0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

52 просмотров42 страницыJoel Bianchi - Impact on Student Learning (3)

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

52 просмотров42 страницыJoel Bianchi - Impact on Student Learning (3)

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 42

Learning:

An analysis of a robotics rotation sensor unit plan

Education

EDUC 6401E

6 May 2009

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION 2

School Background Information 2

Unit Plan Description 3

Unit Plan Standards & Instruction 4

Unit Plan Aims & Objectives 5

Sample Lesson Plan 6

Notes 7.0 [Teacher's edition] 7

II. ASSESSMENTS 8

Formal Assessments Table 8

Summative Assessments 9

III. ANALYZING& REPORTINGDATA 10

Whole Group Learning Levels 10

A. Class Scores by Assessment 10

B. Class Scores by Learning Objective 11

Group Learning Levels 12

A. by Gender 12

B. by Grade Level 13

C. by Ethnicity 14

D. by Previous Marking Period Grade 15

Individual Learning Levels 16

A. Jason R. 16

B. Stephane G. 17

IV. REFLECTION ON WHATI LEARNED 18

Success of Unit Plan on Student Learning 18

Learning Objectives 18

Assessment Items 19

Instructional Strategies 20

Assessment Data 21

Professional Development 22

Professional Learning Goals 22

Immediate Action Steps 23

Appendix A: Individual Student Performance

24

by LearningObjective

Appendix B: Rubrics for Assessments 26

Appendix C: Samples of Student Work 28

2

"Whether it's urban kids who can't go outside because it's too

dangerous or the overscheduled, overparented kids at the other

end of the spectrum--I'm worried that boys have lost the chance

to play and to explore."1

- Margaret Anderson, Vanderbilt University

I. INTRODUCTION

SCHOOL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In an effort to improve the math and science scores at the Frederick

Douglass Academy – a college prep school in Harlem, NY, my principal

scheduled Robotics classes to be taught this year. In a class focusing

on active-learning, the focus shifted from instructing students with

hands-on activities towards students constructing the math and

science skills themselves.

an entrance exam, and has since grown to a 6th-12th grade school

which admits students from across the five boroughs based only

partially on students’ scores, parent interest, or chancellor

appointment. Last year, FDA had a 93% graduation rate, and a 91%

college placement rate.

The class in which the lesson was taught is my 7th period class, which is

composed of 28 9th-12th grade students. Many of the higher-performing

students in the school expressed interest in the course, but most of

these who were upperclassmen were enrolled in various AP classes.

The remaining upperclassmen are generally students simply needing

credit. However, the underclassmen appear to be a sample cross-

section of the school population. Other typical demographics include:

79% of the students are African-American and 18% Latino, and 55%

male, 45% female.

achievement; Females are over five times less likely to enroll in

engineering;2 And even more frightening, in New York, white males

1

Von Drehle, David. The Myth About Boys. TIME Magazine. Thursday, Jul. 26, 2007

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1647452,00.html

2

“Although women currently comprise 52% of high school graduates who enroll in four-year colleges in the

United States, they comprise only 17% of college freshmen who choose engineering as an academic

major.”

Takahira, Sayuri, Goodings, Deborah J, Byrnes, James P. Journal of Engineering Education, Jul 1998

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3886/is_199807/ai_n8796414

3

graduate on time at twice the rate of black males.3 Every student

besides one in the class is either black or Hispanic, which in a 2003

study measuring mathematics literacy4, these groups scored

significantly below the international average, while white and asian

students scored significantly above. Faced with the all of these

challenges, this class was designed to be part of a program at FDA

which seeks to close these achievement gaps – providing students with

opportunities to perform in areas in which their peers are typically

underrepresented.

Engineering, and Math (STEM). There are no national or state robotics

standards, thus I use standards from the 4 disciplines to structure my

curriculum, specifically: NCTM, NYS Learning Standards, ITEA, and

NSES standards.

Students in a previous unit had constructed a basic robot, and last unit

had constructed a small manipulator arm to test the strength of the

motors used. This unit, we will explore one of the sensors they will use

with their robot – the Rotation sensor. The 7 Learning Objectives

chosen are categorized by which STEM discipline they are in and what

national standard they address.

The following table also includes the dates and instruction type for

when each standard and learning objective was taught.

Also included is a Unit Plan showing the Aims & Objectives for each

class day of the unit

3

The actual numbers are 76% for white males and 38% for black males. Also, the Schott Foundation

Report notes that “Black students comprise only 17% of public school students, but 41% of special

education placements, 85% of which are boys.”

