Vernier 1 to 1

Student Directed Lab

Charlie Lyons BSU EdTech 503

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................. 2 BACKGROUND (PART 1A)..............................................................................3 ID MODEL RATIONALE (PART 1B) ..................................................................3 ANALYSIS PLAN (PART 3A)...........................................................................5 ANALYSIS SURVEY (PART 3B)........................................................................6 ANALYSIS DATA (PART 3C)...........................................................................6 LEARNING GOAL (PART 4A)...........................................................................7 LEARNING GOAL: THEREFORE, THE BEST LAB IS ONE THAT IS TOTALLY DESIGNED BY THE
STUDENT AND DESIGNED TO BE STOPPED ONLY WHEN THE STUDENT KNOWS THE DATA SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION/GOALS; IN OTHER WORDS: THEY HAVE REACHED A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT...................................................................7 TASK ANALYSIS (PART 4B)...........................................................................7

PART 5 LEARNING ASSESSMENT........................................................... 11 APA CITATIONS.......................................................................................13

Part 1: Background and ID Model

Background (Part 1a)
Physics teachers have complained that physics students quickly learn to do labs rather than learn from them. Typically teachers or even textbook companies design labs for students learning a new physics concept. Teachers know and try to make the labs student directed so: It is a true learning experience, sometimes surprised by what they learn They feel ownership of the lab and may do a better job They are able to direct the lab to the conclusion they have predicted

While there are some great benefits to this student-centered approach, often it doesnt turn out as anticipated. Even if students do a good job developing their goals once they partially understand the concept, they often write conclusions that are short of reaching full understanding of the concept. Even worse, students tend to extend their results to interpret that they have met their goals. This often occurs when a student stops the experiment too early, feeling they have collected sufficient good quality data.

ID Model Rationale (Part 1b)

The ADDIE Model will be used for the creation of this document. While there are many newer and more descriptive models, this model most closely matches this planning document and the work the students will be doing. This simple document is designed to allow students to conduct a simple laboratory process to gain

understanding of physics concepts. In evaluating available models, there were many components that were not necessary. A brief example is listed below, first the component from another model followed by why its unnecessary here: Instructional goals are listed above and are the same for each student Assessment goals completing the lab for understanding is the assessment (peformance-based) Allocation considerations time and space restrictions do not apply here Resources are provided and are the same for everyone Learner assessment in this case students are considered to be essentially the same here as their learning comes through the completion of the activity Every aspect of this is designed to be simple, so it does not need to be complicated with more components.

Part 2 Analysis of Learning Context

As stated above, there is an identified problem and therefore a Problem Model Needs Assessment seems appropriate. This problem is wide spread and has been observed for a long time. In fact the problem has become even larger over the most recent years with the introduction of more technology based equipment and software. This has allowed some students to think less and let the computer do the work. This problem could essentially fall into a Discrepancy-based Model Assessment but the entire situation can be eliminated with fixing the problem. Perhaps students would be

able to gain this knowledge in the typical setting (many have) however this approach should make this easier for all students to reach that level of understanding. This is typically one of the most controlled classroom settings in a typical high school. All of these students are seniors and for the most part have elected to be in this particular class (not required but highly recommended). While many assumptions about the learner could be drawn at this point it would be best to gather some information about their understanding of this process.

Part 3 Analysis of Learner

Analysis Plan (Part 3a)
Students need some type of basis to compare to before they can design their own lab. Therefore it would be easier to conduct this activity after completing earlier lab experiments. Upon completion of a lab around two weeks prior, a small survey could be conducted. A common lab conducted in every classroom is the Ball Toss Lab. Simply any object can be thrown into the air and its motion can be measured (kickballs are easy to throw/catch and are sufficiently large enough to be seen by the motion detector). While a simple exercise, the position/displacement of the ball is very predictable and with logical thought the velocity is easy to understand. The biggest thing students can gain from this lab is that the acceleration (by gravity) of the ball is constant and quantifiable. A systematic but simple, the Ball Toss Lab is to follow and understandable with only

moderate effort. If they think about it, the three components: position, velocity and acceleration are classic and predictable. The graphs create predictable shapes and obey the laws of physics. Gravity is the driving force behind these results and it is constant (never even taking one second off) and always equal to 9.8 m/s 2. This number rounds up to 10, which makes every calculation in every problem for the rest of the semester extremely easy. It should be very easy for students to design their own lab now as they realize that it is very sequential and based upon just one assumption (gravity is a constant), all the components of the lab are completely predictable. This will allow them to use this as the basis for designing their own lab.

Analysis Survey (Part 3b)

An electronic survey was completed and administered to the students. The survey can be found at the website: http://sites.google.com/site/bhslyons and through this link: http://tinyurl.com/2dg9uhb . This survey is to be completed by the students after they have completed several simpler labs and the most recently the Ball Toss Lab. The lab should be quite fresh in the minds. the completion of this design. This data will be used to refine

Analysis Data (Part 3c)

Results of the survey were not surprising. As the students had conducted several labs by this time, they feel comfortable with the process. The Ball Toss Lab is a perfect lab for them to see how systematic labs are. They were able to follow the sequence for going from the simpler concepts to more complicated, one at a time. The

students noticed that even the equations became more complicated as they progressed. They also noticed that questions from #14 on were asked to determine if they could design their own lab. The students said they understood the process and would be willing to give it a chance.

