Update 2013-06-07: These are some notes I wrote over a month ago but never published. Since this work got me thinking about a how to align my instruction with SBG objectives and a later post I’m about to publish, it seemed like now or never.
In trying to get better at teaching graphical representations of uniformly accelerated motion, I tried something similar to Kelly O’Shea’s paradigm laboratory for the Constant Acceleration Particle Model (CAPM). Being not so brilliant at teaching myself, I think I injected a little too much of myself into it, but it was clear from a “pre-test” (review of Constant Velocity Particle Model graphs going into this unit) that students were confusing velocity and position, didn’t remember much about how to analyze velocity-vs-timer-reading graphs, so we needed to do some review. Part of this is the insanely long time between CVPM and CAPM, since we went ETM⟶CVPM⟶MTM⟶BFPM⟶CAPM⟶UBFPM. If I do this again, I will need to include more model-based reasoning problems that incorporate CVPM throughout the previous units. Thus, I found myself trying to come up with a list for us to make to summarize our large number of different scenarios in the CAPM paradigm (class) lab. For instance, in one of my periods, we had (among other things):
I had the students annotate each segment of each graph with how the speed was changing (“v↑” or “speeding up”, “v↓” or “slowing down”), which direction it was going (“↑r” or “up the ramp”, “↓r” or “down the ramp”), and what was going on (“” for nothing, “pushed”, “stopped”, etc.). We made important notes besides the graphs that students drew in their lab notebooks, such as “☆The mass doesn’t seem to affect the graph very much.” Then we tried to summarize what we could tell with a table like:
|Feature of the graph||⟷||Feature of the motion|
|point on the graph given by a pair||⟷||a data point, i.e. snapshot, of an object moving with a velocity at a timer reading|
|horizontal position of a point on the graph||⟷||timer reading|
|vertical position of a point on the graph||⟷||velocity|
|vertical distance of a point from the timer reading () axis (the line)||⟷||how fast it is moving (speed )|
|position of a point above(+)/on(0)/below(-) the timer reading () axis (the line)||⟷||which direction it is going|
|steepness of the graph’s slope in the neighborhood of a point||⟷||how fast the velocity changes|
|sign of the graph’s slope in the neighborhood of a point||⟷||which direction the velocity is changing (somewhat artificial)|
|the graph’s slope in the neighborhood of a point is moving [away from (+), parallel to (0), or toward (-)] the timer reading () axis (the line)||⟷||speeding up (+), maintaining a constant velocity (0), or slowing down (-)|
|point on the timer reading () axis (the line) where the slope crosses the axis from negative to positive or vice versa.||⟷||changing direction|
Some classes were able to come up with their own entries. In others, I had to debase myself by suggestion them. In one class, it worked rather well to express my frustration that no one was saying anything, put a student in charge, and tell them that I would be silent while they figured it out. They put much wrong on the board, but they were jumping back to correct things they realized were wrong when trying to identify how to tell some of the other kinematic features; then the bell rang! I tried a similar approach in another class but didn’t give them enough awkward silence before going into silent mode myself. That class didn’t bother checking whether they hypothesized connections actually worked and weren’t given enough time to find out. I jumped into it with a few minutes to go and proceeded to ask them questions to test their statements, destroying all of them. I felt like rain on their parade. I had a hard time even convincing them that their statements were wrong because they could not tell me, given two points on the graph, which was moving faster. I intend to ask more questions like this next year during CVPM. I wanted to cry for them, and I was angry at all (including partly myself) who failed teaching them how to read a graph. Every year we say, “These are smart kids. They should be doing better on the science part of the ACT.” Now we know why. (Thus, I added the first three lines of the table above.)
I know this can’t be the best way to teach this. Engagement was low, and the whole paradigm lab had a demonstrative feel.