I'm blogging about my experience at the FIU Modeling
Workshop. Much of this is for me, so that I can remember my
experience. However, maybe this will help someone else to come over to
the Modeling Method. I'm not sure if I've mentioned it before, so I
might as well state it here, I currently teach Standard, Honors, and
AP-B Physics. I've been using the CPO Program,
which is a hands-on program. To me, it's biggest downfall is that the
labs, although well constructed, are cookbook labs. The students can
get caught up in the procedure, and miss the concept. After joining
twitter, I've come across several teachers that use the Modeling Method,
and have become more and more interested. Which brings me back to the
point of this post, my experience on the first day. However, before I
get into that, I would make the following claim, if this interests you,
please go to the workshop, don't just rely on me. Even after only one
day I can tell that my recount will mean nothing for you without you
attending.

Day 1:

We
started the day with our leaders introducing themselves (Jon Anderson
and Chris Doscher). They quickly led us through a great introductory
activity, that I might very well use with my students. We each had to
come up with 2 truths and 1 lie about our self, and the other people in
our small group had to try to determine which is the lie. After that,
each person in the group had to introduce another member from the group
to the entire cohort. To me, it was a fun way to break the ice.

After
taking the Force Concept Inventory test, we then got our first taste of
whiteboarding. We were asked to answer the following 3 questions as a
group:

1. What are your greatest content-related teaching challenges?

2. What are your greatest instructional teaching challenges?

3. What are your goals for this workshop?

2. What are your greatest instructional teaching challenges?

3. What are your goals for this workshop?

Here are the whiteboards:

__Unit 1: Scientific Thinking__

After breaking for lunch, we began our first experiment, a Pendulum Experiment.

In
walking us through the experience of the lab, we were given a few
questions and comments after we completed the task. (For the sake of
brevity, I'll omit our responses to the questions).

Jon set up a simple pendulum and then wrote the following questions in succession:

What do you observe?

(

*side note, Brian W. Frank recommended asking "what do you notice," rather than "what do you observe."*Here's why)- Jon mentioned to try to not give any comments/facial gestures, just write.
- Ask if you need to rephrase for fewer words

What can

__you__measure?- Don’t comment until at the end.
- Do you need to pare down the list, do to lack of equipment?
- Are any measurements redundant, if so discuss with the class.

What can

__you__manipulate*to change the time*?- Edit down after complete based on equipment present

State purpose of lab for students:

__To determine the mathematical and graphical relationships that exist__*between time, length, mass, and angle of release of a simple pendulum.*

(

*Jon told us that the bold part represents the beginning phrase for basically all the lab objectives)*

Before assigning the different types of relationships to different groups, Jon told us two important "rules" for labs:

- Fair Test: manipulate only one variable at a time
- 8x10 rule: collect at least 8 data points separated by at least a factor of 10

After collecting the data, they then introduced the group to LoggerPro, to analyze the data. We used LoggerPro to analyze our results and then put them on whiteboards to share with the other groups.

During
this time, my small group discussed some of the strength and weaknesses
with excel vs LoggerPro. Namely, to us LoggerPro can analyze the data
faster, but excel integrates with word docs a little easier. (We could
easily be wrong on this.)

Well, that's basically it. A good first day, and I'm excited for the second day.

To start of today, we finished up the "Board Meeting" with the groups that studied length vs period. For physics teachers, this is obviously the group that was able to show an actual correlation. One of the most interesting parts of the discussion, to me, was when Jon and Chris recommended not worrying about linearization yet. They told us to now worry about that battle, as it will come up as you move into the next phase of the cycle. Just let the kids use LoggerPro to get the mathematical relationship. They did recommend spending some time to discuss whether or not the data should go through the origin. In the course of that discussion then mentioned what they called the "5% Rule" which basically states that if the y-intercept is less than 5% of the biggest measured value in the data for the y axis, assume that it goes through the origin.

After we finished that discussion, we then moved into the next phase of the modeling cycle in which we worked on linearizing data using LoggerPro. The worksheet had 6 data sets (we had version 3 of this worksheet, I'll add that link if I find it), and we had to plot the data and determine how to manipulate the data to create a linear graph that went through the origin. Jon and Chris mention that they only used the first four problems (which I think are the 4 in version 2) with their classes as they have found that they are sufficient to get the students acclimated to the process. Jon and Chris did recommend to have the students write the regressed equation rather than the proportion shown (ie: equation with slope and y-intercept, not y is proportional to 1/x).

After we had linearized the data, each group was assigned a different problem to put on a whiteboard to share with the cohort. Again, we were able to get a greater feel for how the whiteboarding process works, and able to ask questions as to how to moderate, when to step in and when to let the conversation go.

