Student Centered Personalization 1.0 – Initial Attempts, Musings, and What’s Missing?

The engineering process shows us that all ideas must be turned into a prototype. I mean, it is only a dumb idea if it does not work, right?

Through any design process, there will be bumps, failures, wrenches in the works. Some of the best designed, thought out, planned, and well executed curricular ideas fail in a with a Pompeii- type style that usually involves being judged by 20+ children, and eventually their parents – because what kid does not want to share that time when the teacher lit himself on fire? (Note: That story is totally attributed to a friend of mine. You wouldn’t know him.)

But I digress. Other plans that hit me while pedaling to school in the morning often are huge hits! Yaay! Inspiration, sadly, does not strike me daily.  So, a planning I will go.

The PDPs (see previous posting on Personalization) were in full swing. Students were working, following the plans, and I was giving them space to work at a place that was conducive (I thought) to their understanding. I wanted to think that the prototype was working, and with a few tweaks, all would be right with the classroom.

Alas, within a month, the PDP flaws began to shine through. Wrenches galore began to wreak havoc on the educational process.

So, let us review. Here was the initial format.

Personal Development Plan – Gravity            Name: ___________________  Date: __________

Learning  Standard Number	Learning Objectives: In this unit I learned that…	Your evaluation of  progress? What examples show that you have met the standard?	What help do I need from the teacher and/or others to achieve this standard?	Self Evaluation (Scale- 1= little  understanding to 4= consistent demonstration)	Teacher Feedback
3A	Isaac Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation can be used to describe and predict the effects of gravity on objects on Earth and in Space.
3B	Einstein’s concept of General Relativity is only a theory, but it is helpful in visualizing and understanding the fundamentals of how gravity may actually work.
3C	Simple equations that include acceleration due to gravity can be used to answer questions about a free falling object, including distance and time fallen, and velocity of the object.
3D	Air resistance is a significant factor in understanding how objects behave in free fall on Earth.
	Gravity is a force that is necessary for objects in Space to “orbit” other objects. The shape and speed of an orbit, can be explained in gravitational terms and mathematically through Kepler’s Laws
3E	** Bonus Objective! ** Weightlessness is not the absence of gravity.

Bonus Objective can be attempted only if all  of the other objectives have been addressed in your PDP.

Required Elements

Gravity Class Notes/ CK12 Chapter Review (Ch. 15- 17)

Stomp Rocket Lab – Freefall

Freefall Calculations

Motion sensor inquiry for air resistance

Video Search/ Share- cartoon violations of gravity/ freefall motion

Film- Fabric of the Cosmos

Kepler’s Laws Class Discussion and online module

Possible Assessments to demonstrate understanding

– Video Demonstration or Physical Demonstration

– Create a Children’s book or comic book

– 10 Tweets

– Create a poem or a series of poems about the topic

– Film/video

– Screencast or Podcast

– Explanatory Essay

– Journal of discovery- journal entries as you research and discover answers to objectives.

– Blog or Webpage Design

– Ask an Expert and Report Back – Email/ online or face to face interview

– Interpret professional studies- current real world studies

– Artwork – paint, sculpt

– Create a “Wiki” or Wikipedia-Type Page

– Photo Collage

– Invent! This can be computer designed drawings, LEGO Sculptures, design ideas for future inventions that may benefit scientific study or humans in the future

– Use a computer simulation to illustrate a scientific concept

– Create an online quiz- questions and answers (10)

– Self Directed Plan – Write a song, do a dance…you make it up!

 

Time for the good and the not so good.

What I thought I was doing:

 

What the process turned into:

This format worked well for: 

Student and Teacher Reflection – Students would work at their own pace, reflecting on their progress, and receiving feedback from me as they learned.

Learning Targets were Clarified- The targets were more clear, but there was a flaw looming.

Final Demonstrations of Understanding were introduced- Students were allowed the freedom to follow their interests to develop final projects of understanding.

Unfortunately, I had 99 problems, but feedback wasn’t one.

But, as with any engineering conundrum, what was needed was to step back, reflect, and assess. Why were my students not seeing the choices that they were being given? Why were levels of motivation stagnating? How to right the ship?

With reflection, I began to see that what I was offering was plug and play, no tests, and projects that did not truly reflect their understanding. (Please, no more Death by Slides!)

Time for some curricular teacher engineering ninja moves.

The challenges:

• Begin to provide student choice (and eventually voice) into the unit plans.
• Create more clear “I can statements” to provide more student ownership.
• Actually, why not start with the NGSS standard? (*rolls eyes*)
• Provide choice in assignments, including differentiated options for tasks.
• Formative assessments- early and often. Eliminate once in a while feedback.
• Summative Assessments- investigate options beyond the “Dreaded Three.”

Ask anyone that knows me, and you will find that I am tenacious when it comes to student success. So, back to engineering solutions I go.  Time to advocate, reflect, and delve farther into student-centered learning.