Book Review: The 32 Most Effective SAT Math Strategies #mathed #SAT

WarnerBook Steve Warner’s 32 Most Effective SAT Math Strategies is more than a book of secrets to help students maximize their SAT math scores… it’s also a guide to problem solving and learning strategies that extend considerably beyond the bounds of the SAT exam itself. As a physics teacher, I can strongly assert that the most effective review book for any test is the book the student will use, and that requires a friendly, concise text that is clear, easy-to-read, and well paced. Warner’s book does this and more, coaching students to maximize their results while minimizing effort.

Outside the context of SAT exam preparation, the strategies detailed in The 32 Most Effective SAT Math Strategies provide a pathway to grow the reader’s general problem solving skills. Readers are encouraged to solve problems, learn independently, and attempt higher level challenges, enhancing their mathematical and logical maturity levels as they attempt to not only solve, but understand, the given problems.

I highly recommend this book for anyone preparing for the SAT exam, as well as those looking to refresh their basic mathematical skills and enhance their ability to think logically. And make sure to check out his website, which has free problem sets, tips, and videos!

Course Review Strategy Revisited #physicsed

Following several discussions with a number of science teachers, we’ve decided on a review strategy to prepare students for our cumulative standardized final exam in NY Regents Physics.

To begin the review sequence, students will be given standardized exam question printouts from previous years and will cut out the individual questions.  Questions will be sorted into the main course topics and pasted on a blank sheet to create a worksheet consisting of single topics of questions from multiple years’ exams.

Each day, we’ll being the class with a 10-minute review video covering one of the key topics of the course.  These have been created previously as part of the Physics In Action podcast, so this is very easy to implement.image

  1. Scalars & Vectors
  2. Motion Graphs
  3. Kinematic Equations
  4. Dynamics
  5. Friction
  6. Uniform Circular Motion & Gravity
  7. Momentum & Impulse
  8. Work & Energy
  9. Electrostatics
  10. Electric Circuits
  11. Circuit Analysis
  12. Magnetism
  13. Wave Basics
  14. Wave Behaviors
  15. Modern Physics

Students will then be given a previous year’s Regents Exam, and asked to complete the first half of the exam.  This will be repeated the following day, with students completing the second half of the exam.

On the third day, the exams will be graded and reviewed as a class.  Students will then break down their scores to provide a separate score for each key unit from the exam using a diagnostic guide provided by the teacher.

Corrective actions must then be taken by the student based on their score in each topic.  For scores above 85% in any topic, no corrective actions are required.  For scores above 75%, three of the four corrective actions must be taken (student’s choice).  For scores below 75%, all four corrective actions must be taken.

The corrective actions for each unit are comprised of

  1. Determine correct answers to the problems you missed, showing all work including your initial formula, substitution with units, and answer with units.
  2. Read
    1. Textbook chapters covering unit in question OR
    2. Regents Physics Essentials Review Book chapter covering unit in question.
  3. View topic tutorial and associated pages on APlusPhysics.com. Take interactive quiz at end of section until you score 85% or higher.
  4. Complete practice worksheet on topic and check answers.

This sequence will be completed three times over three weeks leading up to a final in-class exam, followed by the formal state standardized exam.  Students who have completed their practice exam and corrections for the week may be released from class early, while those who need more practice will benefit from more class time as well as a lower student-to-teacher ratio as the week progresses.

Of course, the monotony of review will be broken up by occasional activities and supplemental lessons such as the always-popular time dilation discussion, reading of “Icarus at the Edge of Time” by Brian Greene, and other end-of-year activities.

Course Review Time – What Works Best? #physicsed

It’s closing in on that time… the dreaded end-of-the-year, when we finish our standard curriculum and begin to intermix “additional topics” of student interest in with review for our standardized final exam.  But how do you keep 25 to 30 students productively across various topics based on individual needs at varying levels of aptitude?

student_girl_reading_on_floor_hg_clr I’ve tried a number of techniques… we cut questions out of old standardized exams and paste them onto unit-specific pages, using these unit-specific pages for practice.  The students not only review the key topics, but also see the range of questions asked in previous years before diving into problem practice.

I’ve given previous exams, with students working through them at their own pace, scoring their exams, then working with me to jointly develop and execute an individualized action plan to attack their areas for improvement before repeating the process.

I’ve incorporated clicker question reviews.  I’ve had students develop their own questions.  We’ve jumped headfirst into hands-on lab exercises requiring knowledge of several “units” tied in together, and we’ve worked through projects to examine applications of physics in the real world.  Each week students perform a different online assignment on one of our key topics, coupled with video podcast reviews of 10-15 minutes in length, in a flipped classroom approach.

With all these methods, implemented in a variety of configurations, I still haven’t found a review method I’m thrilled with.  Nor even satisfied with.  Without fail, the students who least need the review get the most out of the time, and the students who are in dire need of review find ways to avoid strong engagement.

