Category: Activities

ABCs of How We Learn… X is for eXcitement
Activities · Science of Learning · Teaching Methods

ABCs of How We Learn… X is for eXcitement

Marianna RuggerioLeave a comment

Engagement is one of those trendy buzz-words in education. From the Danielson Framework (domain 3) to SilverStrong to Marzano, engagement is a major focus of all of these evaluation tools and typically a “sell point” for curriculum packages and methods.

When Building Thinking Classrooms was gaining popularity, one of the frequent complaints from folks deeply embedded in the science of learning/explicit teaching was that the program looked like “engagement” but engagement doesn’t necessarily equal learning. While this statement in and of itself is certainly true, there are quite a few points to Building Thinking Classrooms that are right on point when it comes to the science of arousal and learning.

When we are aroused, engaged, excited our brains are primed for more learning. Researchers describe the relation between arousal and performance as the Yerkes-Dodson law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). While this law applies to known skills, it is transferrable to learning new ones as well. In short, when aroused we release cortisol which activates the fight or flight response but also impacts the way in which we process and store information. This process is ultimately why we have stronger memories tied to stronger emotional events. The science around emotions and learning is a bit murky, but we do know that when the mind is aroused there is, indeed, a measurable impact on learning.

Arousal can take many forms in the classroom, which might be anything as extreme as the teacher coming into class with a ridiculous costume or schtick that day, to an impressive demo or video, but it can also be less intense such as interacting with engaging questions, or incorporating kinesthetic movement into the lesson.

My one and only schtick of the year… the flying pig hat. I can actually make the wings flap!

From the lens of physics teaching, this brings us back to why an active learning environment is beneficial for our students and has been proven over and over again to be more effective than lecture alone. An active classroom takes advantage of arousal to our learner’s benefit.

Coming back to Building Thinking Classrooms let’s take a look at some of the micro-moves and paradigm shifts that leverage arousal:

  • A lesson typically starts with an engaging story or interesting problem. In the ABCs of How We Learn, Schwartz, Tsang and Blair explain that arousal helps us consolidate focal information, and pushes out nonfocal information. The bits of the story which are applicable to the problem itself are most likely to be retained.
  • In a BTC lesson students never sit down. You’ve probably heard of “brain breaks”. Since whiteboards are vertically mounted, student bodies are now in an active, rather than passive position. This requires the biophysical response int he body for action, which requires a certain level of arousal.
  • A BTC lesson involves not only working in pairs or triads, but the cross-pollination of ideas from other groups. Research has shown that people perform better in social situations. The design of a BTC leverages the social aspect, while the carefully crafted consolidation phase reduces any negative anxiety that would be present in a “typical” classroom where students are called upon to give their answers for their own work.

When I started this project the initial motivator was our EduInfluencer keynote speaker. He made the claim that in his research the average teacher could only accurately name and explain three strategies. Today marks the 24th post in which I’ve explained the science of learning and then matched each topic with one or more classroom strategies.

Very, very often when teachers select an idea, tool or strategy for the classroom the reason they share they love it is because “it gets the kids engaged and they have so much fun”. We need to recognize that in the ongoing battle for the respectability of our profession, that line of reasoning is weak and harmful to us as professionals. Tools we choose that are “so much fun” are effective because tools which excite and engage our students activate the arousal systems in the brain, which change the way the brain receive, processes and encodes new information and subsequently increases the strength of the neurological pathways and the amount of knowledge retained. Let’s continue to have conversations about our work that can only be adequately criticized if done with additional evidence.

ABCs of How We Learn… V is for Visualization
Activities · Classroom Issues · Science of Learning · Teaching Methods

ABCs of How We Learn… V is for Visualization

Marianna RuggerioLeave a comment

If there’s one thing I find myself iterating repeatedly to my students its the importance of writing things down. Students who are used to doing well in school, and especially in math, often find they are able to solve most problems without showing a great deal of work. In physics, however, that becomes nearly impossible. Aside from showing work for the strict mathmatical portion of a problem, what is almost always more important is that initial diagram.

One of the critical and beneficial features of drawing a picture is that it allows for cognitive offloading. By sketching a graph or a force diagram or even just a physical diagram, now there are details about the problem that no longer need to be held in the working memory, which clears space for the problem solving.

When we use whiteboards in class this also creates the additional benefit of having a shared focal point for the group, which enhances attention and focus on problem solving when working as a team.

The other benefit is that once we begin to create visualizations, we may begin to notice structures and patterns that were not initially obvious or intuitive.