Schott Foundation for Public Eduation. Public Education & Black Male Students: The 2006 State Report

Card http://www.schottfoundation.org/publications/Schott_06_report_final.pdf

4

International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving: PISA 2003 Results from

the U.S. Perspective. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005003.pdf

4

ROTATION SENSOR UNIT PLAN: STANDARDS & INSTRUCTION

Discipline Description ion # Description Date Type

Technology Understanding Digital ITEA The Designed Students will develop an understanding of and T 3/24 Notes

A Encoding World. be able to select and use information and

Standard 17. communication technologies.

Engineering Integration of Sensors ITEA Design. Students will develop an understanding of W 3/25 Lab

B into an Intelligent Standard 9. engineeringdesign.

system

Math Using conversion factors NCTM Measurement Apply appropriate techniques, tools, and T 3/24 Notes,

for appropriate units Standard formulas to determine measurements: Use unit Classwo

C

analysis to check measurement computations rk

Strand. A.M.2. measurement systems, given the relationship

between the units

Science Calculating Angular NSES Physical Objects change their motion only when a net T 3/24 Notes,

Speed Science. force is applied. Laws of motion are used to Classwo

D

12BPS4.1 calculate precisely the effects of forces on the rk

motion of objects.

Science Understanding Motor NSES Physical Objects change their motion only when a net T 3/31 Notes,

Tradeoffs Science. force is applied. Laws of motion are used to Lab

E

12BPS4.1 calculate precisely the effects of forces on the

motion of objects.

Math Labeling and reading 2- NCTM Algebra Understand patterns, relations, and functions: T 3/31 Notes

F coordinate graphs Standard Interpret representations of functions of two

variables

NYS Geometry Identify and graph linear, quadratic, absolute

Strand. A.G.4. value, and exponential functions

Technology Using Programming ITEA Design. Students will develop an understandingof the W 4/1 Lab

Feedback Standard 10. role of troubleshooting, research and

G

development, invention and innovation, and

experimentation in problemsolving.

ROTATION SENSOR UNIT PLAN: AIMS & OBJECTIVES

DATE AIM OBJECTIVES (SWBAT…) Documents

T 3/24/2009 How can we easily measure 1. Describe the Optical Shaft Encoder Notes 7.0

the number of degrees our 2. Convert the data fromthe sensor into number of degrees of rotation

motor rotates? 3. Convert the data fromthe sensor into number of revolutions

4. Calculate the distance the robot travels given the number of rotations.

W How do we mount the 1. Mechanically secure the sensor onto the robot such that (a) the sensor's initial

3/25/2009 Rotation Sensor on our state is pressed, and (b) the sensor leads the robot's direction of motion.

robots?

R 3/26/2009 No Class/ Parent Teacher Day

F 3/27/2009 How do we show mastery of 1. Complete quiz satisfactorily Quiz #6: Rotation

our understanding of Sensors/ Review

rotation sensors? old quizzes/ Grade

M How can we use motor 1. Create a Motor Curve graph for torque and speed Notes 7.1

3/30/2009 curves in order to gather 2. Use the graph to find torque given speed

information for our robot 3. Use the graph to find speed given torque

designs?

T 3/31/2009 How can we experimentally 1. Setup an experiment to find the maximum torque of the motor A20 Assigned

find the maximumspeed of

our motor?

W 4/1/2009 How do we write a RobotC 1. Write a simple RobotC program Notes 8.0

programto find max speed 2. Use simple statements with the motor command and wait1msec command

of our motor? 3. Setup sensors

4. Use Debug Program to gain data

R 4/2/2009 How do we interpret the 1. Interpret data from programming A20 Due

data from our experiment 2. Calculate max speed given number from programming and time

and communicate the 3. Create a Motor Curve using experimental data

results?

F 4/3/2009 How do we assess our 1. Complete quiz satisfactorily Quiz #7: Max

understanding of our Speed

motor’s relationship of

speed and torque?

SAMPLE LESSON PLAN

attached notes sheet for students (and teacher’s edition).

motor rotates?

Objectives: Students will be able to:

2. Convert the data from the sensor into number of degrees

of rotation

3. Convert the data from the sensor into number of

revolutions

4. Calculate the distance the robot travels given the number

of rotations.

Do Now [5 minutes]

1. When students enter classroom, hand them notes 7.0

2. Journal prompt: “When you walk down the street, how do

you estimate how far you have traveled?”

3. In summary, elicit 2 basic responses: external measures

(street signs) vs. internal measures (how tired your legs

are)

4. “Robots need to know how far they travel as well. Today,

we’re going to learn about how a robot uses a rotation

sensor to automatically know how far it’s gone.”

Elicit vocabulary answers from students. Explain sensor based

on vocabulary. Name students in classroom to role play each

piece of the sensor (ex. “How does Reggie, the robot controller,

get the information from Ivana, the sensor?)

Direct students to open up sensor and count slits. Give them 3

minutes.

Elicit answers through question and answer to questions.

On board, lead students through calculation for 180 slits.

Remind them to write down extra notes wherever they need to

remember.

