Summary

This year, I continued my work in Team one, with Bryan Ott and Robin Rogus. I focused my work on Physics II, and how to make it more problem based. As the year progressed, I became very interested in how girls were processing the information that I presented. It was my first year teaching Physics. As a result, I spent a great deal of time preparing for the course and designing new problems for students to investigate. This year, I also co-facilitated a new team, Team #5 with Robin Rogus. The members of the team are Frank Kahanec, Tom Vogelsang, and Kathy Ralston. In the end, I found that I spent a lot of time facilitating Team #5 and its growth. This year a student, Adrianna Koleski, observed both team 1 and team 5. She was studying the dynamics of teams and their growth processes.

The Physics Level II Course

The physics class is a level II class that is math based. It is offered as an alternative for freshman that are seeking a physics course. It utilizes the concepts that students learn in Geometry, and consequently, students seem to benefit by being concurrently enrolled in either Geometry Level II or Geometry Level 1. For example, the understanding of sin, tan, cos and tangent are concepts that interrelate between the geometry and the students understanding of vectors in physics. I taught one section of this class and one of Laboratory Chemistry/Physics Level II. Since it was my first year teaching this course, I spent several periods observing both Kerry Lucke, who taught the same physics course that I was teaching, and Kunal Pujara who was teaching the Physics Level I.

The Observer

Adrianna was interested in observing the dynamics of team formation in the Action Research Lab setting. She spent most of her time observing Team #5, and much less time observing Team #1. I think that this was mostly because Team #1 had difficulty getting everyone together on the same day, and some of the time spent in team #1 was spent talking about team #5 facilitation. Also, both Robin and I presented with Joe at a conference in the fall, and Bryan Ott stayed at school, so Team #1 did not meet that month. For many various reasons, I believe that over 30% of our meeting dates, although productive, were disrupted and these disruptions were at the beginning of the year. When I read Adrianna’s report, I noticed that she felt less comfortable with team #1, I think that this is because of the fact that we met less frequently formally and more frequently informally. This is an interesting observation to me, it seemed that Team #1 would meet just about anywhere, at lunch, in the stairwell, or over the phone while we were home at night.

My Question

Initially, I had planned to teach Physics units and incorporate problem-based learning. As it turned out, I found that I had to concentrate on making units problem based, mostly because I had never taught the course before, and as the Physics team shared labs that they had developed with me, I saw that the existing Physics team had developed a well thought out course with a strong lab component. The final project in the course involved going to Great America and having students use the information that they had acquired throughout the year, this too was something that the existing Physics teachers, John Crouch, Kunal Pujara, and Kerry Lucke had previously developed. At Great America, the students collected data on different roller coaster or theme park rides and used their data to make calculations and analysis of the various forces involved in the rides. It was a comprehensive project experience for the students. John Crouch, Kumal Pujara and Lerry Lucke have spent many years developing a lab based curriculum¾the labs enhance concepts that are used in class.

As I taught the course, I found some wonderful interactive physics internet sites, where students could interact and answer and problem solve the physics. I took students to computer lab to engage them in this exciting physics experience. I enjoyed using the sites, because they allowed students to work on the physics concepts at their own pace and also allowed them the opportunity to try harder questions if they were inclined to do so. I found that these sites were beneficial to students mostly because many students could use the sites at home on their personal computers.

I also had students research topics in Physics and share their findings with the class. Some students created physics machines, they brought in everyday household items and related them to physics, they investigated topics that were not in the text. These "teaching" experiences were unique. Students were able to look for areas of Physics that were interesting to them and then share those findings with their peers.

New Directions that I began to Question during the Year

During the year, as I had said, I visited other physics classrooms frequently to see the labs in action and to observe how different teachers taught different concepts. As I watched, I noticed something that I had supposed before, but never really addressed. I observed that girls answered less frequently in class discussion. In fact, I noticed that girls, when they did respond, in general responded slower than the boys. I observed this in my physics classes as well. It seemed to me that when I didn’t incorporate wait time into the discussion, girls responded less. Is this one of the reasons why there are significantly fewer girls in science historically, especially in the higher levels of science? During the year, I spent time consciously including wait time and watching how frequently girls responded. It seemed that in general when I increased wait time the responses from girls increased as well. I especially noticed this when I asked questions that involved abstract thought or math concepts. Of course, I would really need to test this and time responses, but I have reason to believe that 9^th grade girls are processing the concepts differently.

How Action Research Lab has Changed my Teaching

I found that throughout the year, I continued to use the style that I had developed in the Laboratory Chemistry/Physics with both courses that I taught. I still used rubrics, I still implemented problem-based ideas, I still involved students in self and peer assessment. I continued to develop and refine what I had learned. I continued the things that "worked" for me and my students. It was exciting that this year, all of the Laboratory Chemistry/Physics team used the Sludge as a final assessment and incorporated rubrics into the assessment of the final. In the final assessment, students self-assess their work, peer assess their work by using a rubric. They in essence score themselves, so there should be no surprises. They know the expectations for the sludge and it seems that their level of anxiety has lowered as a result of feeling comfortable with the grading expectations. The assessment changes are a large change for how the sludge is graded. In the past, the students had no role in the grading process. Now, the students are actively involved in their own and a peers assessment.

Senior Exit Interviews

I constantly continue to question my teaching and how it affects the students that I teach. Bryan and Robin and I interviewed exiting seniors with videotapes. Their responses reinforced in my mind the techniques and styles that I use.

Team #1 Evolves

At the end of the year, Bryan Ott left team #1 to take a different job. We were sorry about losing a valuable colleague. We will be looking for a new Team #1 person.

I will not be teaching Physics II next year, instead, I will have a new prep again, Biology II. I plan to address the learning styles of girls vs. boys in that class. However, I doubt that the pattern will be as evident, since there is less abstract math in the Biology II curriculum.

The Chem/Phys II class will be taught in a different, accelerated style next year. We will teach Chem the first semester, with the semester exam being the Sludge Test, and then the second semester will be Physics.

Top