Overview: What is Common? Argumentation
You might be one of the many Americans that are a bit perplexed by this whole new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) “stuff”. In this post I will try my best to explain how I designed an assessment for the first year students in the Academy that aligns with the Common Core. This was partly motivated by a district wide push to bring all curriculum in alignment with the CCSS, specifically as it relates to literacy.
For context, I will identify the educational goal that in part motivated this effort. Our school site administration has identified argumentation as a key curricular focus that all staff will address this year. This has given the school the ability to focus on literacy and has allowed the school staff to guide their efforts towards a collaborative goal.
This assessment was organized into three parts: the prediction, the analysis, and the reflection. Each part of the assessment focused on specific standards.
Part 1: The Prediction Report
If you haven’t had a chance to read a previous post where I describe how the students conducted experiments and collected data pertaining to building a predictive model, then I might suggest it, as it is really the first part of this assessment.
The standards addressed in this part of the assessment are as follows:
Follow precisely a complex multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks; analyze the specific results based on explanations in the text.
Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., quantitative data, video, multimedia) in order to address a question or solve a problem.
To summarize the first part of the assessment, the students were required to collect data in order to create a prediction report describing the performance of their model rockets. The report had to include these elements:
- Force diagrams (free-body diagrams) depicting the predicted forces acting on the rocket during the a) thrust phase, b) cruise phase, and c) descent phase.
- Net force equations that identify the causal relationship governing the motion state of the rocket.
- Three motion graphs depicting the predicted behavior of the rocket. This included its predicted acceleration, velocity and position as a function of time.
The student teams submitted these reports prior to the actual launch.
Part 2: Analysis Report
The next step was to run the actual experiment – the launching of the rockets! Although the launch day was soggy, we still had a successful afternoon, and we got some great data. The details of the launch are described in a previous post.
The standard addressed in this part of the assessment was as follows:
Synthesize information from a range of sources (e.g., texts, experiments, simulations) into a coherent understanding of a process, phenomenon, or concept, resolving conflicting information when possible.
The students were given their prediction reports back, and then also given the data from the small altimeters that were used to collect altitude data. The students were then asked to create an analysis of their rocket’s performance:
This report required these elements:
- Using the data analysis tools in LoggerPro, they had to identify:
- The acceleration of the rocket during the thrust phase (a best estimate)
- The acceleration of the rocket during the cruise phase (a best estimate)
- The maximum velocity of the rocket (a best estimate)
- The descent velocity (a best estimate)
- A velocity vs time graph from the information above.
- An acceleration vs time graph.
Part 3: Reflection (Addressing Counter-claims)
The final part of the assessment asked the students to compare the prediction and analysis reports and then propose reasons for discrepancies between the data. I also asked the students to respond to some Aristotelian counter claims by using their data and the models that we had collectively established in class.
The standards addressed in this part of the assessment were:
Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical text, verifying the data when possible and corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information.
Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
I asked the students to respond to the following questions which required that the students use data to support their analysis.
- Compare the predicted NET force on your rocket during the thrust phase to the actual NET force on your rocket during the thrust phase by using your data – you will need to estimate the actual NET force during this phase. Using these numbers as evidence (you must include these values in your answer), describe at least one reason these values are different.
- Compare the predicted maximum height of your rocket with the actual maximum by using your data. Using these numbers as evidence (you must include these values in your answer), describe at least one reason these values are different.
- Compare the predicted descent velocity during the descent phase to the actual descent velocity from your data. Using these numbers as evidence (you must include these values in your answer), describe at least one reason these values are different.
- Look at your data and then also at your prediction graphs. Describe at least two differences between the graphs, AND WHY you think these differences exist.
- Based on the actual data you collected, what design changes would you make IF you could create this rocket from scratch again? Give at least two examples of design changes you would make.
I also included two questions that asked the students to respond to an alternative explanation for the behavior of their rocket. These claims were specifically created in order to address student misconceptions involving inertia and residual forces. Below I have included the questions and example student responses:
“Make a counter claim to the following statement from someone who is an “Aristotelian”: The reason that the rocket continued to move upwards after the fuel had run out is that the fuel force continued to push on the rocket, but lessened until the rocket reached its apex, when the rocket stopped moving and the thrust force disappeared. Once the thrust force disappeared, the rocket began falling back to earth!”
“This is incorrect because as soon as the fuel runs out there is no longer a thrust force acting on the rocket. After the fuel runs out the only force acting on the rocket is the force of gravity which will slow down the rocket until its velocity is zero and then the rocket will continue accelerating downward and fall to the earth.”
“Make a counter claim to the following statement from someone who is an “Aristotelian”:The reason that the rocket descended back to earth is because the rocket is heavier than air and so the force from gravity was greater than any air resistance force on the parachute, thus resulting in the rocket falling back to earth.”
“Actually, the reason the rocket descended to earth is because the forces of gravity and drag were equal. The rocket was falling at terminal velocity, and we know that when an object is traveling at a constant velocity there is no acceleration. If the force of gravity working on the rocket was greater, the rocket would be accelerating in its descent. Knowing that the rocket falls in this way, we can conclude that the forces of gravity and drag working on the parachute were equal.”
I am very pleased by the students’ performances on this assessment, and many of the students enjoyed the process and appreciated the opportunity to connect their learning and demonstrate their knowledge and skill. I feel that there is much to consider for the next time I do this kind of assessment, which will be at the end of the spring semester.
One area I can quickly see I need to help the students develop is making connections to data more explicit. Most students would justify their arguments by stating that a certain explanation was evident. I need to help them develop the skill of presenting evidence more clearly and then linking their arguments to the actual evidence. This was an implicit practice, but it needs to be more explicit.
I hope to hear from you all about how I might perfect this process, and prepare the students to excel on this kind of authentic, problem based assessment.
Obviously, it makes this ELA geek exceptionally happy to see the way in which you have integrated the two disciplines! I would like a little clarification about how the students expressed the Literacy Standards in the Prediction Report and the Analysis Report. For example, did they explain the contents of the report orally to the whole class, or individually to you? And, however that was expressed (orally or in writing), were you able to include an assessment of their articulation skills as well? Do feel like that’s necessary? Possible? Feasible? As a literacy coach, it’s helpful to know how much and what kind of support, tools, information, research you would need to make that happen.
You bring up two important points. I did not coach the students enough on how to present their prediction and analysis reports in a written presentation. The result was a significant variance in the level of descriptive analysis. Some students were very brief and assumed a certain knowledge of the reader (me) and so they simply identified the data or calculations but did not include sufficient background or overview. This is certainly something I would like to change for next time. One thing that would be helpful would be some way to hep students initiate that process – like a “template”…
Second, I did not develop an assessment rubric for evaluating the efficacy of the students’ arguments, or how well they were hitting the standard. This would have been really handy when I sat down to actually grade their responses. Once again, something to do for round 2!
Thanks for the feedback!
Pingback: Computational Deployment: Simulating A Rocket | Academy of Physics and Technology