Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 1

Science 8/8H: Unbalanced Forces

Lesson Plan Critique

Andrew Yeung

University of British Columbia

ETEC 512-66A
Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 2

Having to reflect back towards my practicum seven years ago for a written lesson plan is

rather ironic. Not that general preparation is unnecessary nor having taught juniors since then,

my current pedagogy is heavily content-driven, hiding behind learning outcomes more than

grounding activities in the various theoretical perspectives from this course. The following

lesson critique specifically examines how Behaviorism, Information Processing and

Constructivism are present, and may further contribute improvements to existing plans.

Behaviorism

Behaviorism emphasizes overt action, learning through direct observation conditioned by

reinforcement and punishment (Standridge, 2002). Behaviorist theory is most commonly used

for classroom management given ease of application and effectiveness in response, provided

conduct is adequately rewarded sustained over time. Right from the beginning, lessons utilize

homework checks to reward completion, along with verbal affirmations for class participation.

Checking work periodically was intended to force students to keep on top of material, especially

juniors who have yet to develop mature study habits. However assessing quantity provided little

success overall, separating learners who typically finish homework scoring perfect, while others

consistently producing no homework. Moreover authentic learning assessment is missing,

blindly exchanging quality of work for quantity. Not knowing when checks occur resulted in

uncertainty, rewarding those who forget when not checked, penalizing those who finish tasks

without acknowledgment, even towards anxiety passing off work as their own. As such, marks

were insufficient rewards to motivate certain students from procrastination, perpetuating learning

as passive reception. Rather improvements should promote motivation through challenge,

fantasy and curiosity (Srinivasan et al., 2006) towards intrinsic satisfaction over external reward.
Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 3

Once having filmed myself teach, I witnessed how frequently my body language was

directed towards engaged students, regrettably limiting other contribution while ignoring off-task

behavior. No wonder learners sometimes felt disengaged when prevented from sharing thoughts.

Picking names likewise encountered issues of shyness, decreasing frequency seen as punishment.

Later before moving towards School Commons, I reviewed previously drilled commands of

“stop and listen”. My sponsor teacher observed how I often waited for learners to “stop”, but

needed to gather their attention with “listen”. Otherwise without reinforcing consequences,

students may tune out commands altogether. Little doubt the intention was to minimize

disruption walking through hallways, though group rehearsal overlooks individual circumstances

as teachers walk back and forth multiple times until noise level is satisfactory. Also because

similar lesson plans were used for three blocks (one of which accelerated), time spent practicing

was extended for afternoon classes known to be rowdy, enforcing punishments with timeouts

losing privilege contributing in fun activities.

While behaviorism implications and negative effects are debatable, there remains place

for reward and punishment to effectively manage activity for quick and sustained improvement.

Positive reinforcement can be incorporated stating my approval whenever learners demonstrated

appropriate conduct, though finding specific rewards may prove challenging let alone expensive

given student background. Returning to assigning worksheets for closure, instead of using

homework to prompt action however unsuccessfully, revisions focus on building relationships

with students to monitor their own learning, taking responsibility to practice until proficient. I

desire to be less seen as holder of marks, but emphasize learning for knowledge sake.

Furthermore as introduced from the learning conference, rewards can be scheduled at various

intervals or ratios to most effectively address social context towards internal motivation.
Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 4

Information Processing

Information Processing considers how experiential stimuli become converted into mental

representations before memory storage. Orey (2001) likens Information theory with a Computer

model, processing from sensory register through short-term to long-term. Learners connect ideas

with private universes manipulating ideas before memory, assimilating knowledge and

accommodating understanding (Good, 1978). In addition to having students recall prior

knowledge, retrieving definitions between mass and weight, revisions include starting lessons

with big ideas, helping learners develop a mental framework before working through details.

Participants verbalize sensory experience during tug-o-war held temporarily in short-term,

comparing scenarios with unbalanced forces and corresponding outcomes. Learners utilize

deductive bottom-up processing (matching new with existing), as well as inductive top-down

processing (matching existing with new) to consolidate understanding (Glassman, 1994).

Surprising results challenge learners to modify cognition towards consistent thinking,

breaking down common misconceptions from everyday life. Because students progress through

memory stages in cycles at varying efficiencies, revisions incorporate think-pair-share, enabling

differentiated instruction to explore setups based on interest rather than mindlessly progressing

with classes. Moreover all students have different backgrounds, so matching groups during tug-

o-wars enables students to interact as more knowledgeable others. Watching video clips of space

objects can demonstrate uniform velocity without external force, towards reviewing how forces

cause acceleration. Worksheets then provide sufficient rehearsal, whose repetition frees working

memory to acquire new information. Rote practice decreases reliance on general frontal lobe

regions towards specific parietal areas (Zamarian, 2009), strengthening memory networks

increasing recruited areas for strategic problem solving.

Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 5

Constructivism

Constructivism posits learners as knowledge constructors, actively deconstructing and

reconstructing understanding, as Von Glasersfeld (2008) describes how knowledge cannot be

reduced to a stock of retrievable facts. While initial lesson plans considered having students

extend gravitational conceptions to other planets with the Interactive, there was little priority to

be done only given extra time. Revisions now enable students to use PhET simulations, learning

through explorative inquiry before teacher instruction, striking a healthy balance between heavy

guidance and pure discovery (Adams, 2010), embedding just in time prompts and minimizing

unnecessary details. Moreover revisions include starting with traditional 2-way tug-o-wars

before extending towards 3-way setups, applying knowledge to see whether framework needs

modification. Whenever circumstances produce contradictions from expectations, groups can

make predictions to interpret responses from experiences, comparing outcomes when situations

are changed.

