![At first blush, teachers may feel they are doing all of this.
In fact, they often are. That is the problem – teacher cen-
tered learning! Instructors are often the only ones in the
classroom connecting the distinct modes of thought
required in a physics classroom: algorithms, terms and
concepts, graphical analysis, free body diagrams. These
habits of mind are processed in separate areas of the
brain and do not simply cross-connect. Students must be
given multiple opportunities to make the linkages them-
selves, through sequenced activities and guided discovery
worksheets, in sequentially richer contexts. These need to
be coupled with opportunities to discuss and reflect. It is
not sufficient for these connections to be lucidly explained
by a passionate instructor. It is best achieved by being ‘a
guide on the side, not a sage on the stage.’ As leading
researchers are quick to advise: “Student talk is far more
important than teacher talk.”2
This article looks at a sample laboratory activity which is
easily woven into the learning cycle and which attempts to
gain ‘cognitive engagement’ of students by posing a fun
challenge. A guided discovery worksheet helps students
link previous – or current – learning to the activity. The
group paradigm encourages student discussion in a non-
threatening atmosphere.
Does it Look Like?
Below is an example of a diagnostic activity used with
grade 11 physics. Materials required are either battery-
driven constant motion cars [WalMart], or dollar-store
‘wind-up’ cars, and dollar store plastic bowling pins. Each
team is provided a car and a single bowling pin, set up on
a flat surface – the floor will do in a pinch! Teams score
points depending on the distance from the car to pin – the
greater the distance the higher the point value. I make up
the distances and the scores on an ad-hoc basis, depend-
ing on the available space and the reliability of the cars.
Five minutes are allowed for practice trials before the
competition gets underway. During the competition, each
team member is allowed five shots, scoring only if the car
successfully knocks over the pin. Members decide on the
placement – and thereby the point value – before each
shot. I limit the time for 5 shots to about 1 min per player.
Pitching it as a friendly competition increases student
engagement (clearly communicated purposes). They pay
careful attention to the actual path taken, as this is crucial
to scoring well. It is also crucial to distinguishing distance
from displacement – the ‘hidden’ agenda (integrated
learning of science concepts and processes). The activity
includes a guided-discovery worksheet [below]. The ques-
tions were taken from the SPH3U course and require stu-
dents to consider the forces causing changes in motion.
For the grade 10 motion unit, questions 4 and 5 could be
omitted, or replaced appropriately.
Guided-Discovery Activity: Car Bowling
Literacy3
1 2 3 4 • Understanding 1 2 3 4
• Overall L-Score ___/5
1. How did today’s activity differentiate between the
terms distance and displacement?
2. Would the term uniform velocity (aka uniform
motion) be appropriate to describe your car’s motion
across the table? Explain.
3. How does the term average velocity, vav defined as
∆d /∆t, apply to the motion of your car across the
tabletop? Do you think it is an accurate representation
of the entire trip?
4. Describe the motion of the car at the moment you
released your car from rest. Then, the moment it
struck the bowling pin. Speculate as to the causes of
the change in motion.
5. Speculate as to how the motion of the car striking
the pin might change if the plastic bowling pin was
made of solid wood instead of hollow plastic. Explain
your reasoning.
Volume 39 • 4 March 2008Physics Education Research Corner – Page 2
CRUCIBLEonline
Return to
stao.orgCRUCIBLEonline
Return to
stao.org](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5e5e06f7-f98a-47b5-a66d-7a3999ea6858-151116131958-lva1-app6891/85/Bridging-Research-into-Classroom-Practice-2-320.jpg)
![Coaching students to produce a detailed, grammatically
correct report requires persistence and patience. To this
end, they must be guided specifically as to what to write
about, evidenced in questions 1-3 of the worksheet.
Questions 4-5 allow for speculation and serve as a diag-
nostic about forces before this topic is introduced. These
questions serve to link previous (grade 10) learning and
foreshadow future topics (sequenced into the flow of
instruction). A quick perusal of student reports informs
instructors of the extent to which deep understanding of
basic concepts has occurred.
Students are encouraged to discuss in groups as they pre-
pare their worksheets (ongoing discussion and reflection).
If activities are sequenced in the flow of instruction, there
is little need to copy from others. As subject confidence
and the level of technical writing improves, activities and
questions can become more comprehensive and integra-
tive. It is not, however, a rapid process. Moving from
declarative knowledge to operative knowledge is a route
seldom traveled by students. Integrative thinkers enjoy the
challenge while rote learners can find it stressful. It is a
journey, with you as the guide. But if the grail we seek is
improved understanding and higher-order-thinking, it
must become our quest.
A highly effective technique for advancing technical writing
skills is to collect some sample responses from student
reports (do not include names) and have them assess [lev-
els 1-4] the answers on the following criteria: i) does it
answer the question asked, ii) is it correct, iii) is it com-
plete, iv) is it grammatically sound. Level 4 responses can
be copied and displayed as exemplars.
