I have been practicing the Modeling Method for 14 years now with varying degrees of success. I have been leading modeling workshops now for 4 years (this summer is actually my 5th year) and I learn so much in my time.
This year I am running the workshop in Muskegon, Michigan. Since I am not in Detroit, I am working with a new co-faclitator. Her name is Laura Sloma and she is AWESOME! She teaches at East Kent Wood High School just outside of Grand Rapids and is a seasoned practitioner of the Modeling Method. I love working with her and it is great that we gotten to share our ideas. I've already learned so much from our interactions.
The biggest addition to my knowledge and procedure has been the introduction of SYSTEM SCHEMA to the force unit.
I never got this. I have read it in some Hestenes literature namely, "Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers" but it was decontextualized and too abstract for me to see how it would apply in actual practice. A couple of years ago a teacher that I work a lot with in the Detroit area brought these to my attention. I didn't see how they could enhance student understanding and I thought they would actually work against me in that they seemed more abstract than the force diagrams themselves.
After working with Laura, my co-facilitator, who has been using them for years (since 1998) I realize the value. The system schema area a precursor to a force diagram! The students list the physical objects in the interactions and construct the force diagrams from there! So as a student, even if you don't get the whole "dot and arrow" thing the system schema gives you a place to start to analyze any situation.
In addition to jump starting a force diagram, the system schema help us to understand the N3LFP! Every line connecting the circles on a schema is an interactive force pair! And the number of lines drawn to each circle is the number of forces on that object.
One aspect that the participants haven't really noticed yet is the fact that if every line is an interactive force pair then even the lines drawn from the "Entire Earth" to an object must also be a force pair. What does that mean; that if the Earth pulls a box down the box pulls the Earth up with the same force? I can't wait until they notice!
These are a revelation! I have never used them with my students but I'm going to this year. I can see what a positive impact they have had on the participants and I am excited to see
Monday, June 30, 2014
Southwest Michigan Modeling Workshop Day 8
So we are halfway through this roller coaster we call a workshop! Halfway already? Part of me feels like we have been doing this forever; and part feels like we just started.
Everyone came back bright-eyed and bushy tailed this morning, myself included.
We started the day with a discussion of the lone reading from the weekend, the foundational article by Hestenes and Wells about the Modeling Method. The participants were really focused on Malcolm Wells as an individual. They wanted to know all about him, were so impressed with his genius and with his passion for teaching. In all of the years I've done this (5) the participants never focused on him so much.
What is different about this year, or this year's group that put them in that position?
We talked for a while about the 10 year rule for mastery and I talked about chess and Hestenes and then for a while about Malcolm Gladwell. I think they were a little disappointed to hear that it would take them 10 years to become a master. I tried to reassure them that each of them could get huge gains in even their first years, which helped a ton, but realistically to is going to take between 5 and 10 years of directed practice to get good at this. Frankly it takes about 4 years to just get comfortable with the content!
I word about me.
I am pretty good at this; the Modeling Method. But that is because I took my first modeling workshop in 2000. The next summer I took a related (but not modeling specific) workshop in Portland, OR. In 2002, 2003 and 2005 I went to ASU to take advanced Modeling courses. Between my own practice and my advanced training I got good. But I worked my ass off at it!
So in 2010 when I was asked to lead a workshop I was ready - at least I thought I was ready. I learned more running that workshop than I had in the previous 3 years of teaching combined! It takes time, and work and directed practice but you can get good.
Do not, however, let that discourage you. Bad modeling isn't any worse that bad lecturing. At least you 'll be having fun!
We then did some review of the concepts from later Friday. They did a lab activity on Friday where the conclusion was that no matter how the carts interacted the forces that they exerted on each other were exactly the same; constant speed, constant acceleration, collisions, different masses the interaction forces were always the same. What does this mean?
The only conclusion we can draw - without evidence to the contrary is that the interaction forces is equal! This is not a small deal, however, seemed logical to all of the groups because that is exactly what they saw in the lab. So we went with it. I constructed two situations where this was the outcome but seemed different (a 2N block on top of a 4N block AND THEN a 4N block on top of a 2N block) and asked which pushed more 2 on 4 or 4 on 2 for each situations. Each group drew the schema and the force diagrams and we compared them.
We got the same equal relationship in the force diagrams.
Then I told the "Confrontational Stu" story.
After that I asked them to teach me how to walk (we started wtih jumping)
Tomorrow we'll start with a block on the table and see if the weight and the normal forces are N3LFP.
The friction lab was after that and we did a pretty standard modeling treatment for that.
Then we jumped into the Newton's 2nd Law lab. I set up the track, pulled the cart and watched it accelerate. The questions was, "What could you change that might affect the acceleration of the cart?" The participants (acting like students) suggested the mass of the cart, the strength of the pulling force, the angle of the pulling force and the angle of the track. The first three of these I'm on board with but I didn't really understand the angle of the ramp.
I should have done what I do with my students and steered them away from it, but I though it would be cool do "chew" on it a little bit. It turns out that it was quite a debacle! The two groups who chose to examine that didn't have a good concept of how it was even done, let alone an idea of how it should come out. So a lab that should have taken at best 35 minutes lasted past an hour.
Bad decision making by me? Maybe. But there was a point when I wanted to pull the plug, call it quits and just have them do the ones that really matter in this context. However, it occurred to me that maybe this might be a good transition into forces on ramps. So I let it ride. That and it was a lot for them to chew on.
I can't wait to see the results tomorrow.
I should have done what I do with my students and steered them away from it, but I though it would be cool do "chew" on it a little bit. It turns out that it was quite a debacle! The two groups who chose to examine that didn't have a good concept of how it was even done, let alone an idea of how it should come out. So a lab that should have taken at best 35 minutes lasted past an hour.
Bad decision making by me? Maybe. But there was a point when I wanted to pull the plug, call it quits and just have them do the ones that really matter in this context. However, it occurred to me that maybe this might be a good transition into forces on ramps. So I let it ride. That and it was a lot for them to chew on.
I can't wait to see the results tomorrow.
Fsubscript more like WTFsubscript
This was mentioned in a blog post and I can't stop thinking about it!
In a blog post one of the participants queried as to why I didn't use standard notations like Fg, Fn, etc. I almost fell off my chair!
I can't believe that after working so closely with me for two weeks anyone would not see that I'm all about the most basic conceptual understanding for the students.
The only reason I listed the nicknames of the forces was to:
1. Show anyone who doesn't have fully developed content knowledge where the text book names come from and
2. Help the still traditional teachers in the workshop feel better about the names of the forces.
Apparently this backfired because there is still an idea that Fn and Fg are appropriate in any way. To be clear:
To list the forces as Fsubscript horribly confuses the students. Writing the names of the agents next to the forces is the least abstract. Writing forces and Fagent object is a little more abstract but still acceptable. But Fg and Fn - come on! You can do better.
I have seen too many traditional student struggle with naming. Two common issues arise. The first is with Fg. So many traditional teacher tell the kids the Fg = mg. Do you see why this might be a problem? If the notation isn't crystal clear to kid (without context) they just think that F = m (because the gs cancel). Or even worse, the force of gravity = milligrams!
The other arises from Fn. For years I heard traditional students ask about the "natural force". I was like, "what in the hell is the natural force?" It turns out that the teacher was saying "normal force" but without any context to know what "normal" meant they were reverting to this idea that Fn meant natural. I assert that this is because in their math classes ln means natural log (something else they don't understand) and they thought the notation was the same. Who could blame them?
