Thoughts on Teaching in the Tutorial

I find that teaching does something ridiculous to me. It's similar to the effect of drinking five cups of coffee before entering a ball pit. I sometimes think that if I could step outside my body while I'm teaching, and watch, I'd surely be saying to myself, "who is that?" This afternoon, I found myself quite literally leaping over chairs, acting out graphs with my body, and feeling ridiculously gleeful when my students experienced success in their problem solving. I honestly don't know how it happens; before tutorial, I was really quite tired, but as soon as the students walked in the room, I was on cloud nine. I can't help but wonder, is teaching secretly some form of a caffeine pill?

I'm still on the fence about how effective this high degree of excitement is for student learning. For some students, the excitement seems to be contagious - it gets a positive atmosphere in the room which spurs them on to learn more and have fun while learning. That is of course exactly what I love to see. For other students, however, I'm afraid that it distances them. The student who is really struggling doesn't want to see someone else having a jolly good time doing physics. They need a TA who comes along side them to meet them where they are at, in the emotional state that they are experiencing - a TA who they can relate to. This is of course much easier one-on-one; when a student approaches me individually with a stressed look on their face, of course that automatically changes my approach with them. But in the classroom, I am finding it very challenging to be the sort of TA that each of my very different students need.

We started our first tutorial with a great POE from Tom - the one with three tracks: (A) has a ramp followed by a hill, (B) has a ramp followed by a flat stretch, and (C) has a ramp followed by a valley. They all start and finish at the same height, but their paths are different. It's a fun POE to talk about kinematics, misuse of conservation of energy laws, and how the normal force can change the horizontal velocity when something is rolling (unlike a projectile which has the same horizontal velocity all through its path). The students got right into it! As soon as they entered the room, ten minutes before the start of class, they began investigating the tracks and trying to work out a solution. I love working with these students - you couldn't possibly ask for a better class.

During the first round of tutorials, I used this POE as a stepping stone to kinematics/ dynamics, but I also used it as a way to draw out and validate the curiosity they all have as physicists. Once we had discussed as a class the various possibilities for a little while, I asked them to vote if they would like to actually observe what happens, or just move on to the rest of the tutorial. Of course, all of them really wanted to see what really happens - and made this very clear to me verbally when I pretended to suggest that it didn't really matter. I was able to encourage them to hold onto this curiosity that has gotten them here studying physics. I shared with them briefly about my undergraduate experience - how my learning community of friends and my curiosity and love of learning made undergrad a truly enjoyable and enriching experience. Of course, after all this, we did observe which ball won the race, and everyone was surprised and interested. Three of the students explained why things resulted in the way that they did.

After this, we dove into problem solving. I had used another combination of my supervisor's and Tom's great ideas and cut up a giant sheet of whiteboard material into 2ft x 2ft whiteboards for teams of 3 students each to use to work out problems together. I gave the teams one of two different problems to solve and 40mins to solve them. One of the problems, given to me by my supervisor, was particularly successful in getting the students really thinking:

Before the Golden Gael’s football game this past Saturday, the quarter back was warming up by tossing the football straight up in the air and then catching it again. Determine the percentage of the total flight time during which the football is in the top half of its trajectory.

 I love this problem because there are no numbers! Of course that was the student's first response too: "I can't solve this without any numbers!" It was also a great chance for them to see just how essential it is to have a really good picture and well defined variables with useful subscripts. Of course, all of the groups required considerable support/questioning to reach the solution because it's not an easy problem. A few students came up with some creative approaches too.

After our 40 minutes of problem solving in teams, I had the students find their lab partner (who did the other problem), and teach them how to solve the problem they did. I like this strategy because it requires every student in the problem solving team to have a firm grasp of what is going on. Knowing that you have to teach this problem to someone else really motivated the students to participate in the problem solving.

I had a specific plan for these teaching partners. Last week, I made a lovely colour coded spread sheet to set up optimal lab/teaching partners. We had given the students a diagnostic test on the first day to determine where they were at in their understanding. The spread of overall grades was huge - from 33% to 100%, and everything in between. I took the questions from the test and divided them into questions which tested an understanding of inertia, of Newton's 3rd law, etc. This was a very imprecise science, of course, since most good physics questions require students to synthesize more than one idea, but I did my best. Then I matched students who achieved approximately only a 15-25% difference in their overall score, but scored very differently on the different aspects of the test. For example, I would put a student who achieved an overall score of 75% but achieved 100% on inertia problems and only 50% on 3rd law problems with a student who achieved an overall score of 55%, but achieved 100% on 3rd law problems and only 10% on inertia problems. My thinking was that the lab/teaching partners will be able to teach each other, but neither partner will get frustrated as the one who is always helping the other, since they both have different strengths. So far in the first two tutorials, this appears to be going well. I have yet to decide if the gains have been worth the significant amount of time that I put into sorting the data from the diagnostic test.

The second tutorial followed a similar structure. This time, we started with a brief class discussion about their feedback from an online get-to-know-you survey I had put out to them in the first week. They had shared with me what they love about physics, what they were most concerned about in the course, their plans for the future, and their hobbies (so that I can make them the stars of my tutorial problems). We specifically addressed the top three concerns they had brought up:

1) Keeping up with the workload
2) Maintaining high grades
3) Worries about having an incomplete math background. 

We chatted about some strategies to keep up with the work, maintain high grades without obsessing over grades, and I asked them for their advice with how to bring their math skills up to speed.

Following this, we entered the usual pattern of team problem solving with the whiteboards followed by teaching your lab partner how to do the problem you solved. All this went quite well - they were comfortable with the system, and did a great job solving the problems and teaching each other.

The difference with this week's tutorial was that it also ended with a quiz. I had written a quiz problem that I was really quite pleased with: it was about a student playing piano - one hand is playing a scale (consecutive notes) at constant speed, and the other hand is just starting to play a scale accelerating from rest. The question was to draw a position vs time graph for the two hands relative to the piano, and then to draw a graph of the right hand's position relative to the left hand. The final part was to find the time when the hands met. I thought it was a really fun question - the students would get to combine their understanding of position vs time graphs with their understanding of relative motion, and that would feel oh-so-rewarding. I definitely had my head in the clouds on this one.

The students really struggled with the quiz. One girl was actually shaking for the full half hour and several were visibly distressed. I felt so badly. In the end, I was able to find enough part marks to pass all but one of the students, but these students are used to getting 98% on physics tests - a 50%, even though it was on a quiz worth next to nothing in their final grade, was really hard on them. I think it's a very positive and important thing for them to be highly challenged by the problems they do in teams - this stretches them in an environment that has all sorts of supports. I didn't intend, however, to give them such a difficult problem in the already stressful situation of a quiz assessment.

I think I need to begin the next tutorial by apologizing. I hope I can also use it as a bit of teaching about teaching for my con-ed students - to share with them one of the challenges of teaching is to think like a student - and I didn't do that very effectively in writing the first quiz. While the students do need to be able to solve problems of this difficulty by the time the midterm arrives, it wasn't fair of me to expect them to be awesome problem solvers, able to synthesize different concepts, on the very first quiz. I hope that my apology reassures them that I have no desire to "weed them out" of physics, that I care about them, and that they aren't stupid.

I must admit, I'm glad that I'm not a doctor. As a teacher, I make a lot of mistakes, but at least there's always that next tutorial to try to set things right again.