook or appeals only to a teacher.	●The project is focused on a central event about Holocaust, but the level of challenge might be inappropriate because it's a hard subject for the intended students, even in philosophy. ●The driving question relates to the project but does not capture its central question (it may be more like a theme).	●The project is focused on a central problem or question, at the appropriate level of challenge. The central problem or question is framed by a driving question for the project, which is: ¬open-ended; it will allow students to develop more than one reasonable answer. ¬understandable and inspiring to students. ¬aligned with learning goals; to answer it, students will need to gain the intended knowledge, understanding, and skills.
Students must investigate the reason why some people decided to kill other people	●The “project” is more like an activity or “hands-on” task, because the result will only serve the students and the project will be finished.	●Inquiry is limited : Students must relate many contents: history, human rights and film narration. This conceptual relationship can occur without the necessary depth. ●Students generate questions, but while some might be addressed, they are not used to guide inquiry and do not affect the path of the project.	●Inquiry is sustained over time and academically rigorous (students pose questions, gather & interpret data, develop and evaluate solutions or build evidence for answers, and ask further questions). ●Inquiry is driven by student-generated questions throughout the project.
Historical memory	●The students have not lived the historical facts, they have only been able to listen to their grandparents or other people about the facts, this reduces authenticity in the content studied.	●The project has some authentic features, but they may be limited or feel contrived because students have to analyze facts from indirect sources that are sometimes biased..	●The project has an authentic context, involves real-world tasks, tools, and quality standards, makes a real impact on the world, and/or speaks to students’ personal  concerns, interests, or identities.
The discussion allows the students to express their point of view enriched by the work done in class.	●Students are expected to work too much on their own, without adequate guidance from the teacher and/or before they are capable.	●Students are given limited opportunities to express voice and choice, generally in less important matters (deciding how to divide tasks within a team or which website to use for research).Students work independently from the teacher to some extent, but they could do more on their own.	●Students have opportunities to express voice and choice on important matters (questions asked, texts and resources used, people to work with, products to be created, use of time, organization of tasks). ●Students have opportunities to take significant responsibility and work as independently from the teacher as is appropriate, with guidance.
The discussion makes students reflect on the consequences of individual acts (philosophy).	●There is no possibility of fully accepting the students' opinions and integrating them into the learning process.	●Students and teachers engage in some reflection during the project but not regularly or in depth.	●Students and teachers engage in thoughtful, comprehensive reflection both during the project and after its culmination, about what and how students learn and the project’s design and management.
The discussion makes possible the criticism with the consequent revision of the explanations given in class.	●In a discussion or debate in class there is not much time to comment on each intervention: The feedback received may be insufficient. ●Students do not know how or are not required to use feedback to revise and improve their work.	●Students are provided with opportunities to give and receive feedback about the quality of products and work-in-progress, but they may be unstructured or only occur once. ●Students look at or listen to feedback about the quality of their work, but do not substantially revise and improve it.	●Students are provided with regular, structured opportunities to give and receive feedback about the quality of their products and work-in-progress from peers, teachers, and if appropriate from others beyond the classroom. ●Students use feedback about their work to revise and improve it.
The opinions expressed in class after the study of the history, the viewing of the film and the teacher's explanation, each student collects them  in an individual text.	●Students do not make their work public by presenting it to an audience or offering it to people beyond the classroom.	●Student work is made public only to classmates and the teacher. ●Students present products, but are not asked to explain how they worked and what they learned.	●Student work is made public by presenting or offering it to people beyond the classroom. ●Students are asked to publicly explain the reasoning behind choices they made, their inquiry process, how they worked, what they learned, etc.