Sharing Seminar on the Implementation of Investigative Study for Physics Curriculum

1. Sharing Seminar on the Implementation of Investigative Study for Physics Curriculum 25 February 2006 Science Education Section / HKUST

2. Objectives: • Promote Investigative Study (IS) for Physics Curriculum • Introduce teachers about exemplars for IS and findings from school trials • Share the experience of implementation of IS in physics class

3. Programme

4. Pilot Project Dr YH Lau Science Education Section CDI, EMB

5. Aims of the Pilot Project • To prepare IS for NSS Physics Curriculum • To develop exemplars of IS • To perform trial study for IS • To evaluate implementation of IS • To evaluate the use of IS for assessment

6. Partnership • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology • Department of Physics • Center for Enhanced learning and Teaching • Schools • Baptist Lui Ming Choi secondary School • Cheng Chek Chee Secondary School • King Ling College • Sai Kung Sung Tsun Catholic Secondary School • St. Mark’s School • Curriculum Development Institute • Science Education Section (Physics)

7. First Phase School Trial • December 2004 – January 2005 • Cheng Chek Chee Secondary School • Form 6 students (9 groups) • Measurement / Acceleration in traveling objects / Projectile motion • 2 full days and 2 half days • Briefing and planning (1 H/D) • Implementation (2 F/D) • Presentation (1 H/D)

8. First Phase School Trial • January 2005 • Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School • Form 4 students (11 groups) • Factors affecting frictional force • 2 double and 2 single lessons • Briefing and planning (1 D/L) • Implementation (2 S/L) • Poster presentation (1 D/L)

9. First Phase Teachers Training • June - July 2005 • Teacher training workshop • One full day • 29 teachers • F4 Student Science Day Camp • Investigation of heat capacity of given objects • 10 schools • F6 Student Science Day Camp • Investigation of LCR Resonance • 6 schools

10. Second Phase School Trial • October 2005 • King Ling College • 2 classes in Form 4 (8 groups/class) • Specific latent heat of melting ice • 2 double and 2 single lessons • Briefing and planning (1 D/L) • Presentation (1 S/L) • Implementation (1 D/L) • Feedback (1 S/L)

11. Second Phase School Trial • November 2005 • Sai Kung Sung Tsun Catholic Secondary School • Form 6 students (4 groups) • Projectile motion • Implementation • Briefing and planning (1 D/L) • Implementation and tryout (1 F/D) • Implementation and data collection (1 T/L) • Presentation (1 D/L) • Full report

12. Second Phase School Trial • December 2005 • St Mark’s School • Form 6 students (10 groups) • Factors affecting frictional force using data-loggers • Implementation • Experimental design and presentation (3 D/L) • Implementation and data collection (1 T/L) • Full report

13. Classification of IS projects

14. Common pitfalls • Deciding on a topic • Anxiety • Over ambition • Interest versus feasibility • Collection data • Workload underestimation • Waiting time • Side-tracking • Opening hours

15. Common pitfalls • Analysis and report writing • Misunderstanding • Over-involvement • Variability of source materials • Workload • Time under-allocation • Over-involvement

16. General advice • Materials • Providing general advice • Providing Information about sources of information • Suggesting a topic list • Offering sample report / format guidelines • Schedule • Despatching materials early • Apportion time appropriately • Realistic time allocation

17. General advice • Assessment • Specifying assessment criteria • Agreeing on outline plane • Requiring staged assessments • Providing topic approval before work starts • Tuition • Giving an early tutorial / individual help • Arranging peer group support

18. Acknowledgement • School Teachers • Mr. Kwong Po Kit • Mr. Wan Ka Kit • Mr. Lam Shiu Bun • Mr. Chow Siu Wah • Mr. Hong Chung Yin

19. Acknowledgement • HKUST • Prof. TK Ng • Mr. TS Ha • Miss Christa Sam • Miss Jennie Chan • Dr. TK Goh • Mr. Willamson Lam • Mr. Leon Leung

20. Exemplars Prof. TK Ng, Dept. of Physics, HKUST

21. Design principles • Facilitate teachers to try investigative study in practical work • Provide examples and ideas for teachers to carry out investigative study

22. Design Principles • 1)Practical under School environment • 2)Match needs of different schools/students • 3)Agree with current trend in education reform

23. Main features of exemplars • Problem solving in connection with daily live • Daily-life investigations • Standard apparatus and materials not necessary • Minimization of the use of laboratoryequipmentsNot confined to laboratory • Students are encouraged to design their own (investigation) procedure

24. Main features of exemplars • Variety and flexibility in project scale, level of difficulty and duration • Tailor made for teachers and students with less experience in IS. • Measuring lengths of very small/large objects • Factors affecting frictional force • Heat capacity of given objects

25. Main features of exemplars • Both well-structured and open-ended projects • Different natures of projects: measurement, device construction, demonstration, etc. • Construction of capacitors and inductors • Measuring the speed of sound in air • Investigation of LCR circuit • etc.

