Lesson Progression In Action

Last week, I posted about how to use the Science & Engineering Practices as the driving force for unit planning. I would recommend reading that post before reading this one, as this post explains the reflection I had from the feedback I received from my previous post. I started blogging for this exact reason. I wanted to get feedback from people all over the world and that's exactly what I'm getting, so thank you to those who have given feedback for me to stretch my thinking and improve my practices!

After a quick reflection portion of the post, I'll be explaining the lesson progression in my previous post put to action in the classroom, so read the entire post if you'd like to see how we did it. This unit started with a water demo as the phenomenon.

Reflection on previous post's feedback: A reader posted this video in response to my lesson progressions following a specific pattern, starting with a phenomenon and ending with the communication SEP. It's a great video. Take a minute to watch it if you have the time. It's about 6 minutes long.

This explained what we're doing as a department when planning our units better than my last post. While planning our units, we have struggled a few times to try to use the linear order that I posted in my previous post. When we do struggle with feeling that it doesn't feel natural to go from mathematical thinking to constructing an explanation, for example, we end up jumping around. This made me start thinking that maybe the linear lesson progression protocol isn't really a good representation of what we are doing. 

This is the linear progression that I have reflected on this week:

We are our toughest critics, but after more reflection, I really think this is just a new and improved scientific method. I think most science teachers, myself included, did away with the scientific method years ago because it limits scientific thinking and tries to make science linear, when it's not linear at all. After these thoughts, I decided to revise my SEP model.

Model 1:

In this model, the phenomenon is in the middle and from there, you could literally go anywhere, then either go back and revise our understanding of the phenomenon, or move onto another practice in our scientific process. I'm not sure I like this model, as it implies that not all of the SEPs are accessible from another. 

You can read about these three strands of SEPs in my post about NGSS and SBG. My department has categorized the SEPs into these three strands. I like this model that I've created because it really focuses on what area of practice we might think is necessary for the next step. For example, if we're at a point in our study that we need to start making sense of all of the investigating we've done, maybe we choose to draw a model or construct an explanation for our finding. This really allows the kids to find clarity in our practices used in science. I also think this fits more with what we are doing as we plan out our units. With this model, we don't feel obligated to immediately investigate after we draw a model, or engage in argumentation right after we write our CERs. 

As we plan our next units (we are in our first year of implementation so this will be a heavy year of building from scratch), I think we as a team will have an easier time creating our lesson progressions with more flexibility in what route we should take.

Right now, we are in the middle of our Properties of Matter Unit. In my previous post, I shared with your our lesson progression. Coming up with these lesson progressions are actually the easy part. Figuring out how that looks with the philosophy of NGSS in mind is pretty tough. I'd like to share with you what it looks like for our class. 

Lesson Progression in Action:

I started a lesson progression document for us as a chemistry team to use as a reflecting tool. It's really helped us share our thoughts as we are teaching it. I can go in and read ideas or suggestions other teachers have for a certain transition or activity. I'll give you the first few days in this post, and I'll share the rest in another post later this week. 

