The End of Semester Project

Ideas for an end-of-semester project

Our second quarter schedule in the Regular Physics course at Glenbrook South includes two weeks after winter break, plus an additional week in January for final exams. For the second year in a row, my colleagues and I have used the last two weeks of the quarter in January for an extensive, lab-based student project with our Physics 163 (middle-level) students. Students are given an open-ended challenge. They must design and run one or more lab investigations that link to several topics we have learned throughout the semester. Students are expected to select complex, measureable lab goals and use a variety of lab equipment in their investigations. Specific directions and the student rubric can be found here. The “pros” of this project are numerous: student interest is peaked by the opportunities for student choice, students connect topics they have learned throughout the quarter, students do thoughtful analysis, students get a taste of what real scientists do, students feel genuine pride at accomplishing a challenging task, and so on. Potential cons include the amount of class time that must be dedicated to the project, the need for laboratory equipment, and the handful of projects that inevitably don’t meet the teacher’s high expectations. I will discuss implementation of the project, state the pros and cons of the project, share a few case studies, and discuss ideas for improving the project and minimizing some of the cons.

Timeline for the project

Prior to introduction: The teachers selected a list of equipment they would provide for students. We then set up the back of the classroom like a “buffet” of equipment. Students would be expected to borrow equipment during the class periods and then return everything to clearly labeled bins in the back. The exceptions were high-theft-risk items such as cameras and electronic balances; students checked these out from the teacher when needed. Teachers also reflected on their desires for the lab and updated the directions (found here) as necessary. The project was scheduled for the last two weeks of second semester. Students had already studied motion in 1-D, forces, 2-D motion and forces, projectiles, momentum, and energy. It was key to do this project at the end of the semester so that students had a range of physics knowledge from which to draw.

The introduction: The project was scheduled for seven class days over a two-week period. On the first day of the project, I handed out the directions and rubric and explained the overall goal. Students were told not to worry if their initial reaction was to feel stumped. Students were encouraged to look back over their lab journal and think about the labs we had done throughout the semester. I also suggested that kids should look at the equipment provided in the back of the classroom. I told students that this was not the only equipment they could use and that they were welcome to ask for additional equipment as needed. On this day and several times throughout the project, students asked for an exact number of labs or topics required. In the past, I told them a minimum number of labs required. This year, I was careful to not give a numerical answer to that question. Rather, I reminded students that their goal was to create a lab (or labs) that is complex, not a repeat of something we’ve already done, and that spans several physics topics. I reinforced that they could do this in one very large and complex lab or with several smaller labs. Students were told that they could pick a partner but that they’d each need to record data and produce their own lab write-up (goal, procedure, data, calculations, and conclusion).

The first few days: The first few days involved a lot of student brainstorming as they tried to pick appropriate goals. When students were stumped, I asked them if they had interests outside of class that they wanted to link to physics. For example, one group was interested in modeling how an airplane takes off from an aircraft carrier. Their project used motion and force sensors to determine the effect of air resistance on a small vehicle. They also linked their goal to work and kinematics. Another group was interested in golf balls. They did a video analysis of their golf swing and also made distance measurements; they then used their data to link work and energy to projectiles and air resistance. I found that I did a lot of listening and suggesting at the beginning of the project. I tried not to squash an excited student’s idea even if it initially seemed too simple. Rather, I encouraged the student to start on that lab and then think about what additional topics they could work into the lab as they did it; I also offered ideas about how they could bring in additional physics topics to their project.

The middle: The middle of the project involved lots of discussions about experimental methods. Frequently, I ran to the prep room behind my classroom to get additional materials. A student modeling collisions with an air bag in a car wanted Ziploc bags; a student connecting energy to projectiles and work done by friction wanted hot wheels tracks and cars; a student launching a projectile into a cup to study projectiles, collisions, and energy wanted cups; students studying friction wanted a variety surfaces made of different materials; students projecting marbles into cars wanted cotton balls. The list goes on. I was lucky to have lots of materials on hand; at the same time, teachers at schools with a smaller variety of materials could simply have students bring in any additional items they wanted to use. I was surprised by how many students chose to use video cameras and analyze the video using the LoggerPro Vernier software. We didn’t use the cameras to do video analysis more than about once a month during the semester. However, students were very comfortable with the cameras. Video footage (or should I say “bitage”—no need to measure feet of tape any more) is a huge part of students’ world and they bring a lot of technical expertise to the table. A large percentage of students also used Vernier probeware such as motion sensors or force probes during their project.

