TIME WELL-SPENT

I had just finished scoring lab reports from my Advanced Placement class. My thoughts were pretty negative: Why they are still performing at the same level as in September? Why are they making what I would call “rookie” mistakes? Why is my Honors class seemingly doing much better than the AP on lab reporting?  After 5 months, why don’t they seem to understand the process of lab reporting? (It is not significant that it is an AP class, this happens with all classes at times, but we often have outsize expectations for classes like these so it’s more obvious.)

After that initial barrage, I started to think about how to handle it. First, I needed to identify the kinds of errors I was seeing:

• Incomplete methods and materials, such as omitting what was done or what tools were used.
• No labeled picture or diagram to supplement the narrative.
• Poorly constructed data tables, including missing units in headers
• Lack of understanding of what graph(s) to make and why.
• Not using (or understanding the benefit of) linearization when appropriate.
• Ignoring the trendline equation as a powerful analysis tool, and therefore, lacking convincing evidence for their CER.
• Missing a “Theoretical Derivation” based on our problem solving strategies.
• No understanding about how to decide on a trendline fit, or how to derive the meaning of coefficient or slope of the trendline.
• Identification of irrelevant sources of experimental error or listing a mistake as a source of experimental error.
• Stating “When x goes up, y goes up” to mean the same thing as “linear” or “directly proportional”.
• Using generalities, theory, or single data points as the best evidence to use in a CER.

Once I had written out this list, it became clear that some of these items were pretty basic for juniors in an AP Physics class, yet some items are very advanced. So, it wasn’t quite as uniform or as disappointing a problem as I had initially thought! It couldn’t be ignored, but many things are, understandably, difficult for the students. This was great news to me and helped me flesh out my next steps.

As an aside, initially I reflexively turned to the thinking that the “poor” results were because of the grading approach. It must not be working if they are not improving and not meeting benchmarks. But here are three reasons why that is not true:

• I have a crystal-clear picture about what they are struggling with, and I can communicate that clearly to them. I know that at what level they are working and can clearly tell them what needs to be addressed to move to the next level.
• The fact that it is halfway through the year and they are still struggling… in a traditional grading situation, they would be racking up poor grades from which they cannot recover. They might have given up by now, dropping the class or, full of self-recrimination, creating a story about how they are bad at science. I am NOT okay with that. If they are willing to persist, and they master the skills at a later date, they have still accomplished something and deserve a grade that reflects that final achievement.
• I slowly recognized that they are NOT actually at the same level as they were in September. The assigned tasks are more complex, and I’m giving less guidance so they are working much more independently. Therefore, they have grown, regardless of what is in their reports. Most are right at the cusp… a few tweaks, a couple of omissions and/or additions, and they will be able to show huge progress.

Once I determined these issues, I had to change my lesson plans. If it is important enough to me, I have to spend class time on it. Therefore, I pushed my original plans out to next week, the AP calendar be damned. The very next class, I used the period to do the following:

1. I gave them time to examine my comments and ask questions. I had already created and posted a video guide that walked them through an “ideal” lab report, highlighting many of the issues I saw, but I wanted to have that conversation as a class.
2. I acknowledged that learning how to do labs without touching any equipment is very difficult! In this environment (where I have been working remotely for the past 8 weeks, and students are in and out on a rotating schedule), learning is not ideal. There is not a lot of spontaneous interaction between them and me, nor between each other. It’s so hard! This is a fact, and it’s actually incredible that they are doing as well as they are doing.
3. I talked about what to do next, because some are ready for the Proficient level and some are struggling to get out of Beginner level. What those students need to include in their reports will be different. Trying to get to Advanced? You need to linearize your graph. Trying to get to Developing? You just need to include a relevant graph!
4. After that conversation, I put them into groups, by their performance (below, at, or above current benchmarks for lab) and assigned a new lab. It just so happened that the data collection was individual; they did not need to work together at all. However, I wanted them to talk about what they were doing and why, without the pressure of students working with different performance goals. And I wanted to guide each group differently. I put them in breakout rooms to work with students at the same performance level and I rotated throughout, helping as needed.

The next day, we talked a little bit, then I had them do Peer Reviews of their lab reports (assigned randomly). By looking critically at someone else’s lab report, they could get a sense of how others are approaching the process, and maybe glean some insight about what works and what doesn’t work.  In addition, by requiring them to do a formal critique, they had to go through the details of the requirements and put that overtly into words in order to help others. I had them do 2 each, which took about 20 minutes (some needed to finish this for homework). We then talked about what they observed by doing this process.  As is unfortunately typical for online teaching, not many participated. Next time, I will have them write their observations in a chat or a poll.

The last step was to have them do a second draft of their lab. On this, they annotated what they changed and why, based on the feedback received from their peers as well as any insights that they had from our various conversations. Next week, we will do another lab and I’ll score their new reports. I’ll see what needs to be done next. Because labs are an integral component of science courses, there is no amount of time that is too much. I have to design my lessons to fit the needs of the students in my class, not some hypothetical ideal.

If it is important enough to assess, then it is time well-spent.