In a 2011 paper, Drawing to Learn in Science, Ainsworth, Prain, and Tytler advocate bringing drawing into the science curriculum because visualization enhances student engagement, helps students learn how to represent information, helps students learn to reason in science, is a major way to communicate scientific data and models, and is a learning strategy.

Drawings also provide us, as educators, quick and descriptive insights to student understanding and possible misconceptions. What students may not be able to adaquately articulate in words may be articulated through a picture.

The initial construction of motion maps with students and a bowling ball is a great example of this. First we run several experiments: letting the ball roll freely, constantly pushing the ball in the direction of motion, pushing the ball opposite motion. As this is happening we drop a mark behind the ball at equal time intervals. This creates a physical visual on the floor which students are then asked to translate to their white boards.

Once students have completed this pattern, they are instructed to craft the arrows to indicate the direction of travel of the ball.

After this we can discuss the meaning of and how to obtain the direction of the change in velocity.

These steps are generally well-received by most students. The misconception that most students initially bring to us is that “negative acceleration means slowing down”. In this case, as we continue to provide additional cases (such as an object moving to the left while speeding up) he visualizations serve as a tool to help students undo this particular misconception. They can see for themselves that when the direction of Δv and v match, the object is speeding up, when when Δv and v are opposite the object is slowing dow.

Force diagrams and energy bar charts are additional examples of visualizations that end up being imperative for problem solving.

What frequently seems to be the challenge is that students will generally not choose to complete these vizualizations. I cannot count the number of times I’ll have a very bright student come to me in frustration and the first comment I need to make is “where is your force diagram” “where is your bar chart”. It is for this reason I believe that its critical that the vizualizations become a no-excuses requirement in the work at all times.

For example, here is the hand-out I provide my students as part of their force notes. Their homework takes an identical three-column format

While the physicsclassroom.com interactives and conceptu builders are fantastic drill practice, the fact that they are on a screen reduces student uptake on physically creating the necessary representations. This is why I’ve created paper companions for most of the assignments I assign students. (Example below)

Like our students, we should actively shift our thoughts around diagrams from something we just happen to do in physics, to a critical learning tool that is backed by research and allows our students more engagement and depth thanks to cognitive offloading, emergent structure (finding patterns), and reorganization of material to get a new perspective.

ABCs of How We Learn… U is for Undoing
Activities · Science of Learning · Teaching Methods

ABCs of How We Learn… U is for Undoing

Marianna Ruggerio1 Comment

“A bullet is dropped at the exact same time that one is shot horizontally from a gun. The bullets start from the same height. Which lands first?”

We know how this question goes when posed to students. Aside from the fact that we’ve primed them to answer one of the bullets, knowing full well the answer is “neither” we are leaning into student misconceptions, or rather an incomplete conception.

Students know, and are correct, that the shot bullet is initially travelling faster than the dropped one. Students also know, and are correct, that the shot bullet is always moving with a faster speed than the dropped one. Students also know, and are correct, that faster objects will travel the same distance in a shorter time than a slower moving object. All of these notions are true, and because students know these to be true, they will typically answer that the shot one lands first.

Well… except for those students who think about it a little more. See, those students reason that because the shot bullet is travelling faster and because it was shot horizontally, it is going to travel more distance, so perhaps the dropped one lands first due to its shorter distance.

Then there’s the one kid who of course has to say “air resistance!” in some way because fast things experience air resistance. Also not wrong.

Every bit of this reasoning is true until you get to the conclusion.

The issue here has to do with the fact that the reasoning and concept are incomplete. Students are not taking into account that the vertical properties of the two bullets are all identical, and since gravity, a vertical force, is responsible for accelerating the bullets towards the ground with the same vertical acceleration, they will land at the same time.

In a course where students are already coming in with preconcieved notions about who can do physics, the last thing we should be doing is blatantly demonstrating everything wrong with their thinking. Instead, we should leverage and aknowledge the good, while also giving them the tools to make a complete judgement.

Physics students come to us with a lot of incomplete conceptions, they want the ball to roll out in a curved path…

They want the force on the bug to be more than the force on the bus

They want acceleration at the peak of a projectile’s flight to be equal to zero, an object that flies out the window is moving backwards, waves should push matter, and more resistors to always mean more resistance.

Physics misconceptions are frustration for student and teacher alike because they are very much grounded in elements of truth and lived experience, but they are always incomplete.