So maybe it was my fault for having introduced the nicknames before we all got to know each other well enough. Maybe I should have stayed with the names that made the most sense (perpendicular surface force, force of the entire Earth, etc). If so, I'll do better in the future.
In a blog post one of the participants queried as to why I didn't use standard notations like Fg, Fn, etc. I almost fell off my chair!
I can't believe that after working so closely with me for two weeks anyone would not see that I'm all about the most basic conceptual understanding for the students.
The only reason I listed the nicknames of the forces was to:
1. Show anyone who doesn't have fully developed content knowledge where the text book names come from and
2. Help the still traditional teachers in the workshop feel better about the names of the forces.
Apparently this backfired because there is still an idea that Fn and Fg are appropriate in any way. To be clear:
THEY ARE NOT!
The first rule of forces says that all forces must be exerted by physical objects that are made out of matter. That is why we never say, "gravity pulls objects down" because "gravity" is not a physical object, it can't exert a force, it is not even a thing! Can I hit you with a gravity? Can you buy a gravity on the way home at the gravity store? NO! Then why would I ever roll up with Fg - the force from gravity? I can barely even type it, my hand are shaking!
To list the forces as Fsubscript horribly confuses the students. Writing the names of the agents next to the forces is the least abstract. Writing forces and Fagent object is a little more abstract but still acceptable. But Fg and Fn - come on! You can do better.
I have seen too many traditional student struggle with naming. Two common issues arise. The first is with Fg. So many traditional teacher tell the kids the Fg = mg. Do you see why this might be a problem? If the notation isn't crystal clear to kid (without context) they just think that F = m (because the gs cancel). Or even worse, the force of gravity = milligrams!
The other arises from Fn. For years I heard traditional students ask about the "natural force". I was like, "what in the hell is the natural force?" It turns out that the teacher was saying "normal force" but without any context to know what "normal" meant they were reverting to this idea that Fn meant natural. I assert that this is because in their math classes ln means natural log (something else they don't understand) and they thought the notation was the same. Who could blame them?
So maybe it was my fault for having introduced the nicknames before we all got to know each other well enough. Maybe I should have stayed with the names that made the most sense (perpendicular surface force, force of the entire Earth, etc). If so, I'll do better in the future.
Sum of the Forces - what's a sigma?
My co-facilitator and I were having a conversation on Thursday about how we wanted to attach the forces unit on Friday. I asked her where she went with her own students from here and she described the 5 step problem solving process. I asked her to describe it for me and she told me this:
1. Draw the system schema
2. Draw the force diagram
3. Resolve any diagonal forces into the components
4. Write the sum of the forces statements (with a sigma)
5. Solve the problem
I thought about this all Thursday night and was very conflicted.
I love 4 out of the 5 steps...but couldn't get on board with sum of the forces statements.
Why?
My thought is this - if we have the participants write sigma F statements it looks WAY too much like something that they have already done or something you'd find in a text book.
I want this (the modeling method) to look vastly different to the participants so that they aren't relying on some traditional mode of instruction.
I am afraid that some participants will take this and think it is an addition to what they already do. Like, "when I teach the students about normal forces I'll make sure to do these worksheets." This method is not something you do in addition to your lectures!
In addition, when our procedures are different it puts the participants in a place to question why they have done things the way they were doing them before. Is it the way you were taught and/or the way you've always done it.
The real question is, how do you get students to develop their own process and procedures?
Telling them to write sigma F statements won't really help. So I suggested to Laura that we just take it out and see what happens. To my delight there seemed not to be a real problem. In fact, the participants were writing mathematical statements that were very grounded in their force diagrams. They were setting forces equal to each other based on the diagram and solving from there.
I was elated.
So I love the 4 steps - and I'll be bringing it to my students in the future. And I am so glad we thought deeply about the sigma F statements and were able to make modifications that are positive for the participants.
1. Draw the system schema
2. Draw the force diagram
3. Resolve any diagonal forces into the components
4. Write the sum of the forces statements (with a sigma)
5. Solve the problem
I thought about this all Thursday night and was very conflicted.
I love 4 out of the 5 steps...but couldn't get on board with sum of the forces statements.
Why?
My thought is this - if we have the participants write sigma F statements it looks WAY too much like something that they have already done or something you'd find in a text book.
I want this (the modeling method) to look vastly different to the participants so that they aren't relying on some traditional mode of instruction.
I am afraid that some participants will take this and think it is an addition to what they already do. Like, "when I teach the students about normal forces I'll make sure to do these worksheets." This method is not something you do in addition to your lectures!
In addition, when our procedures are different it puts the participants in a place to question why they have done things the way they were doing them before. Is it the way you were taught and/or the way you've always done it.
The real question is, how do you get students to develop their own process and procedures?
Telling them to write sigma F statements won't really help. So I suggested to Laura that we just take it out and see what happens. To my delight there seemed not to be a real problem. In fact, the participants were writing mathematical statements that were very grounded in their force diagrams. They were setting forces equal to each other based on the diagram and solving from there.
I was elated.
So I love the 4 steps - and I'll be bringing it to my students in the future. And I am so glad we thought deeply about the sigma F statements and were able to make modifications that are positive for the participants.
Southwest Michigan Modeling Workshop Day 7
Knowing that we had done a Unit 4 Balanced Forces intro the previous day, we had the participants read Unit 1 from Camp and Clement as well as Mistrell's article on the "At Rest Condition".
One of the participants remarked that he really liked how what we read at night related to what we had done that day in class. No kidding! Its not like we're just making this up as we go along - although it might seem like that sometimes. Doing the reading without the appropriate context would be as meaningless at lecturing about inquiry teaching. So we try to make sure that anything they read is meaningful.
I told a story about hearing an elementary school teacher at the MSTA conference tell everyone in the room that "Gravity was the force of the air pushing the ball down". They were shocked!
I also told the "Heavy Boots" story; but in the first person. I do that occasionally because telling stories in the first person sometimes makes them more believable.
I really like telling stories in class (and in the workshop). I think that I do it because it is fun. I am not under any delusion that these stories are advanced pedagogy. But having a little fun in class can be fun. And there are times when students have come back after years and that story is what they remember. I hope that they remember the associated concepts too but...
As for the Camp and Clement reading, the participants really seemed to like it because it is almost an instruction manual that they can use to attack the misconceptions associated with the "normal" force. I am not a huge fan because it is a little too prescriptive for me, but that is a 14 years veteran opinion. I think that as a new modeler or a young teacher the book "Preconceptions in Mechanics" would be invaluable!
It is amazing how so many physics teachers' students struggle with the "normal" force - actually it is not amazing how many students struggle. What is amazing is how many teacher are frustrated and don't do anything about it! It may be that the just don't know what to do or that they blame the students for not paying close enough attention. Either way it is a difficult topic that really needs coherent concept development. Camp and Clement can help with that!
The participants then embarked on worksheets 2 and 3. To get them going we developed, as a group, some problem solving steps:
1. Draw the system schema
2. Draw the force diagram
3. Resolve any diagonal arrows into the "shadow arrows" also known as the components
4. Apply the numbers to the arrows and solve
The participants put some of these on white boards and Laura facilitated a board meeting.
This is where things got weird. It was Friday afternoon of a full week of the workshop. Everyone was tired, some were sick, one had one eye available. And then we asked them to do a couple of problems from unit 4 worksheet 5.
