Final assessment ideas: Physics/Science BINGO!

(I've put my resources and a link to Mike Mohammed's bingo assessments at the bottom of this post if you want to skip over the discussion.)

When we went to emergency remote learning last spring, our science department elected not to do a formal "exam". Since we were required to provide some kind of summative assessment opportunity, I was really happy I had come across this BINGO video idea from Kevin McChesney of @TigerPhysics earlier in the year.

What a great project. Thanks for sharing! I did something similar based on this Bingo card idea: https://t.co/KsPIdV4M3y

— Andrea McPhee (JarvisCI) (@ms_mcphee) December 21, 2020

I had been planning to adapt it for last year's summative project anyway, but it was perfect for lockdown science once I tweaked it a bit to make it work for our situation: all assessments were optional, and because we are a full-year school (as opposed to semestered), we were only allowed to give a total of 1.5 hours of work a week per course.

They had to choose a row or column, or one of the two diagonals (for the physics only) and create a video/slide-show/portfolio/study guide/something showing how well they understood the topics in that row, column, or diagonal. The more connections they made to things they had learned, the better! (For example, if the topic was Normal Force, I wanted them to talk about how it related to other "topics" such as the force of gravity, the force of friction, Newton's laws of motion, kinetics, etc.) They could hand in different topics at different times, and each topic could use a different medium.

The Rules

• no more than 2 items in each row/column may use material that is not their own work
• if they are using someone else’s video, they may not also use the audio
• each video must have material from each of the 4/5 units
• for the pale green box(es), they include a topic of their own choosing from the missing unit; subject to my approval. They were given lists of suggested topics.
• the blue squares are a free topic: they may choose any other topic as long as it is something that was covered in class; subject to my approval

Additional requirements for physics:

• at least three topics must include discussion of how they would find a mathematical prediction; all topics must discuss conceptual understanding
• there must be at least one practical demo

and for grade 9 science:

• Experimental design: they pick a topic from a list, which includes possible independent and dependent variables. They design an experiment to test the effects of changing one variable on another. They don’t need to perform the lab, but they will write it up as if they had, and set up a data table and graph for the results.

I wanted to keep it as PITA-free as I could for them, especially since some students had been having difficulties uploading the weekly videos to Flipgrid. I asked them to submit a rough draft or outline at least a week before the final due date so I could give feedback using Screencastify, and I made that part of the final mark so they would actually hand in a draft. (By the way, I'm going to blog about how much I loved making video comments on student drafts; you should absolutely try it.)

I started from TigerPhysics's grid and just made changes to reflect our curriculum. I took out the projects because the time restriction meant building/making anything was probably unrealistic, even if they could do it without leaving their homes. The green option boxes came about as I figured out which unit was missing from that row/column/diagonal. Of course, I've since realized that this is just a Sudoku board and could have saved myself some grief, but I kind of liked that it gave additional choice within a constraint. 

Grade 9 science only has 4 units, but we wanted them to do a lab design since it was something we had been focussing on all year. Although they didn't have to do the lab, we picked experiments they could do at home if they had the equipment: paper helicopters, soap suds, bouncing balls, etc., with suggested independent and dependent variables. (These are experiments we ask them to design during the in-school lab exam, so fortunately that wasn't any extra work.)

 

There's some doubled and missing units in a few lines, again because I just started from Kevin's grid. For future use I've rejigged the unit distribution for 4/5/6 units and 4 units + lab design/build (which is just 5 units with some colour formatting) (so "unit" can be any grouping of content you wish, or a build/lab design/drawing/whatever you need). Each includes a free-choice box. If you want to make your own or need a different-sized board, dCode.xyz is the Sudoku-maker I used. Type 'Sudoku' into the search bar and choose your size. Click "Fill" and type single letters or digits in to represent the topic group (no spaces to get them lined up across the top of the board). Remember to tick the "Mode Sudoku X" box if you want the diagonals, choose one of the nifty shapes if you want to give the students even more choice, and click "Solve Sudoku". (Également, il est disponible en francais.)

