#ModChem Day 7

Modeler's Log, Day 7--

The main focus of today was quantifying energy transfer while keeping a strong connection between macroscopic observations of an associated change. In the modeling chemistry curriculum framework, the quantitative treatment of energy is an outstanding pedagogical approach that helps students critically think their way through specific heat and phase change situations instead of having them rely on mere equations and algorithms. Though equations can be used here as part of the problem-solving strategy, they need not be; instead, physical relationships between the quantities of mass, temperature change, specific heat, heat of vaporization/fusion, and energy are the focus and these are grounded in a graphical representation of energy storage and transfer.

This approach is a further development of the qualitative treatment of energy that we introduced on day 6, inspired by cognitive resources for teaching the energy concept. The energy bar charts, a.k.a. LOL diagrams, have been helpful for thinking about the energy transfers in systems, but today we related those transfers to several factors and attained a mathematical model for energy transfer during a temperature change, a melting/freezing phase change, and an evaporating/condensing phase change. The models we used included specific heat and heat of vaporization & heat of fusion. Many of the participants noted that they "would not cover thermochemistry topics like this until well into the second semester," but expressed appreciation for being able to fit it in sequence with the development of our chemistry model so early in the curriculum year. 

We deployed our models on some practice problems and reasoned our way to solutions on whiteboards before presenting to the class. We kept our problem-solving approach in terms of our model and connected what we were doing to what we had seen in lab already. That meant utilizing a heating or cooling curve to represent what was happening in the problem as a basis for our problem-solving. Dealing with thermochemistry problems by connecting heating/cooling curves to energy bar graphs and to the equations, made it much more manageable to think through the problem and minimize errors. Take this example problem where an 140g of water cools from 75 degrees Celsius down to 25 degrees Celsius. We solved this problem by first drawing a cooling curve to represent the situation, determining what type of energy transfer mechanism was at hand (temperature change or phase change) and then applying the correct relationship between the given quantities and the energy using the specific heat of water.

Other groups worked through problems that involved phase changes and the energy associated with that transfer, while other groups treated problems that had both a temperature change and a phase change. This allowed us to see how the heat of fusion/vaporization and specific heat could be dealt with in a modeling approach. We all agreed by the end that this would minimize the confusion of symbols and equations that some students encounter when trying to determine what to do to solve a complex problem of energy transfer in introductory thermochemistry units.

We discussed several ideas for lab experiments in which students could determine or work with specific heat for water as well as the heat of fusion. Though we did not complete an experiment of this type in our session, many teachers had one in their arsenal to fall back upon in their classroom. Many are available online, and some require very low-tech setups. One take home message that came from all our experimentation, practice and discussion was that you can only measure energy transfers, not energy storage, and we should emphasize that with students.

We started on unit 4, which deals with the physical properties of matter, and we launched into a discussion of such properties in tandem with a short movie on sulfur and iron in a mixture vs. a compound. After listing the physical properties that we had as part of our model thus far, e.g., boiling point, melting, point density, heat capacity, and heat of fusion/vaporization, it was on to defining a mixture vs. a substance and then separating a mixture of several substances based on their physical properties. We introduced the new physical property of solubility and differentiated mixtures that were homogeneous from heterogeneous; we examined mixtures that were in both the solid and the liquid state. The exploration into physical properties introduced us to several separation techniques, including gravity filtration, distillation, and chromatography. This start of the fourth unit went on with formally defining and differentiating between a compound and a mixture, and then with constructing particle representations of each.

Once we had assimilated compounds and mixtures into our model with the proper particle representations of each, it was on to begin quantifying this new component of our model using ratios. For example, in water, we know there are twice as many hydrogen particles compared to oxygen particles. (*Note: at this point the term "atom" has still not be formally added to the lexicon of our model.)  We examined empirical evidence for the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water, building upon our model as it pertained to gases, with a Hoffman apparatus demonstration of electrolyzing water.

Abstracting from this new evidence for ratios and the aspects of our model that pertained to gases and observations from the electrolysis of water, we reasoned our way to Avogadro's hypothesis. There were numerous steps in the process of getting students to arrive at this as well as at the conclusion that there must be diatomic elemental gases, but to enumerate them here would not capture the essence of the modeling approach to developing this part of the model. However, by the end of the day, we had arrived at the law of definite proportions, and almost all of Dalton's atomic theory. Following the development through a historical perspective has given me an entirely new outlook on the history of chemistry, which is sometimes glossed over in a fact-based manner, and is influencing how I will teach chemistry in the future.

For an online interactive way to experience some of what we went through in the workshop today, you can check out Dalton's Playhouse--or, you could always take a modeling chemistry workshop!

#ModChem Day 6

Modeler's Log, Day 6--

The second week started off with just as much energy as the first.

We started off with a hearty discussion of Testing for Conceptual Understanding in General Chemistry by Craig W. Bowen and Diane Bunce. This was perhaps our best article-based discussion thus far in the workshop. The article dealt with misconceptions in chemistry that have been elucidated by a number of researchers on the topic as well as assessment strategies to address misconceptions.
We were prompted to decide how we will change our assessments in the future to reflect our knowledge of misconceptions. There was a tremendous exchane in which participants discussed many great ideas, including:

• Assessments for measuring individual progress (summative assessments and formative assessments) vs. measuring whole group progress (Modeling chemistry's Assessment of Basic Chemistry Concepts, ABCC) 
• Paired or linked questions (like on the ABCC) or the sets of questions where the second question depends on answer to first 
• Open-ended constructed response questions instead of mere multiple choice questions 
• Conceptual questions vs. algorithmic questions 
• To allow/permit test-corrections or reassessments and the value of learning from mistakes on tests 
• Writing "good" or plausible distractors that address different misconceived lines of thinking and rules of assessment question writing 
• Test questions often ask for critical thinking from students, but if teachers don't provide opportunities for students to practice critical thinking during class, then the assessment isn't fair 
• When we "teach" something in class and then assess something similar, but only to find that the students weren't able to do it, we as educators conclude: "the students weren't able to do..." instead of "what did I the teacher do that led to this?" 
• Do conceptual questions or explanatory open-ended and constructed response questions "hurt" students who have language issues? 
• In the "real world," people have resources and life-lines, why don't we provide those parameters more in a classroom assessment setting? 
• Teaching to a test vs. teaching to standards (when to create/generate your assessment: before teaching or after teaching?)

