Morning reading – The Loudest Sound in the World

From the physics department, I started my morning with a fascinating bit of reading from FiveThirtyEight.

They hooked me with the intro line:

The questions kids ask about science aren’t always easy to answer. Sometimes, their little brains can lead to big places adults forget to explore. With that in mind, we’ve started a series called Science Question From a Toddler, which will use kids’ curiosity as a jumping-off point to investigate the scientific wonders that adults don’t even think to ask about.

You want to capture my attention? That’s a pretty good way to do it.

What follows is a really approachable discussion of sound energy that is designed to be understandable but doesn’t skimp on all the science-y goodies to do it. It also doesn’t shirk on the drama.

A sound is a shove — just a little one, a tap on the tightly stretched membrane of your ear drum. The louder the sound, the heavier the knock. If a sound is loud enough, it can rip a hole in your ear drum. If a sound is loud enough, it can plow into you like a linebacker and knock you flat on your butt. When the shock wave from a bomb levels a house, that’s sound tearing apart bricks and splintering glass. Sound can kill you.

Go ahead and give it a read. I’d consider using it in a high school physics course. Although, full disclosure: I can’t universally recommend FiveThirtyEight since I know they also write about a lot of other topics and not all of their writers stick to basic school-appropriate rules, like no swears.

It also mixes in a bit of history (some nice story-telling on the eruption of Krakatoa) and some nice unit discussions (hertz, decibels, some prefixes get in the mix, too.)

All in all, definitely an article worth checking out.

Sky Dive Trampoline: Real or Fake?

It has been a while since I’ve posted an additional installment to my “Real or Fake” Collection, but when I see videos like this, I just wonder what everyone else sees when they watch it.

So, a man jumps out of a plane at several thousand feet with no parachute and slips through a 3 x 5 hole in the roof of a warehouse to land on a trampoline where a crowd of perhaps 100 wait to celebrate his victorious descent.

If this is a hoax, the sell job is pretty elaborate: the tech team on the in the control room, the steering device, the slow-motion replay… It sells well. I suppose that is why the video went viral.

But I’m not sold.

First, this stunt is awfully high-risk. Like, it either works, or the stunt man isn’t getting up.

Second, no rehearsal for this technology that is probably seriously tricky to get right. I suspect this guy would have wanted to see a trial drop with a test dummy at least once before he jumps.

I envision that first test drop going sort of like this:

Third, can some of my physics friends verify my skepticism over the meager bounce the man shows once he lands? One minute at free fall? That’s a lot of kinetic energy. A lot. That’s all I’m saying.

 

All right, your turn.

 

What do you think? Real or fake?

 

If you are curious, here are my other posts in the “Real or Fake” collection.

Life-Saving Baseball Catch

Ski Jump Luge

Bankshot 3-Act Revised

In my previous post, I presented Act I of a 3-Act geometry lesson that I called Bankshot. I also called out to the #MTBoS to support me by offering feedback of which I received two excellent comments that were rich in suggestions, particularly in the aspect of improving the student experience.

If you want to go back and look at the first draft and/or read the comments that got left, then feel free to check it out.

Now, all three of us agreed that the action begun and ended too quickly. Danny Whitaker (@nemoyatpeace) suggested that I slow the video down. In addition to agreeing with Danny’s suggestion, Dan Meyer (@ddmeyer) suggested that there was more I could do to set the situation up and make the clear what was going on before the I roll the film.

Danny also suggested that I cut the film before the ball bounces into the wall. Another interesting suggestion that Dan made was to include multiple attempts. I thought that those are both interesting suggestions.

You will see my attempts to respond to the feedback in this second draft of “Bankshot”. I start with a more direct set-up of the situation. I also added a second attempt from when I was filming to give the students something to think about. Now they have at least four guesses they could make. “Both hit target,” “both miss target,” “first hits, second misses,” or “first misses, second hits.” You will notice also that I slowed the playback down which cost us the sound. It’s possible that a bit of background music will be needed in a third draft, but that is something that we can talk about.

