About three months ago I did something I often do but I am embarrassed to admit:

I assigned a "sub lesson" when absent, asked students to submit evidence of completion, and then...

...wait for it...

DIDN'T EVER LOOK at the document!

​Yes, I suppose it's a combination of my confidence in the accountability created by having students submit images via a collaborative google doc, and the pure hecticness during the school year. More of the later. 

Anyhow, here I am, sitting at some random cafe enjoying my summer and cleaning up my Google Drive, and I stumbled upon a Google Doc that contained a sub assignment I had asked my students to do when learning about balancing ionic compounds.

I have been striving to incorporate more inquiry into my sub assignments, and this was my first stab at it.

A little bit about the lesson: 

My 4-year-old twin boys were gifted a set of HUGE, generic legos, and I had a thought! See image below:  

While my kids quickly realized that they were not "real" Legos and went on to doing whatever 4-year-old twin boys do, I saw a potential sub lesson! 

In my chemistry class we had just got done learning about the Periodic Table of Elements and how positive and negative ions form. I had yet to introduce the idea of ions transferring electrons to form balanced ionic compounds. Hence, the entry point for inquiry! 

I was to be gone the next day of class, and I decided to cut all the legos into blocks of 1, 2, or 3, bumps (not sure what the correct term is?), that, in my mind, represented the +1/-1, +2/-2, and +3/-3 ions. It is a common activity to have students form ionic compounds by fitting them together correctly.

But, my students did not know this. Hence, the entry point for inquiry! 

After placing all the pieces in the center of the room, I emailed my sub the following prompt: 

Ask students to model the formation of Ionic Compounds using this document. Ask them to insert images of their models into the document. 

To be honest, I had know idea what they would produce, as the prompt was very open-ended in general, let alone for a sub assignment. 

Back to the point of this post. When I looked at their responses...today...I was blown away. They completely nailed the activity. Shame on me for not even following up with them the next day in class...It is so easy to lose track of the most important things as a teacher at times.. Embarrassing, but true.

​Below is screenshot from the shared google doc where they uploaded their responses: 

Pennies made after 1982 are ~ 95% zinc with a plated copper exterior. Thus, a penny contains two metals and can, if manipulated properly, be converted into a battery. See video below: 

This video is LEGIT, and upon seeing it, my gut was to provide students with this video, the materials, and let them go at it as an introduction to our unit on energy in Biology class. (Mitochondria metaphor, etc.). 

Then I remembered the research on curiosity! The goal is to intentionally withhold the IDEAL amount of information.

Peak interest, but create suspense. Provide enough information as to not demotivate, but leave enough out as to keep the learner guessing.

​The below "inverted U" graph of Curiosity vs. Knowledge (knowledge confidence), provides a great visual.

Inspect it carefully.

Have all the info. Not curious. Have no info. Not curious. Withhold the ideal amount. Curious. 

So, back to the initial activity. I fear that if I give students the above video, as awesome as it is, the activity will transition from science to "arts and crafts".

I fear that by providing the video, I will provide too much information, push students to the far right of the "inverted U" and minimize curiosity.

DESPITE how engaging the activity is! 

The engagement lies not in the video quality, or the task, but the anticipation of what will happen. 
The frustration in not knowing exactly what will happen, or how to do it. 
The tension that is built when the instructor perfectly provides and withholds.
The cognitive reward the learner receives when that tension is revealed.
We all love solving riddles. 

​This is the true "Call to Adventure". 

So here is what I'm going to do instead. 

Step 1: Tell students that electrons can flow spontaneously through a material when two different metals are connected through a conductive solution. 

Step 2: Tell students that pennies after 1982 are platted with copper. 

Step 3: Provide students with the exact materials shown in the screenshot from the video above. Include the video title "How to Make a Penny Battery from Start to Finish" in the below image as a strategy for pushing students directly under the "inverted U" shown above. 

Step 4: Challenge students to light the LED using only the materials provided in the above image. Remove internet privileges to ensure that information is strategically withheld and students do not look up the above video. 

Step 5: Play the above video. 

Step 6: Treat this as the first  two"Es" (Engage and Explore) in the 5E Learning cycle. Continue on with lesson. Etc., etc. 

As I continue to 5E Lesson Cycle examples, I thought I would share a short example of a game I play to make the often boring "Explain" phase of the cycle, not so boring. 

The "Explain" phase is characterized by the delivering of lower Blooms Taxonomy type information to help students fill in knowledge gaps intentionally surfaced during the "Engage" and "Explore" phases. Spackle, not paint. 

Think of Daniel Larusso in the Karate Kid painting his mentor's fence, or waxing his car. Lower Blooms information that the learner returns to, despite its monotony, because the student has been Called to Adventure. The menial tasks have a meaning. They have context. The mentor is delayed. 

After a laboratory on Flame Test colors with my Honors Chemistry students, where they were challenged to predict the relationships between electrons, energy, and light, I was challenged with boring task of teaching them how to write proper Electron Configurations. The "wax on, wax off" of chemistry. 

The skill is quick, but requires a lot of repetition to master, before we can move onto the "Extend" phase of applying their knowledge to more complex, and applicable content domains such as Photoelectron Spectroscopy. It is a perfect candidate for my favorite game: Lower Blooms Hoops! 