Use a standard 4” diameter wheel for the distance calculations.

Give students remaining time to complete the other 2 examples

in class.

Walk around to assess level of understanding.

4. Wrap-up [10 minutes]

Have 2 students show work on the board.

Ask final question for understanding. “How could we apply this

sensor to the manipulator as well?”

ROBOTICS CLASS FREDERICK DOUGLASS ACADEMY MR. BIANCHI

1. Definition:The sensors we have are called “OPTICAL SHAFT ENCODERS”:

“Optical” – there is a light in the sensor which shines through the slits inside

“Shaft” – a shaft or axle is placed in the middle of the sensor and will make the slit wheel rotate around

“Encoder” – the sensor counts the number of times the light alternates between reflection and no

reflection (each time the slit passes by. This number is sent in a numerical code to the robot’s controller.

2. Experiment: Open up the shaft encoder and look at the black disk with the slits inside:

Count the number of slits for 1 whole rotation of the wheel = 90 slits

a.

What are the number of degrees in 1 whole rotation of a wheel = 360 degrees

b.

So…. How many degrees does each slit represent? 4 degrees/ slit

c.

The robot’s controller will keep a count of every 4 degrees that the motor rotates

DRIVETRAIN APPLICATION:

3.

If the shaft encoder was put on your wheel, find the distance the wheel travels?

Encoder Slit = =

Count

180 slits* 4deg/slit = 720 deg* 1 rev/360 2 rev*4Лin/1 rev =

180 720 degrees deg= 2 revolutions 25.1 inches

45 slits* 4deg/slit = 180 deg* 1 rev/360 1/2 rev*4Лin/1 rev =

45 180 degrees deg= 1/2 revolutions 6.3 inches

900 slits* 4deg/slit = 3600 deg* 1 rev/360 10 rev*4Лin/1 rev =

900 3600 degrees deg= 10 revolutions 125.6 inches

4. MANIPULATOR APPLICATION

On the manipulator, the Optical Shaft Encoder can be used to Count the number of degrees the

manipulator has rotated.

II. ASSESSMENTS

Students were assessed in a variety a of ways. The following table

shows how each of the 7 Learning Objectives were formally assessed:

Learning Objective Assessment

STEM

Disciplin Summati Summati

e Description Formative ve 1 ve 2

Technolo Understanding Lab Group A20 #5 Q7 #1c,

A gy Digital Encoding Check #4a

ng Sensors into an Check

B

Intelligent

system

Math Using Classwork, A20 Q7

conversion Do Nows #6abc #4abc

C factors for #2-#5

appropriate

units

Angular Speed Do Nows #6bc

D #2-#5

Motor Tradeoffs Questioni #5abcd

E ng,

Classwork

Math Labeling and Classwork A20 Q7

reading 2- #7ab #5abcd

F

coordinate

graphs

G gy Programming Check

Feedback

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS

instruction, and also for how the students are assessed as well. There

were 2 summative assessments used to determine student learning:

examples of the assessments with student work.]

experiential learning). The 28 students were broken up into 6

different groups, with each group member having a clear role to

play whenever a group task was given. Roles included: “Project

Manager”, “Chief Mechanic”, “Chief Programmer”, “Materials

Manager”, and “Field-Test Manager”. Students in the group were

given a kit of parts to be used to attach a rotation sensor onto

motor to determine the motor’s “no load” speed. These are the

same motors they will be using later in the semester for their

competition

while learning objectives E & F are explicitly assessed in question

7. Other learning objectives (A,B,G) would simply NEED to be

understood to actually get the correct data.

SA2: QUIZ 7

learning). 50% of the content on the quiz was cycled material.

The rest related to learning objectives from this unit. Some

questions looked very similar to what the students had

completed on assignment 20, with the obvious difference that

they could not ask each other or me for assistance. Learning

objective G was asked as a verbal Extra Credit question, “After

your program is written and downloaded, what steps would you

take to get the value of the sensor?”

III. ANALYZING AND REPORTING DATA

WHOLE GROUP LEARNING LEVELS:

summative assessments.

The mean score for Assignment 20 was a 76%. However, this includes

six 0%’s because of work not completed. Thus the median was a high

96%. Students worked in groups on the assignment and often checked

with each other and me before handing the assignment in.

For Quiz 7, however, the students were not able to help each other out,

or have my assistance. The mean quiz score was 64%. This can be

explained by looking at the scores of a handful of the low performers

who dragged down the mean.

