Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Reading Logs / Reflective Writing Was Re: science education articles



Suggested RL instructions:

- set aside 1-3 hours weekly text reading time
- skim chapter, don’t sweat comprehension yet, just survey (like layers of an onion) note time for first reading on top p1 (non native English students will require significant time)
- do first side of sheet note: we expect PAPER copies as we expect multiple representations in pen (images, sketches, formulae and other non-keyboard stuff) — though a student could do those on paper and then snap and upload a cellphone image. Also top questions from first reading on top of p2.
- read through second time, concentrating on trying to discern the stuff you think is the most important (it’s not all equally important).
- complete remaining questions and timings on the sheet.

Rdg logs are cursorily graded on completeness; typical grades are 0/10 (missing) and 5/10-10/10. Sometimes half points are used. Effectively 10% of your class grade is awarded for being a conscientious student scholar and reading the text. A comparison of Q’s top and bottom of p2 really evidences reflection; the “Integrate Knowledge” section really tells if the student can construct relevance. Often I will comment (sharply limited) with checks, happy/frowny faces or a few words for figs and sketches and follow up Qs.

Been doing this with SMALL classes (under 30) for five years, iterating the Rdg Log form. It takes me or a GTA about 30min to grade 30 of these.
We do other reflective writing (journals and learning commentaries) in the physics courses, partially documented here (2011) with rubrics etc:

< http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/AAPTmtgs/AAPT2011Jan/PST1B-03StudentWritingReflection/StuRdgLogLrngCommPoster2.ppt >

(and parent directory):

<http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/AAPTmtgs/AAPT2011Jan/PST1B-03StudentWritingReflection/>


Dan MacIsaac, Associate Professor of Physics, SUNY-Buffalo State College
462SciBldg BSC, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo NY 14222 USA 1-716-878-3802
<macisadl@buffalostate.edu> <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu>
Physics Graduate Coordinator & NSF Investigator for ISEP (MSP) and Noyce

PS — The syllabus usually contains a quote that looks like this:

“REFLECTIVE WRITING AND JOURNAL (25% OF GRADE):
Reading Logs. A conscientiously completed one page reading log for each chapter, graded out of ten.

Course Reflective Journal. Written in your own hand in a separate book with bound pages. Put your name prominently on the cover, and do not put your name on your daily entries. Not to be written in or during class. Do not erase entries; strike through and start a new entry, sentence or line. Can be checked on any date during the regular course and will be checked during exams.

0) Start with the full date and day of the week on top of a new page.
1) Summary list of activities from that day’s class (bullets are fine).
2) What did I learn? Please explain your reasoning. Include sketches, figures, diagrams, equations, graphs (multiple representations are required) as appropriate and sufficient.
3) After reflection, what short Guiding Questions do I have to guide my thinking in next days’ class? Guiding Questions are expected to show reflective, in-depth, open-ended thought, and at least partially developed ideas.

If you are absent: Indicate date as ABSENT, list steps taken to make up the activity, and address the four elements above as best possible.

Learning Commentaries. A brief three paragraph formal essay written three times during the semester (at exams) reflecting upon your learning in the course. A learning commentary is a story describing the evolution of your thoughts on ONE (per LC) single scientific idea. You will describe your initial thoughts, activities, discussions that change or confirm how you think about the idea together with examples and your final scientific interpretation. Learning commentaries are word-processed and you will hand in a paper copy in class and an electronic second copy through Blackboard. I will give more detail and a rubric in class. Write your learning commentary starting from your journal and notes. Learning commentaries are graded based upon the quality and quantity of your comments and examples, together with how you support claims for your final scientific ideas with specific data taken from classroom observations and activities. In particular, I will be looking for:

a description of your ONE initial scientific idea based upon your previous life experiences, together with a description of your supporting evidence (with your original supporting evidence):

a substantive discussion of how various class discussions and activities promoted change in your idea (citing examples and supporting evidence by date from your journal); and

a brief description of your final scientific idea

"

On Sep 24, 2015, at 1:57 PM, rjensen@ualberta.ca wrote:

Daniel

Thanks. I work with upwards of 1000 students per term. However, I
believe this reading log could be adapted into something that is
entered and graded electronically.

What guidance do you provide students on 'how to read a textbook'?

Thanks,
Dr. Roy Jensen
(==========)-----------------------------------------¤
Lecturer, Chemistry
W5-19, University of Alberta
780.248.1808




On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:39:35 -0400, you wrote:

I have noted similar issues with our freshman (bright, semi-articulate, super dependent on others and very good at externalizing accountability for their own learning). One strategy we use to address this is to require freshman to read the course text and write some minimally reflective reaction to each chapter via a two-sided, one page reading log <http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/danmac/ReflectiveWriting/ReadingLogV7.doc>
and have each log turned in for fast cursory grading weekly, 10-12 logs worth about 10% of the final grade (about 1 letter grade). Then student grade is visibly and solidly linked to this expectation for diligent student performance. We do this for our courses where students are expected to start developing strategies for making sense of technical writing although the form does not actually require extended sense-making, which we work on via class time activity.

A suggestion I have for realtime assessment of student understanding is whiteboard use. I’m long part the point where whiteboards are in any way invasive or time-absorbing in my class because I use them for so many other reasons but monitoring and guiding student thinking is certainly something important to me. There are many many videos, URLs and blogs detailing whiteboard use extant at least in HS / Intro physics. I know they are used widely in HS modeling chem, but am unfamiliar with URLs supporting that.

Dan M

Dan MacIsaac, Associate Professor of Physics, SUNY-Buffalo State College
462SciBldg BSC, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo NY 14222 USA 1-716-878-3802
<macisadl@buffalostate.edu> <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu>
Physics Graduate Coordinator & NSF Investigator for ISEP (MSP) and Noyce

On Sep 23, 2015, at 10:09 PM, rjensen@ualberta.ca wrote:

Active instructional strategies only work if the students are *not*
passive learners, and work better the higher the level of the learner.
This is exactly what I address in ComSci-3.pdf
www.RoguePublishing.ca/ComSci-3.pdf

As you might have guessed, I played with flipped instruction. I
flipped about 30 % of the class material -- material they were already
exposed to in high school -- so as to not overwhelm my students and
maintain a diversity of instructional strategies. I teach at a
competitive institution, created instructional videos, gave a quiz on
the flipped material before class, asked students what they were
confused about in the flipped material, gave an brief summary of the
material (10 min) at the beginning of class (focusing on where
students struggled on the quiz and what they say they found
confusing), and then continued with instructor-led and student-led
real-world problems, demonstrations, and current events discussions.
By the end of the term, around 85 % of the students were completing
the flipped-material quizzes (each worth ~1.5 % of their total grade).
The ones that were, were getting close to 100 %.

The most profound observation I made based on the end-of-term
comments: First-year is a big change from high school. At their level
of development, students do not take personal responsibility and look
for any reason to blame others for their poor performance. Since I was
the only one engaged in active instruction and they had never seen it
before, I was the reason they did poorly in chemistry.

Stupidly, I want to try this again. There are things I could do
better. I also want to work with my colleagues to assess the relative
increase in student understanding between sections of flipped and
traditional instruction. What non-invasive and non-time consuming
strategies exist to assess understanding. I am familiar with pre/post
testing. Are there others?

Thanks,
Dr. Roy Jensen
(==========)-----------------------------------------¤
Lecturer, Chemistry
W5-19, University of Alberta
780.248.1808