I loved this project. I got some amazing things out of the students -- granted, they were the students who were still participating in the great online experiment of Spring 2020, but I'm definitely going to be doing it in the future. I particularly want to incorporate Mike Mohammed of @Mo_Physics's idea of using Bingo choice boards for student end-of-unit review; that way they have a base of video footage they can either revise or reuse at the end of the year. I also liked that in a course with different sections, where different teachers may have focussed on different topics to different degrees (no matter what we plan), each teacher could swap out a topic or two and still maintain the integrity of the assessment across classes.

Here's an example from a grade 11 student about Normal Forces (with a wee bit of possible miscommunication about N3, the normal force, and the force of gravity), posted with permission. The student chose to do their math in other topics, alas. For reference, in Ontario grade 11 physics deals primarily with 1D forces; we leave the math of inclined planes to grade 12. (The slides precede the video, which has no sound.)

(Newton is making a repeat appearance from the student's Newton's law video. And you bet I make them cite where they get their meme graphics from!)

Future thoughts: adding a build requirement to the project (or choice of build/lab design for physics), decreasing the amount of "other people's work" the senior grades are allowed to include, including 1-1 conferencing check-ins, working out how to do something similar for math courses, optional working with a partner on certain segments...

Resources: McPhee's Summative Bingo planner and emergency remote learning Assessments

Summative Choice Board planner

Grade 11 physics (SPH3U) remote learning summative assessment

Grade 12 physics (SPH4U) remote learning summative assessment

Grade 9 science (SNC1D) remote learning summative assessment

Lab design template

Remote Electricity lab design question

OAPT Conference overview and sundry nifty physics things I've been working on

I'm writing this on the train back from the OAPT conference hosted at the University of Western Ontario, and it was, of course, amazing. I have so many thoughts and new great ideas to put into practice. Some quick takeaways: 

• thinking about using improv techniques in class to overcome my (and students') implicit bias, especially "Yes, and?"
• "We use mathematics to help us make the physics more precise."
• "Just because I don't have a 'math brain' doesn't mean I don't have something useful to contribute."
• "You're not part of a group, you're part of a team."
• Yes, the students do really need to draw a picture
• Why haven't we been using the rotunda at Jarvis to make super-long pendula?

Also, this happened:

Who's got two thumbs and just won a full registration to #stao2018? Thanks #oapt2018! pic.twitter.com/AMR74RKr4c

— Ms McPhee (JarvisCI) (@ms_mcphee) May 11, 2018

I think I'm going to have to wait until June to do the write-up justice.  I will share my presentation on Tweaking the Traditional Lab below; a link to various files and resources is posted in the resources section of this blog.


(Incidentally, one of the things I always like to mention when I'm introducing myself at presentations is how amazing the PD is on Twitter. The chart on the first slide is a perfect example. Elizabeth Houwen (a math teacher, incidentally) posted it last June, and I thought it would be a great way to get the students to practice unit conversions as well as estimation, and we also got a nice little lab out of it and an anchor chart so they have "reasonable" speeds to compare their answers to. All from one small tweet!)

***

I've been busy converting my drill sheets practice sheets, which I mentioned in my last post) into Google sheets, as well as creating new ones. I'm fairly proud of the chemical nomenclature one (in part because I just found out how to write superscript and subscript numbers in Sheets, so the clunky ^3 _4 notation is mostly gone), but I really want to share the electromagnetic right-hand rules ones.

I made these using the =image() function, which allows you to put an image directly into a cell (and not just overlay the image on top). Unfortunately, you can't use the shared url of images on your Google drive (which is odd and annoying).

I'll probably refine the mixed version so that it's a little more clear what you need to find in each question; I'm not sure a student would recognize immediately that they need to find the direction of the action of the magnet for 1 and the location of the north pole for 6.