But because the Quiz included cycled material, a look at the

performance by learning objective will give a more accurate view about

what student learning occurred.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

STEM

Discipli

ne Description Overall

Technolo Understanding Digital

A gy Encoding 74

Engineeri Integration of

B ng Sensors into an 74

Intelligent system

Math Using conversion

C factors for 71

appropriate units

Science Calculating Angular

D 68

Speed

Science Understanding Motor

E Tradeoffs 62

Math Labeling and reading

F 2-coordinate graphs 60

Technolo Using Programming

G 48

gy Feedback

Learning objectives A,B,C, D all scored over 65%. Notably, these were

the first learning objectives taught in the unit. Quiz 6, a formative

assessment, tested these learning objectives halfway through the unit.

Learning objectives E, F,G were taught the following days after Quiz 6.

Apparently, the lesson on T 3/31/09 was not as effective as it needed

to be. Students could not complete any tasks associated with learning

objectives E,F,G until they had already completed those for learning

objectives A,B,C,D. Thus, even the logical sequence of the content

favored the first 4 learning objectives.

performed in the 4 STEM disciplines. The highest scoring discipline for

this unit was Engineering, which was probably the easiest to

understand given the kinesthetic approach to the unit.

GROUP LEARNING RESULTS

on 4 different criteria.

Measures of central tendency

were calculated for the groups

in each criteria. Because the

class had a total of 28

students, t-tests were used to

determine if the differences in

the means were statistically

significant to a 95% confidence

level.

criteria show how each group

performed for each of the 7

performance learning

objectives taught in the unit.

A. GENDER:

This result was not statistically significant. However, a major

difference was seen in that males as a whole scored 11% less on

the assignment than females, due in large part to 5 males not

completing the paperwork necessary (as opposed to 2 females

not turning in the assignment).

objectives. Boys outscored females by 13% on Learning

Objective B, which deals with the how sensors integrate into the

overall flow of information on the robot.

generally scored highly, by observation, males seemed to be

more eager to perform the hands-on mechanics of the project.

Perhaps, this explains males outperforming on Learning

Objective B.

B. GRADE LEVEL:

outscored underclassmen (9th & 10th grade students) by 80% to

64% (t-value of 1.88).

with more previous knowledge than underclassmen because they

typically have taken Math A, or Integrated Algebra, and other

science classes. However, the discrepancy can best be

explained by seeing that every upperclassmen turned in

Assignment 20 while only 10 out of 16 underclassmen did. In

fact, underclassmen, averaged 7% higher on Quiz 7.

Even in comparison of Quiz values for those students who

completed Assignment 20 with those who did not, the 7%

advantage was not found to be statistically significant. Perhaps,

the best explanation for the difference between grades is simply

that underclassmen have less academic maturity (being

responsible to complete assignments).

C. ETHNICITY:

ethnicities, the results showed statistically significantly

differences between the scores of black students and latino

students (t=1.92). Interestingly, of the 5 latinos in the class, the

2 upperclassmen scored highly, and the 3 underclassmen scored

low. The primary difference is seen in missing work. However,

the quiz scores were still all low for latino underclassmen. One

student, Douglass, will come after school for extra help and do

quite well, but often gets frustrated in class if his questions

aren’t answered immediately. Madeline has attendance issues,

and is often unattentive. Lastly, Joshua entered the class in

February, is often late, but often stays after school to work on his

robot with the 2 upperclassmen latinos. I’m not sure if this data

is an anomaly, but will keep an eye on this now.

D. PREVIOUS MARKING PERIOD:

I also compared how students who did not score well the

previous semester fared against those who had. As expected,

the previous high performers outscored the low performers

75% to 63%. However this is only statistically significant at a

85% confidence level (t=1.29).

understanding digital sensors, which was heavily emphasized,

and both groups trailed below 70% on learning objectives E, F,

and G.

INDIVIDUAL LEARNING RESULTS

Two students were chosen from the class for a more in-depth analysis

of their learning results. Both students are senior males, with Jason R

performing on a high-level, and Stephane G on a much lower level:

A.JASON R.

has been going to FDA since 6th grade, and although FDA heavily

emphasizes college placement, Jason only in the spring of his senior

year finally took the SAT. His mother seems to care very much

about him, but does not push him academically. For his 7 official

semesters of high school, Jason just barely passed (65-70) on 22 of

his 28 core classes. He entered my class in September, became

interested in engineering and robotics, and earned his highest grade

by 20 points on his transcript of a 100. Starting in January, he

joined the school’s Robotics Team, and was its most dedicated

member.

He usually spends 4-5 periods per day hanging out in my classroom,

working on self-created robot projects and playing Pokemon on my

computer. Routinely, he helps out groups of students during “lab”

times in my classes.

For the Rotation Sensor unit, Jason had the 4th highest score on

summative assessments. His Assignment 20 was perfect, but he

missed a few points off his quiz, which actually disappointed me.