One proposal for this year is to have all students take a practice exam, which is graded with separate scores for each key topic (in the vein of SBG).  Students in need of extra help in any unit are assigned chapters to read along with a problem set from either the APlusPhysics review book or a stand-alone question set.  Students most in need of review are assigned the most work, and students with the least need of review can finish up their work assignments more quickly, leaving the instructor more time with the struggling students.  Each week students engage in another practice exam, again working to build familiarity with the questions, with classes interspersed between online question reviews, practice exams, and instructor-led topical review discussions and guided practice.

I don’t expect to find a magic bullet that addresses all situations, and talking to other teachers I find this to be a very common issue as well.  I’d love to hear what you’ve tried – what’s worked, what hasn’t, and open this question up to the experience of others!

Keys to Growth: Assess, Implement, Reassess #physicsed

In a late-night tweet, physics teacher, colleague, friend and education reformer Frank Noschese questioned his exploration of the Khan Academy, in line with his recent work on the coined term “pseudoteaching,” developed jointly with John Burk.  According to Noschese and Burk:

Pseudoteaching is something you realize you’re doing after you’ve attempted a lesson which from the outset looks like it should result in student learning, but upon further reflection, you realize that the very lesson itself was flawed and involved minimal learning.”

In many ways, recognizing pseudoteaching can be perceived as “trolling” or casting a negative light on the work of others, therefore such explorations must be waded into carefully and with tact in mind.  Further, as Burk is quick to point out in the pseudo-teaching FAQ,

“We think pseudoteaching is something best discovered by oneself. And there’s something about glass houses and stones.”

The key point in the definition of pseudoteaching is that the lesson results in minimal learning.  In many cases, the lesson itself may be flawed, but it’s also important to realize that the flaw may be in the lesson’s application to the specified audience, not the lesson itself.

As educators, I’m sure we all realize that entire classes, as well as individual students, have widely varying personalities.  My AP-C class loves Walter Lewin’s OCW lectures, and have reported that they learn best when given a set of resources (textbook chapters, practice problems, and references to specific Lewin lectures) and allowed to explore and work through the material at their own pace.  And their scores prove this out!  Yet, when Lewin delivered these lectures at MIT, Noschese reports in his Action-Reaction Blog that “attendance at his physics lectures fell 40% by the end of the term and an average of 10% of students failed Mechanics and 14% failed E&M.”

bobby_studying_hg_clr So why was this successful with my AP-C students?  I would surmise that after an entire year of working with the students, building independence, and teaching them how to actively teach themselves, they’re finally becoming comfortable with reading a technical textbook for understanding.  They know how to actively listen to Lewin’s lectures, and they watch the lectures as a team, pausing, working through the practice problems themselves, discussing connections to the over-arching concepts – in short, they’re turning a passive learning experience into an active learning experience that works for them.

Providing the same materials to my 9th period Regents Physics class, however, would have considerably less than stellar results.  Is the lesson itself flawed?  No, the lesson itself has its time, place, and audience.  The application of the lesson to the appropriate audience, however, is key to success.

In the same way, I believe the Khan Academy videos, flipped classroom strategies, and similar offerings all have value when used appropriately and with the right audience.  I wouldn’t begin to teach a course in physics where the entire year was spent watching videos, then expect students to have a full and complete understanding at the end of the year.  Rather, I would expect this to be a disaster.  However, using videos as a resource to introduce or reinforce concepts or applications, in conjunction with active learning methods, student inquiry and exploration activities, would likely merit much stronger consideration.

As another example, the Regents Physics review book I’m finishing up, APlusPhysics: Your Guide to Regents Physics Essentials, is designed as a guide to performing well on the standardized NY Regents Physics Exam.  It reinforces standardized physics problem solving in line with a specific test.  By itself, I would certainly NOT recommend it for use as a classroom’s primary text, much like I wouldn’t propose  an SAT review book in lieu of an entire high school student’s curriculum.  These can be valuable resources, however, when used appropriately for the appropriate audience and in conjunction with other resources.

Physics education, and indeed, a vast majority of substantive topics in our world, aren’t black and white.  What is valuable and effective in certain circumstances may be considerably less effective in others.  Pseudoteaching, therefore, may not always be indicative of a flawed lesson, but in some cases, may be indicative of delivering a strong lesson to the wrong audience in the wrong circumstances.

What makes Noschese’s work so valuable to the physics education community is his willingness to take risks and question everything, including his own work.  His late-night tweet questioning his previous comments is profound in that it highlights his ongoing self reflection.  It is this ongoing process of assessing the status quo, implementing changes based on that assessment, and then critically examining the results to repeat this loop that is the foundation of authentic growth.  Isn’t this, in effect, the basis of our scientific method?  These questions we’re discussing and debating have no simple answers, and no absolutes.  As long as we continue to question ourselves, open our minds to alternative thoughts and methods, and take appropriate risks to try new pathways, our teaching will continue to grow, evolve, and most importantly, improve.