After a brief break, we then moved on to discuss our HW from the previous night. To do that, each group was assigned a different section of the reading and asked to provide a synopsis on a whiteboard. To sum up, we had a very lengthy discussion on the discrepancy between what a teacher thinks he/she is teaching and what the student is learning. I didn't bring it up, but this made me thing of Frank Noschese's blog on Pseudoteaching. In our discussion, we talked about how as we, as teachers, think we are helping our students understand a concept through example problems, our students, for the most part, are fixating on the equations produced. The problem with that is students mistakenly think they can apply the derived equation to any problem dealing with the same concept. I alluded to Rhett Allain's post by describing an "ABC Gum Rule." (I didn't really have a name for this concept until I read Rhett's post, but I would always tell my kids that they had to always start from the basic equations, they could not ever start with derived equations. Thanks Rhett!) The rule, as I pointed out, is that you never want to eat Already Been Chewed Gum, rather, you always want a new piece. Same thing for physics, you should always start a problem from the beginning, not an equation that was made for some other situation (which may or not be the same).

After that, Jon and Chris asked for feedback as to how we thought the first unit went. It's amazing how well these modeling people all act as I remember Frank Noschese blogging about getting feedback from students more often than just the end of the year (read the post here).

They asked what worked and what didn't? To the first we said, we liked learning: how to use LoggerPro (especially for linearization), the linearization summary sheet, breaking up the pendulum lab to finish the lab in less time (made groups take more ownership of work since others were depending on them to get it right), and using inductive reasoning to determine relationship instead of the teacher just telling "us" the answer. What we didn't like: some wanted more explicit explanation of the relationships between independent and dependent variables (hopefully I'm remembering that correctly), and some wanted the workshop to move a little faster (I think she was referring to limiting some of the discussion, but Chris rephrased it as getting started quicker/more punctual coming out of breaks. I'm not sure which was what she meant).

To start of today, we finished up the "Board Meeting" with the groups that studied length vs period. For physics teachers, this is obviously the group that was able to show an actual correlation. One of the most interesting parts of the discussion, to me, was when Jon and Chris recommended not worrying about linearization yet. They told us to now worry about that battle, as it will come up as you move into the next phase of the cycle. Just let the kids use LoggerPro to get the mathematical relationship. They did recommend spending some time to discuss whether or not the data should go through the origin. In the course of that discussion then mentioned what they called the "5% Rule" which basically states that if the y-intercept is less than 5% of the biggest measured value in the data for the y axis, assume that it goes through the origin.

After we finished that discussion, we then moved into the next phase of the modeling cycle in which we worked on linearizing data using LoggerPro. The worksheet had 6 data sets (we had version 3 of this worksheet, I'll add that link if I find it), and we had to plot the data and determine how to manipulate the data to create a linear graph that went through the origin. Jon and Chris mention that they only used the first four problems (which I think are the 4 in version 2) with their classes as they have found that they are sufficient to get the students acclimated to the process. Jon and Chris did recommend to have the students write the regressed equation rather than the proportion shown (ie: equation with slope and y-intercept, not y is proportional to 1/x).

After we had linearized the data, each group was assigned a different problem to put on a whiteboard to share with the cohort. Again, we were able to get a greater feel for how the whiteboarding process works, and able to ask questions as to how to moderate, when to step in and when to let the conversation go.

After a brief break, we then moved on to discuss our HW from the previous night. To do that, each group was assigned a different section of the reading and asked to provide a synopsis on a whiteboard. To sum up, we had a very lengthy discussion on the discrepancy between what a teacher thinks he/she is teaching and what the student is learning. I didn't bring it up, but this made me thing of Frank Noschese's blog on Pseudoteaching. In our discussion, we talked about how as we, as teachers, think we are helping our students understand a concept through example problems, our students, for the most part, are fixating on the equations produced. The problem with that is students mistakenly think they can apply the derived equation to any problem dealing with the same concept. I alluded to Rhett Allain's post by describing an "ABC Gum Rule." (I didn't really have a name for this concept until I read Rhett's post, but I would always tell my kids that they had to always start from the basic equations, they could not ever start with derived equations. Thanks Rhett!) The rule, as I pointed out, is that you never want to eat Already Been Chewed Gum, rather, you always want a new piece. Same thing for physics, you should always start a problem from the beginning, not an equation that was made for some other situation (which may or not be the same).

After that, Jon and Chris asked for feedback as to how we thought the first unit went. It's amazing how well these modeling people all act as I remember Frank Noschese blogging about getting feedback from students more often than just the end of the year (read the post here).

They asked what worked and what didn't? To the first we said, we liked learning: how to use LoggerPro (especially for linearization), the linearization summary sheet, breaking up the pendulum lab to finish the lab in less time (made groups take more ownership of work since others were depending on them to get it right), and using inductive reasoning to determine relationship instead of the teacher just telling "us" the answer. What we didn't like: some wanted more explicit explanation of the relationships between independent and dependent variables (hopefully I'm remembering that correctly), and some wanted the workshop to move a little faster (I think she was referring to limiting some of the discussion, but Chris rephrased it as getting started quicker/more punctual coming out of breaks. I'm not sure which was what she meant).

## No comments:

## Post a Comment