Looking at his quiz, Jason seemed to not fully understand learning

objective E. While many students struggled with this, I partially

blame Jason’s lack of interest because my teaching pace is not fast

enough for him at times. He’ll then begin quietly whispering to a

classmate or I’ll catch him working on an unrelated robotics project.

better guide his education in my classroom, I decided to make him

the Project Manager of the next group he was in, although, he

usually preferred to be the “Chief Mechanic”. Now, he has more of

a vested stake in the performance of his group mates. Also, I like

the fact that Jason likes to do extra work, and in the future, I will

look for side projects he can do that will also align with the current

learning objectives I expect him to master.

engineering, and also applying to the YearUp program, which helps

students with a poor academic record to gain skills as an assistant

in the financial field.)

B. STEPHANE G.

transferred to FDA from Martin Van Buren HS after his 9th grade year.

His C average grades dropped his first semester at FDA, failing 3

classes, and just barely 2 others. Gradually, his grades have been

improving, such that, all of his scores last semester were over a 70.

Stephane’s math and science scores have always been low, though.

He has taken 6 semesters of Math A, and finally passed the regents

last year after the AP Calc teacher took over what many deemed “the

toughest class in the school”. He failed Physics last year, and is still 1

credit short for graduation. He must pass either Living Environment or

Robotics in order to graduate in May. A guidance counselor gave

Stephane my class starting in February as a backup just in case he

does not pass Living Environment.

For the rotation sensor unit, Stephane completed both assessment, but

received a 64, the 3rd Lowest score for any of the students who

completed both. During the lessons, Stephane will sometimes raise his

hand often, and eagerly contribute to the group discussion. However,

other days, he will focus his attention in other social directions. I often

found him flirting with one of the girls in the group next to his.

received extra credit on every question related to this unit, but

received full credit on no question. In particular, Stephane struggled

with using units in quiz calculations and on his assignment 20 graph.

This all indicates to me that he is making an effort, but is not fully

engaged during instructional times. However, the more kinesthetic

Assignment 20 was completed with minor errors on the motor curve.

math and science may have convinced him that he can never excel in

these areas. In order to help Stephane improve his performance, I

have tried having a graduation conversation with him. While he agrees

that he needs to try harder, he still is mentally falling back on Living

Environment as his last science credit. With his new group, I have

switched him far away from the girl he was flirting with, perhaps,

helping him focus more. And also, he was assigned to be the “Chief

Mechanic” role for his group, playing more on his natural strengths as a

learner. Stephane is a natural athlete (he has played some sport every

year), and I believe the large robotics competition which concludes the

semester should also provide him more motivation.

After analyzing the data, there are many areas in which my role as a

teacher can be informed:

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

encoding”. Not only was the the first objective taught, but probably

the best taught as well. Students were taking notes on the vocabulary

of the Encoder, and I had students role play different points along the

flow of information from the sensor to the robot’s controller. This was

also emphasized everytime the students were doing “lab” work. If

they didn’t understand how the sensor was sending values, most of the

other learning objectives would not have made much sense.

feedback”. This was the last objective taught, and also probably not

taught well. I had showed many students how to do this in previous

projects, and assumed that many would come into the unit with a

decent foundation for this. In fact, the day when the students were to

use this for their project, I tried to simply give a short explanation and

“how-to” before they began working. As I walked around the

classroom, I found myself reteaching this to every single group. Even

in my assessments, the questions weren’t very clear, and was treated

as Extra Credit. Many students didn’t bother trying it.

by-step through the debugging process using my laptop and an lcd as

they followed along on their own laptops. This will probably be a better

way to teach in the future, and I plan on doing that lesson towards the

end of my next unit.

ASSESSMENT ITEMS:

The students were given two different summative assessments for this

unit.

tasks: those involving memorization or procedures. Learning

Objectives A & B (question 1) were both assessed with fill-in-the-blank.

Learning Objectives C & D (question 4) were very procedural, and also

scored highly.

question on Bloom’s taxonomy. Students needed to be able to actually

make the connections between the chart and what they had observed

in the “lab”. Also, question 5 was not formatted very well. The curve I

included came out very fuzzy on the copier, causing many students to

ask questions about the numbering of the axes. I ended up reading

the numbers aloud twice during the quiz so that they all could

understand. Also, the number for part D was accidentally not filled in,

thus I had to verbally tell the students to check for 1000 RPM. I’m sure

that these errors affected the students’ performance in some way.

One simple solution is to simply take the time to check the copies of

my assessments before handing them out. Taking the quiz while the

students are is a great way to catch errors, but taking the quiz before

the students do will minimize the confusion even more.

demand. Later units highly stress Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation

as students design a robot without plans but based on their own

chosen strategy objectives for a particular competition. However, if

students struggle with understanding how fast the motor can spin, or

how much weight at a certain distance the motor can lift, or how to

overcome problems when their program isn’t working as they intend,

then how can they move onto analyzing, synthesizing or evaluating

these same designs? I often wonder how valuable it is to assess

students on lower levels of knowledge or simple application.

apply their knowledge in order to finish their experiment. The median

score for this assessment was 31% higher than quiz 7. Primarily,

students scored very well if they completed the assessment. Students

were given the opportunity to work collaboratively, and revise their

work before turning it in. I walked around the room while students

were working on their projects and calculations, assisting students with

their work. A motivated student could easily get over a 90%.

and project. I believe this gives me a fuller view of what student’s

have actually learned.