The results: As I am writing this article, I am at the front of the classroom and my students are taking their final exam. In an hour, when the exam ends, they will turn in their journals which include their final project. A few turned in their projects already and I have graded those. The results of student learning will vary from student-to-student. Some students will have learned more about analyzing videos while others may have learned more about analyzing errors in the lab. However, I feel that all students benefited from experiencing what “real science” looks like. The students were invested and excited about their project and did think deeply about the connections between the physics topics. The process itself was valuable. Admittedly, the students did not all learn the same physics content during the project. There is a constant pull between wanting to give the students time to investigate and making sure to cover enough topics. In December, I was wondering if I really wanted to do this project again. I was thinking about how we could spend the two weeks doing another chapter in the book instead. I am so glad I did the project again and remembered how much I value it. Several case studies below show examples of student experimentation. The case studies also illustrate how varied the projects can be. Teachers should be flexible and reasonably comfortable with physics and experimentation so that they can guide their students.

Case Studies

Case study #1:

The image to the right shows a stuffed pig swinging like a pendulum from a rope attached to the classroom ceiling. Why? Because this group was (a) obsessed with the stuffed pig, and (b) attemping to have the pig safely land on the foam on the floor. A razor cut the string when the pig was in the lowest position of its arc. They did a vector analysis of the tension, used energy to predict the velocity at the bottom, and then used projectile equations to determine where the foam should be placed. This was only part of their analysis. Another group did something similar, but they had the pendulum hit a stationary object that then became a projectile. This meant that they were also doing a momentum collision analysis along with energy and projectiles.

Case study #2:

The group with the two photos here set up a projectile launcher at an angle. They found the initial velocity of the launcher and determined where to set a tube (incined plane) to catch the marble. At the bottom of the tube, there was a cart with a cup on it as shown in the picture on the right. They did a work-energy analysis as the marble slowed to a stop in the cart.

Case study #3:

The girl in the movie still-shot at the right is an avid horse-rider. Her goal was to learn about the power involved in a horse’s jump and also to analyze the motion of the horse in the air and see how much of an effect air resistance had on the horse’s motion. She relied on the video-analysis feature of the Vernier software program Logger Pro. As this image shows, I allowed students to check out cameras if they wanted to do a real-world experiment that couldn’t be modeled in the classroom. Students checked out cameras to help them analyze golfing, sledding, driving, and the like.

Ideas for extending the project:

In reflecting on the past two weeks, I feel that there were two big things missing from this project. I would have liked the students to have received written (as opposed to only oral) feedback from me during the project. I would have also liked students to share their projects with the rest of the class. Both of these were accomplished by a co-worker of mine. He had the students present their projects not in a journal but on their class Wiki. Students could see each others’ projects, and my co-worker commented (in red text, of course) on their writing as the project went on.


This month's article is contributed by Debbie Berlin. Debbie is a graduate of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. She has been a high school physics teacher for 11 years. Debbie currently teaches Regular Physics and Honors Physics at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, IL, where she has taught since 2004.  

Using Levels of Inquiry in the Classroom

If you are a physics teacher, I am sure you have wrestled with the level of inquiry with which you present activities to your students. Should all laboratory experiences in a physics class require a similar level of student inquiry? Do you believe the students in your class have an innate ability to ‘do science’ as scientists, or do you think that you need to develop these skills in them? As you consider these questions, let us look at one class's experience as they investigate the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration.

