AHR-Methodological Handbook

CROSS-SECTIONAL DAYS Methodological guide for the creation and organization of cross-sectional days at secondary school

The methodological manual was created as an output of the project Austro-Hungarian roots and common relations of the Erasmus+ project

Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.

Introduction Cross-sectional days as part of school education guides students to think in context, to deepen and connect acquired knowledge and skills from different areas, and at the same time develop their soft skills. Activities associated with cross-sectional days lead students to independence, to responsibility towards others and, last but not least, to the ability to organize and time-plan their work.

The means is to work in groups and discover their role in the team, which they can continue to develop.

Cross-sectional days naturally deepen students' internal motivation and lead to the strengthening of inter-subject relationships, as the student is able to look at the chosen topic from multiple angles.

As cross-sectional days take place across classes, years and schools, the result is openness and collaboration not only within the school and region, but also internationally. Involvement in crosssectional days enables the social inclusion of disadvantaged students and generally improves the social climate in the classroom and school.

1. Choice of topics Topic are suggested by: a) the teacher(s) b) both teachers and students c) by students (this leads to greater student motivation)

The topic proposal includes: -

the goal of the activity means to achieve the set goal intended output (including the proposed form of the output)

Example of a table for suggestions of the topics The final choice of the cross-sectional theme is the result of a student vote. Ideally, the teacher is a guide and mentor, providing ground rules and determining whether the topic has been met.

The work, content creation, organization, evaluation, presentation belong to the students. It is possible to start with less student autonomy, which we will strengthen in the next stages.

2. The division of roles in the team after the initial brainstorming A member's role in the team should be guided by two aspects: a) according to the role the student wants to take on in the team (e.g. coordinator, spokesperson, expert, proofreader, graphic designer, etc.) b) according to the angle of processing the topic (e.g. historical, economic, etc.)

3. Work schedule Students plan their work using a table, where they write down, for example, sub-tasks, roles according to responsibility for a certain area, deadlines for completing individual tasks, etc. The coordinator is responsible for ensuring that all team members are equally busy and have responsibility for a specific area.

Example of a table for planning of the work

4. Continuous management of student activities and continuous feedback Within the team, various forms of ongoing verification of the status of task fulfillment take place according to the set schedule (e.g. self-evaluation and mutual evaluation, ongoing report, or consultation with the teacher).

In the report of work, students indicate the degree of fulfillment of the given partial task as part of the feedback (see the table above).

Teacher/guide role: moderator, facilitator, motivator consultant - does not interpret, does not provide content, if necessary only corrects the accuracy, structure and depth of information

5. Output The output is various forms of presentation of the work of individual teams, which will allow an overall view of the given topic (e.g. Austrian-Hungarian mutual relations from the point of view of gastronomy, transport, industry, and important personalities).

The final presentation of the output should be preceded by a general review, which will allow any deficiencies to be eliminated. Therefore, it is advisable to leave enough time for discussion before the final output.

Outputs in this form with a final evaluation can be considered closed, or they can serve as a basis for deepening the acquired skills and knowledge within the framework of longer-term projects (see the Erasmus+ project and verification of theoretical knowledge in practice).

6. Evaluation of the output from the student's perspective The teacher forms a committee/jury of 3 students who are assigned assessment roles.

The members of the jury have an assigned role and its colour: – green praises – black criticizes, looks for mistakes – the yellow joker chooses one of these 2 roles After the end of each presentation, the commission is changed.

Teachers do not comment on the content of what the committee says. They can, however, comment on how the students worked in the committee (if they stuck to the role, if in enough depth).

The students in question do not respond to the evaluation.

7. Overall evaluation of cross-sectional days The overall evaluation follows the presentation of the outputs.

Evaluation criteria: a) Fulfillment of the set goals We also evaluate the success of the topic selection, the time schedule, the appropriateness and the attainability of the originally set goals. The coordinator indicates whether the goals have been met according to the table (everyone comments and votes).

The guide/teacher comments and corrects. b) Team work Each student scores in writing and independently of the others how the group worked (1 b. no, 2 b. rather not, 3 b. rather yes, 4 b. yes).

Suggested questions for assessment: – our group is also capable of more demanding tasks – we were able to compliment and strengthen each other – everyone had about the same share of work – everyone's voice carried equal weight – I want to work with this group on the next task c) Self-evaluation Suggested questions (same number of questions as the group assessment required, the same scoring): – I worked at 100% in the activity – I feel a sense of co-responsibility – I was able to be a team player – I contributed to the communication as much as others – I was accommodating, I respected other people's opinions

d) Evaluation conclusions Points are added up separately for group assessment and self-assessment. It is followed by asking questions why you rate the group's work or your own work better.

8. Optional evaluation from the teacher's point of view Teachers' evaluation depends on the maturity of the team, it is not mandatory for the evaluation of the cross-sectional days.

Conclusion Cross-sectional days can be included in high school teaching in the form of one-day and multi-day activities, but also longer-term projects. It is desirable to include them during the school year in order to strengthen cooperation and mutual respect, improve the social climate and support inclusion.

From a professional point of view, there is a marked improvement in time management, the development of communication skills, but also digital skills. Last but not least, cross-sectional days contribute to strengthening the independence of students and their motivation for self-development.