After this rich discussion, we moved on to a lab--the most EXCITING lab of the year--the water heating curve lab.We took some ice in a beaker and heated it through changes of state and temperature changes until it boiled. This lab took quite some time, but since we had so much fun doing it, we forgot about the time. 

Here is the lab, condensed in to about a minute and a half through stop-motion animation video:

 
After debriefing the lab on the heating of water through temperature and phase changes, we arrived at a representation for the energy storage and transfer in in the system that represented the changes that were taking place. We were able to infer that though energy was constantly being transferred from the hot plate to the water in the beaker, when the temperature wasn't changing the energy was still being transferred somewhere. The destination of the energy transfer was the distance between the particles (the arrangement of the particles) represented by the Eph, or energy of phase. This was contrasted by the regions of the curve where there was a temperature change, and in that case we recognized that the energy was being transferred to the energy associated with the particles' motion (thermal energy.) 

Our exploration into energy transfers and storage moved from there to constructing a representation of the storage and transfer of energy using bar graphs, fondly referred to as "LOL" diagrams. These diagrams provide students a visual way to describe the energy stored in a system and transferred between a system and its surroundings. This handy and cognitive way of representing energy prevents energy from being vague to students and provides a way for them to think through situations and problems involving energy quantification and transfer.

Once we had a way to represent energy, it was on to represent the energy storage and transfer in the heating of water experiment using bar charts. The LOL diagrams were connected to points on the heat curve and this allowed us to see what was happening with the energy, more transparently, during the different stages of the heating of water. For some background on the treatment of energy in the modeling approach, see Larry Dukerich's presentation on a coherent treatment of energy.

After learning how to treat energy in different situations, we deployed our model for representing energy storage and transfer on the corresponding unit homework worksheets. Then, we whiteboarded and discussed some problems and their solutions. By the end, we had a pretty strong understanding of how to represent energy in a variety of settings.

#ModChem Day 5

Modeler's Log, Day 5--

At the end of our first week of the chemistry modeling workshop, we have learned a ton about teaching, learning, chemistry content, and ourselves as educators. Though we didn't read an article for today to discuss, our session began with a very poignant discussion nonetheless.

With regard to my Day 4 summary, our instructor noted that my recap of the day had conflated the mechanics of a thermometer, barometer, and manometer. Upon pointing out my error and talking through it briefly, I realized that what I had written did not, in fact, reflect what I thought but rather what I had observed in class. A demonstration of expansion was done with water and ethanol in test tubes the day before, where each was heated in a water bath and the liquid expanded up a glass tube. During class, we concluded that the liquid expanded due to a transfer of energy from heating, but we noticed that when the instructor sealed the stoppers on the test tubes (thus applying some pressure to the inside of the tube) the liquid also traveled up the glass tube. Mixing these two ideas together led to the confusion that a thermometer worked because of gas pressure and not thermal expansion.

The discussion was very important, because it elucidated that our instructor even runs into the same conflation of ideas with her own high school students after doing this unit and was unable to identify the etiology of the misunderstanding. After seeing that we participants could fall victim to the same misunderstanding, and through a discussion of what happened that led to that misunderstanding, we identified that there was a sequence which may be at fault. We learned thermal expansion in liquids, equated that to thermometers, defined and discussed gas pressure, and moved right on to working with barometers and manometers in one continuous quick sequence. These measuring tools can all appear very similar at a superficial glance and without a dedicated treatment to their subtle differences, including the openness or closedness of the system, it is easy to mismatch how each works. We finished the discussion with a clarification of the way that each measuring device works and brainstormed ways to ensure that students leave this unit with the proper understanding of how each works.

It's critically important that teachers be aware (and clairvoyant, if possible) of the misunderstandings and pitfalls that exist for students when learning certain ideas in the content. This is an element of what is known as pedagogical content knowledge, and sets mere content experts apart from master teachers of a content area. This was a prime example of an area that requires special attention to detail to ensure that students construct the correct model for how each, a thermometer, barometer, and manometer, works.

We moved into a review of the relationships we learned through experimentation the day prior, between gas pressure, gas volume, gas temperature, and number of particles of a gas. We took our developed model of the relationships between these quantities and deployed it on some hypothetical problems on a homework worksheet. Each pair of students attended to one of the homework problems and whiteboarded their solution to present to the class. The catch to this whiteboarding session was that we were to participate in the "Mistake Game" as we constructed our whiteboards. This is where you intentionally embed a mistake into your board but present it as if it is correct. The other students in the class must try to decode the mistake you made. I personally like to call this game, "What's Up With That Whiteboard," after the popular SNL skit. All the participants did a great job feigning ignorance during the whiteboard session with their mistakes while others were quite the sleuths in elucidating the mistakes.

Our whiteboard session, and pretty much the remainder of the day, consisted of two other major ideas: Socratic dialogue and a cognitive approach to solving P, V, T, & n problems (without formulas.) The former of these two ideas is essential to the modeling instructional methodology, while the latter is specific to the pedagogical content knowledge of chemistry.