The Student Experience
On Monday, students enter the physics classroom to find a room full of exploration stations relating to the concept of force. As they make their way from exhibit to exhibit in this hands-on, museum-type experience, they encounter a series of brief tasks they are asked to perform, followed by a thought provoking question at each. For example,


“You notice a fan apparatus that is attached to a cart. After
you turn on the fan and release the cart, carefully observe
the type of motion that results. Let’s assume that the fan
provides a constant force on the cart. What type of motion
occurs when a constant force acts on an object?”



Exploration is an important first step as students encounter new phenomena and new experiences. Although students begin to generate their own set of questions in Monday’s activity, the teacher is the one who asked the initial questions and provided the specific tasks to perform.

On Tuesday, students participate in an interactive demonstration involving a piece of equipment and phenomenon that they had already ‘played with’ the day before. The demonstration is designed to address a common misconception that students have and to give them a chance to share their beliefs concerning the concept at hand. As the teacher and students collect data, make observations, and perform the demonstration, the teacher is careful to ask questions that not only address the misconception but also help students reflect on their thought processes and methodology. “How can we know that a constant force was acting on the cart? How can we measure the fan’s force while the cart is in motion?” Students might discuss their answers with a classmate and then write about not only what they learned but how they know it. Here the teacher has asked the questions and, through guided inquiry, has helped the student think through how these questions might be answered.

On Wednesday, a brief question is posed by the teacher in a context that is relevant for students. As students move to the laboratory, they seek to discover an answer to this question by (1) using equipment that they are familiar with from the past two days, and (2) considering how this equipment might be best used in light of the previous day’s demonstrations. “How does changing the mass of a cart and changing the force on the cart affect its acceleration?” is the question posed. Here the teacher has asked the question, but the students must design their own procedure to answer this question. To the lab they go!

As the week comes to a close, students are now faced with the need to apply in the ‘laboratory’ what they have explored, interacted with, and discovered. They are faced with a challenge, a competition, or a problem. They must apply and evaluate what they have learned—or perhaps create something! As this particular week comes to an end, students are given the class challenge to use their teacher’s car as the object with which they must creatively apply the force-mass-acceleration relationship that they have discovered. They decide to determine the car’s mass by pushing it with a constant force and by determining its acceleration. In this activity, not only did the students design the experiment, they helped form the question to investigate. To the parking lot they go!


Levels of Inquiry
In the article, “Structuring the Level of Inquiry in Your Classroom,” authors Fay and Bretz suggest four levels of inquiry (numbered 0 through 3) as summarized in the table below. One might notice that as the force-mass-acceleration relationship was developed in the activities above, the level of inquiry was increased from level 1 to level 3 as the locus of control shifted from the teacher to the student.

Level	Problem/Question	Procedure/Method	Solution
0	Provided to student	Provided to student	Provided to student
1	Provided to student	Provided to student	Constructed by student
2	Provided to student	Constructed by student	Constructed by student
3	Constructed by student	Constructed by student	Constructed by student

The figure below, adapted from “Levels of Inquiry: Hierarchies of Pedagogical Practices and Inquiry Processes,” illustrates the continuum that was used in the above classroom example.



Although the trajectory of inquiry suggested above—that is, moving from low inquiry to high inquiry—is one of many and is not meant to be a formula for which every concept should necessarily be developed, it has been chosen as a framework that affords students the opportunity to grow in their ability to use inquiry as their level of conceptual understanding and comfort with the equipment at hand deepens. Such a hierarchical inquiry paradigm models Bloom’s taxonomy, provides teachers a framework upon which inquiry activities can be built, and most importantly, works for students.


This month's article is contributed by Jeff Rylander. Jeff is a graduate of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. He has been a high school physics teacher for 20 years. Jeff is currently the Supervisor of the Science Department at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, IL, where he has served since 2006. Jeff has been instrumental in encouraging science teachers to implement inquiry-based activities into their science classes and to adopt the use of lab notebooks and lab journals. In addition to his duties as science supervisor, Jeff teaches Regular Physics at Glenbrook South.