The Credible Hulk....

WHAT AM I DOING TO HELP KIDS ACHIEVE?

HOW DO I KNOW WHEN THEY ARE THERE?

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

"The Credible Hulk... Make sure to show me good evidence and reasoning to support your claims or I am going to get really mad!!!"

     If there are any lawyers reading this who work for Marvel Comics, please lighten up and don't sue me.  I am just a guy trying to get kids to learn.  Also, I stole this idea from my personal hero, Neil Degrass Tyson.  Yell at him...

     So here is the plan.  Assessment is hard, especially good assessment.  My hope is to create a rubric that only looks at one particular part of inquiry labs.  It will look at the conclusion.  Basically, kids will work in groups, do the lab and then as individuals, write a conclusion.  In the spirit of a true educator, I will use an acronym (I did not come up with this on my own...I got a form of this from Meri Johnson).  Here is the way students will be required to write conclusions.

     CERR
     C - Claim.  Basically, answer the question that was stated at the beginning of the lab.  Answer the problem.

     E - Evidence.  There are two parts here.  First, provide background information that would support your claim.  Second, provide clear data.  Don't tell me "see the data table".  State and provide of examples of the data.

     R - Reasoning - Explain how the background information and data supports the claim.  I wil also ask students to include "depth of knowledge" when they explain the reasoning.

     R - Rebuttal - Is there any way that the data or evidence is problematic?  Is there a chance it could not support the claim?  

     My plan is to develop a really good rubric.  First, I will make up a conclusion and have the students use the rubric to grade the conclusion for homework.  Then they will trade their rubric with someone elses and figure out if they did not have the same grade, why not?  Hopefully, this will help them to better understand the rubric that they will use.  

     They will then use the rubric to write their first lab conclusion.  I will grade it using the rubric.  I will then use the same rubric for the next 3 to 4 inquiry labs.  Each time I will use a different color pen on the same rubric.  My hope is that the students will be able to see their improvement over time.  Also, at a quick glance, I will be able to see how students are changing (or not changing) over time and make changes to my own teaching.

     Why conclusions?  Students will have to use reasonable arguments and data to support their claims for the rest of their life and in other classes and tests as well.  Also, I think this is "doable".  The data should be easy to see and visual.

     I'll get back to you when I have the rubric.  Hopefully I won't start turning green....

News Headlines: Science Teacher Brains explodes during inservice....

WHAT AM I DOING TO HELP KIDS ACHIEVE?

HOW DO I KNOW WHEN THEY ARE THERE?

What is the evidence?

     O.K...maybe I have tend to be a bit too dramatic...maybe my brain did not literally explode.  I did have an "Ah Hah" moment thanks to Karen Naber.

     If I take an honest look at  what I have been doing, I can cite what I am trying to do to help kids achieve.  The tricky part is when I know they are there and the evidence....this is all about assessment.  As teachers, we assess our kids every day all the time and constantly are "re correcting" the ship.  However, very few of us (O.K....I could just be talking about me here), for the amount of time we put into assessing, have had much formal training on how to assess.

     Karen Naber put on a day long in service that squeezed a semester course into a day.  It was tied to student learning objectives and the new teacher evaluation and most importantly....good assessment.  All of this is new and controversially.  If I could get passed my emotions I would have to ask myself a question..if I can get better at assessments, would I be a better teacher and would my students do better?  The answer, of course, is yes..

     Here are just a few take aways.  Always, start with the standards.  Take time to "deconstruct" them.  Look at the verb of what they want students to do and then look past the verb at the extent of what students should be doing.  Make sure you do not bite off more than you can chew...make it doable.  Be transparent.  Once you develop and give a good assessment, talk to others and do not be afraid of honest and thoughtful feedback.  Give a good pre assessment.  Honestly look at the data and let it inform you on where you need to be going.  Use the best methods possible to get there and don't keep it a secret.  Make sure your goals for your students are ones they can use in life, other classes and the class they are in.  When you do the assessment, try to have many different levels so every kid has the chance at getting better.  Don't just do "pass fail".  Most importantly, show up, do not quit and stay positive.  Good assessments are not biased, they are reliable and valid.

     I think one of my targeted assessments is going to be looking at how I can help kids write better lab conclusions.  I want to develop a really good rubric for one specific part of a lab...the conclusion.  It will follow "Claims, Evidence, Response and Rebuttal".  Each lab will have some level of inquiry.  It is a skill required in science, life and other classes.  My plan is to have students do labs in groups, but to do the conclusion separately.  Once I put my brain back together, I will try to figure it out a bit more....

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no assessment...did it really fall?