You can find these and a lot more randomized practice sheets at my course website; click on the practice sheets link under Resources.

Incidentally, sometime between last December and April, Google changed the formatting of "publish to pdf" for Sheets so that it's landscape instead of portrait. There doesn't seem to be a way to modify this, and it's really mucked up my formatting. Everything is spread over two pages, and don't get me started about what it did to my spectroscopy sheets.

Please let me know if you find these useful!

Group multiple choice tests and DIY scratch cards

Last year while on leave I had the opportunity to watch a live webinar with Eric Mazur on assessment as a silent killer of learning, and I got really excited by one of the ideas he presented. Here's a video of that same lecture; the pertinent section starts at around 41 m 44 s and it's only about 6 minutes long. I recommend watching the whole video some time.

I love this idea. It's like test corrections, but without my having to grade the test first. Because of the nature of the test, the question level should be such that it should be difficult for any one student to get 80% by themselves. Lots of higher-order thinking skills, not so much of the recall.

I was hoping to try this method out with my pre-AP physics class several times this year, but I only got a chance to do it once right at the end in the electromagnetism unit. I opted to go the scratch card route, since coding a trouble-free non-mc group test would take more time and energy than I usually have in May and I also already have a nice bunch of conceptual mc questions (plus some shamelessly pulled from previous OAPT physics contests for extra oomph).

My test was 15 questions long. The students sat around trapezoidal tables in groups of 3-4 more or less based on their (self-chosen) lab groups -- the class is pretty homogeneous so that worked out fairly well grade-wise. I gave them 25 minutes to solve the questions on their own, then put the scratch cards on the tables. I also gave them individual white boards and let them use the blackboards if they wished. [One of my students is mute, and since I didn't let them use their phones, having a personal whiteboard for communicating was crucial.] They had the rest of the period (45 minutes) to redo the test as a group. Difficulty-wise, I tried to err on the side of the test being too easy since it was our first try (and I always tend to think questions are too easy when in reality, not so much).

I have to say, it was a lot of fun to watch. There was cheering. There were groans of agony. Most importantly, there was immediate feedback and learning... and I didn't have to mark it myself. Marks-wise, we went from high 50s to mid-90s, with most marks in the 70s. The marks are a bit lower than this class is used to, but I'm putting that down to it being the last test of the year and having rushed through teaching some of the material. I wound up just adding their individual marks to the group marks and making the whole thing out of 70 (one of the questions was a bit too confusing, so I made it a bonus).

Weirdly, not many of them used the whiteboards. I need to get the students using the whiteboards early and often in class so they are used to thinking things through visually.

I wish I had done this for the post-friction lab quiz. I am thinking that I will adopt this for the multiple-choice sections of future tests; since I'm considering moving to standards-based grading for the calculations/written explanations, I might get the best of both worlds.

On to the slightly more crafty section of the post.

I used 4x6" matte photo cards because I have a huge number of them at home, but you could probably use construction or even regular paper. There is also the online IF-AT test maker, but that is geared towards (very) large groups (minimum 125 cards). To send the cards through the "no, I really only want to print on letter-sized paper and maybe legal if you really insist" school laser printer, I used loops of masking tape to tape the wrong side of the photo card to a scrap piece of letter-sized paper and send it through. Using masking tape is important because it doesn't form an immediate permanent bond like clear tape does; you're less likely to tear the card when you remove it. Painter's tape would be even better for this. I had to experiment to see which side tore less.

Once you've printed your cards and answered them (I used a red checkmark), you make them into scratch cards. How to DIY: some quick Googling brought me to this site. Essentially, you need some clear tape, acrylic paint, dish soap, and a brush.



