Unit 1: Properties of Matter

	Activity	Time	Purpose	Notes	Reflection for next year
HS-PS 1-3: Plan and conduct an investigation to gather evidence to compare the structure of substances at the bulk scale to infer the strength of electrical forces between particles.
Day 1 PS 1-3	Initial Reference to SEPs posted in room	2 min	To familiarize the students with the SEPs	Note that the order is not random, that this is how we will progress through our units, as this is how scientists progress through different studies/research. What is the first step? Asking Questions	Should it really be in this order every time? Thoughts on how we might reorder them based on the unit?
	Bozeman Video - SEP1	5 min	To introduce the students to the importance of asking good questions in science, and what this accomplishes. This will also introduce students to Defining Problems as it is related to engineering	You can refer back to the boat project where a problem was defined and we came up with a solution, whereas sometimes scientists want to just figure out how or why something works the way it does
	Water Demo	5-7 min	To give the students a phenomenon to wonder about.	Remind the students after the first trial that they are to be coming up with good questions about what they are seeing. Invite them to make observations verbally as the demo progresses
	Asking Questions	10-12 min	To allow the students to brainstorm different questions in order to determine what we might model.	For the first asking questions of the year, we will have the students write the questions on the board to avoid any judgement for silly questions. This allows students to gain confidence for next time.
	Categorizing Questions	5-7 min	To allow students to understand the difference between open and closed questions	Have the students categorize all of the questions into two sets and see what they come up with. Ultimately we would like them to see the difference between open and closed	After doing this activity I (Lauren) felt like only sticking to open and closed limits the kids to thinking in a narrow mindset. Almost every class came up with the two categories of “about this demo” and “beyond this demo”. I think this is valid because in the future we might want the students to focus just on what they saw, or maybe focus on just extension questions. So maybe we have two categories: Open vs. Closed Contained vs. Extension
	Identifying questions that can lead to our next step - Using & Developing Models	5 min	To allow the students to identify one or two questions that they think they can model.	Ideally we are looking for “How or why did the cold water go up into the hot flask?” and “How and why did the water stay in the tube at the end instead of falling back down into the beaker?”	Having the students thinking about what questions they think they could draw if they had all the knowledge in the world helps them narrow it down.
	Bozeman Video - SP2	4:30	To show students why modeling in science is important
	Set up the Before, During, After template for students	1 minute		In situations where there’s an ongoing event, the students can be set up for success by splitting their model into before, during, and after. This way they’re only focusing on one part of the process at a time.
	Activity	Time	Purpose	Notes	Reflection for next year
Day 2 PS 1-3	Construct Models	10 min	To allow students to construct a model attempting to explain what is happening in the water demo.	Students construct their own individual models at the molecular level
	Share out Models	10 min	To allow the students to acquire feedback (positive only) from their peers on their first model	Use sticky notes and gallery walk for feedback
	Scaffolded Model Sharing after feedback has been given by other students	10-15 min	To allow students to come up with common language in models. Some ideas might include “circles are particles” arrows show direction of movement” “keys and labels are helpful” This is very basic at this point with the hopes that the common modeling language will expand throughout the year.	Start with most basic, move to most descriptive model. “How is hot and cold water modeled differently? Why?” Allow class to start listing important components of particle models. (particles, speed, energy, separation, etc.)	This would be much easier with the right size whiteboards (2x3)
	Bridge from model to investigation (partner share to group share out)	8 min	To allow students to make the connection between the model and an investigation of other substances.	“Thinking about the attractions between particles, what can we measure to test this attraction in other substances besides water?” (students should be able to come up with temperature, and from there we can guide them to testing MP/BP/FP) For this lab we will focus on MP.	This was tough...either the guiding question should be different to allow students to clearly identify tests that could be run, or possibly a different demo that more clearly shows a characteristic that could easily be tested on other substances.
	Bozeman Video SP3 part 1 1:49-8:00 (pause after controlled variables)	2 min	To allow the students to understand how to start thinking about an investigation.	Cover only the question and variables for this part. For this lab, we will develop our question and IV/DV together. The students will do the controls as a lab group.
	Identify tested substance, IV/DV/CV	10 min		Pick a household item and enter it into the class’s sheet. One sheet per class to avoid students getting ideas from other classes.	Don’t limit kids to only substances that can fit in capillary tubes. We can use Thiele tubes, test tubes and thermometer probes. We could also expand to household items that aren’t restricted to the kitchen (some kids suggested play-dough and soap)
	Finish watching Bozeman Video SP3	4 min		Important parts of investigations as introduced by Mr. Andersen.	We ended up assigning this for homework.
	Finish Planning the Investigation	15 min		Particle model - solid vs. liquid; introduce to apparati, develop a data table.	We ended up assigning this for homework.
	Activity	Time	Purpose	Notes	Reflection for next year
Day 3 PS 1-3	Conduct Investigation	80 min		Students should have brought in the substance needed for the lab. They have to have 5 consistent trials in order to stop testing their substance	For next year, we should have the students come up with a list of items they want to bring, and choose one from their list for them so that they are better set up for success, but still offers choice.
	Activity	Time	Purpose	Notes	Reflection for next year
Day 4 PS 1-3	Bozeman Video - SEP 4 0:00 - 1:36 minutes 2:53 - 3:48	1:45 min	To show students the transfer of data from a table to graph To show students the four types of graphs used in science	Line - change over time Scatter - correlation of variables Pie - parts of a whole Bar - comparing different groups	**Thought - consolidate flowcharts from PA videos into one place for class display BOWERS Class Flow: 10 min
