Rachel Thrun

LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017

Learning Assignment
The online space my students and I worked through was Google Classroom. Due to the fact that I can
not share my classroom with you, I have created this weebly site. On this weebly site, you will be able
to see the assignment I presented and implemented for my students, along with their work samples.
Student names are left anonymous.

https://rachelthrunmissouri.weebly.com

Intended users and purpose of your project

The purpose of this learning activity is to provide my 7th grade science students a meaningful activity that
highlights their creativity, challenges them to present a scientific concept to a younger audience, and
reinforces collaborative group work. The overall goal of this project for my students is to create an engaging
and age appropriate learning product that teaches 5-7 year olds about the water cycle. Prior to this
assignment, my students already learned about the water cycle at the 7th grade level. This assignment is
designed to have them think about how they can deliver scientific content to a different audience, rather than
to each other and myself. The way this learning activity is structured is a new way of teaching for me, and a
new way of learning for my students. Unfortunately, my students are not often exposed to collaborative
meaningful learning experiences due to the nature and culture of our school. Through this learning activity,
students will apply their knowledge of the water cycle to create a product that delivers the same scientific
concept (water cycle), but to a younger audience, as well as learn and work in and on new online spaces
and resources.
The challenge, or rather overarching question that I pose to my students is, “how can we design a game,
video, or book, that will engage younger students (K-2) in actively learning what the water cycle is?” This
challenge switched their role of “consumer” of knowledge about the water cycle to educators of knowledge.
My students will take more ownership of their learning as they now have to make sure they are “masters” of
the water cycle, in order to be able to “teach” that concept to younger students. However, in order to teach
younger students, they first need to understand what is developmentally appropriate and engaging to
younger students (ages 5-7).
The product my 7th grade students decide to create will be based off of their research on what is
engaging and appropriate for younger students. Since this style of learning is new to my students, I
facilitated and guided them through research by giving them structured research tasks. Working in small
groups, students will be active and constructive while conducting research. They will apply that research by
writing a rationale and creating a storyboard that outlines their idea for their final product that they wish to
present to the younger students. My students are provided a short list of web-based technologies that they
can choose from to create an engaging project that they will actually present to 1st grade students. These
web-based technologies range from video creation, writing stories, or creating a game.
While my 7th grade students are the intended users for the web-based application of their choice and
the collaborative environments I provided, they will also be the makers of their own technology based
product and collaborative planning space for their group. Their audience, or intended users of their product
will be the 1st grade students they are presenting to.

1
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017

Learning Outcomes/objectives/standards for users (with regard to

collaborative meaningful learning)
By the end of this learning activity students will be able to:
§ Apply their knowledge of how water cycles throughout the Earth’s four spheres by working in a group to
express this concept using a web-based application of their choice.

§ Research and critique models of games/videos/books for a specific grade level, then justify their
reasoning for their web-based technology choice for their product.

§ Together, students will create a product for a specific grade level (1st grade) that demonstrates the water
cycle.

§ Assess your participation and collaboration within the group by evaluating yourself and your team
members using a rubric and writing a reflection statement.

Standards Addressed:
• Writing Standard 6-8 WHST.2d: Students will use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to
inform about or explain the topic.

• Ohio Science Standard, Grade 7, SC.7.ESS.1: The hydrologic cycle illustrates the changing states of
water as it moves through the lithosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere.

Method of assessing learning outcomes/objectives/standards

To assess the learning outcomes and standards, I have created four rubrics that students can
use throughout the four parts of the learning activity. I have decided to use rubrics because “the rubric
identifies (both for the assessor and the student) the aspects of the performance that are considered
important.” (Jonassen et.al, 2003). The rubric outlined in Part 1 of the learning activity is an analytical
rubric that will assess the student’s ability to apply their content knowledge and understanding of the
water cycle as well as their understanding of age appropriate learning tools for their audience. Students
can not move on to part two of the learning activity until this part is assessed. Therefore at this point, I
can converse and provide specific feedback to the students in regard to their content knowledge, and
their choice of technology for their final product as well as discuss how they (as a group) are
collaborating on this activity thus far. This rubric also addresses their mastery in the 7th grade science
standard in the content components area of the rubric. While the language my students will be using to
present this scientific concept to younger students will be different than the language used in 7th grade,
I will be able to assess their understanding as it’s more challenging for students to break down a
concept they know for a younger audience. This rubric addresses the specific learning objectives of
applying knowledge of the water cycle and critiquing and justifying their choice of technology for their
final product.