This worksheet is really where the rubber meets the road; separates the men from the boys, is legitimately challenging for even seasoned, veteran physics teachers. The questions show two boxes being pushed by a hand. The first question is, "which pushes harder, A on B or B on A?" Then they were asked to draw force diagrams for the situations.
This is not obvious for students nor novice physics teachers. The FCI is rife with these questions! And I know that this is a misconception that persists. I noticed by walking around that many of the teachers easily put A on B = B on A but their force diagrams didn't really represent that idea.
There was obviously a disconnect between "knowing the rule" and really understanding how these work.
We didn't really look at these as a group - the facilitators walked around and engaged the participants in dialogue while they drew their diagrams and schema.
To answer the questions we set up for them some dual range force sensors (thanks Vernier) on some carts and had the students reenact the situations. They pushed and pulled with the same and then different masses. They they rammed them together!
No matter what they did the forces that each exerted on the other were always the same!
We asked them to see if that result matched or contradicted their diagrams. Most thought this matched what they had but had to modify their force diagrams to compensate.
One very interesting interaction involved a participant that said to me, "when we started I put that the forces were equal. Then we did the worksheet and I want to change it to B was bigger. Then we did the lab and now I want to change it back to equal. I really don't think that even though I knew the rule I totally understood how it worked."
This type of cognitive conflict is exactly what we're looking for!
The last participant interaction - which I thought was very valuable - happened with at the end of the day. She was really reeling from the worksheet and the lab and asked, "I wish we could just set it up like it is on the worksheet and see the forces." So I grabbed a third force sensor and we did just that. When we ran it she said, "Look, it is bigger!" referring to the pushing force compared to the interaction forces.
You can't pay money for that moment - where the new concept is cemented in their brains by a concrete experience.
One of the participants remarked that he really liked how what we read at night related to what we had done that day in class. No kidding! Its not like we're just making this up as we go along - although it might seem like that sometimes. Doing the reading without the appropriate context would be as meaningless at lecturing about inquiry teaching. So we try to make sure that anything they read is meaningful.
I told a story about hearing an elementary school teacher at the MSTA conference tell everyone in the room that "Gravity was the force of the air pushing the ball down". They were shocked!
I also told the "Heavy Boots" story; but in the first person. I do that occasionally because telling stories in the first person sometimes makes them more believable.
I really like telling stories in class (and in the workshop). I think that I do it because it is fun. I am not under any delusion that these stories are advanced pedagogy. But having a little fun in class can be fun. And there are times when students have come back after years and that story is what they remember. I hope that they remember the associated concepts too but...
As for the Camp and Clement reading, the participants really seemed to like it because it is almost an instruction manual that they can use to attack the misconceptions associated with the "normal" force. I am not a huge fan because it is a little too prescriptive for me, but that is a 14 years veteran opinion. I think that as a new modeler or a young teacher the book "Preconceptions in Mechanics" would be invaluable!
It is amazing how so many physics teachers' students struggle with the "normal" force - actually it is not amazing how many students struggle. What is amazing is how many teacher are frustrated and don't do anything about it! It may be that the just don't know what to do or that they blame the students for not paying close enough attention. Either way it is a difficult topic that really needs coherent concept development. Camp and Clement can help with that!
The participants then embarked on worksheets 2 and 3. To get them going we developed, as a group, some problem solving steps:
1. Draw the system schema
2. Draw the force diagram
3. Resolve any diagonal arrows into the "shadow arrows" also known as the components
4. Apply the numbers to the arrows and solve
The participants put some of these on white boards and Laura facilitated a board meeting.
This is where things got weird. It was Friday afternoon of a full week of the workshop. Everyone was tired, some were sick, one had one eye available. And then we asked them to do a couple of problems from unit 4 worksheet 5.
This worksheet is really where the rubber meets the road; separates the men from the boys, is legitimately challenging for even seasoned, veteran physics teachers. The questions show two boxes being pushed by a hand. The first question is, "which pushes harder, A on B or B on A?" Then they were asked to draw force diagrams for the situations.
This is not obvious for students nor novice physics teachers. The FCI is rife with these questions! And I know that this is a misconception that persists. I noticed by walking around that many of the teachers easily put A on B = B on A but their force diagrams didn't really represent that idea.
There was obviously a disconnect between "knowing the rule" and really understanding how these work.
We didn't really look at these as a group - the facilitators walked around and engaged the participants in dialogue while they drew their diagrams and schema.
To answer the questions we set up for them some dual range force sensors (thanks Vernier) on some carts and had the students reenact the situations. They pushed and pulled with the same and then different masses. They they rammed them together!
No matter what they did the forces that each exerted on the other were always the same!
We asked them to see if that result matched or contradicted their diagrams. Most thought this matched what they had but had to modify their force diagrams to compensate.
One very interesting interaction involved a participant that said to me, "when we started I put that the forces were equal. Then we did the worksheet and I want to change it to B was bigger. Then we did the lab and now I want to change it back to equal. I really don't think that even though I knew the rule I totally understood how it worked."
This type of cognitive conflict is exactly what we're looking for!
The last participant interaction - which I thought was very valuable - happened with at the end of the day. She was really reeling from the worksheet and the lab and asked, "I wish we could just set it up like it is on the worksheet and see the forces." So I grabbed a third force sensor and we did just that. When we ran it she said, "Look, it is bigger!" referring to the pushing force compared to the interaction forces.
You can't pay money for that moment - where the new concept is cemented in their brains by a concrete experience.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Southwest Michigan Modeling Workshop Day 6
One of the great questions that the participants have is, what do you do with homework? In a traditional setting it probably looks a lot like a math class. The teacher assigns homework the kids go home and "do it" then the teacher spends 20 minutes standing at the board "going over" (which probably means just doing the problems for the kids) the homework.
I don't know any teacher who actually likes this method. Most are disenfranchised but don't know any better way! So is there a better way? Totally.
Both Laura and I do something similar. We assign homework and the next day the students get grouped and assigned one or two of the problems to put on a white board. They get together to do this while the teacher walks around asking questions and making observations.
Then we "circle up" and each group presents their work while the teacher and the students ask questions.
We modeled this yesterday with Laura as the facilitator and the participants in student mode. This went very well - occasionally they fell out of student mode - but I feel like everyone got a good sense of how to do this.
We them completed the ball and buggy collision practicum - with significantly more success than the T-Bone Challenge from the other day. I am still struck by how amazing these practicums are. We have a great group of participants but their level of physics content and practical knowledge varies. So these practicums instigate some very real dialogue between them. There were 4 groups and 4 different methods for doing the activity. I can't say enough about how important these are in the class and for the workshop.
After that we started in on unit 4 - the Balanced Forces Particle Model.
Unlike the previous units, where the unit hinged on a paradigm lab, the BFPM starts with a discussion where the teacher facilitates the model development through dialogue, agreement and consensus. It is a different strategy.
The problem is that it looks so much like a traditional setting where the teacher is doing a lot of the talking and probably in front of the class. Don't be fooled! The teacher is asking about 100 questions trying to draw out the student's ideas about forces.
The goal is to come to a class consensus about what exactly a force is, how we should represent them and are there conditions for balancing our forces. This happens through a long rather protracted dialogue between the teacher and the class.
One of the conclusions that the class invariably comes to is that if the velocity of your object is zero then the forces should be balanced. Now - just because that isn't necessarily true doesn't mean we should dismiss it entirely. It is a stepping stone to get to a better concept.
So I wrote it on the board and when presented with more information - a hover puck moving at a constant speed (non zero velocity but still constant forces) we had some cognitive conflict and had to revise our model.