Socratic dialogue is a method of discourse-based instruction that has its roots in philosophy. It is attributed to Socrates, who is noted for teaching through dialogue with individuals in his time and area. Socrates' dialogues are famous works studied in universities and philosophy courses around the world. Modern day Socratic dialogue, or Socratic discourse, can be applied in any content area by any teacher, but serves a main role in the discourse of modeling instructors' classrooms. To get a sense of Socratic dialogue in a philosophical sense, you can check out this inquiry into the nature of authenticity. Every participant in a modeling workshop needs to be keen at crafting questions that are differentiated enough to target specific misunderstandings at a variety of different levels in the scheme of a learning progression for every student in a way that appeals to their their experiences as well. Our instructor is masterful at Socratic dialogue and questioning technique. She has demonstrated some top-rate approaches to questioning and dialogue; in week 2, the participants will be on the hot seat to practice their question and play the role of teacher with the rest of the participants during a whiteboarding session. Many have expressed concern with their ability to execute a successful Socratic dialogue in the modeling methodology in their own classroom, but it is really a matter of practice and it comes naturally with time to everyone who attempts it.

The other idea that came up during whiteboarding was our problem-solving methodology for attacking the P, V, T, & n problems without equations/formulas. This was done using a special table, deemed an "IFE table" for PVTn problems. Though the table has algorithmic appearance, it is not an algorithm (an "if I see this, then I do this" step-wise approach to problem-solving.) This table is a cognitive approach to approaching gas law problems based on proportional reasoning and keeping students focused on the relationships between the variables, which arose from our lab data in the experiments, rather than merely "plugging" numbers into an equation. Here is an example:

A 475 cm3 sample of gas at standard temperature and pressure is allowed to expand until it occupies a volume of 600 cm3.  What temperature would be needed to return the gas to standard pressure? Draw particle diagrams to represent the situation and solve.

The table is difficult to describe in words, but I will say that IFE stands for "initial, final, effect" and requires students to consider the initial and final conditions, which is common with the formula-based approach, but also the fraction by which each quantity changes. This step differs from other equation-based methods to solving gas law problems, because the students focus on the relationships and the fact that the proportional effect must be the same for each quantity. Like I said, because it is not an algorithm, it is challenging to merely "name the steps" of this strategy as it is with conventional algorithms; however, I will say that one cannot use this method to solve problems without having to think through the problem and really understand the relationships between the variables. It was a very different approach to solving gas law problems and I really found value in it because of its cognitive approach to proportional reasoning. My own personal philosophy on problem-solving strategies is anti-algorithm and pro-cognitive whenever possible, so this method will find a welcoming home in my classroom!

The conclusion of the whiteboarding session ended unit two for us, but the day did not end without a short introductory discussion of unit three: "an honest conversation about energy." Unit three will examine energy storage and transfer more quantitatively, but its approach to handling energy, like most other things in modeling instruction, is heavily influenced by cognitive science. The major contributions of Greg Swackhamer, with his article on a cognitive approach to teaching energy, are a driving force behind the treatment of energy in physics and chemistry modeling instruction. We are reading the entire article by Swackhamer to discuss next week.

Overall, the first week was tremendous and such a positive experience. The next two weeks hold many more things for us to learn, but if these first days are any indication, the remaining days will also be awesome!

So that you might have a taste of where this is all going, I leave you with the following question to consider:

What is energy and how would you explain it to someone?

#ModChem Day 4

Modeler's Log, Day 4 --

This modeling chemistry business keeps getting better and better! Today, the focus moved us more into the motion of particles and factors associated with their motion.

We read and discussed an article by Bruce Alberts called Restoring Science to Science Education, where Alberts talks from a scientist's perspective on how science education (in the lecture-demo based traditional approach) is a caricature of real science. We discussed Alberts notion that poor science instruction turns students away from science careers and does not teach them understanding. He blames the standards movement, which gave rise to the high-stakes standardized tests, that exerts a subliminal force on education to teach to the test. He proposed revamping and simplifying the educational standards to four main strands for science education; similarly, he outlined a four-point plan for improving science education at the national level.

We identified ways that we, as classroom teachers, could take part in Albert's plan, or parts of it. Many of us agreed with points in Albert's article, as it is a similar concern that we in the modeling workshop have about traditional science education--it looks very little like doing science--we are here training to be better science educators in order to provide a more authentic science experience for our students. With the current move toward delineating the Next Generation Science Standards, we could all relate to what Albert was saying. One important final point that came up was related to Albert's position as a biologist talking about education. His opinion in this article is fairly well known and respected; however, had he been an educator, would his ideas have been taken as seriously by readers?

It is essential that modeling workshops have a scholarly literature review component. Without the discussion of the ideas and background that motivate a move toward a different approach to teaching science, we are not fully embracing the modeling instruction for all that it is. To change for the mere sake of change, or to "try out modeling" simply because it "sounds" good is not enough--we need to have the full picture and a better understanding of what it's all about. This is why I find it so important to reflect on the articles and take their discussion into consideration in my recap of the workshop day.

After the productive and constructive discussion of the article, it was on to labs! We picked things up with the difference in particle motion we observed with the red and blue colored food dye in different temperatures of water at the end of day 3. We surmised that warmer particles must move faster based on the evidence we saw. This was the springboard point for what we did today.

Interesting side note, I had a thoughtful exchange with Brian Vancil (@bvancil) on Twitter yesterday about this very demonstration. He took note of the video I posted depicting the food coloring in water and presented some additional factors that could influence particle motion. The exchange was so moving that he recreated the experiment under different conditions to try and isolate the system as best he could to show the effect of temperature (without influence of other factors) on motion of particles. Just goes to show how useful of a tool Twitter can actually be for teachers to think through ideas for lessons together. Thanks Brian!!

Ok, back to the action of the day.

We examined the nature of the motion of particles in solids, liquids, and gases. This extended into demonstrations of changes of state and considerations of the energy transfer involved in those processes. Expansion and contraction were ideas introduced in this discussion, and those terms became helpful in understanding how thermometers work. Observing what happened in this demonstration of ethanol (green) and water (yellow) being heated led us to get a sense of how expansion had to do with temperature.

A formal definition for pressure was established, also through discussion demonstration, and we came to use "pressure" as a means of explaining what was happening in the situation of drinking through a straw.