Rubric 2 is a holistic rubric that is used to assess the student’s final product. This rubric gives students
an overall impression and general feedback on their final product. This rubric addresses the learning
objective that “students create a product for a specific grade level (1st grade) that demonstrates the

2
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
water cycle”.

Rubric’s 3 and 4 address the final learning outcome where students evaluate their own, as well as their
partner’s contribution to the learning activity, and write a final reflection on the learning activity as a
whole. Rubric 3 shows students what is expected of them when working in a group and will “help
students regulate their learning as they proceed through the complex tasks offered by meaningful
learning” (Jonassen et.al, 2003). Rubric 4 gives students clear expectations for what should be included
in their written reflection.

Students will have access to these rubrics from the first day the project is introduced and will serve as a
baseline for what is expected throughout the learning activity. Rubrics also provide students with the
opportunity to reflect and base their learning strategies for growth by reading the expectations provided
in the rubrics elements (Jonassen et.al, 2003). Rubrics provide students with meaningful feedback that
is often not provided to students when they take a standardized test. When working collaboratively on a
goal oriented task (creating a product for a specific audience), it’s important that students are aware of
their expectations and have a clear understanding of what can improve their performance (Jonassen
et.al, 2003) throughout the process.

Discussion of how your learning activity meets “collaborative meaningful

learning” criteria (include readings/references to back your claims).
Meaningful learning is a conjunction of 5 key elements as outlined in Learning to Solve Problems
with Technology. Meaningful learning is active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative
(Jonassen et.al, 2003). The learning activity my students will be participating in requires them to apply
their understanding of how water cycles throughout Earth’s four spheres, and with that knowledge, work
together to create a product that they will present in a first grade classroom. Not only will my 7th grade
students need to have knowledge of how water cycles around the Earth, but they will also have to
gather information on what’s an appropriate way to convey a scientific concept such as the water cycle
to a younger audience. Through research and discussion, students will identify what’s appropriate and
engaging for 1st grade learners and together, decide how and with what web-based technology they are
going to use to engage and educate 1st grade learners. My 7th grade students are “producing content
for an authentic audience rather than merely performing for a teacher [which] gives students meaningful
learning experiences” (Joanessen et.al, 2003).
In part one of their learning activity, my students are to decide how they are going to present the
content of the water cycle to first grade students. At this stage of the learning activity, students are to
write a rationale that describes to me, their teacher, what technology tool their group is going to use
and how and why that tool is appropriate and engaging for their audience of 1st grade students. Their
rationale must be supported with research and observations. Along with a rationale, they have to create
a storyboard that outlines how the scientific content is going to be portrayed. Prior to writing their
rationale, my students need to construct an understanding of what it means for something to be
appropriate and engaging for their audience. Therefore, I structured learning activities that engage
them in active learning at the adoption and adaptation level of integration (TIM Matrix), where they will
learn with, rather than from, technology. (Joanessen et. al, 2003). The first learning activity my students