Making these notions complete and providing many opportunities to encounter the complete notion is imperative to unlearning the previous notion. In order to do this we must:

  1. Increase student precision of thought; so they can reconize the difference between arguing with evidence vs intuition.
  2. Provide students with an alternative conception. This is where our representations such as force diagrams, motion maps etc. come in.
  3. TIME – students need time and exposure for the new conceptions to take hold.

This is a critical component built into the Investigative Science Learning Environment framework, and it is immensely effective at completing these conceptions. What I particularly like about ISLE is that when we are providing the alternative conception, especially for the first time, we are not leaving it up to students to just make the representation. Instead, that representation is carefully drawn through observational evidence.

Coming back to the original question of the two bullets, let’s discuss how the ISLE cycle approaches this particular conception.

In my class, I use the “three views of a ball” in pivot interactives for their observational experiement.

First, I ask students to construct the motion map for each of the three views. Even here students will sometimes rely on their incomplete conceptions over their observations. I will gently remind students to construct the maps based on the evidence in the video. (This is why we use an experiment!) How is the distance changing (or not) as the ball travels accross the screen? Be sure to represent it appropriately!

After students have done this, we discuss how the side-view actually works (Just in Time Telling!). It’s a composite of the top and front views. That is, the top (horizontal motion) is totally constant. This makes sense because there are no horizontal forces (I do projectiles after forces). The front view looks like an object experiencing gravity.

When students get the question with the classic ball drop demo (now a testing experiment rather than a demonstration) instead of just asking the question about landing, I ask them to first carefully construct the motion map for each ball based on what we’ve just learned and discussed then make their prediction. They should then be able to explain the reasoning for their prediction based on their motion maps.

Students all come to the agreement they should land at the same time.

In this manner of approaching the misconception, we have equipped students with tools to support their thinking, and forced them to slow down that thinking so they can achieve success at reaching a final answer.

From here, students need additional opportunities to represent and reason, so I will use problems like the ones from TIPERS

Teachers that have learned about ISLE for the first time often feel overwhelmed by the idea of “changing everything” but in truth, it’s really more about shifting the overarching perspective and intention, and then you can continue to do a lot of the same activities you’ve done before! Consider any of the other misconceptions presented here, or that you can think of. What might be a way to develop an observational and testing experiement to support the undoing of their misconceptions?

Activities · Science of Learning · Teaching Methods

ABCs of How We Learn… T is for Teaching

Marianna RuggerioLeave a comment

In the previous post on self-explanation I mentioned how one of the strategies I provide to students is to create their version of “teacher notes” to reference and use.

When we engaged in our “How to Score Better on the Test” workshop (aka, how to learn) students were presented with the following question:

Which case would you work harder?

A) Study the material to get an A on the test
B) Learn the material so you can teach it to the class?

As you would expect, students overwhelmingly chose “B”

A 2013 study furthermore found that when students do, in fact, teach the information they learn more than if they only prepare to teach the content.

The idea of teaching content to another person to enhance one’s own learning is the reason why the jigsaw approach works so effectively in the classroom.

Students sharing problems in a jigsaw activity

In my physics courses this has looked like a number of activities, but most frequently looks like this:

  1. Students have a selection of homework problems they were required to solve in class or the previous night. All students were expected to complete all problems. This works best with 3 problems.
  2. Students are divided into visibly random groups of 2-3 students and are assigned one of the problems. The team discusses the problem, comes to consensus and provides their final solution on their board.
  3. Teams with the same problem come together to discuss their approaches to the problem. The team needs to come to a final consensus. Both teams must have the agreed upon solution on their respective boards.
  4. Teams then move into new groups where one team for each problem. Each team is presents the solution to the problem to the rest of the group.

Why this works:

  1. Students are individually responsible for making an attempt at the homework. I’m not a huge fan of doing this with problems they’ve never seen before unless I’m selecting a very, very specific skill.
  2. Students are able to discuss the problem in a non-threatening setting.
  3. Students get to confirm the answer, which increases confidence in the work BUT..
  4. Students are still accountable in small groups to do the teaching. That means that the group can’t rely one the one “really smart kid” out of the group of 6.

I think another great example of leveraging the idea of teaching as a non-threatening classroom activity is Kelly OShea’s Mistake Game.

Playing the “mistake game” at a Chicago Section AAPT meeting in 2017

The premise is simple: solve the problem, but leave one intentional mistake in the work…something a student would do. The group then presents the problem and its the class’s responsibility to help the presenters “find” their “mistake” by asking questions.