 Our instructor "crushed" a soda for us and we discussed changes in the pressure, volume, and temperature of the can. After observing this can crushing phenomenon, which rarely fails to impress, we were prompted to consider factors that might affect gas pressure. In a classic inquiry-style experiment, our instructor led us to determine what factors we thought might affect gas pressure, determine which we were able to directly measure given our equipment, and to then decide which measurable factors we could compare to pressure. Our group narrowed it down to volume, temperature, & amount of gas.

It's important to point out that no introduction of the term molecule or atom has been made yet, and the phrase "amount of gas," which is colloquial for moles (n,) is intuitive enough to the untrained student that they can use it without having to know anything about moles.

After determining what we were going to compare, we designed three experiments that we carried out using Vernier lab sensors and high-tech equipment. We compared pressure to volume by pulling a syringe to varying volumes while attached to a pressure sensor. The handheld Vernier LabQuest recorded our data for us and I then plotted it in Graphical Analysis for iPad. Since all the relationships we have seen up to this point have been linear, we first tried a linear fit. It didn't look so good, so we tried other fits until one...fit--inversely proportional. Though we were encountering this for the first time in class during this lab, it was pretty clear to understand what it meant in the context of the lab.

The other two labs (Pressure v. Temperature and Pressure v. Amount of Gas) also took place in similar fashion using similar equipment. We graphed our data and looked for relationships. Through lab debrief, we arrived at three different relationships, all showing factors that affect pressure of a gas. The data collection for these labs took a while. The debrief was so critical to our model building that it also took a while. The day ended with lab debrief. We learned the difference between a direct (y=mx+b) relationship and a directly proportional (y=mx) one. Then, the most interesting thing happened after we learned that the difference between these relationship types while looking at the graph of Pressure v. Temperature. We reasoned that this relationship had to have a y-intercept value, because we all know you can have particle motion at zero degrees (e.g., very cold temperatures.)

So, we speculated about what the trend would be if we were able to get the temperature colder, and colder...and colder. We used the mathematical model for the graph of Pressure v. Temperature to determine how far back the temperature would go before there was no more gas pressure, e.g., when  the molecules would stop moving, colliding, and exerting pressure. Guess what! It turned out in our data that the Celsius temperature at which we predicted particles would stop moving was about -272 degrees! Our teacher suggested we take that difference into account and re-plot, what she called, the absolute temperature and pressure. When we did, the relationship came out to be directly proportional. I had an epiphany at this point! Though I was already sold on modeling instruction, this really impressed me.

My epiphany was that we were giving students authentic experience and empirical evidence to deduce absolute zero temperature and arrive at a physical meaning of it. This is important for two reasons to me: 1) it is imperative that students have a context with which they experience the learning and construct it on their own if they are to understand it fully, and 2) I always knew what absolute zero was, I even know the graphical explanation of it--I remember learning it from my chemistry teaching telling me in high school and I always felt that I "understood" it; HOWEVER, today when we did that lab and I saw the extrapolation to absolute zero based on our lab data...I realized that I in fact had no genuine sense for what it meant prior to today. I was able to bypass my own retrograde amnesia and have an authentic learning experience in the modeling workshop with the content just as the students would. This fascinated me and reaffirmed my belief in the success of modeling instruction.

Any teacher could show their students the graphs of the relationships to gas pressure, and any teacher could tell their students about absolute zero--it's a term students have heard and do use; however, providing a context in which the students can uncover this information for themselves in the scheme of their own model for the particles of matter and arrive at an understanding of the relationships and the significance of absolute zero (and eventually the Kelvin temperature scale)...priceless!

#ModChem Day 3

Modeler's Log, Day 3 --

We had a special guest speaker today from Corning, Inc., which is the world leader in specialty glass and ceramics. You may have some of their products in your household! We met with a representative from Corning who gave us an overview of what they do, how they have a need for good "home-grown" scientists, and that they believe best practice science instruction is critical in obtaining that talent. Corning, Inc. graciously funded our modeling workshop and continues to support the work of the modeling instruction program year after year. Thanks Corning!!!

Today we brought unit one, the particle model of matter, to a close. Our instructor, Tammy Gwara, is top-notch and has been really doing an awesome job for us. Was there ever a ton of great stuff packed into today's workshop itinerary! Let's see if I can catch it all...

We started out the day with our critique of a scholarly article. This article, by Dorothy Gabel, was about improving teaching and learning in chemistry through education research. It was written in 1999 and tried to foreshadow the future of learning in the 21st century as well. It was an excellent article that was grounded in extensive research on misconceptions and cognitive science. Our group handled some of the points of the article really well:

• Making the connections between multiple representations more transparent & accessible for students
• Three-fold model of representing chemistry: macro, sub-micro, and symbolic
• Most teachers spend the majority of their teaching time in symbolic mode, but students aren't always able to work in symbolic mode because it has no meaning without proper context
• Information processing model (see Fig. 1)

But some participants are still finding it tough to keep focused on the article, and it is detracting from what we are there to do. Some offer anecdotes of what they do in their (soon to be former) traditional-style chemistry classrooms and then comment on each others' anecdotes. Keep in mind that if you came to take a workshop on a new way of teaching chemistry (modeling instruction,) chances are that continuing to talk about your traditional classroom approach and lecture-based instruction isn't helping you get the most out of the workshop.

Business picked up after that with our gas collection lab next. We set out to see if we could determine the density of a gas produced by dropping alka-seltzer tablets in water. We had to work to devise an apparatus to collect and measure the gas volume and mass. This was a tough lab to get right; there were many small sources of error and places to make mistakes.


We again took class data of mass and volume points to find the density of the gas produced in the experiment using a graphical analysis and derivation of a mathematical model to represent our data. The linear relationship allowed us to easily determine the density of the gas.