26. Main features of exemplars • Experience in pilot study provided • Detailed timeline of launching IS • Description of different teaching styles • Technical issues raised in the projects • Challenges faced by teachers and students

27. Kick start your Investigative Study • Kick start by following an exemplar • Made changes base on • Your experience • Ideas from other exemplars • Design a way suitable for you and your student

28. Assessment Rubrics Mr. Tak S Ha CELT, HKUST

29. Project Planning • Understanding tasks/problems • Planning the project

30. Project implementation • Implementation of the project • Time management • Group Work

31. Scientific Inquiry • Experimental design and setup • Fair test • Data collection • Monitoring and managing investigation • Data analysis

32. Information Collection and Analysis • Collection and synthesis of information

33. Project Report • Conceptual understanding of subject knowledge • Organization and presentation • Discussion and conclusion

34. Important Elements • 7 point scale ( 6 – 0) • Level of assistance students received – More assistance less marks • Extent of project completion – Full mark if all tasks completed. • Evidence of use of scientific principles • Evidence of safety precautions

35. Using the Rubrics in class • Pick the dimensions you need. • Add your own dimensions if necessary, e.g. project specific criteria • Rate performance of group first. • Adjust group performance for individual group member if necessary.

36. IS School trials Mr. Tak S Ha, Ms. Christa Sam CELT, HKUST

37. Outline of Presentation • Tools for data collection, observation and feedback from teachers and students • Results from Phase I and Phase II of school trials • Implication and recommendations related to school implementation

38. The Trials

39. Data collection tools • Phase I • On-site observation – field notes and behavior log • Learning log • Questionnaire surveys • Interviews of teachers • Focus group meeting with students • Phase II • On-site observation • Questionnaire surveys • Interviews of teachers • Focus group meeting with students

40. Results of trials • Teachers’ experience • Preparation for IS • Implementation of IS • Assessment in IS • Students’ experience • How did they find it? • What were they doing? • What and how did they learn? • How well were they doing?

41. Preparation • Planning the project schedule • Whether to use class time, number of sessions, etc. • Types of activities – presentation, peer evaluation, etc. • Anticipate problems students might have, prepare guidelines • Preparing the necessary equipment • Preparing assessment tools • both peer and teacher assessment • Rubrics, assessment form, • Planning sheet, experiment log, report form

42. Implementation • Guidance for students • Guidance on demand • Checking on students progress • Appropriate level of guidance • Conflict between assessor and facilitator • Structured vs unstructured (students’ time management) • Project logistics

43. Assessment • Assessing students’ performance in-class is a challenge, especially if there are 10 groups • Groups assessed earlier will benefit from teacher’s advice • Assessing students requires interacting with them through questioning • Assessing student written work time-consuming

44. Rubrics • Number of dimensions used • Teachers adding their own dimensions • Range of score 0-6 • Rubrics should contain topic specifics performance descriptors • Assessing groups or students

45. Workload of teachers • Preparation • Varied a lot, from a few hours to a few days • More time spent for beginners • Marking students’ work • Same as marking lab reports

46. Reflection • Slow progress but deeper learning • Performance as expected or better than expected

47. Students’ Experience

48. How students find it? • Difficult? • S4 - 90% easy or appropriate • S6 – 50% easy or appropriate, 50% difficult • S4 - Designing the expt (48%), writing the report (36%) • S6 – Writing the report (53%), designing the expt (49%), analysing data (41%)

49. How students find IS? • Do you need more guidance? • S4 – No (80%) • S6 - No (64%) • Did you enjoy it? • S4 – Yes (70%) OK (22%) • S6 – Yes (50%) OK (28%)

50. What were they doing? • How much outside class time did they spent? • None - S4 (23%); S6(8%) • 0.1 – 6hr – S4(77%); S6(61%) • More than 6hr – S4(0%); S6(31%)