3
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
engaged in was guided research. Unfortunately the culture of my school is more consumer based, and
therefore, since this is the first time my students are engaged in this type of collaborative learning, I
provided structure for my students. On Google Classroom, I posted a Google document that contains a
variety of articles pertaining to developmental aspects of children ages 5-7, and articles pertaining to
reading, gaming, and videos at this age. My students were sitting in the groups they will be presenting
their final product in and each group was assigned an article. Their task as small groups, was to read
their assigned article in the Google Doc, and then in the Google Slide, find the slide that had their
article title on it. In that slide, group members add key elements or ideas about what they learned from
their article. By the end of class, the whole class contributed information on the Google Slide that
pertained to their article. The constructed google slide was presented at the end of class and served as
a resource for students to look back at when writing their rationale about what technology tool they will
be using to create a product for younger students. The other aspect to this structured learning task was
to identify characteristics of games, videos and books created for younger students. Students were
provided a shared Padlet space to which they all contributed. For example, on the Padlet Space,
students were given the link to a game for first graders. Their task was to play the game and post an
observation about how the game is structured, describe certain features about the game, how is the
game different from games they play, etc. By posting their observations on Padlet, students had the
opportunity to engage in conversation with one another, and this space became an asynchronous
space that students accessed at home and allowed them to work at their own pace, and “reflect on their
ideas or responses before making them” (Joanessen et.al, 2003). In both activities, article postings and
Padlet observations, students “developed skills and knowledge that they then share[d] with other
members of those communities with whom they learned and practiced those skills” (Joanessen et.al,
2003). Students were developing knowledge about developmental and learning aspects of the
audience for their final product, and shared their knowledge or ideas with their classmates on these
collaborative spaces. In both activities they used technology to help them construct their own
knowledge as they were researching and critiquing models of games/videos/books for a specific grade
level, that they will use to justify their reasoning for their web-based technology choice for their product.
In part two of their assignment, my students are creating their product. At this stage they are also
actively learning but now at the infusion and transformation level (TIM matrix). For their assignment,
student groups have the choice in what they are going to use and while I, as their teacher, “provided the
learning context”, the “students chose the technology” (TIM Matrix). When creating a product, my students
are actively manipulating and observing content to “construct their own interpretations of the phenomena”
(Joanessen et.al, 2003). In other words, my students are learning how to use the technology tool they chose
and while working with that technology they are actively learning how it works and how they are going to use
it to present information. According to the Active Level, Transformation Level extended descriptor on The
Technology Integration Matrix, Florida Center for Instructional Technology, students are engaged in active
learning when they have “options on how and why to use different technology tools, and often extend the
use of tools in unconventional ways. Students are focused on what they are able to do with the technology
[and the] technology tools become an invisible part of the learning.” When students are creating their
product, the learning of how to convey the scientific content to a younger audience may become invisible as
they are learning what they are able to do with that technology. My students may even end up “app
smashing” the various tools to create the perfect product, which would relate to how they are using the tools
in unconventional ways.
Jonassen states in Meaningful Learning with Technology, “the active and constructive parts of the
meaning-making process are symbiotic. They both rely on the other for meaning making to occur”. While my

4
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
students are actively learning in part one of their assignment, their learning is also constructive. When my
students write their rationale and create their storyboards to outline how they want their final product to look
and display the content, they are connecting the new information they learned about the developmental age
of their audience for whom they are creating. While they are asked to collaboratively write to construct their
rationale on a shared Google Doc, they can choose the tool to create their storyboard. When students are
creating their products in part two of their assignment, they are constructively learning at an infusion level
according to the TIM matrix because the students “have opportunities to select technology tools and use
them in the way that best facilitates their construction of understanding.” My students have to have an
understanding of what tool is appropriate for their audience which they construct an understanding of in part
one of their assignment, and then use that knowledge to select an appropriate learning tool on which to
create their final product.
The idea behind this learning assignment provided to my students was to get them engaged with other
learners in the school. At our school, grade levels are often isolated and there is no interaction amongst
them. Therefore, this learning assignment that has my 7th grade students creating a product that will have
them physically interact with another grade level provides an authentic learning experience for my
students. My students are not just creating a product to share with their other 7th grade peers, they have to
think more critically in this assignment as they have to take their knowledge and the complex content
specific vocabulary and be able to transmit that information to a level that is engaging and can be
understood at a younger grade level. While most authentic experiences include a real world task (Joanessen
et.al, 2003), authentic meaningful learning can happen at various levels. According to the TIM matrix, the
authenticity of this learning for my students would be at an adoption level, where my students “have
opportunities to apply technology tools to some content-specific activities that are related to the students or
issued beyond the instructional setting”.
The learning in this activity is also intentional. My students have a goal and purpose for this
assignment: the purpose is to interact with another grade level and their goal is to create a compelling
product that is appropriate and engaging for a younger student that teaches them about the water cycle. In
the beginning of the assignment, parts 1 and 2, students are actively learning, constructing knowledge and
creating their product. At the end, in parts 3 and 4, students are evaluating themselves and reflecting on the
process. In Meaningful learning with Technology, Joanessen mentions that for intentional learning, “learners
should be required by technology-based learning systems to articulate what they are doing, the decisions
they make, the strategies they use, and the answers they found”. By writing a rationale and creating a
storyboard, my students are articulating their decisions and using their research to help them choose the
most appropriate tool. I selected technology (Google docs and Padlet) that not only allowed them to express
their research but also they could use it to write their rationale. I was then able to provide feedback and give
them options to use for their storyboard. All technology options allowed for all group members and myself to
have shared access to monitor progress, and provide feedback. Writing a reflection will make my students
think about the process and the strategies they used, what they found, and provide me with suggestions
from a student standpoint on ways I can make this learning activity more meaningful to them.
Throughout this whole learning assignment, my students are working collaboratively. This assignment
is structured so that they are able to collaborate asynchronously and synchronously, in school, and outside
of school. In part one, where students are writing a rationale and creating a storyboard, they are instructed
to write and create these pieces together. Collaborative writing has many benefits for creating a meaningful
learning environment because learners may build positive relationships, have increased participation level,
more sources of input and ideas, and more viewpoints (Joanessen et.al, 2003). Students engaged in
collaborative writing via a shared Google document, and since this process was new for them, I suggested a
variety of natural roles that may occur. “Just as in other collaborative processes, sometimes roles are