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES:

en vogue for a educational theorists to advocate a completely student-

centered experience in the classroom, I believe a teacher should strike

a balance between teacher-centered and student-centered instruction.

centered strategies like a lecture while students take notes. Learning

objectives A,C,D,E,F were all introduced this way. Many of the learning

objectives were also instructed during review times for Do Nows and

during Quiz review. During these times, I could most quickly transmit

information to the students, or lead them in critically thinking about

applications of the content.

But the large benefit of the robotics class, is that student’s can

meaningfully construct their own knowledge for many learning

objectives. While learning objective B & G were the only ones

exclusively instructed this way, each of the other learning objectives

was re-emphasized in student-centered contexts. Classwork after

lecture times, Activites where students counted the slits in the sensor,

and of course, student’s writing their own code to collect their own

individual data, gave students a much richer understanding of the

every single learning objective.

student-centered activities, but see no statistical pattern to claim one

strategy over another. In fact, on shortfall previously mentioned is that

learning standard G could have used a more direct teacher-centered

approach before the students began testing it out themselves.

One major point for consideration has been how to most effectively

manage group work, even on tasks that seem efficient usages of the

students time. As seen with learning objective G (and to lesser extent

E &F), students working in groups can more easily get away with not

doing the work they need to which will help them learn. In assignment

20, only 1 person in the group really needed to be able to “use

programming feedback”, in order for the group to move forward. As I

checked in on groups, I found that quite a few times, the 1 or 2 more

motivated students gave the less motivated students the data, instead

of having them discover it for themselves.

for this unit, as opposed to the 4-5 students I typically have. For many

units though, this poses a challenge because of the scarcity of

supplies. If I had to redo this particular unit, a whole kit of parts is not

needed for each group, and I would break each group in half.

ASSESSMENT DATA:

Assignment 20, there were multiple informal assessments used

throughout the unit, to help me gauge the progress of student learning.

understanding learning objectives A & B. When trying to lead students

down a certain logical path (i.e. from the abstract concept of the flow

of information towards the more concrete steps of calculating how far a

robot travels), I try to use questioning in a Socratic way. I try to call on

students randomly, so that I can get a feel for how the class as a whole

is understanding. Students who are not paying attention were called

out (i.e. if they asked “What was the question?”)

questions on Quiz 7. I chose students to show their work on the board,

which offered me an assessment of where certain students’

understanding level was.

time each class to check the progress of students work. During the

sample lesson, classwork was given for learning objectives C & D. I

was able to walk around then (as well as when the students were

completing a similar task for their assignment) to check student skills

in using appropriate units and calculating angular speed. This was also

used during Do Nows and Project time as well. I spent at least half of

my overall classroom time informally instructing and informally

assessing. This certainly gives me an opportunity to not only collect

data, but also to give students a form of differentiated instruction.

students who are absent are not getting the support they need, and

I’m usually only paying attention to who is there more than who isn’t.

Also, the day I taught learning objectives D & E, I ran out of time with

the class. Thus, not many of the students got feedback from me about

the classwork they were doing for that. I think this was a major reason

why student didn’t perform as well on objectives E & F.

which was usually used directly to impact that individual student, but

improvements can be made. The following week, I gave my students a

rubric to assess each other’s skills as teammates, and in the resulting

discussion, Alaysia complained that I did not spend enough time with

each group, and was instead jumping from one group to the next

randomly and too quickly. The class voted that during “lab” days, each

group gets a devoted 5 minute block of time. I have begun employing

this, and will try to assess later its effectiveness.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

After completing this project, there are many new ideas I have to

improve my performance as an educator:

placed into this unit, and how I instruct and assess based on

learning objectives which arebased on standards was much more

developed than I have usually been planning. The course I am

teaching has no standard curriculum, but I hope to fully develop

one by formalizing what has been done and making the

appropriate data-informed changes.

tasks: With this unit, I was trying to set a building block for

students to be able to use the Rotation sensor in future projects –

for them to be able to analyze whether to use it, to evaluate

alternatives between other sensors, etc. But to engage students’

mind requires much more than having them fulfill a list of

demands. Instead they need to become invested in their

education, and become eager learners of content. In other units,

(the end of the semester full robot design projects), I often see

this in my students. But in mid-semester units, I see a lag. I

would like to be able to develop mini-challenges for each unit

that draw out higher cognitive demand, instead of simply grand

experiments, so that students stay engaged the entire semester.

student performance this unit on the last 3 learning objectives

was poor classroom time management.

too often one student would carry the load for a specific

objective. I would like to implement more specific ways to hold

students accountable individually during times where

collaborative work is required.