Why This Works

From the cognitive science lens, students are still required to solve a problem with the goal of presenting/teaching it to the class. Additionally, they have been specifically asked to build in a challenge (because often in teaching students will throw us for a loop!) and work that logic through to its completion. In order to do this, students need to be able to meaningfully connect ideas through elaboration, which, in turn, increases their retention and neural connections.

What’s great about this method is that the mistake is inevetable: it was part of the assignment! But this does something else so important for developing STEM identities: if the group made a valid mistake, no one needs to know which mistake was “intentional” and which was an unintentional mistake actually made by the team.

What this is NOT

I was talking about writing this post with my 10-year-old son and he groaned that he does this in math all the time and it’s not helpful. In order to use teaching and be effective it’s critical that students have time ti actually prepare what they are teaching. Too often teachers will group the “smart” and the “struggling” student together, expecting the smart student to “teach” the struggling one. And too often this leads to nothing but frustration. Both students know their respective “role” in the pairing, and the “smart” student is expected to effectively communicate without any prior preparation. Recognizing that students are not the teacher-expert in the room, it’s our responsibility to craft experiences where that preparation can happen and we can facilitate effective communication of the process while students are preparing their problems.

ABCs of How We Learn… R is for Reward
Activities · Science of Learning

ABCs of How We Learn… R is for Reward

Marianna RuggerioLeave a comment

A friend recently shared with me a strategy her son’s teacher implements in class. Each day the teacher secretly draws three names of students she is going to observe carefully for their behavior. If the students are well behaved, they are announced and they get a reward. If the students are not well behaved the teacher announces that, the students keep their anonymity and they get to start again tomorrow.

On the surface level this looks like the antithesis of behavior charts where the record of bad behavior is available for all to see. There also seems to be an extra layer of genius in that the teacher gets to reward 2-3 students pulled at random that day, but no one knows who those kids are until the end of the day. This motivates everyone to do well and eliminates and shaming for missing the mark.

On a cognitive science level, this is an excellent example of reward. A famous study in 1973 demonstrated that although rewards will increase desired behaviors, they also decrease people’s enjoyment in engaging with those same behaviors. There was, however, a caveat: if the reward was not guaranteed, the enjoyment did not decrease.

We reward students in many ways in the classroom:

  • Candy for right answers/participation
  • Points for homework
  • Extra credit for a particularly boring or challenging, but necessary task

My math teacher used to give out candy if she was corrected by a student. Even then I thought this was an amazing type of reward: she was rewarding speaking up and not assuming the teacher is always right. It wasn’t a class norm until the first time it happened, and it didn’t happen so often that students were looking to challenge her, but its something that stuck with me. She taught us that we all make mistakes, and that’s okay.

What’s made some more recent headway is the idea of gamification in the classroom. Whether its Kahoot, Blooket Quizziz or GimKit, all of these platforms take advantage of the motivation that comes with gamification to support student learning. An interesting metastudy from 2023 found that not only did gamification support student learning, but it was most effective in science classrooms compared to other content areas (although many of the studies examined were online courses).

What I personally struggle with (this is my opinion!) is that none of the typical methods of gamification are particularly well-suited for physics beyond super-surface level content. Physics problems, even some of the easier ones, or multiple choice, still require deep thinking. I personally take issue with the concept of introducing speed as a valued quality when students are learning physics. For this reason I tend to choose when I want to engage in these activities explicitly for review, rather than earlier learning. It is my belief that in order to get the kind of learning we need in a physics classroom, true gamification requires a great deal of thought, time and effort in not only crafting the content of the activity, but also all of the rules that go along with it.

A particularly excellent example of gamification that allows for deep thinking in the context of a group-worthy task which increases participation and engagement are Joe Cosette’s escape rooms and mystery tasks. Not only are these activities fun and engaging, but they work because of the different areas of cognitive theories that we’ve discussed over the last few weeks: self-determination, listening and sharing, participation and now reward with gamification.

ABCs of How We Learn… Q is for Question Driven
Activities · Science of Learning

ABCs of How We Learn… Q is for Question Driven

Marianna Ruggerio1 Comment

When I first started teaching I had students to objectively had already decided they were not science people. The school I was working at had a deeply flawed version of “conceptual physics”. The “true” iteration of the course was that conceptual physics would be for 9th graders who had poor reading scores because “there’s not as much reading in physics as biology” (don’t get me started on the importance of literacy). The 9th grade conceptual physics classes were then typically classes where 67% of students had some sort of IEP or 504 plan and 33% did not. (no, that’s not legal. The school got around it because on paper there was a self-contained class of 20 with a SPED teacher and a class of 11 with me, and both classes just happened to meet in the same room at the same time… talk about trial by fire my first year!). As horrendously flawed as that model was, it got worse. Junior students who were deemed unfit for the regular physics class after their chemistry experience got put in conceptual, and so a junior section of this class emerged. My first year teaching as a 22 year old woman I had 3 students aged 19, and one who was turning 21 soon and whose IEP involved violent angry outbursts. Can you imagine?