Then it was on to comparing the densities of a solid, liquid, and a gas. We compared them using particle diagrams and a couple of interesting things came out of this presentation of whiteboards and debrief. Groups fell into two schools of thought: 1) differences in densities between the states of matter are a result of the number of particles distributed in the volume, and 2) the differences were a result of the size (mass) of the particles in the volume. We had to pick one, the other, or some combination of both for our accepted model to arrive at consensus. In student-mode, we came up with these ideas, but in teacher-mode we talked it out and realize that the latter explanation implies that different substances are made of particles having different masses. This was astonishing to us, because we weren't intending that implication when we drew what we did on the whiteboards. Our instructor led us to see that this is how students will be able to uncover that each element has its own mass.

Following this lab debrief that led us to consider size and distribution of particles, we moved on to deploy our model again on a new problem. We were challenged to find the thickness of a layer of regular aluminum foil and one of "heavy duty" in cm using a ruler, a balance, and given the density of aluminum. This lab forced participants to really think about their problem-solving process. Each group approached the problem in the same way, as it turned out, but the debrief was something we didn't see coming--it took us in a completely unforeseen direction (how many particles thick is the layer.) This turned out to be around 55,000. Finally, using our thickness data, we were guided to abstract an approximation for the minimum and maximum size of a particle (atom) of the substance in our lab (aluminum.) 

The secondary outcomes of our labs were mind-blowing today. Having students be able to abstract that particles of different substances have different masses and be able to estimate the size of a particle of a substance is just incredible. Any other approach would simply just tell them those "cold hard facts," but someone had to discover it somehow at some time, didn't they? So, why can't our students think like famous chemists? This led into a discussion of the relative size of particles compared to items within our scale factor of understanding by common experience. It's tough to fathom the microscopic, but students often misjudge how small particles (atoms) are based on some prior science instruction or textbook in elementary school. For example, do you know how many particles (atoms) of carbon would fit inside the period at the end of a sentence?

We proceeded to discuss how we might help students appreciate the scale of the atomic universe and the particles we have been investigating. This is something that can be helped by computer simulations. The scale of the universe applet and now the version 2.0 were created by two teenagers. Go ahead, check these out--you'll thank me later!

This brought us to a close with unit one, the particle model of matter. We were tasked with summarizing the model thus far in its development using only pictures and symbols on a whiteboard. These storyboards, or summary boards, can be a great graphic organizer for students. And if pictures are taken of the boards and they are made available for reference later online, students can go back to their model summary boards to help them in future model development. Here's an example:

Getting right into unit two, we were shown two events and asked to make observations and explain what we observed using our current iteration of our model. The two events were: 1) opening a freshly popped bag of popcorn in the doorway of the room and determining when each person could smell the aroma, and 2) watching two different food colorings get dropped into equal-volumes of water, one hot and the other cold. Everyone had to storyboard what they thought was happening at the particle level in both situations. The two had a lot in common; however, in the situation of popcorn smell, no one represented the particles that make up air, but everyone considered the particles of water in their depictions of the food coloring in the flasks.

Our discussion of the two situations moved in the direction of considering now the motion of particles and the need to talk about energy in our model. Our session broke at that point, and I'm looking forward to our discussion of energy tomorrow. It will likely be eye-opening for most, because energy is such an illusory concept to everyone, even some of the most advanced content experts. From my physics modeling experience, I know that the treatment of energy is one of the BEST elements of modeling instruction and chemistry treats energy similarly in their model.

And finally, during our debrief of the day, several important points came up about the modeling classroom that I would like to enumerate here:

• Language we use as teachers is doesn't mean very much to students, because our words used to talk about a concept are based on our experience and level of knowledge. Since students' experience is different than teachers', we cannot expect that even the best lecturer will be very effective in communicating much more than memorable facts. Give students the opportunity to construct their knowledge using their lexicon and in talking with each other. After all, scientists share findings and discuss with one another in a peer-review setting, why should science students?
• Textbooks for chemistry classes are written for people who already know the story; they put forth facts without much justification and encourage readers to ascertain knowledge based on trust of the author. Textbooks are just like PowerPoints, and "PowerPoints are boring" (Dwight Shrute.) For an introductory level course in chemistry, authentic experience is a far better teacher than a textbook. 
• Make the teaching & learning process more transparent to students, because student perceptions of process affect their performance with it. If students are left to presume things about the process, they might make misjudgments about it and develop a negative attitude toward what they don't understand. This can be done with mini-modeling activities (such as height vs. wingspan of students) where students develop a model and are asked at different points in the process, "why do you think we did this?" Cognitive dissonance will arise in students early in the year with modeling instruction if it is their first experience with it. They need to know that what they are feeling is natural and it is okay. Helping them see the process and motivation behind what we do helps garner buy-in from them and calm their nerves.
• Building relationships in the modeling classroom is essential to being able to do modeling instruction. Early in the year, you can do class activities that bring students together and create a positive classroom culture where they feel safe to take intellectual leaps without harsh judgement. 

Again, this day was especially packed with lots of good stuff, and I hope that I captured it all in essence here. Look for a follow-up on building relationships in the modeling classroom soon.

#ModChem Day 2

Modeler's Log, Day 2 --

Things really picked up the pace today, for real. From my experience with modeling instruction in physics, I was waiting for a day like today. It was filled with two labs, scholarly article review, whiteboard debriefs of labs, discussion of proportional reasoning, and whiteboarding homeworks. I've been taking photos of boards and happenings in class and posting them, not to mention copious live-tweeting during the workshop of all the good stuff I can type into 140 characters!


We set out in the lab where we were comparing the measured volume (mL) of water in a container of regular shape to the calculated volume (cubic-cm.) The four lab groups each took five data points for the water volume and plotted their measured volume vs. calculated volume on a whiteboard, determined the slope of their line of best-fit and derived a mathematical model to represent the relationship between the two volumes.
 