We then put some problems from unit 4 worksheet 1 on some white boards. Worksheet 1 is a very important worksheet because it really puts the participants (and students) in a position to do a bunch of force diagrams. The modeling method doesn't always promote repetition as a road to mastery. However, this deployment is a great opportunity for them to really get a handle on force diagrams.
We then presented these white boards in a board meeting. At the end of the 6th day people were getting pretty tired. So we suspended the board meeting to do something fun.
We used some spring scaled to find out if there was a relationship between mass and weight. To do this I put tape of the "grams" side of the spring scales so that the only side they can read is the "Newtons". The research question is, "What, if any, relationship exists between mass and weight?" This was pretty easy for them and pretty quickly they were finished with the white boards and we presented them.
The problem was that some groups worked in grams while others in kilograms. I was purposefully vague so that the boards would be different and we could have a discussion about what to use and when to use it.
They reported the slopes as 10 N/kg and had good "for every" statements and then the day ended.
I don't know any teacher who actually likes this method. Most are disenfranchised but don't know any better way! So is there a better way? Totally.
Both Laura and I do something similar. We assign homework and the next day the students get grouped and assigned one or two of the problems to put on a white board. They get together to do this while the teacher walks around asking questions and making observations.
Then we "circle up" and each group presents their work while the teacher and the students ask questions.
We modeled this yesterday with Laura as the facilitator and the participants in student mode. This went very well - occasionally they fell out of student mode - but I feel like everyone got a good sense of how to do this.
We them completed the ball and buggy collision practicum - with significantly more success than the T-Bone Challenge from the other day. I am still struck by how amazing these practicums are. We have a great group of participants but their level of physics content and practical knowledge varies. So these practicums instigate some very real dialogue between them. There were 4 groups and 4 different methods for doing the activity. I can't say enough about how important these are in the class and for the workshop.
After that we started in on unit 4 - the Balanced Forces Particle Model.
Unlike the previous units, where the unit hinged on a paradigm lab, the BFPM starts with a discussion where the teacher facilitates the model development through dialogue, agreement and consensus. It is a different strategy.
The problem is that it looks so much like a traditional setting where the teacher is doing a lot of the talking and probably in front of the class. Don't be fooled! The teacher is asking about 100 questions trying to draw out the student's ideas about forces.
The goal is to come to a class consensus about what exactly a force is, how we should represent them and are there conditions for balancing our forces. This happens through a long rather protracted dialogue between the teacher and the class.
One of the conclusions that the class invariably comes to is that if the velocity of your object is zero then the forces should be balanced. Now - just because that isn't necessarily true doesn't mean we should dismiss it entirely. It is a stepping stone to get to a better concept.
So I wrote it on the board and when presented with more information - a hover puck moving at a constant speed (non zero velocity but still constant forces) we had some cognitive conflict and had to revise our model.
We then put some problems from unit 4 worksheet 1 on some white boards. Worksheet 1 is a very important worksheet because it really puts the participants (and students) in a position to do a bunch of force diagrams. The modeling method doesn't always promote repetition as a road to mastery. However, this deployment is a great opportunity for them to really get a handle on force diagrams.
We then presented these white boards in a board meeting. At the end of the 6th day people were getting pretty tired. So we suspended the board meeting to do something fun.
We used some spring scaled to find out if there was a relationship between mass and weight. To do this I put tape of the "grams" side of the spring scales so that the only side they can read is the "Newtons". The research question is, "What, if any, relationship exists between mass and weight?" This was pretty easy for them and pretty quickly they were finished with the white boards and we presented them.
The problem was that some groups worked in grams while others in kilograms. I was purposefully vague so that the boards would be different and we could have a discussion about what to use and when to use it.
They reported the slopes as 10 N/kg and had good "for every" statements and then the day ended.
Southwest Michigan Modeling Workshop Day 5
The constant acceleration particle model is so tough!
We started the day talking about the two readings; more from chapter 2 in Arons and the Hammer article "Two Approaches to Learning Physics".
The Hammer article highlighted two students in a college physics class; one who wanted the formulas so that she could plug and chug the problems, and another who wanted to reason them out verbally. Hammer asserts that these two students represent stereotypical approaches that he has experienced as a physics professor.
The participants identified with each of these students - but more the equation user than the big picture students. I find that with physics teachers it is often difficult to get away from a traditional lecture, equation, story problem methodology because;
1. That is all they have ever seen
2. They were successful and don't see any reason everyone shouldn't be
This causes heart ache and frustration and is why they identified with one student more than another. Knowing and using the formulas was - for a long time - viewed as success in introductory physics. Now we know that there is little correlation between being able to use the formulas correctly and actual conceptual knowledge of the physics!
To be truly successful, it is important to be able to do both.
I would never say that the equation and mathematical part of the the constant acceleration particle model wasn't important. In a traditional setting the equations were the end all be all of the "chapter" on acceleration. However, it is only one part of the "model". One of the hallmarks of the modeling method is the use of multiple representations to understand a concept. And the equations used to represent the acceleration of an object are only one of the representations.
So although the equations aren't more important than the other representations they are still important and I want to make sure they are given their due.
The problem is that in a traditional setting they are rolled out in the beginning of a chapter without much explanation. And because we were good at using them we never asked, "where do they come from?"
The first thing I did to develop the equations for the unit was to have the participants run another cart down the ramp and find the equations, again. This time we put them on white boards making sure that they recorded the equations that the computer gave them. This was like the 4th time they'd done this so it was pretty easy.
Then I went to the big board and wrote out the structure of the equation that went with each graph. From there I asked them to tell me their data and I filled them in the appropriate spots. I asked them to look for patterns in their numbers and they found them easily.
The basic idea is that the velocity graph is linear and can be modeled with a y=mx+b equation. From there everything else comes. When I was done I turned around and looked at about 15 jaws on the floor. I had apparently blown their minds! I got the usual, "I never knew where those came from!" and "I've never even thought to go about it like that!"
Seeing where the equations come from puts the participants and students in a position to use them way more effectively and see how they relate to the rest of the representations to build the full model.
I have seen this be a turning point in a lot of participant journeys - the first time they really see the power of the method. I hope that this works to help some of the last few get on board!
With this knowledge in hand the participants embarked on completing the worksheets from the unit. I had them pay close attention to worksheet 4 because it looks like a traditional, story problem worksheet. But I asked them if they could do the whole thing without using any of the equations that we developed earlier in the day but by only using the velocity vs. time graph. We then had them put various problems on white boards. After that Laura facilitated a board meeting, again modeling how we would do it with the students.
Finally we got started on the practicum for the unit. In this practicum we rolled a steel ball bearing down a ramp and it had to pass through the seats of a buggy as it passed in front of the ramp. They, as a group, did much better this time than last unit.
We started the day talking about the two readings; more from chapter 2 in Arons and the Hammer article "Two Approaches to Learning Physics".
The Hammer article highlighted two students in a college physics class; one who wanted the formulas so that she could plug and chug the problems, and another who wanted to reason them out verbally. Hammer asserts that these two students represent stereotypical approaches that he has experienced as a physics professor.
The participants identified with each of these students - but more the equation user than the big picture students. I find that with physics teachers it is often difficult to get away from a traditional lecture, equation, story problem methodology because;
1. That is all they have ever seen
2. They were successful and don't see any reason everyone shouldn't be
This causes heart ache and frustration and is why they identified with one student more than another. Knowing and using the formulas was - for a long time - viewed as success in introductory physics. Now we know that there is little correlation between being able to use the formulas correctly and actual conceptual knowledge of the physics!