All right, #MTBoS, here is my second draft of “Bankshot.” I look forward to more feedback.

Bankshot (I give 3-Act Lessons another try…)

Feel free to read this post, but the video I present at the bottom has since been revised. After you read this post and watch the video, I’d encourage you to read the comments. Then head over to Bankshot 3-Act Revised to check out how I interpreted the feedback.

I recently attended a workshop led by Dan Meyer (@ddmeyer) which I found to be incredibly valuable. In the workshop, Mr. Meyer broke down the 3-Act lesson design model that he describes on his blog. He demonstrated it and showed a few of his own examples as well as some of Andrew Stadel’s (@mr_stadel)I have been trying to make sense of the 3-Act model for a while now. I had continually felt confused by a handful of the aspects. I tried to do some activities but found that I was often either giving the students too much information or not nearly enough.

Bottom line, I was confused about the basic point of the 3-Act Model. It is designed in a way that maximizes engagement and allows you to raise the bar while being more inclusive (which is tricky business). The first act, you set the students up to be curious about the situation. You prepare a scenario where a handful of outcomes seem likely and ask the students to choose which of the outcomes they suspect will happen. This is a short amount of time. You get the students curious, you have them choose a camp and then move on.

In act 2, you start leading the students through the mathematical processes that will allow the students to rule out focus on the outcome(s) that seem to be the most supported by the math. This is where the students begin to explore the variables of the situations, determine the appropriate modeling mechanisms and choose which tools they are going to use. This might also be where you lecture them a bit if they are trying to use models that they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with.

In act 3, you reveal the answer and the allow the students to make sense of any differences that “real life” has with mathematical modeling.

In an earlier post (the value of face-to-face) I commented on how powerful I find in-person, face-to-face interactions and how the #MTBoS, as powerful as it is, is unable to accommodate for this particular shortcoming. That is only more solidified in my mind now, after seeing how much better I understand the overall approach and value of the 3-Act model having gotten to interact with Mr. Meyer face-to-face, ask him questions, and hear his responses.

So… I decided to try again.

For my first Act I, I decided to go with a geometry/physics topic. Also, the Act II is still in production. So, it probably isn’t quite ready for implementation yet, but I want to see if I am actually making progress in being able to understand, deliver, and (hopefully) create 3-Act lessons.

Enjoy…

“Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is”

photo credit: Flickr user "sw77" - used under Creative Commons

photo credit: Flickr user “sw77” – used under Creative Commons

I agree with Yoda. (The title of this piece is a quote of his.)

This morning, as she was finishing her cereal, my daughter was completely taken by the reflection of her cup on our table. She was passing her hand under the table and above the table and, as is her custom, talking the whole time.

Then she fired out a wonderful question.

“Daddy, why is the reflection upside down?”

My daughter asked a fantastic question. Would the average geometry student be able to answer it?

My daughter asked a fantastic question. Would the average geometry student be able to answer it?

In my head, I thought that my students should definitely be able to hammer out a pretty reasonable response to that question by the end of the first unit of geometry.

And thanks to my daughter, they will.

Learning from Playing Around

These past two weeks have been an awesome time of learning for the students we’ve been working with, but I’ve also done a bit of learning myself.

I’d like to have my students love math and science and naturally be interested in it. But they’re kids. They would prefer to play. People get the most out of that which they put the most in to. If given the chance, students will put a ton into playing around.

These past two weeks I’ve been working with upper elementary-aged students. I normally teach high school students. I’m not sure if the age difference changes anything. The stuff they want to play with might be different, but not the desire to play.

And after 7 years of teaching math, there’s something appealing about a situation where students will be voluntary and enthusiastic participants.