So my 22-year-old shiny-eyed self decided I would convince these students that they were, in fact, science people. My youngest brother was only 7 at the time, so his development was still fresh in my mind. I asked them what a baby does when you put a toy in their hand. They stick it in their mouth, they shake it, and then they chuck it to the ground. What are they doing? An experiement of course! And what are they learning? Gravity! Being a science person, I argued, was part of being human, because being human is being curious.

Question driven learning is as old as our humanity, whether you look at it from a lens of child-development, or from the socratic method.

Another personal example, the first piece of writing I produced in high school was a response to Sydney Harris’s 1994 essay, “What True Education Should Do” in which he argues that most people think of students as sausage casings in which to stuff information. “The job of teaching” he argues, “is not to stuff them and thenseal them up, but to help them open and reveal the riches within”

In the assignment, we were asked to answer the question of whether we agreed with the sausage or oyster perspective of a student and why. This past school year I have found myself reflecting on this assignment frequently. Not only the fact that I firmly stand by the “oyster” metaphor, but the fact that in having us read and write this essay as high school freshman, our teachers were setting the stage for what would be the next four years of our educational formation. That this was a school where we were expected to cultivate our talents, grow and go out into the world with something new.

Our natual curiosity will drive us to spend time and energy to get answers to questions we care about. It’s one of the reasons click-bait titles work “You’ll never believe what students said when their teacher made this one small shift!”

In NGSS we call this an “anchoring phenomena” in ISLE we call it the “need to know”. OpenSciEd and Patterns Physics both ground their curriculum under driving questions. There is a reason why this works, when done well. It taps into that curiosity. It moves students away from “why do I have to learn this” to “I want to know more about this”

Selecting an anchoring phenomina or need to know is really important in order for it to be useful. This is not pure discovery based or inquiry learning. There is a highly cited article by Kirschner, Sweller and Clarke and a rebuttal by Silver, Duncan and Chinn at Rutgers that are both worth reading around constructivist, active learning environments. As discussed in the Knowledge post, we are not leaving students to truly discover anything on their own. We have crafted very specific and scaffholded experiences for students to engage so when we arrive at the time for telling (aka lecture) students have an experience and a memory to connect the new knowledge to, which ultimately creates stronger neurological pathways.

Here are a few fun need to knows:

Can Damien Walters run a human vertical loop? How fast does he need to go?

If you are in free-fall, how high up do you need to be to break the sound barrier? Felix Baumgartner did this in 2023!

Why Do Tic-Tacs Sometimes Bounce Higher on the Second Bounce? (this is a great energy question)

This is another fun one where there’s basically a “duet” using a pipeline to create the echo (partner). How long is the pipe? What tempo works best for this to work?

Here’s the best part. You don’t have to have the need to know somehow anchored and tied to every moment of the entire unit. The need to know sparks the curiosity and the questions to motivate students to engage in the upcoming lessons. When the unit is complete, we can come back and answer the questions we had at the beginning which gives us an opportunity to see just how much we have learned as a result!

The researched summarized in the ABC book discusses how in a variety of studies students who learned under a problem-based learning or anchored phenomina were able to better transfer knowledge to new and complex situations, seeing the value of the content outside of the classroom, and having positive attitudes towards the material.

A strategy of teaching that increases value, transfer and identity? I’ll say yes to that all day!

ABCs of How We Learn… P is for Participation – You have to DO physics to get better at DOING physics!
Activities · Science of Learning

ABCs of How We Learn… P is for Participation – You have to DO physics to get better at DOING physics!

Marianna Ruggerio1 Comment

After the first exam, I have students participate in a lesson called “The Expert Game”. The activity begins by prompting students “what do you consider yourself an expert in?” Because I know how this will land with a lot of students, I actually ask this question in three ways: What is something you consider yourself pretty good at, what are some of your hobbies, and name one thing you really enjoy doing. Students submit via google form and I get a list like this:

Next, I group students based on similar interests. Then, students are asked to create a cycle of learning for how you go from a novice to an expert in that particular area

Interestingly, these cycles end up being remarkably similar! That’s because learning how to do anything inevitably includes a concrete experience, a chance to try, opportunities for feedback, and trying again. This is ultimately the learning cycle we discussed in the Knowledge Post

Because this activity comes fresh after an exam, one of the key aspects that I lean into at this moment in time is the part where you have to do physics in order to get better at doing physics. In other words, you need to be an active participant in your learning.