To be truly successful, it is important to be able to do both.
I would never say that the equation and mathematical part of the the constant acceleration particle model wasn't important. In a traditional setting the equations were the end all be all of the "chapter" on acceleration. However, it is only one part of the "model". One of the hallmarks of the modeling method is the use of multiple representations to understand a concept. And the equations used to represent the acceleration of an object are only one of the representations.
So although the equations aren't more important than the other representations they are still important and I want to make sure they are given their due.
The problem is that in a traditional setting they are rolled out in the beginning of a chapter without much explanation. And because we were good at using them we never asked, "where do they come from?"
The first thing I did to develop the equations for the unit was to have the participants run another cart down the ramp and find the equations, again. This time we put them on white boards making sure that they recorded the equations that the computer gave them. This was like the 4th time they'd done this so it was pretty easy.
Then I went to the big board and wrote out the structure of the equation that went with each graph. From there I asked them to tell me their data and I filled them in the appropriate spots. I asked them to look for patterns in their numbers and they found them easily.
The basic idea is that the velocity graph is linear and can be modeled with a y=mx+b equation. From there everything else comes. When I was done I turned around and looked at about 15 jaws on the floor. I had apparently blown their minds! I got the usual, "I never knew where those came from!" and "I've never even thought to go about it like that!"
Seeing where the equations come from puts the participants and students in a position to use them way more effectively and see how they relate to the rest of the representations to build the full model.
I have seen this be a turning point in a lot of participant journeys - the first time they really see the power of the method. I hope that this works to help some of the last few get on board!
With this knowledge in hand the participants embarked on completing the worksheets from the unit. I had them pay close attention to worksheet 4 because it looks like a traditional, story problem worksheet. But I asked them if they could do the whole thing without using any of the equations that we developed earlier in the day but by only using the velocity vs. time graph. We then had them put various problems on white boards. After that Laura facilitated a board meeting, again modeling how we would do it with the students.
Finally we got started on the practicum for the unit. In this practicum we rolled a steel ball bearing down a ramp and it had to pass through the seats of a buggy as it passed in front of the ramp. They, as a group, did much better this time than last unit.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Modeling Workshop Day 4
Its only day 4; how can I already be so tired!
I am actually not that tired; actually right now I feel great! But the participants and I are putting in a ton of mental (and a little bit of physical) energy. Which I totally appreciate about the them. They are awesome!
Today we did a bunch of stuff. We started off, like we always do, with a discussion of two readings, some chapter 2 from Arons and an article by Jose Mestre.
I feel like the participants didn't have as much to say about these as they have about the previous readings. I wonder why that is?
They did, in my opinion, enumerate the salient points of the Mestre article which I affectionately call the "Holy Trinity of Instruction". These are the three keys to good teaching;
1 you must know your content
2 you must know how students learn and
3 you must know what student know when then get to you (misconceptions)
Each of these are crucial to good teaching.
Knowing your content is a minimum. However, the extent to which you have to be a master is not clear. For example, I have very little knowledge of advanced physics content but still do a fine job in the classroom. Do I need to know about Hamiltonians and Lagrangians to effectively teach about mechanics? I saw no. I do need to know more than the kids so that I have a good sense of the nuance of the concepts but there is no need to be able to recite the standard theory of subatomic particles!
Kids learn by doing and to really learn (and complete a conceptual change) they must construct their own knowledge. Studednts will learn very little from you telling them or them reading it. They have to be engaged at all levels.
The idea that kids come in empty and its our job to fill them up with physics knowledge just isn't true. Not only do they have a ton of physics knowledge most of it isn't very Newtonian! We have to know what they are thinking and have strategies to help them change. This doesn't mean our classes should turn into misconception which hunts, but we need to know what they think if we're to help them learn.
The Arons reading was especially important because it high lighted the fact that developing a concept should come before the vocabulary. This was extended by the participants to include the idea that the concepts should also come before the equations. I can't wait until we do the equation thing tomorrow!
After that we hit unit 3 pretty hard. We finished looking at the position vs. time white boards they made yesterday by chasing the cart down the hill. Then we did the same lab with the motion sensors. Then we did the ups and downs and motion maps.
Some of these ideas are very difficult, even for veteran physics teachers. I saw some real (and I mean real) cognitive conflict for the participants. How can the acceleration for a cart on a hill be negative the whole time when half of its motion is speeding up?
And should there be an acceleration arrow on the first dot - even if the cart was at rest?
As in interlude we did the T-Bone Challenge in the middle of the day so that we could pose for some pictures. How did they do with the practicum? only 1 out of the 4 groups got the cars to crash on the X. What is up with that? I love to see them really struggle and engage each other in authentic dialogue. I hope they do better on the next one!
At the end of the day we did the velocity dance and ended with the balls on the ramps and tracks.
Today was long and took a ton of mental effort. I hope that the participants remember how that feels when they're doing it with their kids next year!
I am actually not that tired; actually right now I feel great! But the participants and I are putting in a ton of mental (and a little bit of physical) energy. Which I totally appreciate about the them. They are awesome!
Today we did a bunch of stuff. We started off, like we always do, with a discussion of two readings, some chapter 2 from Arons and an article by Jose Mestre.
I feel like the participants didn't have as much to say about these as they have about the previous readings. I wonder why that is?
They did, in my opinion, enumerate the salient points of the Mestre article which I affectionately call the "Holy Trinity of Instruction". These are the three keys to good teaching;
1 you must know your content
2 you must know how students learn and
3 you must know what student know when then get to you (misconceptions)
Each of these are crucial to good teaching.
Knowing your content is a minimum. However, the extent to which you have to be a master is not clear. For example, I have very little knowledge of advanced physics content but still do a fine job in the classroom. Do I need to know about Hamiltonians and Lagrangians to effectively teach about mechanics? I saw no. I do need to know more than the kids so that I have a good sense of the nuance of the concepts but there is no need to be able to recite the standard theory of subatomic particles!
Kids learn by doing and to really learn (and complete a conceptual change) they must construct their own knowledge. Studednts will learn very little from you telling them or them reading it. They have to be engaged at all levels.
The idea that kids come in empty and its our job to fill them up with physics knowledge just isn't true. Not only do they have a ton of physics knowledge most of it isn't very Newtonian! We have to know what they are thinking and have strategies to help them change. This doesn't mean our classes should turn into misconception which hunts, but we need to know what they think if we're to help them learn.
The Arons reading was especially important because it high lighted the fact that developing a concept should come before the vocabulary. This was extended by the participants to include the idea that the concepts should also come before the equations. I can't wait until we do the equation thing tomorrow!
After that we hit unit 3 pretty hard. We finished looking at the position vs. time white boards they made yesterday by chasing the cart down the hill. Then we did the same lab with the motion sensors. Then we did the ups and downs and motion maps.
Some of these ideas are very difficult, even for veteran physics teachers. I saw some real (and I mean real) cognitive conflict for the participants. How can the acceleration for a cart on a hill be negative the whole time when half of its motion is speeding up?
And should there be an acceleration arrow on the first dot - even if the cart was at rest?
As in interlude we did the T-Bone Challenge in the middle of the day so that we could pose for some pictures. How did they do with the practicum? only 1 out of the 4 groups got the cars to crash on the X. What is up with that? I love to see them really struggle and engage each other in authentic dialogue. I hope they do better on the next one!
At the end of the day we did the velocity dance and ended with the balls on the ramps and tracks.