You tape over the bubbles, then mix 2 parts paint to 1 part dish soap, and apply. Ideally, you'd apply thin coats so you don't get a lumpy paint job, but frankly the bubbles are so small I don't think it matters. I started by using gold paint but it was taking too long to become opaque -- I got up to 5 coats on my tester cards and you could still see through the paint (on both sides if you held it up to the light), although it's possible I originally had too high a ratio of soap to paint. I added a large dollop of grey paint and presto! I only needed 2 coats to cover my bubbles.

You could make a stencil if you wanted to get really finicky and avoid overpainting; I just scraped off the worst of the excess paint where I could.

I also made scratching tools by cutting up an old plastic membership card. The flat edge was pretty much the size of a bubble, so they wouldn't "accidentally" scratch off part of the wrong bubble. The kids loved scratching off the answers; this would be fun to do as a vocabulary lottery card-type thing or a fun take on a homework pass. And it's reusable!

I'm also going to explore doing this as a computer exercise because multiple choice is great for conceptual questions, but a bit of a pain for calculation exercises. I like that in Mazur's version, the group members' answers come up and that's what they discuss. I'm sure Mazur got someone to code specialty software, but I think it could be done with GAFE tools using a combination of Forms, Sheets, my self-grading quiz tutorial, and the FormRanger add-on. The one difficulty I see is getting the students to write exactly what I put in as an answer, and how to let them know that they need to fix a small issue (say, sig figs or direction) as opposed to having completely the wrong answer.

What other ways could we use scratch cards (physical or computer-based) in class?

Happy accidents

I've been teaching for a good while now, but I'm happy to know that there are still things I can learn, because it keeps me sharp. Also? Happy accidents become teachable moments and an exercise for one class turns into several exercises for three different classes.

I'm always on the lookout for "real-world" examples of math and physics that aren't the usual boring cell phone/well bore/cannon ball stuff. I came across this video of the water fountain at Detroit International Airport and was struck by one image that was filled with different parabolas, thanks to the initial velocity of the water and the perspective of the shot. I turned it into an exercise and assignment for my MCR3U where they had to find the equations of two parabolas, and then the equation of three lines, one which was a secant to one parabola, one which was a tangent to the other, and the third was a secant to one and a tangent to the other.

Naturally, I wanted to modify it for use with my MCF3M class. I came up with an exercise where they find the equations of two parabolas: one in root form and one in vertex form. For their assignment, they'll have to turn each equation into the other form algebraically (plus standard form for good measure).

I tried it out three days ago. To help them prep, I got them to pick the axes and a parabola to look at (noting that each water jet is actually two parabolas). We measured the roots and used the y-intercept to find the a value. Pretty straightforward, and I thought determining the vertex form would be a snap.

Except that when we calculated a, we got a completely different number. Not "we're off by a few decimal places" different, but -0.19 vs -1.1 different. These students are still struggling a bit with vertical stretches and compressions, so a discrepancy like that is not on. 

I asked a colleague to verify my calculations, and he figured out that my calculations were fine. The problem was probably that for the parabola the class chose, the y-intercept and vertex were so close together that a=-1.1 was within the accepted error. I used another point far from the vertex and got a=-0.18. Much better.

[By the way, we I did also make some heinous measurement and calculation mistakes, but since all mistakes I make are intentional (ahem), this just gives me an opportunity to talk about making sure our values make sense. More happy accidents.]

Unfortunately, I had the DLL PD today, so I wrote this all down on the board and hope they got it during today's class. I'll review on Friday when I next see them. They need to have the equations (and domains and ranges) ready for next Thursday's assignment.

That discrepancy is really interesting. I will have to modify this worksheet to tell the students to make sure their points are not too close together. Plus, I may have accidentally stumbled on a realistic way to teach uncertainty in my grade 11 physics class. A happy accident indeed. I'll keep you posted.

Once I get my act together, I'll create a page where I will share my various worksheets and handouts. For now, check out my course webpages (link up top) under "Handouts and Assignments". My class notes for both (all three?) lessons will be posted under the "Notes" section at the end of the month.