Eclipses

[asterroc]

Like any good researcher, when I noticed students responding a certain way to a free response question, I tried to tabulate what they all said, and turned it into multiple choice. Basically, the students were trying to describe why we don't have solar and lunar eclipses every month. The drawings below are based on the word descriptions from the students. And I wanna know what you think: which picture is the main reason why we don't have solar and lunar eclipses every month?

Descriptions in words:
A) "The Moon is in a different plane."
B) "The Moon's axis is tilted."
c) "The Moon goes above and below."
D) "The Moon's orbit isn't a perfect circle."
E) "The Moon's orbit is tilted."



[Poll #1956047]

Comments

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

clicked too hastily :) i know the answer in words, but didn't notice the details of the right picture.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I put in simple-word descriptions. Basically, the "wrong" pictures came from students' written descriptions which were either outright incorrect, or else were worded vaguely enough that they could either be describing the "correct" picture or the one I showed.

I believe you can go back to fill out poll and enter a new answer. It takes something like five clicks from the post page, but I'm pretty sure it works for all polls.

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

done. nice question; not something one usually thinks about.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

The specific assignment on the lab had the students first predict in a simple (flat) model how often eclipses would occur. Then said that they really occur approximately every 6 months, so how could they alter their model to account for that. It asked them to explain the modification two different ways: in a classroom model with a ping pong ball/their heads/flashlight, and also in space with the actual Moon/Earth/Sun.

I walked around the class to help with this, which is probably why 50% did have it correct. Honestly, I'm not sure how many of the answers that I marked as incorrect are (1) the student really thinks the wrong thing is true, (2) the student conflates a few things, or (3) the student thinks the right thing is true but expressed it poorly.

Relatedly, read an article this evening (Karplus, 1977, "Science Teaching and The Development of Reasoning") which described Piaget's ideas of concrete vs. formal thinking in language closer to the modern idea of novice vs. expert thinking in the sciences. Some days the articles I read in my studies just blow my mind. Other days they're really boring b/c they just restate things I already knew. This was one that took things I already knew and put it into a new perspective that gives what I already knew so much more meaning. :) I think having just graded this lab yesterday and today also helped, as I could relate this article to a specific case - that is, I needed to do concrete thinking about it! :-P I'm definitely still a novice in AER.

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

interesting paper, though i suspect that i didn't really get much out of it since i'm not familiar with piaget's theories. but it's always interesting to get a glimpse of someone else's field :)

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's an unusual paper because it's basically a lit review of one paper: taking Piaget's ideas which are usually looked at in the context of early childhood development and child psychology, and translating them into the language of high school science education. I'm not very familiar with Piaget's theory for exactly that reason: I've never seen it applied to older children, college age students, or adult learners, and while Karplus is applying it to older children, it's still really relevant to what I see in the classroom at the college level.

But yeah, I like it when something I read in science ed makes me go "whoah..." There's this image that education research is "easy", so it always makes me happy when I get the same sort of "ah hah!" moments that I get when solving a difficult astrophysics problem. If Ed were easy, then I'd never need ah-hah's because I'd never be at that stuck moment you get right before the ah-hah.

[blahblahboy.livejournal.com]

A bit off topic but somewhat related:
I've been working with my 8 yr old nephew on some math problems and I've noticed that he guesses a lot or copies other answers without thinking about what the answer means. For the former I think he just relies on the adult to lead him to the answer, and in the latter case if I cover up the rest of the homework except the current problem he can sometimes just shutdown and unfocusedly stare. To try to combat the former I try to lead him incorrectly and then he agrees with my wrong answer! But I only work with him on these things once a week. I think his parents are doing a terrible job because he can have such a sneaky attitude to try to do this as lazily as possible, resulting in worthless learning.

What alarms me most is that he isn't even bothering to learn addition subtraction multiplication and division tables well. Should all kids know how to answer fourteen minus eight quickly? I think without the foundation he will be doomed in the future.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, so education research shows that sadly some amount of basic facts needs to be memorized, it's needed to build upon that to get a greater understanding. This is a bit frustrating to me with my learning style, because I have comparatively poor rote memorization skills. On the plus side though, I have a large framework of knowledge by this point and if I can find a way to slot new information into my existing framework, I learn it quickly and in depth.

TBH I'm still bad at my times tables and simple arithmetic - I never learned to do them quickly and I have to fish around for a while if someone asks me say, 7*8. It's still the arithmetic (or algebra requiring arithmetic) that's most likely to trip me up doing graduate level astrophysics problems. I'm not saying I don't understand the ideas of the arithmetic, it's just often faster for me to do by calculator, as long's I've got the right order of magnitude I'm unlikely to notice if I'm wrong, and if I do notice I've got the wrong OOM in my answer to a problem I'm unlikely to find my arithmetic/algebra error.

As for your nephew, one thing that might be relevant is how he's praised. Students/children who are praised for right answers tend to prefer easy problems which they know they can answer correctly, and are more likely to shut down if they don't know the answer instantly. On the other hand, children praised for effort are willing to try more difficult problems, take risks more, and don't mind saying incorrect things on the way to getting to right answers. Kinda surprising at first glance that just *how* one praises a child makes such a big difference, but it does. Basically it helps to instill the child with a set of beliefs about where intelligence/ability comes from - is it innate (and thus the child doesn't want to do anything that will reveal it if he isn't inherently talented after all), or is it something that can be developed (and thus the child wants to work harder to develop that talent)?

Obviously you don't want to be too critical of his parents (and don't forget that he could actually be showing you something different from what he shows his parents, so it might not be their "fault" after all), but you can always do things your way during your time with him. Have patience, and be consistent. And I'm glad you care. :)