Today was long and took a ton of mental effort. I hope that the participants remember how that feels when they're doing it with their kids next year!
Monday, June 23, 2014
Modeling Workshop Day 3
Day 3 - a great day, kind of a hard one but a good one!
We started out the day discussing the reading from last night.
The first was from chapter 1 of Arons. It dealt mostly with the importance of proportions and the "for every" statements. This is huge to develop conceptual understandings of anything! Any teacher who has really tested their students knows that they all struggle with proportions.
This is the why I feel that the suite of variation and measurement labs that we did on the first day is so critical for a good understanding of physics concepts later.
One of the most important things that a teacher can do during any class period is to check for understanding. This can happen in myriad ways. The easiest of which is to just ask them. But you've got to be ready for them to NOT know...that is the hard part and why (I believe) most teachers don't routinely check for understanding; they aren't ready for the students to be clueless. This would open up a huge can of worms; they would have to admit that the methods they were using were ineffective and they would have to admit that they didn't necessarily know how to change their instruction to do better.
We need to put the kids in a position to find out what they do and do not understand.
The second reading was the guest comment by Lilian McDermott. I like this one because she highlights the mismatch between the way that students learn and the way that we've traditionally taught physics. The participants talked a lot today about teaching the way that we were taught. Our problem is that we don't necessarily know better methodologies. Welcome to the modeling workshop!
In class today we started out with a little sensor work - a getting to know you with the motion detectors. the participants did very well.
Then they finished all 5 worksheets from unit 2. Laura had them put worksheets 4 and 5 on white boards and did a board meeting. There was a lot of discussion about the last dot, what the dots meant and intervals vs. instants. I was happy that the discussion very well modeled the actual student discussions about the same white boards. That will give the participants some experiences that will be invaluable.
After that I did a CVPM wrap up. The wrap up is a good way to help the participants (and eventually students) to see how the parts of the model fit together.
When we finished I was anxious to start unit 3. So we set up the ramps, got out some carts and they did the unit 3 paradigm lab.
I love the way that we did this. About 8 years ago I realized that the best way to get position vs. time data AND connect it to the buggy lab is to use a track and plot the points of a cart rolling down the ramp. The participants loved it but are worried that we were able to get good data but students might not be.
I am confident that their students will, with only a little bit of supervision, get the good data that they all got.
We started out the day discussing the reading from last night.
The first was from chapter 1 of Arons. It dealt mostly with the importance of proportions and the "for every" statements. This is huge to develop conceptual understandings of anything! Any teacher who has really tested their students knows that they all struggle with proportions.
This is the why I feel that the suite of variation and measurement labs that we did on the first day is so critical for a good understanding of physics concepts later.
One of the most important things that a teacher can do during any class period is to check for understanding. This can happen in myriad ways. The easiest of which is to just ask them. But you've got to be ready for them to NOT know...that is the hard part and why (I believe) most teachers don't routinely check for understanding; they aren't ready for the students to be clueless. This would open up a huge can of worms; they would have to admit that the methods they were using were ineffective and they would have to admit that they didn't necessarily know how to change their instruction to do better.
We need to put the kids in a position to find out what they do and do not understand.
The second reading was the guest comment by Lilian McDermott. I like this one because she highlights the mismatch between the way that students learn and the way that we've traditionally taught physics. The participants talked a lot today about teaching the way that we were taught. Our problem is that we don't necessarily know better methodologies. Welcome to the modeling workshop!
In class today we started out with a little sensor work - a getting to know you with the motion detectors. the participants did very well.
Then they finished all 5 worksheets from unit 2. Laura had them put worksheets 4 and 5 on white boards and did a board meeting. There was a lot of discussion about the last dot, what the dots meant and intervals vs. instants. I was happy that the discussion very well modeled the actual student discussions about the same white boards. That will give the participants some experiences that will be invaluable.
After that I did a CVPM wrap up. The wrap up is a good way to help the participants (and eventually students) to see how the parts of the model fit together.
When we finished I was anxious to start unit 3. So we set up the ramps, got out some carts and they did the unit 3 paradigm lab.
I love the way that we did this. About 8 years ago I realized that the best way to get position vs. time data AND connect it to the buggy lab is to use a track and plot the points of a cart rolling down the ramp. The participants loved it but are worried that we were able to get good data but students might not be.
I am confident that their students will, with only a little bit of supervision, get the good data that they all got.
Significant Figures - What are they good for...
Absolutely nothing, Say it again!
Well, I suppose "absolutely nothing" maybe a bit strong of a statement, but for high school science students, I stand by my statement.
I have been teaching science now (physics specifically) for 15 years. And in that time never have they been to find out what my students know and are able to do.
Any time spent telling students something you want them to know - or having them practice without the proper context is time wasted. I feel like the "teaching" of significant figures falls into that category and I'm not buying it.
I remember my chemistry classes in high school (both a college prep and an AP). Somewhere within the first month of the class at least 2 weeks were devoted to "learning" the rules for significant figures (we'll just quaintly call them sig figs). The teacher would tell us the rules an then give us all sorts of de-contextualized problems to solve. These were accompanied by all manner of cute stories, personal anecdotes, and diatribes about the importance of sig figs.
The rest of the school year was spent complaining about how none of us remembered the rules.
Then I got to college and the some section of the first chapter of the text book (don't get me started on text books) was devoted to sig figs. The professors and TAs would dutifully re-explain the rules, provide us with problems to practice and complain, for the rest of the term, that we didn't understand them.
No kidding! First of all, that is what happens when the "teaching" of any concept is done without the proper context. As we know, to really learn anything you have to figure it out for yourself or at least understand the proper context in which the ideas were developed. Simply telling us the rules for sig figs was a doomed practice from the start.
But more importantly, no matter how seriously the teachers tried to get us to take these sig figs, they just never mattered. Sure, we were supposed to put the correct number down on a test (and for those who use something evil like WebAssign) but beyond that who cared? No one!
A bunch of years ago the AP physics chemistry tests decided they no longer cared about sig figs - because knowing the correct number of sig figs does not, in any way, reveal if a student actually understands the material or the underlying concepts!
Lastly, the argument that "in industry they're going to have to know them" doesn't hold any water for me. One, very few of the students in any high school science class are going to become scientists. Not that we wouldn't like them to; but let's be realistic. Two, if any student needs a skill at any job, they will learn it there with the appropriate context anyway.
So I say - don't waste your time trying to get students to remember some arcane piece of information or useless skill set.
Well, I suppose "absolutely nothing" maybe a bit strong of a statement, but for high school science students, I stand by my statement.
I have been teaching science now (physics specifically) for 15 years. And in that time never have they been to find out what my students know and are able to do.
Any time spent telling students something you want them to know - or having them practice without the proper context is time wasted. I feel like the "teaching" of significant figures falls into that category and I'm not buying it.
I remember my chemistry classes in high school (both a college prep and an AP). Somewhere within the first month of the class at least 2 weeks were devoted to "learning" the rules for significant figures (we'll just quaintly call them sig figs). The teacher would tell us the rules an then give us all sorts of de-contextualized problems to solve. These were accompanied by all manner of cute stories, personal anecdotes, and diatribes about the importance of sig figs.
The rest of the school year was spent complaining about how none of us remembered the rules.
Then I got to college and the some section of the first chapter of the text book (don't get me started on text books) was devoted to sig figs. The professors and TAs would dutifully re-explain the rules, provide us with problems to practice and complain, for the rest of the term, that we didn't understand them.