	Aggregate and Analyze Data	20 min	To graph raw data and analyze what it means as it’s related to the question of the investigation. Students share graphs with class	Groups create graphs on whiteboards to share with the class. One student populates best practices form for the class while we are discussing good points in groups’ graphs.	Creating Graphs on board 20-25min (I took 30 but will push  my next class to finish in 20. It took them a while to figure out how to graph so much stuff) Identifying good components of graphs: 10 min
	Interpret Results	15 min	Revisit models of solid vs liquid to activate thinking of molecular behavior in these states of matter. The students will analyze the data to determine how the data helps us answer the question we originally asked: “What effect does the type of substance tested have on the temperature at which it melts?”	Depending on the level of discussion the students initiate, scaffold this with questions that get them to understand what we are trying to see - what is similar between substances that melted at low temps as opposed to high temps.	Categorize substances by copying and pasting rows of substances in the doc shared with all classes. Make your own doc for this. What trends do you see? 15 min What does this tell us? Recap on why what we did was important (this was tough for their kids to wrap their minds around) 12 min Back to water demo → attractive forces exist between particles → are they all the same as water → decided to test melting point → why? → so how do we answer the question “What effect does the type of substance tested have on the temperature at which it melts?” with the information we’ve analyzed?
	Bozeman Video - SEP 6 Watch until 5:40	6 min		Theory - explanation Hypothesis - plausible explanation To construct explanations, we have to have theories to support our claims. (In CER, reasoning is the theory component which explains the claim)	Assigned for homework
	Construct a CER	30 min		Students attempt to explain why substances have different melting points.	Assigned for homework Claim should answer: “What effect does the type of substance tested have on the temperature at which it melts?” Reasoning should have some sort of mention of attractive forces. If you don’t know what a CER is, try your best just to answer the question and give a reason for your answer.
	Activity	Time	Purpose	Notes	Reflection for next year
PS 2-6: Communicate scientific and technical information about why the molecular-level structure is important in the functioning of designed materials
Day 5 PS 2-6	Revisit CERs from last class	15 minutes	To help the students gain a better understanding of Claim, Evidence, Reasoning	Show former CERs from last year exams to show exemplars.	Vogt- spent 20 minutes. Used previous Chemistry students’ CER’s to use as exemplars. (8 minutes of silent student revisions was included in this 20 minute period)
	Demo - Van deGraaff Generator	2 min	To provide a phenomenon for students to wonder about, to model and to explain	Vary distance and time This will help kids make the connection between magnitude of charge and distance.	rabbit tube sock Vogt- Have students take observation sheet back with them to the Van deGraaff. Spent 10 minutes and discussed open and closed questions.
	Asking Questions	5 min	The students will ask open contained questions about the phenomenon	“How does the bolt of electricity form from the generator?” What is in the bolt? Which direction does the bolt go?	Students will give you closed questions. Highlight these and challenge them to change the question to an open ended question.
	Sticky Tape	10 min	The students will further discover the attractive and repulsive forces between objects.	(Students should do this in pairs). What causes the “top” to be repelled to the “top” or vice versa?	High humidity and student ability to follow procedure leads me to think that I should demo this tomorrow for next period. It will save me about 10 minutes. Vogt’s kids probably spent 20 minutes on this. Results were hit and miss. Went over it as a class to make sure students would have the right observations when modeling them in the next phase.
	Modeling	10-15 min	The students will show a particle level diagram to answer the questions generated in class.	Molecular level models are the emphasis. Students will do this on paper so they can revise them in the future. Modeling and Observations	Vogt- 15 minutes would be better. Stopped class here.
	Modeling Feedback	10 min	The students will use the components we’ve build as a class to give constructive feedback to their peers	Use sticky notes for a gallery walk	Skipped the feedback and moved to the bridge due to end of class. Bowers - moving this to the beginning of next class.
	Bridge from the model to the, “investigation”	10-15 min	The students will determine what factors could be responsible for the magnitude of attraction between particles (the grounding rod to the generator)	Discuss from the model what factors COULD we investigate? Distance and Charge Magnitude are the two key variables that we want students to get to.	Vogt- On Inquiry Lab Form, I had them make an, “Our Question” and below it a, “My Question”. Students generated lots of variables to test, including the ones we wanted them to hit on. Others included humidity, length of tape, brand of tape, force of ripping apart, etc.
Day 6 PS 2-6	Recap from Day 5 (Depending where you are)	5-10 min
	Set up Inquiry Lab Form for Coulombic Attraction Simulation (Depending if you are utilizing the Lab Form)	5-10 min		Identify the variables that we can and will test. Split the class in two. Half do F vs. D and half do F vs q.
	(Investigation) Physics Classroom Simulation - Coulombic Attraction	20-25 min	To explore the relationship between F and charge magnitude and/or force and distance between charges.		This took a lot of time. I let them graph on sheets to save time.
	Analyze and Aggregate Data	10 min	Develop a mathematical relationship between F and D and F and q.	Organize and graph data on the Inquiry Form provided / another form of your choosing (i.e.- Sheets)
	Interpret Data	5 min	Group Report Out	Students first met in a group of ten or so to make sure that their data all corresponded to one another. They briefly rehearsed what they were going to say to an individual from the other group. Each person from the F vs D group partnered with an F vs q group member and shared out.
	Coulombic Attraction POGIL	30 min	Deepen understanding of attraction at the particle and subatomic level.	Partner up and talk / discuss each question. Report out as a group at each, “Stop” sign by randomly calling on students and discussing problems as they come up.	Ran out of time. Students were assigned remaining for homework.