Learner-directed construction not only provides student engagement, but can potentially

replace teacher-centred instruction altogether depending on content. To supplement worksheets,

implementing journal reflections promotes metacognitive awareness to consolidate

understanding, identifying potential gaps and remaining questions, reminding students that

learning is for themselves, understanding knowledge as construction. Although lessons now

might need stretching over multiple classes, students can progress through logical cycles from

generation through explanation to modification as necessary (Khan, 2007).

Extension activities involving team participation through games-based learning can

provide further collaboration as students develop strategies, iteratively working out solutions to

face achievable challenge.

Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 6

References

Adams, W. K. (2010). Student engagement and learning with PhET interactive simulations. Il

Nuovo Cimento, 1-12.

Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: the two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky.

Developmental Review, 14, 186-214.

Good, R., Mellon, E. K., Kromhout, R. A. (1978). The work of Jean Piaget. Journal of Chemical

Engineering, 55, 688-693.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Orey, M. (2002). Information Processing. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching, and technology.

Srinivasan, S., Pérez, L. C., Palmer, R. D., Brooks, D. W., Wilson, K., & Fowler, D. (2006).

Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137-141.

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching, and technology.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.

Zamarian, L., Ischebeck, A., & Delazer, M. (2009). Neuroscience of learning arithmetic:

Evidence from brain imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 909-

925.
Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 7

Lesson 7: Balanced and Unbalanced Forces Revisions in red

Tuesday Apr 13th, 2010 Block C (Day 1)

Wednesday Apr 14th, 2010 Block E,H (Day 2)

Science 8/8H: Differentiate instruction regarding vocabulary and time given class dynamics

Instructional Goals:

 Understand that speed remains constant when forces are balanced, and speed (or direction)

changes when they are unbalanced. Retrieve prior knowledge from LTM where forces cause

motion, demonstrating motion without forces extending towards forces causing acceleration

Intended Learning Outcomes:

 Describe the movement of objects in terms of balanced and unbalanced forces

 Differentiate between mass and weight

PLO: C5 Students actively construct knowledge rather than learning prescribed outcomes

Assessment Strategies:

 Homework check and in-class review of Forces worksheet Retrieve knowledge from LTM

 Formatively assess participation/engagement with 3-way tug of war Extend from 2-way tug

Assign Forces Crossword and Chapter 7 Visual Dictionary Repetition enhances retrieval

1) Homework check [15min]

No longer assign ineffective and unauthentic mark rewards, towards promoting intrinsic

motivation through building relationship and developing metacognition

a. Take attendance

b. Review multiple choice and true or false sections around the room

Post answers on website for learners to actively seek out solutions

c. Remind students visual dictionary assignment is due next class

Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 8

Introduce Big Idea as framework: Motion does not require forces, but forces cause acceleration

- Have students brainstorm examples to support/oppose the above statements

Employ information processing activating LTM prior knowledge, posing scenarios for STM

*Tension force in rope (contact) Tug-o-war involves senses through contact forces

*Balanced forces (constant speed, ex. no motion) Space objects move at constant velocity

*Unbalanced forces (speed or direction changes) Gravity accelerates objects in freefall

Employ constructivism starting with traditional 2-way tug of war to review forces

- Extend newly-formed conceptions, applying understanding towards 3-way setups

2) Hook: 3-Way Tug of War [20min]

a. Bring students to Commons, reviewing commands ‘Stop and Listen’

Employ behaviorism rehearsing commands for management, walking towards Commons with

acceptable volume

b. Have them line up tallest to shortest (maybe two or three rows)

c. Number off: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, etc.

Match groups so learners can benefit from interacting with more knowledgeable others

d. Have students separate into the three groups A,B,C

e. Call out number 1s, 2s, 3s, etc.

i. First to pick up bean bag wins

Candy reward as congratulations to promote healthy competition since fun already engages

3) Notes: [15min]

Have learners explore ‘Net Force’ (relating to tug-o-war) and ‘Motion’ (extending to friction,

acceleration) using PhET simulations before class debrief, manipulating variables and pushing

limits based on group interests

Running head: UNBALANCED FORCES 9

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/forces-and-motion-basics/latest/forces-and-motion-

basics_en.html

a. Balanced and Unbalanced Forces

Instead of teacher-directed instruction, have learners think-pair-share, posing scenarios through

questioning if groups are missing concepts

b. Mass and Weight

Emphasize key vocabulary to help transition representation to paper summary

4) Student Activity: [15min]

Have learners journal down reflections from tug-o-war and simulation activities

a. Complete Forces Crossword and Name That Force Worksheet

5) Closure: [10min]

a. Gravity Variations Interactive: Projectile Motion on Different Planets

Have students extend conceptions exploring gravitation on different planets

http://highered.mcgraw-

hill.com/sites/0072482621/student_view0/interactives.html#

i. Review difference between mass and weight

*If extra time, Spread over few classes

a. PhET Simulation: Forces in 1d (unbalanced forces make objects accelerate)

Another PhET simulation for learners to actively construct knowledge before teacher instruction

https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/forces-1d

b. Try Reading Check questions pg.281 #1-5 (mass and weight)

c. Review Check Your Understanding problems pg.289 #1-7 (forces)

Complete assignments for practice rehearsal not as time killers