No kidding! First of all, that is what happens when the "teaching" of any concept is done without the proper context. As we know, to really learn anything you have to figure it out for yourself or at least understand the proper context in which the ideas were developed. Simply telling us the rules for sig figs was a doomed practice from the start.
But more importantly, no matter how seriously the teachers tried to get us to take these sig figs, they just never mattered. Sure, we were supposed to put the correct number down on a test (and for those who use something evil like WebAssign) but beyond that who cared? No one!
A bunch of years ago the AP physics chemistry tests decided they no longer cared about sig figs - because knowing the correct number of sig figs does not, in any way, reveal if a student actually understands the material or the underlying concepts!
Lastly, the argument that "in industry they're going to have to know them" doesn't hold any water for me. One, very few of the students in any high school science class are going to become scientists. Not that we wouldn't like them to; but let's be realistic. Two, if any student needs a skill at any job, they will learn it there with the appropriate context anyway.
So I say - don't waste your time trying to get students to remember some arcane piece of information or useless skill set.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Southwest Michigan Modeling Workshop Day 2
Another great day! Frankly, if you weren't paying attention you'd think I knew what I was doing.
The day started with a discussion of the readings - "Wherefore a Science of Teaching" by David Hestenes and "FCI" by Hestenes, Wells and Swackhammer.
The discussion of the "Wherefore..." article was quite good. I feel like the participants got the idea that although there is a bit of an art to the profession, Hestenes real argument is that there is science behind good teaching; that good teaching can be learned by good teachers. We have to be aware of the strategies that are involved in good teaching.
The fact that the article was from 1979 did come up but the consensus was that most of his ideas were still relevant. However, the research on brain-based learning has come a long way since then and to update our knowledge of that was necessary. Maybe I can find something more current on that subject.
On day 1 the participants took the FCI. For most of them it was their first time seeing or taking the test. It was challenging for them - much like the first time I took it.
I remember in the spring of 2000; I was just at the end of my first year teaching. I felt like I'd done a fantastic job with my students. Although to be fair - I didn't know what I didn't know so it was easy to be naive. I got a call from my mentor teacher who asked how I thought I did my first year. I told him that I felt great about it. He asked if I wanted to really test what the kids knew. I said, "Of course" and so he sent over the FCI for me to give to the kids. On a sticky note pasted to the top of the first sheet it said, "Make sure that you take the test yourself before you give it to the kids".
So I grabbed the FCI, thinking to myself, "How hard could it be?" I read the first question and immediately grabbed the answer key. I felt like I should have known the answer but to be honest, I really wasn't sure. I checked the answer to #1 and saw it was C and said to myself, "Oh yeah - I totally knew it was C". Who was I fooling? It was only me sitting there in an empty classroom.
My point is that the FCI is tough. It is a real test of conceptual knowledge. And just because you've had a physics class in college (or high school) doesn't mean that you have any real conceptual knowledge. This was me; plenty of physics classes and no real conceptual knowledge. I saw that feeling in the faces of some of the participants yesterday. That was a seminal moment in my journey to becoming the physics teacher that I am today and I am hoping that some of them felt the same thing.
The article on the FCI gave the participants some background on the test and an idea that it is much harder for students (and them) than it looks like it should be.
In the afternoon my co-faciltator, Laura Sloma, then introduced the Buggy Lab to the participants and although she and I have never worked together before - she did exactly what I would have done! There was some trepidation on my part - having never worked together - as to whether or not we would gel. However, after two days of the workshop and one night of drinking beer together, it is clear that we are of the same mind and values. I am pumped up!
Can't wait for day 3.
The day started with a discussion of the readings - "Wherefore a Science of Teaching" by David Hestenes and "FCI" by Hestenes, Wells and Swackhammer.
The discussion of the "Wherefore..." article was quite good. I feel like the participants got the idea that although there is a bit of an art to the profession, Hestenes real argument is that there is science behind good teaching; that good teaching can be learned by good teachers. We have to be aware of the strategies that are involved in good teaching.
The fact that the article was from 1979 did come up but the consensus was that most of his ideas were still relevant. However, the research on brain-based learning has come a long way since then and to update our knowledge of that was necessary. Maybe I can find something more current on that subject.
On day 1 the participants took the FCI. For most of them it was their first time seeing or taking the test. It was challenging for them - much like the first time I took it.
I remember in the spring of 2000; I was just at the end of my first year teaching. I felt like I'd done a fantastic job with my students. Although to be fair - I didn't know what I didn't know so it was easy to be naive. I got a call from my mentor teacher who asked how I thought I did my first year. I told him that I felt great about it. He asked if I wanted to really test what the kids knew. I said, "Of course" and so he sent over the FCI for me to give to the kids. On a sticky note pasted to the top of the first sheet it said, "Make sure that you take the test yourself before you give it to the kids".
So I grabbed the FCI, thinking to myself, "How hard could it be?" I read the first question and immediately grabbed the answer key. I felt like I should have known the answer but to be honest, I really wasn't sure. I checked the answer to #1 and saw it was C and said to myself, "Oh yeah - I totally knew it was C". Who was I fooling? It was only me sitting there in an empty classroom.
My point is that the FCI is tough. It is a real test of conceptual knowledge. And just because you've had a physics class in college (or high school) doesn't mean that you have any real conceptual knowledge. This was me; plenty of physics classes and no real conceptual knowledge. I saw that feeling in the faces of some of the participants yesterday. That was a seminal moment in my journey to becoming the physics teacher that I am today and I am hoping that some of them felt the same thing.
The article on the FCI gave the participants some background on the test and an idea that it is much harder for students (and them) than it looks like it should be.
In the afternoon my co-faciltator, Laura Sloma, then introduced the Buggy Lab to the participants and although she and I have never worked together before - she did exactly what I would have done! There was some trepidation on my part - having never worked together - as to whether or not we would gel. However, after two days of the workshop and one night of drinking beer together, it is clear that we are of the same mind and values. I am pumped up!
Can't wait for day 3.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Southwest Michigan Modeling Workshop Day 1
Day 1 was awesome!
So it was pretty cool. We ended up with 16 which is pretty much the perfect number. I can't even imagine having 25 or 30! I feel like after just one day I totally know them.
The day started out with some introductions but I wanted to jump right into doing something.
I gave each group a meter stick (with inches on one side) and asked them if there was a relationship between inches and centimeters. I asked them to find the relationship, implying that they should do it on a white board and include a data table and graph. This was their training for white boarding. As I walked around I made sure to ask about slopes and equations and relationships. We had a board meeting which was very enlightening. Some groups had inches on the horizontal, some had centimeters. "How did you choose what to put where?" What a great question!.
I'm awesome at being humble.
We then moved on to the suite of variation labs. These are outside on the modeling materials but I find them invaluable in training kids to learn how to measure, graph and analyze data.
I find it funny that I forgot to do some stuff. I get so anxious to get going on the activities I forget some steps. For example, on all of those variation labs we did they are supposed to put their predictions in their notebooks before they start taking data. But in my haste to get the party started, I totally forgot!
The day ended with the FCI and some homework.
My biggest fear is that the participants are going to figure out that I am making it up as I go along - or even worse, I really have no idea what I'm doing!
I don't actually think that is true...at least not too true.
I did get some positive feed back on day 1 - which is always nice.
There was a tweet that said, "This is what I have been looking for for years!" which is awesome!
And one of the participants said that her mind was blown on several occasions.
I know these are ego boosts - but that is what I want, to change their lives!