In The ABCs of How We Learn, Schwartz, Tsang and Blair define participation as “engaging in an existing cultural activity.” There are two really critical features of this. First, is that participation is going to require that active engagement, but second, that it is an engagement in existing culture. As teachers, we have a responsibility to define the culture in our classrooms. A great deal of this comes from the norms that we put in place, in addition to our own modeling. This is challenging when the culture we know we need in our rooms is very different from the one in our building or community. (Can you tell I’m itching to write a different post?).

Vygotsky’s theory of learning defines the zone of proximal development. The main idea is that when we provide carefully selected and scaffholded work for our students, work that is just out of reach alone, but attainable with help, this is the sweet spot of learning

Selecting group-worthy tasks is a great way to access the ZPD, as are carefully created activities with rich feedback loops. The other benefit of hitting the ZPD just right is that the small wins and gains in knowledge ultimately incite motivation to move to the next challenge. The feedback loop of learning becomes its own motivator! (There was an interesting op-ed on this idea published this week)

It’s also important to note that participation can, and should take many different forms. With up to half of the population identifying as introverts, its our responsibility to recognize that participation does not have to equal the loudest voices in the room that are offering all of the information. The goal is that, ultimately, our classroom is an active learning environment where students learn science by engaging with science in the way that scientists do science.

As I close out my own school year, I’m thinking a lot about my students’ experience in my classroom. I’m actually really pleased how many of them are commenting on the active learning environment and their collaboration as being something that they are proud of or were suprised by in the class. Moving into next school year I’m thinking a lot about the culture of my classroom vs the culture that students are familiar with in school. The big question I’m asking this summer is, “how can you scaffhold and support the reflective thinking capacity of your students?” I ask this because if I can get students reflecting critically and deeply, then we can make serious movement on the other aspects of the classroom! I’ve asked my students to reflect on their work for several years now, but I’ve not really considered how to support students in actually increasing that skill. Another post for another day, but if this is a conversation that interests you, by all means share your thoughts!

ABCs of How We Learn… O is for Observation – Building STEM Identities in the Classroom
Activities · Classroom Issues

ABCs of How We Learn… O is for Observation – Building STEM Identities in the Classroom

Marianna RuggerioLeave a comment

In The ABCs of How We Learn, Schwartz, Tsang and Blair dedicate the O chapter to Observation. Specifically, they are addressing Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Social learning theory considers how both environmental and cognitive factors interact to influence human learning and behavior and at its core is the idea that humans will model after those who are similar, high-status, knowledgeable, rewarded, or nurturing figures in our lives.

The classic experiement that is referenced is the Bobo doll experiement, where children who observed an adult beating up the Bobo doll were more likely to mimic the same agressive behaviors

Learning through observation is certainly something we see with learning that involves kinesthetics. It is also the foundation of the Montessori Method. In our physics classrooms, however, it is not necessarily immediately relevant. The mere observing of the teacher engaging with a complex derivation is not going to translate to meaningful learning. Additionally, the original theory carries with it some challenges, specifically that there is a lack of clarity on the cognitive processes, a likely overemphasis on observation and a difficulty in predicting behaviors. Just because a child observes something doesn’t necessarily mean they will reproduce the behavior, or reproduce the intended behavior. Nevertheless, we do know that when modeled behaviors are also paired with verbal reasoning “I’m going to do this because…. so that… ” and so on the intended learning is more likely to translate.

So I am going to choose to diverge this post a bit from the original text.

The key idea behind social learning theory is that humans will model after those who are similar, high-status, knowledgeable, rewarded, or nurturing figures in our lives. For a student this translates to friends, popular peers, respected teachers and caring adults. Much could be said here regarding the norms chapter and the choices we make as educators to build those norms in our classroom. What I’d like to focus in on, however, is the idea of modeling after those who are similar and knowledgeable. Specifically, I’d like to take about the importance of representation in the physics classroom and the formation of STEM identity.

We discussed this a bit in the Belonging post, when we consider a person’s identity we know its composed of many different positionalities.

When we add the layer of a STEM identity, a huge piece of that web is, indeed belonging. Belonging can be threatened by imposter syndrome and sterotype threat, and it can be enhanced by being “seen” as a STEM person by one’s peers, faculty members and family. In short, a person’s STEM identity is highly dependant on the same people who they might choose to imitate under the theory of social learning.