I think I can, I think I can
Highly effective laboratory experiences do not require
onerous adaptations to teaching but do require methods
different from our typical teacher-centred university expe-
riences. This makes it challenging to perceive benefits of
proposed changes or to imagine how your classroom
should look and feel. I urge readers to take small risks
and not expect the risks to immediately show results. Like
all journeys, it is one small step after the other.
I would also urge readers to attend a workshop where
these techniques are incorporated. Incorporated, not
merely discussed or explained! Participation is key, as the
comments of a leading PER researcher attest, “Teachers
should be given the opportunity to learn the content they
will be expected to teach in the manner they will be
expected to teach.” 4
Take advantages of opportunities in
STAO, OAPT or other conferences. Scan the wealth of liter-
ature on the Internet (start with the PhET site mentioned
earlier, then check out some of the links).
In future articles, we will examine how simple, highly
effective laboratory experiences can repair student mis-
conceptions and guide them to deeper understanding. The
grail awaits.
References/Notes
1. America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science
The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001, ISBN: 0309096715
2. “Reforming Physics Instruction Via Reformed Teaching
Observation Protocol,” Dan MacIsaac and Kathleen Falconer,
Department of Physics SUNBuffalo State College, The
Physics Teacher Vol. 40, November 2002.
3 I generally look for four elements when marking for literacy:
i) does it answer the question asked, ii) is it correct, iii) is it
complete, iv) is it grammatically sound. All four of these
must be present in order to be level a L4. This is a useful -
and simple criteria - which I have used from gr. 9 to 12. I
develop exemplars early in the course, so this criteria is
understood.
4. Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher
Education. Lillian C. McDermott, Department of Physics,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S..A. An
I.C.P.E. Book © International Commission on Physics
Education 1997, 1998.
Volume 39 • 4 March 2008Physics Education Research Corner – Page 3
CRUCIBLEonline
Return to
stao.org](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5e5e06f7-f98a-47b5-a66d-7a3999ea6858-151116131958-lva1-app6891/85/Bridging-Research-into-Classroom-Practice-3-320.jpg)
Bridging Research into Classroom Practice
- 1. Volume 39 • 4 March 2008Physics Education Research Corner CRUCIBLEonline Return to stao.org Dave Doucette’s P.E.R.* Corner (*Physics Education Research) Curriculum Connection: Physics, Grade 11 – SPH3U; can be adapted for Grade 10 motion unit. This article was originally published in the Ontario Association of Physics Teachers OAPT Newsletter. It has been edited for Crucible. Where are we now? The current state of science literacy is lamented in America’s Lab Report, 20061 , an insightful look at the cur- rent state of science literacy in North America. The chair of the committee is 2001 Physics Nobel Prize winner Carl Weiman, (previously University of Colorado, now at University of British Columbia). The report cites primary reasons for failure to achieve improved literacy and points to current research for promising steps forward. Carl Weiman’s presence on this committee is not coinci- dental. Obviously an outstanding researcher and thinker, he is also a committed PER supporter. Under his auspices, the University of Colorado physics education group has developed a public domain site offering research papers and excellent java applets to aid with physics instruction internationally. I urge all physics teachers to check out this marvelous teaching aid. Go to http://phet.colorado.edu/web-pages/index.html . I have summarized some key points on the report recom- mendations in the following concept map: ««« By Dave Doucette Dave has been writing and presenting workshops on education-based science instruction for two decades. His workshops usually operate under the acronym of ‘Getting the HOTS’ (high-order-thinking skills) for a variety of topics with a physics emphasis. He currently teaches physics at Richmond Hill HS in York Region DSB. He may be contacted at david.doucette@yrdsb.edu.on.ca CRUCIBLEonline Return to stao.org Sequenced into the Flow of Instruction laboratory activities are explicitly linked to prior and subsequent learning experiences Integrated Learning of Science Concepts and Processes content and process are seamlessly woven in learning activities Clearly Communicated Purpose transparent learning goals for laboratory experi- ences maximize student engagement and learning Ongoing Discussion and Reflection students need opportunity to discuss and reflect, make sense of data, refine and clarify mental models Principles for Design of Highly Effective Laboratory Experiences
- 2. At first blush, teachers may feel they are doing all of this. In fact, they often are. That is the problem – teacher cen- tered learning! Instructors are often the only ones in the classroom connecting the distinct modes of thought required in a physics classroom: algorithms, terms and concepts, graphical analysis, free body diagrams. These habits of mind are processed in separate areas of the brain and do not simply cross-connect. Students must be given multiple opportunities to make the linkages them- selves, through sequenced activities and guided discovery worksheets, in sequentially richer contexts. These need to be coupled with opportunities to discuss and reflect. It is not sufficient for these connections to be lucidly explained by a passionate instructor. It is best achieved by being ‘a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage.’ As leading researchers are quick to advise: “Student talk is far more important than teacher talk.”2 This article looks at a sample laboratory activity which is easily woven into the learning cycle and which attempts to gain ‘cognitive engagement’ of students by posing a fun challenge. A guided discovery worksheet helps students link previous – or current – learning to the activity. The group paradigm encourages student discussion in a non- threatening atmosphere. Does it Look Like? Below is an example of a diagnostic activity used with grade 11 physics. Materials required are either battery- driven constant motion cars [WalMart], or dollar-store ‘wind-up’ cars, and dollar store plastic bowling pins. Each team is provided a car and a single bowling pin, set up on a flat surface – the floor will do in a pinch! Teams score points depending on the distance from the car to pin – the greater the distance the higher the point value. I make up the distances and the scores on an ad-hoc basis, depend- ing on the available space and the reliability of the cars. Five minutes are allowed for practice trials before the competition gets underway. During the competition, each team member is allowed five shots, scoring only if the car successfully knocks over the pin. Members decide on the placement – and thereby the point value – before each shot. I limit the time for 5 shots to about 1 min per player. Pitching it as a friendly competition increases student engagement (clearly communicated purposes). They pay careful attention to the actual path taken, as this is crucial to scoring well. It is also crucial to distinguishing distance from displacement – the ‘hidden’ agenda (integrated learning of science concepts and processes). The activity includes a guided-discovery worksheet [below]. The ques- tions were taken from the SPH3U course and require stu- dents to consider the forces causing changes in motion. For the grade 10 motion unit, questions 4 and 5 could be omitted, or replaced appropriately. Guided-Discovery Activity: Car Bowling Literacy3 1 2 3 4 • Understanding 1 2 3 4 • Overall L-Score ___/5 1. How did today’s activity differentiate between the terms distance and displacement? 2. Would the term uniform velocity (aka uniform motion) be appropriate to describe your car’s motion across the table? Explain. 3. How does the term average velocity, vav defined as ∆d /∆t, apply to the motion of your car across the tabletop? Do you think it is an accurate representation of the entire trip? 4. Describe the motion of the car at the moment you released your car from rest. Then, the moment it struck the bowling pin. Speculate as to the causes of the change in motion. 5. Speculate as to how the motion of the car striking the pin might change if the plastic bowling pin was made of solid wood instead of hollow plastic. Explain your reasoning. Volume 39 • 4 March 2008Physics Education Research Corner – Page 2 CRUCIBLEonline Return to stao.orgCRUCIBLEonline Return to stao.org
- 3. Coaching students to produce a detailed, grammatically correct report requires persistence and patience. To this end, they must be guided specifically as to what to write about, evidenced in questions 1-3 of the worksheet. Questions 4-5 allow for speculation and serve as a diag- nostic about forces before this topic is introduced. These questions serve to link previous (grade 10) learning and foreshadow future topics (sequenced into the flow of instruction). A quick perusal of student reports informs instructors of the extent to which deep understanding of basic concepts has occurred. Students are encouraged to discuss in groups as they pre- pare their worksheets (ongoing discussion and reflection). If activities are sequenced in the flow of instruction, there is little need to copy from others. As subject confidence and the level of technical writing improves, activities and questions can become more comprehensive and integra- tive. It is not, however, a rapid process. Moving from declarative knowledge to operative knowledge is a route seldom traveled by students. Integrative thinkers enjoy the challenge while rote learners can find it stressful. It is a journey, with you as the guide. But if the grail we seek is improved understanding and higher-order-thinking, it must become our quest. A highly effective technique for advancing technical writing skills is to collect some sample responses from student reports (do not include names) and have them assess [lev- els 1-4] the answers on the following criteria: i) does it answer the question asked, ii) is it correct, iii) is it com- plete, iv) is it grammatically sound. Level 4 responses can be copied and displayed as exemplars. I think I can, I think I can Highly effective laboratory experiences do not require onerous adaptations to teaching but do require methods different from our typical teacher-centred university expe- riences. This makes it challenging to perceive benefits of proposed changes or to imagine how your classroom should look and feel. I urge readers to take small risks and not expect the risks to immediately show results. Like all journeys, it is one small step after the other. I would also urge readers to attend a workshop where these techniques are incorporated. Incorporated, not merely discussed or explained! Participation is key, as the comments of a leading PER researcher attest, “Teachers should be given the opportunity to learn the content they will be expected to teach in the manner they will be expected to teach.” 4 Take advantages of opportunities in STAO, OAPT or other conferences. Scan the wealth of liter- ature on the Internet (start with the PhET site mentioned earlier, then check out some of the links). In future articles, we will examine how simple, highly effective laboratory experiences can repair student mis- conceptions and guide them to deeper understanding. The grail awaits. References/Notes 1. America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, ISBN: 0309096715 2. “Reforming Physics Instruction Via Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol,” Dan MacIsaac and Kathleen Falconer, Department of Physics SUNBuffalo State College, The Physics Teacher Vol. 40, November 2002. 3 I generally look for four elements when marking for literacy: i) does it answer the question asked, ii) is it correct, iii) is it complete, iv) is it grammatically sound. All four of these must be present in order to be level a L4. This is a useful - and simple criteria - which I have used from gr. 9 to 12. I develop exemplars early in the course, so this criteria is understood. 4. Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education. Lillian C. McDermott, Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S..A. An I.C.P.E. Book © International Commission on Physics Education 1997, 1998. Volume 39 • 4 March 2008Physics Education Research Corner – Page 3 CRUCIBLEonline Return to stao.org