Notice that every progression is three dimensional in the sense that they are engaging in an SEP, and focusing on the Properties of Matter DCI. The majority of this unit is connected to the Cause and Effect CCC. Stay tuned for the remainder of this unit!

The students asked questions about the water demo and wrote them all on the board. 

 Before we could determine which questions we wanted to investigate further, the students identified similarities in questions on the board that they generated. Open vs. Closed was one groups idea of how to categorize the questions. Some other categories were broad vs. specific; relating to the demo vs. extension beyond demo; qualitative vs. quantitative. This lead to great discussions about what makes a good question.

The class decided on two questions but wanted to change the questions to be more clear. They modeled a before, during, and after snapshot of the demo.

This is one of the first models the students drew at the beginning of the unit. They will come back to revise this model of the water demo after they have gathered enough evidence to explain what is going on. Watch the slow-motion video of this on my previous post.

 After we drew our models, we identified good parts of the models that we want to keep using in our models to create a common language for our scientific community.

After the investigation, the students took all of the data from all of my classes and graphed it to start making sense of their data.

To give and get feedback, the students silently walk around and write positive and constructive feedback on sticky notes. Constructive feedback is always in the form of a question to avoid abrasive statements.

After the Coulombic simulation, the students paired up and shared their findings. One person investigated force vs. charge, and one person investigated force vs. distance. 

One thing I would like to mention that I found so satisfying as a science teacher is that every day the students left my room dying to know the answer to the phenomena. They continuously were asking for me to explain it all to them. By the time we got to day 6, they were all so engaged in the simulation and POGIL because they had completely bought into trying to figure out what's going on in all of these things we had been observing. I've used simulations and POGILs in the past, but I've never seen the level of curiosity and engagement that I saw this year. These kids are thinking and are totally enthralled by what we're doing, and I completely think it's a product of teaching the NGSS standards they way they're intended to be taught. If you haven't read the literature on the intention of NGSS, I encourage you to do so.