Here is how I do it: 

1. Make a ton of copies of problems in little slips of paper. 
2. Cut them into slips.
3. Put them in bins around the room. 
4. Place a bunch of chairs in the center of the room as a barrier they cannot cross.
5. Put a bin about 10ft away, on the other side of the chairs. This is the hoop. 
6. Challenge students to solve a problem on a slip, put their name on it, crumple it up, and shoot it into the hoop! 
7. Check periodically. If any are done incorrectly, dump the bin out. 
8. If done correctly, the shooter gets something (Candy, credit, whatever...). 

My kiddos literally solved 100 electron configurations today. Not sure what I'll give them, but that's not the point. Shh....

Check out a quick video of the process I took today. Apologies for the quality and informal style of the videographer :) 

Display the below image and ask the question: What are you curious about?
Desired student questions include, but are not limited to, the below: 

• How does blood relate to cycling?
• Does this apply to other sports?
• Does this have to do with "Blood Doping"? 
• Does this have to do with Lance Armstrong? 
• Are there more red blood cells than normal? 
• Does this have to do with energy and exercise? 

​
*Purpose: To surface content related  questions without explicitly asking students. 

Teach how to leverage Arduino Uno to create their own Pulse Oximeter. Click here for instructions and materials. Once complete challenge students to design and conduct an experiment to determine the impact that various types of exercises and activities (breathing through a straw, etc.) have on pulse and oxygen saturation. Students will then hypothesize the relationship between pulse, oxygen saturation and energy use. Experiment must be conducted using appropriate research design methodology. (Control, independent, dependent variables outlined clearly) 

*Purpose: To challenge students to think deeper about energy during exercise and strain, as well as revisit research methodology and promote crosscutting NGSS integration such as engineering, etc. into the lesson. By not addressing "Blood Doping" directly, students are left wondering the relationship between the "Engage" and "Explore" phase further intensifying their curiosity and desire for more content. 

Conduct a lesson on Cellular Respiration, clearly outlining and diagraming the process of Glycolysis, Krebs cycle, and defining organelles such as the cytosol and the mitochondria. Once complete, ask the driving question: How does the processes outlined relate to "Blood Doping". After students share their responses, play the video below: 

Pose the below medical case study to students and challenge them to:

1. Diagnose the patient.
2. Explain diagnosis in the context of new information above (Cellular Respiration, etc.). 
3. Pose a treatment plan

Case
A, 23-year-old, 5’ 9”, 105 lb, caucasian female presented in her physician’s office with a sudden onset of weight loss along, pain when urinating, and chronic extreme hunger. The patient also reported a strange mold-like substance forming in her toilet over the past week.  

*Purpose: To facilitate connection between information obtained during the "Explain" phase and applications of content in the "real world" (note: I hate the term "real world" but application can extend beyond medical diagnostics, etc.). 

This is the third year that I am teaching a course titled "Introduction to Robotics" as part of our regular curriculum at Sonoma Academy. Click here to access our class website. 

The goal of the first few weeks is to answer the question "What is Robotics?" Merriam-Webster defines a "Robot" as...  

...a machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects). 

I have always struggled to help students derive there own definition of what a "Robot" is using standard curricular materials.

The "...moving independently" portion of the definition is not a problem initially, as most systems (Lego Mindstorm, VEX EDR, etc.) feature the ability to autonomously program the robot to perform complex tasks. Not a problem. 

However, when relating a definition of the structure of robotic competitions such as those seen in FRC, and VEX I have always struggled.

Each of these competitions features a "telops" phase, where a driver is remote controlling the robot to perform a series of tasks in addition to an "auton" phase, where the robot performs the tasks individually. 

Logically explaining to students that remote controlling a system is a branch of robotics is difficult. 

If a human is in control, is the machine still performing a series of complex tasks? 
How do we rationalize the inclusion of a human controller into the field of Robotics? 

This year, I decided to tackle the conceptually challenging topic of rationalizing the role of the "telops" in robotics. Here is what I did for the first two weeks: 

1. Create remote controlled combat robots using the Finger Tech Viper Kit and a simple transmitter-receiver system. 
2. After our competition, ask students the following question: If we were to give our combat robots their own "brain" where would we plug it in? (After much discussion, all of the students noted that we would replaced the transmitter-receiver system with a microprocessor). 
3. Perform a series of lessons on the Arduino Uno system. 
4. Challenge students to replaced the receive with a programmed Arduino Uno and Ultrasonic sensor capable of controlling their robot to combat autonomously.
5. When done, pose the following discussion prompt: In the remote controlled robot, what program was controlling the robot? In the autonomous robot, what program was controlling the robot? 

Student responses were fascinating. All students understood that in the Arduino Uno controlled autonomous robot, the program written living on the microprocessor provided commands directly to the motor controllers, guiding the robots movements. 

The remote controlled robot "program" surfaced different, incredibly intriguing responses such as: 

God programmed us to send a signal to the receiver to control the robot. 
Evolution programed us to send a signal to the receiver to control the robot. 
Education programmed us to send a signal to the receiver to control the robot. 

Amazing questions also emerged: 

Is it possible to program the Arduino to fight more efficiently than the remote controlled robot? 
What happens when the intelligence of the Arduino Uno matches that provide by God, Evolution, etc.? 
Is this related to the Technological Singularity? AI? 

Although this unit laster longer than I would have liked, the physical motion of removing the transmitter-receiver system, and replacing it with a preprogrammed microprocessor opened up incredible discussion about what it means to be "...moving independently". 

I freaking love teaching.