WHAT AM I DOING TO HELP KIDS ACHIEVE?

HOW DO I KNOW WHEN THEY ARE THERE?

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

     Particulate matter...research says this is the missing piece that most chemical educators are not teaching.  Research also says that if kids get this...it could be huge.  They can explain and apply at levels far beyond what they are currently doing.  So I have been using the whiteboards to have groups solve and defend their problems and thinking on drawing particulate drawings and lab procedures.  So far, it is going well.  It will not be a one shot deal.  I am beginning to believe it needs to be sustained over the long run.  Thanks to Mary Palmer, I was able to steal her idea on how to make whiteboard stands.  It makes a huge difference.  At one glance, I can see every groups progress throughout the room.

     Inquiry and specific heat....We did the heat needed to melt ice and then energy diagrams.  I then introduced specific heat.  This year I changed the specific heat lab.  Instead of doing several metals and a bunch of calculations I told them I would give them a mystery metal and they had to find a procedure to solve for the specific heat of their metal.  They did find a procedure and each group showed a portion of it on the whiteboards.  I made a few suggestions and they were off to the races.  I suggested they get two trials, find the specific heat, and decide if they should go for a third.  Here is what I heard...

     "Can I look on the internet to see if I can figure out my metal?"

     " Can I average the change in temperatures or should I wait untill the end to average the specific heat of the metal?"

     "When am I allowed to leave out data?  What if I take the standard deviation?"

     I am not sure how to describe or assess it.  The students have asked much better questions.  I can hear them arguing with each other on to solve the problem.  In the past I have just gotten, "How do I do the calculation?" and then on to the next topic.  Tomorrow they are turning in their tri folds and I am going to then give them a list of possible metals they have to potentially pick based on the published specific heats...I will keep you posted.

It's starting to work...and it is fourth quarter...

WHAT AM I DOING TO HELP KIDS ACHIEVE?

HOW DO I KNOW WHEN THEY ARE THERE?

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

     Between trying to infuse the particulate models and guided inquiry, I am starting to be a believer. So we are trying to do heating and cooling in one of my chemistry courses.  Every time I have done the lab where kids solve for the specific heat of metals, they get the data, plug in some numbers from an example and come up with an answer.  If I change the problem slightly, they have no clue where or what the energy is really doing.  This time I started with the macro scale and we got great data for the cooling of lauric acid.  They wanted to know why it was flat.  So we dived into phase change diagrams.  This time, I used a technique from the American Modeling Teacher's Association (absolute best money ever spent...I heard about them from Mary Palmer and I met them at ACS in Dallas).

     Next, I had them draw these really cool energy diagrams on white boards and defend their answers for each diagram.  The great part of these diagrams is that they have to draw where the energy is going into or out of and show the change.  The AMTA information provides excellent examples and resources to show how to approach this concept.  I also had them match particulate level diagrams for each part of the cooling curve.  The conversations and dialogues were better than any I have had in years.  From here I hope to do an inquiry lab where they figure out how to find the specific heat of metals by drawing the diagrams first.  I will keep you posted.  I am hopeful....I will keep you posted...

I might be getting close....

WHAT AM I DOING TO HELP KIDS ACHIEVE?

HOW DO I KNOW WHEN THEY ARE THERE?

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

     All of the pieces are slowly starting to come together.  Between my Project TIMU class at Miami, the research in cognitive psychology and chemical education and my own experience with students, inquiry and the particulate matter, I think I might be on the verge of figuring something out that has been bugging me for a really long time.  I can get kids to do labs (macroscale).  I can get them to do the symbolic (balance equations and math problems)...but can they really explain what is really going on?  Unfortunately....rarely.  I think I have stumbled onto the missing "key".  Instruction on the particulate level and modeling.  This along with guided inqiury might have the best chance of helping me make the greatest improvement in my teaching.  The times I have tried the combination of these I have seemed to have gotten the best from my students.  Start on the big scale, have them come up with questions, give information on the particulate level.  The early results are impressive.  More interaction, better questions, better answers...I plan to keep going.  

     This week in Academic we are going to balance equations by building particulate level models of reactants and products with centimeter interlocking blocks.  I will start each class with a macroscale experiment.  In Accelerated we melted ice and froze lauric acid.  Now we are going into definitions of heat and phase diagrams and particulate level drawings.  I joined the American Modeling Teachers Association and got some great stuff that I can use and adapt for showing the particulate level.  I am hopeful and excited for the first time in a long time.  The problem is....it takes lots of work (see picture below of me coming back from the ACS conference in Dallas).  But...it is good work...