5
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
assigned such as editor, reporter, or leader” (Joanessen et.al, 2003). Students are also collaboratively
creating a storyboard and suggested technology tools to create a storyboard all allowed for asynchronous
and synchronous participation. Suggested tools were google docs, slides, and Padlet so that students were
able to access the same space which enabled cross action (Jahnke, 2016).
As stated in Meaningful Learning with Technology, “science requires understanding dynamic visual
relationships among things that are impossible to see” (Jonassen et.al, 2003). This is why students will
benefit from working and learning with the web-based applications provided so that they can apply their own
understanding of the scientific concept by creating their own visual that helps a younger audience
understand the scientific concept of the water cycle. “When students are given opportunities to investigate
relevant, interesting phenomena and use the information they gather to solve problems, answer their
questions, or inform others, they engage in learning that has significance and value” (Jonessen et.al, 2003).
My students “investigated” the developmental aspects of younger students and created a understanding of
what’s appropriate and engaging for them, and used that information to “inform others” (for a specific grade
level) about the scientific concept of the water cycle. In conclusion, this learning assignment was a
meaningful learning experience for my students and challenged them to learn how to express their
knowledge at their 7th grade level to a younger audience in a creative way.

Reflection on my experience creating and implementing the learning

activity/Evaluation of implementation
Designing a learning activity such as the one I implemented was overwhelming at first, and
rewarding at the end. It was overwhelming because I’ve never planned a learning assignment this
detailed. This is my second year teaching, I teach 180 students a day (40 minute class periods), and
while I know inquiry based, student centered, meaningful learning is beyond beneficial for my students,
I tended to “chicken” out because I didn’t know how I would manage it or how it would go. The culture
of my school is unfortunately “consumer” type learning, and driven by the standardized testing, and
didn’t think I would have time. For the LU5 assignment, I designed a learning assignment that I truly
thought through, and actually implemented with 2 out of my 6 classes. (I only did two as this was a trial
to see how it went!!)
This type of teaching, where I let go of my reins and let my students explore technology that is
new to both of us, and apply their knowledge of a scientific concept by creating a product that is
designed for a younger audience, is new to me, and also a new way of learning for my students. The
use technology in general at my school is still more at a substitution level. Teachers at the school don’t
tend to design a learning “expedition”. They teach general daily lessons with some technology
interspersed. It seems as if my students tend to need a lot of “spoon feeding” and don’t ever know
where to start when assigning a large, in depth task such as the one I assigned. With this in mind, I
made sure I created a detailed project introduction document that outlined the learning process in four
distinct parts.
Each part of the learning assignment was described and contained the expectations for that
specific part. Expectations were outlined in a rubric so that students could (and should) use it as a
guide when working within each part. I knew better than to just assign the project and say “have at it”,
so I chunked the tasks and chunked them in a way that students knew what they had to do in order to
move on to the next task. For example, students had to write a rationale and storyboard prior to starting
to create their final product in part two. Chunking assignments, and giving them stopping points allowed
me to provide feedback, check in, and monitor the progress of each group. What was nice about having