 
 Through whiteboard debriefing of the lab, the class (in student-mode, of course) arrived at the relationship between volume units of milliliters and cubic centimeters. To many untrained eyes, this relationship might seem trivial and about a three-second direct instructional accomplishment; however, the beauty of the modeling cycle to arrive at this relationship achieved so much more than just a mere fact (that of the unit relationship) that could never be obtained through traditional instructional methods.

In the modeling cycle students achieve a number of additional learning outcomes that are of varying depths. In the lab we did on water volume, several things arose organically out of our experimental process and data interpretation. For example, uncertainty in measurement, lab error, precision and accuracy, significant figures, plotting data, taking measurements with lab instruments, how to find a physical meaning of a slope on a graph, presenting findings to others, discussing experimental findings to arrive at consensus, and how to write an equation for a physical relationship (not a simple algebraic y = mx + b.) All of these points are secondary learning outcomes that arise from the way the instruction takes place. Traditionally, each of these points would be treated separately in varying degree without much context and only to be taken for the word of the teacher as fact. When students arrive at these secondary learning outcomes it is out of necessity. That means, significant figures becomes...meaningful to them! All of the secondary outcomes become meaningful since they were first experienced in an authentic context, the experiment. How cool is that!?

After the lab, we moved on to discussing an article by Ronald Gillespie (1997), called "The Great Ideas of Chemistry," where the argument is made to make introductory level chemistry curricula (at the undergraduate level) consist of six fundamental ideas:

1. Atoms, Molecules and Ions - The building blocks of matter
2. The Chemical Bond - Atoms are held together in molecules and crystals by electrostatic forces.
3. Molecular Shape and Geometry - Atoms and molecules are held together in molecules and crystals in well-defined geometric arrangements.
4. The Kinetic Theory - Atoms and molecules are always moving.
5. The Chemical Reaction - Atoms in molecules and crystals can be rearranged to form new molecules and crystals.
6. Energy and Entropy - The extent to which physical changes and chemical reactions proceed is controlled by accompanying energy and entropy changes.

After a short break to set up for the next lab, we were right back into student-mode investigating the relationship between mass and volume. Any guesses where this is going? This lab put us into a situation where we had to problem solve how to find the mass and volume of these small metal cylinders that were not quite regular cylinders. With the help of water displacement and a triple-beam balance (who uses those anymore anyway!?) and some coffee, we were able to find the mass and volume of these little metal pieces to compare. And compare we did...as a class! Each group compiled their data into one large set and every group then used LoggerPro (an essential piece of software for any science classroom) to graph the data and derive a mathematical model (equation) for the relationship. I chose to try out the new Graphical Analysis app for iPad on this one and see how plotting the data might work. It worked really well!

We whiteboarded our data, derived an equation, and presented our data to the class. Funny thing is, the teacher didn't tell us which axis should have which measurement; so, we got different answers--ruh roh! Through class discussion, we were able to arrive at consensus, determine the physical meaning of the slope of our curve to be density, and use our particle model to explain what we saw. The particle model pervades the subsequent units as each model builds on the previous model. Our whiteboards came in two flavors: graphs of density, and graphs of specific volume.

   

After we used lab data and a graph to arrive at consensus about a density model, it was on to deploying our model on some homework problems. I love density as a concept and love teaching desnity to my students. I was really excited with how this played out and saw how it would fit in with my own previous approach. In groups, we worked on homework problems and then each group was assigned two of the eight problems to whiteboard and present. The student-mode of all the participants in the workshop really came alive in the homework whiteboarding, because they all embedded student-like mistakes into their solutions and explanations. Through discussion, students convinced students of what the correct way to approach a problem would be based on our current model.

The day ended by pre-lab planning for a density of a gas lab we will do tomorrow and our traditional end-of-the-day debrief. The debrief was great. We discussed things like how to pace lessons and labs and how to help students transfer their mathematical knowledge to the science context. Our workshop leader did an awesome job addressing all the questions. We talked at-length about proportional reasoning and how to strengthen that in students who aren't already strong with the skill. We examined our whiteboarding techniques and asked questions about how it might work with high school students. I noticed that we, as a group, are still getting used to being students in this workshop. It is difficult for teachers to get out of their 'teaching mode' and become learners, in the genuine sense. We tend toward offering our own expertise, personal commentaries and anecdotes, because that's what we are used to doing; however, we need to discuss what is at hand, learn from the workshop leader, and embrace modeling. After all, nobody likes a know-it-all.

Today's workshop activities really elucidated the nature of the modeling instruction pedagogy for everyone. There is no more 'sage on the stage' in this teaching, only 'guide by the side.' I really think that modeling instruction makes you the Mr. Miyagi of science teaching, and teachers can learn a lot from the way he taught Daniel-san.

#ModChem Day 1

Modeler's Log, Day 1 --

The workshop started out, as I anticipated, with introductions. Everyone had their perfunctory 30 seconds of fame to talk about their career, life, and hallmark accomplishments. We all go through this as a means of starting workshops or conferences, and so no surprises there.

Our group has two dozen teachers from various levels and from all over the country. I was thoroughly impressed with all the introductions, because of the high level of accomplishment that so many described. "I'm Gary, and I am from Detroit...(*audience gasps internally)...well, not exactly Detroit proper, but a city next to Detroit that isn't as well known. I teach physics in Grosse Pointe and I took the modeling physics workshop three years ago and have been hooked ever since. I am married, have two dogs, and I like to run."

After introductions, we were right into things. Without much hesitation, our workshop leader described the format of the workshop, how "student-mode" would be expected throughout most of the day and that we were going to get started with an experiment shortly thereafter. I was so pumped to get down to business, I could hardly wait!

Student-mode is a way of running a teaching workshop whereby the participants simulate the role of their own students and the workshop leader demonstrates the teacher's role. This allows for a more authentic-feeling experience than just traditional presentations.

We went into student mode and started making observations about a demonstration the teacher did. "What do you notice about the flame?" she asked. You can see the demo for yourself here. What do you notice?