One of the simplist and most powerful activities I have used in my classroom is the STEPUP Careers in Physics lesson. You can access it online. In the activity you begin by having students brainstorm careers a person might have with a bacholer’s in physics. Then, students engage in a short career match survey. After submitting, they are “matched” with people who are like themselves, but who happen to have a degree in physics in a variety of fields. Although the lesson is explicitly teaching, “you can do anything with a physics degree” due to the intentional selection of diverse representation in the available bios, the lesson is also implicitly showing “you can be anyone and have a physics degree”

In Gholdy Muhammed’s book Cultivating Genius, she outlines her Historically Responsive Literacy framework. In the framework one of the core ideas is that equity is not a one-off lesson or PD session, but rather something that is engrained at the center of our work. The framework identifies four areas: skill, what do we want students to be able to do, but also identity (who am I, who do I want to be) intellect (gaining new and authentic knowledge about the world) and criticality, which she defines as capacity and ability to read, write, think, and speak in ways to understand power and equity.

When I first learned about this framework I started incorporating what I dubbed Identity Encounters in my classroom where we took time to learn about different, current people in physics, who came from a variety of backgrounds. While we ultimately learned about their work in the field, we inevitably also got to hear about their challenges as well.

The underrepresentation curriculum project takes things a step further to explicitly talk about injustice and inequities in STEM. Research has shown that when we make these explicit in discussion with students we are able to mitigate the effects of imposter syndrome and stereotype threat. I’ve run these lessons as periodic lessons between physics content as well as a longer unit during which we also watched Hidden Figures while examining the themes we discussed in class.

Physics educators such as Elissa Levy have gone so far as to redesign their curriculum in such a way so as to include a more full history of the physics we are teaching, rather than just the classic, Western-European cannon.

We know that teaching physics is an uphill battle where some students decide they aren’t fit for the course from day one because they already have a deeply embedded identity of not being a math person. I firmly believe that when we can demonstrate that science is done in community over isolation, that failure is much more common than strokes of genius, and that there exist many different paths and identities to studying physics, our students can begin to learn and identify that they, too, can become a physics person.

Former students with guest speaker, NASA Scientist Renee Horton. In this group 5 students are physics majors and all of them are STEM majors

ABCs of How We Learn: H is for Hands On – Activate Before Dictate
Activities · Science of Learning

ABCs of How We Learn: H is for Hands On – Activate Before Dictate

Marianna Ruggerio3 Comments

I don’t think I need to tell a bunch of science teachers the benefits of Hands on Learning, so let’s take this in a different direction: What makes for a hands-on experience that is positively impactful on student learning?

Not all hands on is equal! Hands on activities need to be carefully constructed in order to produce intended impacts. According to the authors Schawtz, Tsang and Blair, An exemplary hands-on procedure “allows students to find meaning and structure rather than copy a symbolic procedure” in other words, hands-on activities are sense-making activities.

In the Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) framework every cycle begins with observational experiements and those observational experiments very often involve some sort of hands on experience.

Take the introduction to forces, for example. Students are asked to hold a light and a heavy object in each hand, palms up. Next, they are asked to sketch a diagram that shows the interactions on each object. Most students quickly indicate that both the hand and the earth are interacting with the objects and correctly reason that these forces must be equal due to the fact that the objects are not moving.

This seemingly simple activity is incredibly rich. Not only are students constructing the correct understanding of the fact that an object at rest experiences balanced forces, they are also beginning to understand the concept of a normal force (though we aren’t calling it that yet) and the begining of creating a force diagram. All by simply sketching what they feel through observation.

Another excellent example from the ISLE curriculum is the introduction to work and energy.

I provide students with an individually wrapped life-saver mint and ask them to think of ways in which we can crush the live-saver. The ideas of dropping it (or dropping something on it), throwing it (slingshotting it), and smashing something into it all come about and then I give students some materials to do it. However, I include one very critical instruction: there likely exists a way that you could drop it, throw it etc. in which the live saver doesn’t break. I want you to find the edge between breaking it and not breaking it.

Through executing these hands-on, very simple excercises, we are able to construct the idea that candy-crushing-ability (CCA…aka energy) can be increased as we increase the force and the displacement, but ONLY so long as those two attributes are parallel. In addition, in order to “save” the candy from say a falling brick, we need to exert a force in the OPPOSITE direction of the movement to reduce CCA.