6
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
the whole assignment outlined and presented on day one, was that there was no student downtime,
and groups could (and did) work at their “own pace”. For example, I’ve had lessons that some students
would complete quickly and I would not have anything for them to do after they were finished because I
was waiting for the rest of the class. However, with this assignment that I had thoroughly designed and
thought through from the beginning to end, groups who were done with part one, got feedback and
checked in with me, and then could get started on part two, while others groups may have been still
working on part one. There was never “downtime” as students were constantly engaged in some part of
the assignment tasks.
Since student centered learning, and design thinking is new to my students I wanted to make
sure that I walked them through the process, and not lecture them or tell them what to do. For the first
time, I felt more as a facilitator, which is what my role should be during a meaningful student centered
learning assignment. The process of researching, collaboratively writing and planning for a product, and
presenting the product is something my students are not familiar with. Since the challenge I presented
to them was to create an engaging and appropriate product that presents the concept of the water cycle
to a specific grade level, my students had to first learn and understand what it means for a game, video
or story to be appropriate and engaging for that younger audience for whom they are creating a
product. I knew I had to guide them through research and since the learning assignment is
collaborative, I wanted them to practice collaborating during the research phase.
To guide them through research, (and due to time constraints), I pre-selected articles that my
students would use in the first lesson for this learning assignment. The task was to work in their groups
they were designing a product with, and read their assigned article. In the Google Slide that I created
and shared with the whole class, they had to find the slide with their article title and add highlights of
what they read. This task worked really well and helped them practice working within the same
collaborative space. With every student in the class (class sizes of 30) was on the same google slide
document at the same time, there was a time that a slide accidently got deleted. We, as a class, took
this opportunity to learn how to problem solve and utilize the history feature to retrieve their groups
work. Other teachable/learning moments occurred when everyone was working on the same slide
document, I used this time to remind them of how to work together on a shared space, that the chat
feature should only be used to ask questions and receive answers, and that students in other groups
should not be messing with someone else’s slide (keep in mind, I teach 7th grade and therefore
students would find it funny to mess with other people’s slides, or to use the chat feature to talk as if
they were texting each other at home). This first lesson not only modeled “research” and how to use
articles to learn about the developmental features of their project audience (younger students), but also
helped to reinforce and practice collaborative skills such as working together on a shared document. It
also gave them sources to use when writing their rationales. In addition to showing them that research
can be done through reading articles, I wanted to model how research can be done through
observations. Therefore, I created a Padlet Space, and on the Padlet space I chose the column feature
on purpose. Padlet is new to my students and I wanted this to be organized and easy to use. I created
columns and my posts in each column served as the directions for the task and students then added
their own posts within each column. I was nervous that not all students would complete the task and
just end up copying what their peers who posted first wrote, but that wasn’t the case. My students were
also encouraged to respond to their peers post (but was not required). Padlet was used for two
reasons—to model a collaborative working space that they could potentially use to create their
storyboards on and to provide a collaborative space on which they could share their ideas or