The next question, after the demo concluded, was to describe what was happening inside of the can at "the smallest level possible." These vague directions are purposeful in the modeling approach, because they leave enough open-ended room for variation in responses that the students can arrive at an understanding in a variety of ways. There is no one-size fits all answer usually in this method.

What we discussed from all of our student observations of the demo and speculations of what might be happening led us to conclude that we don't have a good way of describing what happened without mentioning tiny pieces of matter inside the can, which we referred to as particles. At the large-scale level, there is no good explanation of the observed event, and so the need for describing things in terms of particles, comes up organically with the students in this manner.

The rest of the day followed from that initial discussion by trying to describe what we thought was happening at the 'particle level' in several situations. Other situations we explored today focused on comparing the mass of a sample before and after some change took place. For example, we combined two clear liquids and it created a new clear liquid that had white "floaties" at the bottom. The mass, however, was unchanged, and we represented this (and five other situations) with particle diagrams on whiteboards that we presented and discussed as a group. In the end, we determined that the mass stayed the same because the particles didn't "go away" they just moved around.

We took a similar approach in the second part of the day, where we looked at (in a similar way) volume of regular solid shapes and also liquids. By the end of the day we had simulated nearly two-weeks worth of high school content according to the modeling curriculum framework. We looked at a sequence of documents that serve as unit material templates (worksheets, quizzes, tests) to go along with the particle-view of matter. The end of the day was an hour of Q&A back in teacher-mode. We debriefed what we saw all day and what we had been wondering all along.

I was really pleased with the format of the workshop and how quickly we got our hands wet, literally!

Some reflections from what we did and what I saw today:

• Teachers have a tough time remembering what it was like to be a student, regardless of time post-high school or college.

This was described to me by a colleague, mentor, and recent PAEMST award winner, Don Pata, as retrograde amnesia, which is where we forget what it was like to not know something in the past. For teachers, it is essential to overcome this in order to be better educators.

• Modeling instruction is such the antithesis of traditional style instruction that traditionalist teachers (and traditionalist teachers who were also good traditional learners) that initially it threatens what we as educators instinctively conceive teaching to be and so we are hesitant to embrace modeling instruction. By the end of the day, you could see that some had been sold and others were well on their way. I can remember when I was sold on it myself, and I enjoy watching others have that epiphany too.

• All of our traditional concerns with teaching, such as covering content just to cover it, homework, student engagement, student interest in the subject matter, and many other common "complaints" erode away under the use of modeling pedagogy.

• Effective questioning should come not just when students get lost or in trouble with their understanding but also when they get it right or need to be challenged to solidify their thinking.

• Showing and telling is not teaching, thought it looks like it could be teaching to some. Learning needs to be experiential and constructed for each student; the teacher's role is a 'guide on the side' instead of a 'sage on the stage' who puts students through a learning cycle of sorts that lets them construct their learning.

• The chemical model development sequence follows very naturally from the way the model of the atom and modern chemistry were developed throughout history, all the meanwhile it preserves a coherent treatment of matter and energy without reducing chemistry to simple algorithms that can be used by students to 'fake it to make it' without actually gaining understanding.

Many other important points came up today, and I am making a conscious effort to live tweet during the day. You can check out #modchem to see more ideas from the workshop today and over the next three weeks. I'm looking forward to seeing where this all takes us over the next few weeks, but even just today has me sold on using this in my chemistry teaching in the future. It's tough to reproduce the experience in words, you just have to try and see it for yourself sometime if you can. In the meantime, find some resources online and talk to teachers in your local area or PLN for more information.

An Experience With Modeling Instruction & #ModChem

Today was the first day of my chemistry modeling workshop at Mansfield University in Mansfield, PA. I have been really looking forward to this workshop for a while. Actually, I have been looking forward to taking the chemistry modeling workshop since I took the physics workshop at Arizona State University a few years ago. The word "workshop" doesn't really do it justice though, because it is three weeks long, every day for eight hours straight. It's fundamentally a graduate-level course in science pedagogy, but it's formatted in such a way that anyone can sign up to take it, regardless of enrollment in a graduate program.

Modeling instruction is something with which I have had a long history, both as a student and now as an educator. I took physics in high school with a teacher who taught using the modeling methodology. It was a unique experience when compared to my other science courses, but I gained a lot as a learner from that experience, though not all of it was painless. Now, in my teaching, I naturally gravitated toward an approach that was student-centered for some reason, but didn't have a formal way to enumerate a process for accomplishing what I wanted in my classroom. Then, serendipitously, I wound up teaching in Arizona in my first year teaching. Among my department members were four other teachers, three of whom used modeling instruction as their pedagogy in physics, physical science, and chemistry.

I was quickly introduced to the modeling method from a teacher point-of-view working there. It was a baptism by fire, as a matter of fact, because I had to teach that way to keep consistent with the other classes of the same subject; however, I didn't have a way of knowing what to do. They supported me very well and built me up as a fledgling modeler. I worked closely with a teaching mentor who showed me the ropes, but eventually said I "had to take the workshop." That summer, they sent me to Arizona State University to take a three-week course in physics modeling instruction.

The course was intensive, to say the least, and had the same format as the workshop I am currently taking in chemistry. You learn a lot in three fully-submerged weeks, both about the pedagogy and the people. It was a tremendous experience and it shaped the way I have taught everything ever since.

At this point, if you haven't already checked out the American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) to learn more, you might be waiting for some sort of explanation about what it is in the first place, or at least looking for my take on it. Let me briefly try to describe modeling instruction in my own estimation:

Modeling instruction is a framework for teaching (especially science subjects) wherein learning takes place through focused development of conceptual models, which are constructed by the students themselves through active experiences interacting with content in context, cultivated with the teacher's guidance. 

