Module 1 Reflect EDU 6132

For my application, I decided to use a lab in physics addressing free-fall and gravitational acceleration to focus on motivation and engagement. For the last three weeks, I have been teaching class solo. This lab will have a two-hour block period. There are 28 students in the class.

In previous classroom inquiry about free-fall, the students had expressed their experience of observing falling objects by reporting they would drop different objects from a tree or a second floor to watch what the objects would do as they fell. The lab was designed for the students to drop a steel ball and measure what happens.

Specifically, how long the ball would take certain distances defined by the students. In this way, the structure of the lab was relevant to their personal experience. The lab was designed with a minimum amount of instruction as to what to do. I gave the students the purpose of the lab and specific equipment to use. The students defined the procedures. This contributed to making the activity relevant to them as well. The students were to produce a formal lab report for their finished product. A template for the lab report was provided. Also in past lessons, the students were taught a problem solving structure we called GUESF.

The GUESF process:
1.    G: Takes what is Given from a problem,
2.    U: Identifies what is Unknown (the solution),
3.    E: Matches the Given and the Unknown with Equations from previous lessons,
4.    S: Substitutes the Given and the Unknown into the Equation’s variables, and
5.    F: Finishes with a product labeled with units.

Lodewyk, Winneb, & Jamieson-Noel report that a well-structured self-regulated task structure contributes to student achievement (2009). The GUESF process provides this environment. Students use the process to identify equations relevant to the task, in this case to define whether the acceleration of an object in free-fall has uniform acceleration and what is that acceleration’s magnitude. The students take this information to derive their lab procedures that will yield data consistent with fulfilling the GUESF process.

The lab worked well. The students demonstrated engagement and motivation during the lab (Soon to be posted, video of student engagement). The students with advanced learning skills moved along the process without need for input and I was freed up to spend more time with students that needed more direction.

The lab was presented to two periods. Both periods demonstrated achievement within acceptable norms 73% and 80% average grade. The one class with a 73% average grade would actually be lower if I included the three students that did not turn in their lab results. All students from the class that achieved the 80% average grade handed in their formal labs.

One of the differences between the two classes was that the class with the lower achievement results used the GUESF process less. 24% of the students from this class used the process, whereas 46% of the students from the higher achieving class used GUESF. (Soon to be posted, examples of work with and without the use of the GUESF process). It could be argued that the lack of use of the GUESF process left the students with what Lodewyk et al called an IST or an ill-structured task. Lodewyk et al distinguished that students engaged in an IST pick inadequate strategies for goal achievement and do not self-regulate or deviate from inadequate approaches. The students from my class reported a lack of learning compared to a more structured lab on the same subject.

The lab helped to demonstrate the lessons learned from the Module 1 readings. The readings were a contribution to curriculum development and they will continue to do so throughout my career.

Lodewyka, K., Winneb, P., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 1–25.