IMMEDIATE ACTION STEPS:

the professional learning goals:

simple task. However, during the summer time, (my first year

not taking CCNY classes), I plan on consulting with other robotics

teachers, and writing detailed unit plans for each unit next year.

tasks: One step I have begun in the next unit is simply raising

my expectations of what my students can accomplish. I did not

include many analysis and synthesis tasks in this unit, and will

include more in future units. Another step, is to create

meaningful diagnostics for learning objectives. This past unit, I

thought that a diagnostic would be useless, considering that

“every student knows how to multiply fractions and read a

graph”. Considering that every student in my class has already

passed the Math A or Integrated Algebra Regents, I had bet this

was a safe assumption, but some students still struggled with

this. I need better information at the beginning of the unit, so I

can better assist those students whose basic math and science

skills are lacking. Thus, they will be able to move on to higher-

level tasks.

budgeting each group a certain amount of “Mr. Bianchi-time” at

the beginning of class appears to be a good step to ensure every

student is getting equal attention.

unit, I gave students a rubric to assess the “teamwork” of their

group mates based on 4 different responsibilities for each

person. I let the students who were ranked the highest to choose

new teams in a draft-style, hoping this would give students more

of an incentive to be help their group out more, instead of 3

students waiting for the 4th to get the data.

Appendix A: INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PERFORMANCE BY LEARNING OBJECTIVE

The following is a spreadsheet used to evaluate how each student performed on each of the Learning Objective:

STUDENT INFORMATION PERFORMANCE BY LEARNING OBJECTIVE

A B C D E F G Summat Summat Overall

G Et M ive ive Summati

G

e h P4 S S S S S S S Assess Assess ve

ra

Name n ni Gr A A A A SA SA SA A A SA SA SA SA A ment 1: ment 2: Assessm

d d ci ad 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 A20 Q7 ent

e er ty

e 5 1 5 1

100%

5 5 1 2 15 10 10 6 4 10 10 10 5 2 0 00% 0 00%

4

Douglass A 9 M L ## 0 0% 90% 45%

0 5 0 2 0 9 0 5 0 8 0 8 0 0 5

5 1 4

John B 9 M B ## 92% 96%

5 5 1 2 15 10 10 6 4 6 10 6 5 2 0 00% 6

3

John D 9 M B 55 0 0% 70% 35%

0 5 0 2 0 10 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 0 5

4 5 1

Monique E 9 F B 94 96% 98%

5 5 1 2 13 10 8 6 4 2 10 2 5 2 8 0 00%

5 1 3

Jenika F 10 F B 65 62% 81%

5 5 1 0 15 9 10 5 4 5 10 5 5 0 0 00% 1

1

Madeline F 9 F L 55 0 0% 22% 11%

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 1

4 1

Benjamin G 11 M B L 94% 36% 65%

5 2 1 2 14 2 10 1 4 7 8 7 5 0 7 8

4 1

Stephane G 12 M B 72 96% 32% 64%

5 0 1 0 15 4 10 3 2 4 8 4 5 0 8 6

4 1

Anesia H 11 F B 55 82% 34% 58%

5 3 1 0 6 4 3 0 4 4 10 4 5 0 1 7

5 1 4

Tanya H 10 F B 95 84% 92%

5 5 1 0 15 10 10 6 4 10 10 10 5 0 0 00% 2

4 4

Peter H 9 M B 92 96% 88% 92%

5 5 1 2 15 10 10 6 4 8 8 8 5 0 8 4

4

Justin H 9 M B 55 94% 8 16% 55%

5 2 1 0 14 4 10 1 4 0 8 0 5 0 7

Nilima I 9 F A 74 5 0 1 2 15 4 10 3 4 4 10 4 5 0 5 1 2 46% 73%

0 00% 3

5 1 5 1

Shalonda J 11 F B 55 100%

5 5 1 2 15 10 10 6 4 10 10 10 5 2 0 00% 0 00%

4 1

Trinasia K 11 F B 78 92% 38% 65%

5 0 1 2 13 4 8 3 4 0 8 0 5 0 6 9

5 1 3

Alaysia M 9 F B 83 60% 80%

5 1 1 0 15 3 10 2 4 6 10 6 5 0 0 00% 0

2

Joshua M 9 M L 65 0 0% 48% 24%

0 5 0 2 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

2

Reynairis M 9 F B 78 0 0% 46% 23%

0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 3

4 3

Maurice M 11 M B 92 94% 72% 83%

5 4 1 2 15 9 10 6 2 0 7 0 5 0 7 6

3

Ini O 9 M B 84 0 0% 76% 38%

0 5 0 2 0 8 0 4 0 6 0 6 0 2 8

4

Elias P 12 M L 65 92% 92%

5 1 13 10 4 8 5 6

5 1 2

Vaughn P 11 M B 84 42% 71%

5 2 1 2 15 0 10 0 4 10 10 10 5 0 0 00% 1

5 1 4

Jason R 12 M L ## 88% 94%

5 4 1 2 15 9 10 6 4 6 10 6 5 0 0 00% 4

5 1 3

Jamie R 11 F B 99 78% 89%

5 5 1 2 15 7 10 3 4 5 10 5 5 0 0 00% 9

4 3

Jeremey S 9 M B 55 96% 74% 85%

5 5 1 2 15 9 10 5 4 7 8 7 5 0 8 7

4 4

Andre S 12 M B 90 96% 84% 90%

5 5 1 2 15 9 10 5 4 6 8 6 5 0 8 2

5 1 4

Erica S 9 F B 98 90% 95%

5 5 1 2 15 10 10 6 4 6 10 6 5 1 0 00% 5

4

Shannice T 12 F B 55 90% 90%

5 1 15 10 2 5 5 5

1

8

0 21.1 16.6

3 19.84

# # 11 31 17 20 13 19 13 11 5 8 8

4

Total # # 0 90 22 36 3 4 9 97 82 0 6 0 0 9 9

3

2.

3

76% 0 64%

8

3. 3. 0. 1. 6. 7. 3. 2. 3. 0. 7

Avg 10 78 9 5 8 4 11 7 5 7 9 5 7 5 9 3 7 71%

Percentag 76

76%

64

64%

17

e 78% 79% 69% 79% 69% 75% 67% 75% 62% 73% 50% 70% 50% 79% %

% %

71%

INDIVIDUAL LEARNING

OBJECTIVE SCORE: 74% 74% 71% 68% 62% 60% 48% 71%

17 64

Mean 78% 79% 69% 79% 69% 75% 67% 75% 62% 73% 50% 70% 50% 79% %

1 76%

%

64%

71%

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 66

Median 78% 00% 80% 00% 00% 00% 70% 00% 50% 00% 60% 80% 60% 00% 0%

1 96%

%

66% 82%

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 84

Mode 55% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 40% 00% 00% 00% 60% 00% 60% 00% 0%

1 100%

%

84% 92%

Std. 0 33%

24

24% 22%

31

Deviation 16% 34% 38% 34% 46% 35% 32% 36% 36% 36% 32% 33% 32% 34% %

%

Appendix B: RUBRICS OF SUMMATIVE

ASSESSMENTS

ASSIGNMENT 20 RUBRIC

Questi Point

on Description s

1-4 Assignment completed 20

5 Reasonable Values (which

resulted in a speed between

60 RPM & 140 RPM) 5

6 For each part:

Correct Work (-1 for no

units) 3

Correct Numerical Answer 1

Correct Units 1 15

7 Proper titles 2

Proper units 2

Proper numbering 2

Accurate curve 4 10

TOTAL 50

QUIZ 7 RUBRIC

Questi Point

on Description s

1 2 points each part 10

2 3 points each part

Arithmetic error -1

10

Conceptual error -1

No units/ wrong units -1

3 2 points each part

Arithmetic error -1

10

Conceptual error -1

No units/ wrong units -1

4 3 points each part

Arithmetic error -1

10

Conceptual error -1

No units/ wrong units -1

5 2 points each part

No units/ wrong units -1 10

Correct Numerical

answer 1

TOTAL 50

1.

a. task main()

b. motor

c. optical shaft encoder (-1 for each missing word)

d. 2 or 3

e. Sensor, computer, program, or laptop

2.

a. 120 in*oz.

b. 40 oz.

c. Robot A will push Robot B because Robot A has more

pushing Force than Robot B.

3.

a. The sum of the torques is 0 in*oz.

b. 50 oz. * 4 in. = 200 in*oz.

c. 100 oz. * 6 in. = 600 in*oz.

d. 0 = 200 in*oz + 600 in*oz + (Torque of motor)

Torque of motor = 800 in*oz

4.

a. 1800 slits * (360 deg/90 slit) = 7200 deg

b. 7200 deg * (1 rev/360 deg) = 20 rev

c. (20 rev/40 sec) * (60 sec/1 min) = 30 rev/min

5.

a. ~350 in*oz

b. ~5000 – 6000 RPM

c. 3000 RPM

d. ~250-300 in*oz

Appendix C: SAMPLE STUDENT WORK FROM

UNIT PLAN

JASON R (ASSIGNMENT 20)

STEPHANE G.(ASSIGNMENT 20)

JASON R (QUIZ 7)

STEPHANE G (QUIZ 7)