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.
Monday, June 30, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