Basically, the students are put in an empowered learning role where they are in charge of constructing their own understanding of things rather than merely being told what to think, believe, and know by their teacher.  The methodology of modeling instruction is akin to an onion, as Shrek puts it, because there are many layers. It is a process that arises from over 25 years of dedicated academic research and translation into best practice. It involves the development of models based on observations and experiments, but then uses those models as predictors and explanations of future situations. It utilizes Socratic discourse, student-centered activities, discrepant events, inquiry-based experiments, multiple representations, and all done in a team-like social context.

I have found modeling instruction, in the three years I have been teaching using it as my pedagogy, to be the best way I can teach science and the best way that students can learn science. The simple reason for this, to me, is that modeling instruction is learning through doing science in a scientific manner.

The success in the classroom I have seen with a variety of students, ability levels, and conditions using modeling instruction in several subjects (bio, chem, and physics) has led me to seek to get more formal training. Thus, I have come to take a chemistry modeling workshop this summer in Pennsylvania.

I decided today that I would blog about my experiences with the workshop each day. I will include some reflections about what I learned, experienced, read, did, and thought about the chemistry modeling workshop. You can follow the tidbits of information on Twitter by searching the #modchem.

Words of Wisdom for the #ClassOf2012!

For many reasons, I feel a special tie to this year's graduating class of high school seniors. Between three different high schools where I have taught, roughly 500 students who I have had in my short career are in this year's senior class all graduating at the same time. This year also marks my ten year high school reunion and I am lucky enough currently to be teaching at the same high school from which I graduated, Grosse Pointe North.

It was four years ago that I started teaching freshmen physics in Fountain Hills; those students are now graduating. It was three years ago that I taught sophomore chemistry at L'Anse Creuse; those students walk the stage this year. And it has been the last two years that I have taught junior and senior chemistry and physics at Grosse Pointe North (my Alma mater); all of those students together will graduate this year. 

The class of 2012 is one that I feel I know fairly well and am proud to see walk the stage. I wanted to do something special for this class, and so I have prepared a graduation speech for the #ClassOf2012. This speech is special to me, and I hope it will be meaningful to this year's senior class.


Before I present to you the speech, a little background on these words of wisdom. The role of student commencement speaker was traditionally given to the valedictorian, the top-ranking academic in the class, who would deliver a valedictory--the commencement address. The year I graduated from high school, a new tradition was started where students auditioned their speeches to a panel of peers, faculty, and community members who selected the speaker. I was encouraged by my senior English teacher to write a speech and try out for the part. I heeded the advice and was chosen to give the commencement address by the panel. I practiced and practiced my speech delivery, pacing my words, projecting my voice, and emphasizing the important parts of my message.

Then, it was on a sunny evening, ten years ago, that I had the honor to share my message with my graduating peers, faculty, administrators, and the community. It was a very special honor to me and from what I can recall, the message was well received.

And so, class of 2012, I present to you this message, the very same message that I presented to the class of 2002 as high school comes to a close. Hopefully, you will find the inspiration from these words that it is intended to have.

Commencement Address

A song by the Dave Matthews Band once asked, "where are you going?" This question is appropriate for the time at hand, but also exemplary of the questions you should be asking yourselves now.

No one thing can determine your destiny, it is instead the result of a summation of many factors; thus, finding an answer to the question of where you are going is a difficult task. Every individual must construct his or her own answer. Before you can respond to this question of where you will go, you must first determine where you can go; where you want to go. Only you know the answers to these questions. It is your world that you exist in, take charge of it.

The key to any success is perseverance, patience, and determination. As advice to the youth of his time, the celebrated author Samuel Clemens wrote:

"If a person [offends] you and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures; simply watch for your chance and hit him with a brick."

A powerful message, though dressed in sadistic humor, that if things do not go your way, which sometimes they will not, that you need not act in an irrational manner or jump to conclusions; rather, weather the storm, you'll eventually get compensation for your effort.

You know, too many people worry about the trivialities of life, but those who look past these pot holes in the road are the ones who will arrive at their destination first. You should live for yourself, no one else. Do things that make you happy, because in the long run, don't you want to be doing something you enjoy?

Do not lose track of your goals in life, let yourself fall short of any aspirations, or let anyone dissuade your beliefs. Be diligent with your work ethic, temperate with your leisure and always conscious of those around you who have helped you and inspired you. When in doubt, a call home can usually remedy the situation. But at the same time, you must learn to make decisions for yourselves, pedal on your own.

Class of 2012, today you are being given a new block of clay with which to shape your future. This block can be shaped in any way that you can conceive; however, you must first realize that you are the one making the sculpture; you are the artist.

Seize the day, class of 2012! Do not let opportunities pass you by; they are the ones driving the red sports cars and traveling faster than you. Ask yourself: what do I want to do with my life? What kind of person am I? What kind of person do I want to be? What changes need to be made? Times are different now that you have graduated, you have to do things for yourselves. You make your future what you want it to be. Since each thing in the world today has been made by an individual who wanted to make it, who's to say that you can't make what you want happen?

Those who command the respect of others will be tomorrow's leaders; those who command the admiration of others will be tomorrow's heroes; and those who command the space shuttle will be tomorrow's astronauts. At any rate, there are essential necessities for your success: being respected before being liked; looking beyond superficiality before casting judgements; assessing the merit of all things that you come across before holding them in high regard; patience before impetuousness; and finally, integrity before vanity. In all that you do in life, look at the big picture and try to comprehend all that you see; do not let your predilections blind you to new things. There is a wonderful world of endless knowledge out there. You only get one life to experience it, why not make the most of that opportunity?

You have all accomplished many things in the mandatory part of your educational careers, but what will you do from here? The answer: anything. Anything you want to do can be done, it is all at your fingertips, but you have to realize this. You have to realize what it takes to accomplish what you want. If you want to be a doctor, go to medical school; if you want to be a lawyer, go to law school; if you want to be an engineer, go to engineering school; or, if you want to go and hunt for the Sasquatch, then go learn forensic science and pursue your quest! The only thing is that you must realize that you can do anything. Anything, class of 2012, you can make it happen. It's just up to you where you are going.