In both cases we could have simply taught “here’s how you draw a force diagram” “this is the definition of normal force” “work is the dot product of force and displacement” but none of these definitions ground students in the physical real-world that we are describing in diagrams and mathematics. The hands on experience gives students additional neural pathways and memories to access as they learn new information and tie it to previous experiences.

There are a camp of explicit-instruction/science of learning enthusiasts who will enter into aguments against this kind of constructivist learning because students, as novices, lack the background knowledge to efficiently get to the learning/conclusions we want them to reach in the classroom. I’d argue that the examples provided here are exactly what is called for in direct-instruction. The examples are carefully crafted, the tasks for the students are simple, and after students have done the requested work we as the teachers will indeed tell students exactly what they need to know.

One of the biggest challenges/risks around hands on learning is that students may not notice what we need/intend them to notice. The most critical component here is that these tasks are carefully planned, and in many cases may even appear overly simplistic, like the examples above.

ABCs of How We Learn: G is for Generation
Activities · Science of Learning

ABCs of How We Learn: G is for Generation

Marianna Ruggerio3 Comments

Generation is all about working that brain muscle. The more often we need to remember something, the more likely we are to remember it!

In the information processing model of cognition, this is the retrieval portion

Retrieval has a great deal of benefits when used correctly and there are a lot of misconceptions about retrieval.

First of all: you cannot retrieve what has not been encoded into long term memory. Why is this important? Because asking students to write down what they remember from today’s lesson as an exit ticket is not retrieval. That information is still in the maintenance rehearsal stage. What is rehearsal is asking them to write down two things they remember from yesterday’s lesson.

Retrieval isn’t just good for memories, it also raises student confidence and lowers testing anxiety! In my own classrooms as well as in the classrooms of colleagues, we’ve seen that when students engage in retrieval exercises often, student confidence in the classroom increases significantly. This is particularly true when you ask students to regularly engage in “brain dumps” where they write everything down they remember about a particular unit. As the unit progresses they should be able to write down more and more. It creates a visible piece of evidence of their learning with zero stakes attached to it.

Retrieval is probably something you already do, but to use it effectively we have to use it intentionally. I have two older blog posts about retrieval as a class activity and a study tool in my classroom with a few strategies. Personally, I always prefer to link up retrieval with some sort of additional strategy, whether its engaging students in discourse, having them compare and contrast or concept map.

Retrieval Might be the MOST important activity to support student assessments. Why? Because when students take an assessment they are asked to retrieve. However, if we are only ever pushing information during class, students rarely get the chance to practice that retrieval. Students should use retrieval to study, but they do not know or understand it typically, so we need to teach them (and their parents!) the benefits. If you’re saying “oh but I don’t lecture all hour, I have an active learning environment!” then I’m going to challenge you with this question: but do your students retrieve? Or are they only ever working in maintenance rehearsal? Relying on peers and notes to get to the answer?

My Favorite Use of Retrieval – Retrieve and Engage

Retrieval can be done as an act and of itself. However, while retrieval alone will enhance the memory pathways, it will not necessarily lead to a stronger application of that knowledge. In a science classroom we are constantly aiming for that higher order thinking: explain, create, evaluate. So we need to ensure that students are engaging in that thinking as often as possible.

The first way in which I enjoy using retrieval is by having students engage in a “brain dump”. Students write as much as they can about a given topic. To engage, students share their lists with classmates in small groups. We mix up the groups until eventually all students have the same information written on their papers. The 100% is in the room after all!

Another way in which I use retrieval is to ask students to complete a task identical to the previous day’s work, but then they pull out that work from their notes and evaluate themselves. The goal in this task, however, is for students to identify gaps. This task remains ungraded.

As I mentioned in a previous post, another way I like to use retrieval is to have students retrieve the content from the previous day, but then ask them to consider a similar, but slightly different case. In this instance students are first retrieving the example, and then are immediately asked to compare, contrast and then apply that knowledge to a new context. Below is an example activity that I used with AP Physics C students when going through simple harmonic motion derivations. We had already derived the simple and mass-spring pendula, so I asked students to retrieve those, then take a crack at the torsional and physical pendula.

Retrieval is not Endgame

While retrieval is an incredibly powerful tool that is easy to implement and we often forget to access, it is not endgame. It is simply one strategy amongst what should be an entire playbook. I see retrieval as a strong tool to motivate growth mindset and also as a strong tool to support teaching students how to properly study for the course and better identify their own gaps. However, especially in our science classrooms, it must continue to be paired with active learning cycles and opportunties for students to apply, create, do and evaluate.