7
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
observations with their peers. Padlet was successful and I would use this again, although I would
encourage more responses to their peers posts. Some student groups even ended up using Padlet on
which to create their storyboards!
While this type of learning and teaching was challenging in and of itself, the other challenge for
me and my students was that I gave them technology tools that I was also still learning how to use.
While I knew enough about each technology application I provided them, I didn’t know all the details
and features within them. Therefore, my students actively learned how to use these technology
applications and even taught me about them too! It created an open learning environment, where
again, I was a facilitator and guide, rather than a “master of knowledge” that I just spewed out to my
students. We worked together to figure out ways to get their ideas come to life, and some students
even went above and beyond and found other technology apps to use that helped them create a
“perfect” product that they then “mashed” with the apps I gave them.
While my students managed to work with technology applications and tools that they’ve never
experienced or worked with before, the biggest challenge seemed to be the storyboard. Considering,
they’ve never been asked to make one before, it was hard for some of my “literal” students to
understand how to start making it. After providing them with resources, and describing what I was
looking for and telling them to review the rubric, I still think I could have provided them with a better
model of what I was looking for in the storyboard. Perhaps a checklist in conjunction with the rubric
would have been beneficial. While the rubric told them they had to include all the water cycle content in
the storyboard, it seems as if that was still too vague for them. As I worked with groups in class, I would
review their storyboard progress with them and prompt them with questions such as “if you’re making a
story and this is the text, what is the visual or illustration that I’m going to see on the page?” or “if this is
a video, who is filming, who’s editing, who’s directing?”. While working with them, I realized that on their
storyboard I wanted them to be more specific than to just provide the content. Since I only put content
in the storyboard section of the rubric, I could tell why many students were confused about the
storyboard. However, after in class discussions and providing comments on their storyboard, my
students did ultimately understood what I wanted. Basically, I wanted them to really plan out their
product and establish roles for how it was going to be created.
What went well was collaborative writing. My students were asked to write a rationale that
explained what they were making for their final product, and why that was a good choice based on the
research. I explained to them that everyone should have a role in the writing. For example, if it was a
group of three, one person could write the bulk of it, while another group member could find the quote
that would back up their claim, and the third group member could edit the text. Again, my students have
never written a rationale, so I made sure to provide them with a pre-writing template. Interestingly, my
students struggled the most with the sentence stems. I realized they did not know what they were and
how to use them. Some students were filling in the blanks for each stem until I explained to them that
they are simply ideas for them to use to help them start a sentence. What also went well was evaluating
each other and writing a thoughtful reflection. I think the reflection went well because I gave them
specific prompts. If I did not give them specific writing prompts, I do not think the reflections would have
been as robust.
Of course, the most exciting part—interacting with younger students, went well too. Seeing my
students proudly present their creative products and showcase their knowledge of the water cycle was
a fun teaching moment. I think because my students had to really figure out a fun, yet appropriate way

8
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
to express the water cycle, they too, will never forget the process of the water cycle as they remember
their products.
If I was to do this again which I am sure I will, I will allot more time to allow my students to really
think through their products in more detail. However, in the time we had to work together on this
assignment, I’m proud of the outcomes. We had a day where more than half the class was on a field
trip leaving group members that were in school behind (in the early planning stages). We had a day
when a school assembly took over working class time, and we had to make sure we were able to
present to the younger students on the day that both could classes could meet. The good part was that
since these tools allowed for cross action, students were able to connect at home to make up for lost
class time. All in all, we got it done and we all had a “collaborative meaningful learning experience”.

Peer Review Evidence

I had two classmates peer review my work. These classmates are those with whom I worked on the
collaborative group project. In November, I first reached out to Margaret (Peggy) to ask for review. At
this point in my design planning, I only had outlined my report and I was honestly unsure what I was
supposed to ask for feedback on. I thought it was about my report, and therefore I did not have the
actual assignment made up that I would give to the students, but I did have a plan and rubrics in place.
Below is a screenshot that serves as evidence of reaching out to Peggy.

9
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017

After reviewing my report, Peggy provided feedback about the clarity of my purpose of project. She
mentioned, “I think I understand what you’re planning, however, I would suggest cutting down on the
wording. It is a little confusing to read. If you can be direct in what your plan is, it may be easier to
read”. She also provided good insight about adjusting one of my learning outcomes. She offered
suggestions about how I could rephrase it to have one purpose rather than multiple purposes in the
same outcome. In my report, I included the rubrics I would use in the project. I used a site that was new
to me called Quickrubric. I thought I’d be able to simply copy and paste the link, but she told me she
could not see them! Therefore, this made me realize that it may be better to just provide the rubric
within the assignment document.
As I continued to think about the assignment I wanted to implement with my students, I ended
up changing it slightly from what I originally sent to Peggy in my report outline. Therefore, after I
revamped the assignment idea that I wanted to design, I asked Katherine Stepanek for review. This
time, I sent Katherine the assignment document I presented to my students, along with a revised report
outline. Katherine reminded me to make an online space to present this assignment, and liked how my
assignment allowed for student choice with technology. She thought my rubric was clear and showed

10
Rachel Thrun
LU_5 Report
December 5, 2017
my students what was expected. As far as the report section, she thought I could describe in more
detail how this project is constructive for my students. Below is a screenshot of our email
conversation/her feedback in full.

11