Lofty goals - foolish dreams. I hope not.
DP
So it was pretty cool. We ended up with 16 which is pretty much the perfect number. I can't even imagine having 25 or 30! I feel like after just one day I totally know them.
The day started out with some introductions but I wanted to jump right into doing something.
I gave each group a meter stick (with inches on one side) and asked them if there was a relationship between inches and centimeters. I asked them to find the relationship, implying that they should do it on a white board and include a data table and graph. This was their training for white boarding. As I walked around I made sure to ask about slopes and equations and relationships. We had a board meeting which was very enlightening. Some groups had inches on the horizontal, some had centimeters. "How did you choose what to put where?" What a great question!.
I'm awesome at being humble.
We then moved on to the suite of variation labs. These are outside on the modeling materials but I find them invaluable in training kids to learn how to measure, graph and analyze data.
I find it funny that I forgot to do some stuff. I get so anxious to get going on the activities I forget some steps. For example, on all of those variation labs we did they are supposed to put their predictions in their notebooks before they start taking data. But in my haste to get the party started, I totally forgot!
The day ended with the FCI and some homework.
My biggest fear is that the participants are going to figure out that I am making it up as I go along - or even worse, I really have no idea what I'm doing!
I don't actually think that is true...at least not too true.
I did get some positive feed back on day 1 - which is always nice.
There was a tweet that said, "This is what I have been looking for for years!" which is awesome!
And one of the participants said that her mind was blown on several occasions.
I know these are ego boosts - but that is what I want, to change their lives!
Lofty goals - foolish dreams. I hope not.
DP
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Twas the Night Before the Workshop
I'm sitting here in my hotel room - after finishing season 4 of Game of Thrones - and there is no was I'll sleep a wink with the workshop starting tomorrow.
I am so fired up - I mean who can sleep with a crazy 3 week starting in the morning?
I get very contemplative at these moments. The burning questions on my mind are, why do I even do these workshops? What is the point to all of this? Why do I spend 4 weeks away from my wife and kids? How do I ask the participants to do the same?
I know - I mean I really know - in my heart that this is the right think to do. Actually having the unmitigated support of my wife, who calls these modeling workshops "my destiny" gives me the idea that I'm doing the right thing.
I look back on my own experience (it was the summer of 2000) and know that it changed my life. I am sure I'll tell that story tomorrow. So many of the successful modelers that I know tell similar stories - a good modeling workshop can change your life.
That is why I do this. It would be selfish not to share that experience with as many people as possible.
That is a lot of pressure to put on myself, but its easy with the modeling workshop!
The problem is that the modeling framework puts students in a position to question their conceptions of their physical world.
The modeling workshop puts teachers in a position to question their conceptions of teaching and learning. That is a very uncomfortable position for a teacher to be in. The teachers that show up at the workshop are often very successful veteran teachers. My job is to challenge them, to ask them to give up the methods that have been working, to adopt a new method that seems crazy!
Although the modeling method is in agreement with much of the progressive ideas about teaching and learning science (including the NGSS) is seems to be in direct conflict with much of the rhetoric we hear from administrators around the state (not that I listen). This is challenging for teachers trying to adopt a new methodology.
I hope that I have the courage of my convictions and am able to pass on the quality experience that I and so many modelers that I know had in their workshops.
DP
I am so fired up - I mean who can sleep with a crazy 3 week starting in the morning?
I get very contemplative at these moments. The burning questions on my mind are, why do I even do these workshops? What is the point to all of this? Why do I spend 4 weeks away from my wife and kids? How do I ask the participants to do the same?
I know - I mean I really know - in my heart that this is the right think to do. Actually having the unmitigated support of my wife, who calls these modeling workshops "my destiny" gives me the idea that I'm doing the right thing.
I look back on my own experience (it was the summer of 2000) and know that it changed my life. I am sure I'll tell that story tomorrow. So many of the successful modelers that I know tell similar stories - a good modeling workshop can change your life.
That is why I do this. It would be selfish not to share that experience with as many people as possible.
That is a lot of pressure to put on myself, but its easy with the modeling workshop!
The problem is that the modeling framework puts students in a position to question their conceptions of their physical world.
The modeling workshop puts teachers in a position to question their conceptions of teaching and learning. That is a very uncomfortable position for a teacher to be in. The teachers that show up at the workshop are often very successful veteran teachers. My job is to challenge them, to ask them to give up the methods that have been working, to adopt a new method that seems crazy!
Although the modeling method is in agreement with much of the progressive ideas about teaching and learning science (including the NGSS) is seems to be in direct conflict with much of the rhetoric we hear from administrators around the state (not that I listen). This is challenging for teachers trying to adopt a new methodology.
I hope that I have the courage of my convictions and am able to pass on the quality experience that I and so many modelers that I know had in their workshops.
DP
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Muskegon Here I Come!
Its a very lovely Saturday morning and I'm at school packing up supplies for this year's workshop.
Its quite a job packing up a whole semester of physics equipment. What to bring is just as tough of a question as what not to bring. Packing up did help me organize my classroom a little...at least a little.
Besides the equipment I am taking this time to get my head straight. This workshop is a huge deal to me and to the participants. We are asking them to commit a full 4 weeks to this and that makes me so nervous; my trepidation level is at infinity!
My goal is always to make the participants feel like it was worth their time. More than that, however, I am always looking to change people's lives. I know when I first took the modeling workshop (it was the summer of 2000) I was too young of a teacher to know that I didn't know anything.
It turns out that not only did I not know anything about teaching - I didn't know anything about physics either. Who knew my content knowledge was so weak (more nonexistent than weak)? And teaching - I definitely didn't know anything about inquiry. We'd been lectured to about inquiry in education school (find the irony in that statement) but had no idea about the actual practice. However, that is the strength of the course - you get the content along with the pedagogy!
In that class (and the workshops that I've run for the last couple of years) there were content and pedagogy experts. And they also thrived. There is so much to the workshop - such that more than one participant has taken the same workshop multiple years just to make sure they didn't miss anything and to hone their skills.
So whether you're coming in with advance knowledge of these concepts or are a rookie - we've got you covered!
We have worked a ton to make this happen and are so excited.
Who is ready to change lives?
DP
Its quite a job packing up a whole semester of physics equipment. What to bring is just as tough of a question as what not to bring. Packing up did help me organize my classroom a little...at least a little.
Besides the equipment I am taking this time to get my head straight. This workshop is a huge deal to me and to the participants. We are asking them to commit a full 4 weeks to this and that makes me so nervous; my trepidation level is at infinity!
My goal is always to make the participants feel like it was worth their time. More than that, however, I am always looking to change people's lives. I know when I first took the modeling workshop (it was the summer of 2000) I was too young of a teacher to know that I didn't know anything.
It turns out that not only did I not know anything about teaching - I didn't know anything about physics either. Who knew my content knowledge was so weak (more nonexistent than weak)? And teaching - I definitely didn't know anything about inquiry. We'd been lectured to about inquiry in education school (find the irony in that statement) but had no idea about the actual practice. However, that is the strength of the course - you get the content along with the pedagogy!
In that class (and the workshops that I've run for the last couple of years) there were content and pedagogy experts. And they also thrived. There is so much to the workshop - such that more than one participant has taken the same workshop multiple years just to make sure they didn't miss anything and to hone their skills.
So whether you're coming in with advance knowledge of these concepts or are a rookie - we've got you covered!
We have worked a ton to make this happen and are so excited.
Who is ready to change lives?
DP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