Play Science 1

I have just spent two weeks watching students play with two activities. The first was an activity called “Table Timers” where they were challenged to design and construct an apparatus on a table top that reliably moved a marble down an inclined table in ten seconds. Second, The Helium Balloon Problem challenges students to keep a helium balloon rising, but to have it travel as slowly as possible upward. Not every group worked well and not every group achieved these goals, but the engagement level has been high. I suspect this is because they we allowed to play.

Here’s what caught my attention the most: In the midst of their play, the students demonstrated some authentic problem-solving techniques. They had to identify the major challenges to their goal, which they often did. They had to brainstorm possible ways to overcome the challenges, which usually took the form of raking through a tub of blocks or looking through the supply table. They discerned which seemed like the most realistic and then test. Following a test, they discussed what happened, why, and revised. And the students were often quite excited when they got the right answer (knowing themselves that it was right and not relying on me to tell them).

That’s a pretty good learning model. That’s something that I have a hard time getting my students to do with book work.

Play Science 2

So, the sharing, the idea-making, the consensus-building, the authentic assessment are all good things. Obviously I am not simply advocating letting the students play around all day. But perhaps by using play, we can improve engagement and the students seem to more naturally fall into a more authentic problem-solving mindset. When I consider helping them draw out the learning, some thoughts come to mind.

First, it seems like during the whole process of exploration, design, construction, testing, revising, and demonstrating, there needs to be an abundance of contents-specific vocabulary. The marble didn’t “bonk into that block.” That block “applied a force” to the marble. Students don’t “figure out how big the shape is.” The “find the area” or “circumference” or “volume.”

Second, students don’t seem naturally inclined to take data or to keep records. In the past two weeks, it seems that students are avid experimenters and do a pretty good job of verbally analyzing the problems if the plan didn’t work. Practically NONE of them documented anything on paper. No sketches, no data, no records of updates. This is an important part of the problem-solving process that would have to be established as a norm.

Third, the activities have to be tiered. Video games are great at this. The entry point tends to be quite low. The first couple of levels are pretty manageable and then the intensity and difficulty pick up. People get locked into video games through that model and people get unlocked quite quickly once the game has been beaten. Both Table Timers and The Helium Balloon Problem worked with this model. Then entry point was low for both activities and it was easy enough to begin to approach the goal, but perfecting the design and executing the plan took much more care. Then, once they hit ten seconds, we’d challenge them to add five seconds to their timer.

Fourth, I think that the groups need to be expected to summarize and present their work to each other and to field questions from the class. Class norms should allow for questioning of each other’s work and students can learn a lot about their own design, but also about the content when they know that they are going to have questions coming from their peers. Also, it would seem like this would encourage more thoughtful designs, too. Besides this, idea sharing gives the students an opportunity to look at other designs, integrate specific vocabulary into more regular use, and get the students comfortable with collaborating.

 

Play Science 3

I don’t think that playing around is the answer to everything, but I know that in my own experiences, it seems to be the forgotten learning model and if I’ve learned anything these past two weeks, it’s that an environment that produces enthusiastic student participation shouldn’t be ignored.

Motivating Learners

What could make a bunch of 10-year-olds do this in July?

What could make a bunch of 10-year-olds do this in July?

Today was the opening day of Kids’ College, which is a two-week, half-day science academy for going-to-be 5th and 6th graders at Michigan State University. This is my fifth year getting to lead as an instructor. That makes this my fifth opening day. Today I was struck by some observations that I hadn’t noticed before.

First, I’ll set up the situation. After an auditorium-style presentation with the whole group (there’s 18 instructors each with a group like mine) getting through the get-to-know-you info (lasting about an hour), we split up into individual groups. This year, I am leading 10 young people. I’ve never met any of them. Only two of them have met someone else in the group. After some introductions, we have about 75 minutes to use pipe insulation, tape, a marble, and anything else at arm’s reach to build a roller coaster that met some basic common guidelines.