Part 4 Analysis of Learning Task

Learning Goal (Part 4a)
Learning Goal: Therefore, the best lab is one that is totally designed by the student and designed to be stopped only when the student knows the data supports the conclusion/goals; in other words: they have reached a complete understanding of the concept.

Task Analysis (Part 4b)

This schematic shows the process for student creation of a lab from inception to completion. The process starts with selection of a physics concept they student wishes to gain a complete understanding of that concept. Students know how labs work and will be able to create and follow the systematic approach. The rectangle represent the significant steps and products of the process, while the oval represent steps that support the major steps. Constant evaluation and revision happens during every step of the process.

Learning Objective (Part 4c)

Learning Objectives: The lab needs to be broken into several separate and discrete steps. Only when each proceeding part is complete can students begin the next step. The table below essentially follows the schematic presented earlier with the addition of identification of learning objections and student outcomes during the process. Continuous evaluation and revision take place during nearly every step of the process. All the tests are designed to determine when to collect data, when to stop and how to determine when enough data has been collected. Additionally all steps up to Step 6.0 are setup to allow for revisions to the point of lab execution. The addition of these review steps would have made the documents bulky. The steps are as follow:

4c Learning Objectives

Task
1.0 Select Concept 1.1 Submit for Approval 1.2 Review of Literature 2.0 Develop Pre-Lab 2.1 Predictions 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Procedures 3.0 Conduct Pre-Lab 3.1 Evaluation of Data

Objective
-learner gets to choose topic -learner can pass ideas past instructor -learner adds to their knowledge of the concept Pre-lab lets the student try out ideas and concepts for lab -helps learner develop concrete steps in the process -helps learner keep the sequence straight -serves as practice for lab, facilitates concept building -builds strong support for lab, will help with concept building -supports entire concept, drives continuation of lab -finalizes the pre-lab -itemizes results -creates final product -creates location for recording analytical data

Outcome
which lab to conduct

Assessment
Submittal Submittal

additiional data above textbook

Formative: Observation Submittal

start to fine tune concept sets realm of lab start to develop actual process for pre-lab

Submittal Submittal Submittal Formative: Observation

3.2 Conduct Analysis 3.3 Conclusions 4.0 Develop Final Lab 4.1 Develop Data Table

will determine direction of the rest of lab, will justify students predictions drives the creation of the lab verifies results forms basis for construction of lab determines that all information will be collected with outlined program determines whether lab should continue in present scope or if revision is required gets learner ready for lab completion without interupting lab will start final lab

Formative

Formative Submittal Submittal Submittal

4.2 Pre-Test

-determines when enough data is collected and when to stop -make sure lab will happen with available resources -learner knows that they are ready to start lab

Formative: Observation

4.3 Gather Equipment 4.4 Review Goals

Formative: Observation Formative: Observation

Task

Objective

Outcome

Assessment

5.0 Develop Completeness Test 6.0 Conduct Lab 6.1 Complete Data Table 6.2 Conduct Completeness Test 7.0 Review Data 7.1 Data Analysis

-helps learner realize if they are ready to start -start the final stage of lab -completes the data table, all data is collected -learner knows whether lab is complete -starts the summary process for learner -learner puts "arms" around all components of lab, starts final process -creates final quality check of data, units correct -present all the data in a easy to understand format -summarizes all learners efforts -creates written product for the entire process -learner completes assessment or other briefing that they have complete understanding of concept

Formative: Observation Formative: Observation lab has been executed, interpretation begins may continue lab if not complete or even make revision to plan Formative: Observation Formative: Observation Formative: Observation student will know that they have all the information they need and can draw preliminary conclusions ensures that the data will support the conclusions further supports all concepts to this point, final evidence that data will support conclusions supports all steps to this point and draws lab to closure Formative: Observation

7.2 Finalize Data Table 7.3 Graph Data

Formative: Observation Submittal

7.4 Conclusions 8.0 Summative Conclusion 9.0 Display of Understanding

Submittal Submittal

Summative

Part 5 Learning Assessment

Plans for a Formative Evaluations: An ideal time for an evaluation is just prior to the students conducting their lab. They will have had several discussions with the instructor, many with their lab partners and will have completed their pre-lab. It is expected that they have a good understanding of the data they will be collecting. This also means that they have anticipated the results and therefore should have a pretty good understanding of the concept.

The instructor should require that each lab group write up their entire lab procedure in several classes and submit it before they leave that day. This would also allow them to try out sampling equipment and procedures prior to finishing the lab. Only problem would be that the instructor would have to evaluate the labs prior to the students doing the lab.

The instructor should be able to predict whether the students lab will give them results to allow them gain understanding. His input to the students would be to ask questions about specific procedures or methods they are using that would allow them to gather the information required. Hopefully based upon their answers to his questions, the instructor can tell students to proceed or ask questions.

The questions would be designed to present possible scenarios that would result in either incomplete, or missing data. Student should realize they have missing components of the lab and add them to the design Additional questions about procedures or methods would further help the student design a satisfactory lab.

APA Citations

Smith, Patricia L., and Ragan, Tillman J., (2005). Instructional Design. Hoboken, NJ John Wiley & Sons, Inc.