It is of note (at least to me) that I wasn’t going to collect anything, I wasn’t going to record any grades, truth-be-told I wasn’t going to hold them accountable at all. So, here we go.

It wasn't quite right, so they fixed it. I didn't have to tell them.

It wasn’t quite right, so they fixed it. I didn’t have to tell them.

Observation #1: Off-task behavior was shockingly absent.  These kids had ideas, discussed them, and designed, reality-checked, and made predictions. I told them that I wasn’t handing them a marble until the coaster was built, stable, and ready for testing. My favorite question became “If this coaster has trouble, where do you think the trouble-spots will be?” Both teams had talked about it already. They knew. And they were both right, by the way. Also, no bathroom breaks. No kids asking to stop to eat their snacks. No kids asking what time it is and how much longer we have until we are done. I mean that. None.

There was no grade on the line. He simply didn't quit trying.

There was no grade on the line. He simply didn’t quit trying.

Observation #2: They decided their own “good enough”. I told them the requirements. They weren’t constantly seeking my approval. They didn’t ask questions like, “are we done yet?” On the contrary, in both cases, I had to instruct them to stop after fielding “aww, just one more test run? C’mon, we just need to fix this one hill… hold on.”

This team discussed, sketched, delegated without much direction.

This team discussed, sketched, delegated without much direction.

Observation #3: Students developed roles within the 5-person groups quite well. One guy was the tape guy. He held the tape, ripped a piece, applied it where the designer told him to. This person was working on the loop. That person on the curve. This person’s job was to tape the insulation to the wall to create the initial hill. These kids hadn’t ever met. I didn’t see any squabbling. I didn’t see any hurt feelings. I didn’t tell them to divvy up roles. About all I said, “You better get this organized!”

Okay, now I’m already arguing with myself:

“Yeah, but these are learners who are interested in science.” Okay, perhaps, but that doesn’t explain the group dynamics. Besides, putting these kids back on the busses to go back to meet their parents was all it took to reveal to all of use that these were definitely normal 10-year-olds.

“You work with 15- and 16-year-olds. This stuff must be easier with 10-year-olds.” Is that true? I have friends who teach elementary school and they gripe sometimes, too. I’m not sure that simply supplanting my typical group of 15- and 16-year-olds with 10-year-olds magically makes a lesson plan more likely to succeed. Does it? (A bit of help in the comments would be fantastic from those readers in the elementary ranks.)

“You’ve done this activity before and it doesn’t always go this well.” Very true. I have had students in the past that are a bit tougher to motivate. I have had groups with super-dominant leaders who try to monopolize everything. (In fact, this year, I tried to get around that by adding the structured timing… first 10 minutes discussion/sketching… then no marble until the whole design is constructed.) I suppose the student selection forces-that-be may have blessed me with a good mix, but I can’t help but feel like there is something more at work here.

Here is a stand-alone lesson. Didn’t do anything to assess prior knowledge and there wasn’t an assessment following. Nothing was turned in. Nothing was graded. Science isn’t built on that stuff. LEARNING isn’t built on that stuff. Learning is built on the stuff that I saw today. Discussing, sketching, questioning, building, testing, adjusting, asking why. Perhaps we allowed for those things to increase by eliminating questions like:

“Is this going to be on the test?”

“When is this due?”

“Do we all have to turn one in?”

“How many points is this worth?”

I mean, believe me, I understand the role of assessments and obviously I have a situation where I’m not being held accountable much either, which gives me a lot more flexibility. But what if that is the key? What if all the off-task behavior that is getting in the way is being caused by grades, tests, and other stuff? What if I got a window into authentic learning? What if today I saw a formula that worked? How can I integrate the lessons that I learned today into the September-to-June environment?

All I know is that today I saw something work. I want my classroom to work like that.

I don’t know. I guess I have more questions than answers. Perhaps that is why I am asking the questions to all of you. I know that you have more answers than me. I look forward to your perspective.