So I have the green light to turn my reading quizzes into a mini-sbg experiment next semester. Each standard will end up being counted for 3pts of what was a 5pt reading quiz, the other 2 pts will come from students completing ungraded online questions about the reading (JiTT style). Every standard will be graded yes or no, and it can’t be taken away from the student once they get a yes. I’ll be allowing students to request reassessments through the exam that covers that material. If they show mastery of any standard from their work on that test, or any later test, they can ask me to change it, but I’m not allowing infinite reassessments.

The standards are an attempt to balance basic things students need to know, things I think are important, and things they need to be able to do to perform well on the exam (which I have no control over). “Synthesis” is not a standard, but is basically what they can expect to be able to do on the exam. It also reflects the kind of problems we practice in class as groups. It is not part of the standards, but it points to what they should practice after they have passed all the standards.

Through Test 1

Motion 1: Back-and-forth Motion

M 1.1   I can distinguish position, change in position, and distance

M 1.2   I can interpret position versus time graphs

M 1.3   I understand the difference between average speed and average velocity

Synthesis: I can solve a multi-stage constant velocity problem

Motion 2: Accelerated Motion

M 2.1   I can distinguish average velocity from velocity at an instant

M 2.2   I understand and can apply the concept of acceleration

M 2.3   I can interpret and set-up 1-D acceleration word problems

Synthesis: I can solve 1D acceleration word problems

Motion 3: Freefall

M 3.1   I understand the signing conventions for the acceleration due to gravity

M 3.2   I can describe and show how velocity changes for an object in free fall

M 3.3   I can set-up and organize information for a 1D free-fall problem

Synthesis: I can solve 1D free-fall problems

Interactions (1 dimensional)

I 1.1  I can identify when forces must be (un)balanced given description of motion

I 1.2  I can identify the direction of net force given a description of motion

I 1.3  I can identify the Newton’s 3rd law pairs corresponding to an interaction

Through Test 2

Trigs and Vectors

T 1.1   Given all sides of a triangle, I can calculate sine, cosine, and tangent

T 1.2   I can find components of vectors given magnitude and angle

T 1.3  I can find magnitude and angle of a vector given its components

Projectile Motion

PM 1.1   I can indicate velocity, acceleration, & net force along path of PM

PM 1.2   I can reason about projectile motion as superposition of two motions

PM 1.3   I can set up a projectile motion problem

Synthesis: I can set-up and solve problems involving projectile motion

Forces 1: Identifying and Summing Forces

F 1.1   I can identify forces acting an object and draw a free-body diagram

F 1.2   I can write a sum of forces statement given a free-body diagram

F 1.3   I can make inferences about unknown forces using Newton’s 2nd law

Forces 2: Understanding Empirical Force Models

F 2.1   I understand and can apply empirical force models for friction

F 2.2   I understand and can apply empirical force models for springs

F 2.3   I can find the components of weight along and perpendicular to a ramp

Synthesis: I can setup and solve  “forces on ramp” problems

Uniform Circular Motion

UCM 1.1   I understand and can apply relationships among T, f, and ω

UCM 1.2  I can identify the direction of acceleration & velocity for UCM

UCM 1.3  I can identify centripetal component of net force for UCM

Synthesis: I can solve a uniform circular motion problem

Through Test 3

Energy 1: Work and Stored Energy

E 1.1  I can identify when a force is and isn’t doing work in a given situation

E 1.2  I can calculate the work done by a force & relate to energy transfer in/out of system

E 1.3  I can identify factors that indicate that energy is stored in KE, PEg, & ,PEel

Energy 2: Energy Conservation

E 2.1  I can identify whether or not energy of a system is constant or not

E 2.2  I can identify the kinds of energy that are relevant in a given situation

E 2.3  I can use COE to write an expression relating two states of a system

Synthesis: I can set-up and problems involving work and energy.

Momentum

M 1.1  I can identify systems that do and don’t have total momentum conserved

M 1.2  I understand the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions

M 1.3  I can write a COM expression for completely inelastic collisions

Synthesis: I can solve a multi-part problem involving COE and COM

Angular Kinematics

AK 1.1   I can relate angular position, angular velocity, & angular acceleration

AK 1.2   I can relate angular quantities to their tangential counter-parts

AK 1.3   I can determine the direction of torque due to a force around a pivot

Synthesis: I can solve angular kinematics problems

Static Equilibrium

SE 1.1   I can calculate the torque due to force that is not perpendicular to r

SE 1.2   I can state and apply the conditions for static equilibrium

SE 1.3   I can write correct sum of force and sum of torque statements

Synthesis: I can solve a static equilibrium problem

Rotational Dynamics

RD 1.1   I can use the rolling-without-slipping relationship to relate v and ω

RD 1.2   I can make qualitative comparisons of moment of inertia

RD 1.3   I can write apply COE to write a relating expression for rolling motion

Through Last day of Class

Oscillations 1: SHM

O 1.1   I can show how energy changes through SHM

O 1.2   I can show how (net) force changes throughout SHM

O 1.3   I understand the factors that do and do not influence frequency

Oscillation 2:Waves

O 2.1   I can relate wavelength, frequency, and wave speed

O 2.2   I can reason about the factors that do and do not influence wave speed

O 2.3   I can write expressions relating wavelength to length for standing waves

Fluids 1: Static Fluids

F 1.1   I can make inferences based on force, pressure, and area relationships

F 1.2   I can quantitatively reason about pressure changes in a liquid

F 1.3   I can qualitatively reason about densities and buoyant forces

Fluids 2: Dynamic Fluids

F 2.1   I can reason about the flow rate of incompressible fluids in pipes

F 2.2   I can reason about changes to pressure and speed relate in air flow

Thermo:

T 1.1   I can identify what changes and what’s constant in a given a gas process

T 1.2   I can relate the concept of specific heat to energy transfer

## 8 thoughts on “Baby SBG Jump”

1. Hi Brian,

This is exciting news! I’ll be interested to hear how your students respond.

Cheers,

Stew

1. These standards-based quizzes are assessed binary… yes/no, which makes the time management less problematic. They get turned into grades, by replacing what was multiple-choice reading quizzes with standards-based quizzes. There is a grading scheme for all instructors that this has to fit into, so it’s only worth 5% of the their grade. So, it’s really intended to be an assessment/feedback system for the students.

As there is no homework for class, it’s my way of building in individualized feedback for every student.

2. Hi Brian,

First off. Very nice job boiling these down into a level of granularity that seems reasonable from a student perspective.

So are the (former) reading quizzes worth 5% of their grade meaning that 3% of their grade is now dedicated to the standards? Do I understand correctly that the initial assessment will be some sort of “reading quiz” when they show up to work on a new set of topics?

One thing I have been struggling with for my own learning goals is to reduce the amount of double-counting I have been doing in terms of “do X given Y” and a separate “do Y given X”. Here is one of the examples from yours:

– T 1.2 I can find components of vectors given magnitude and angle
– T 1.3 I can find magnitude and angle of a vector given its components

I would (personally) be inclined to express T1.2+T1.3 as “I can translate between vector component and magnitude and angle representations of vectors” or some more student-friendly variant.

My current mindset is to shoot for Andy’s rule of thumb of one standard per class-period which, if you can actually plan your course to deal with a single standard each course, seems like it could be very powerful for the students to be able to feel that each day is dedicated to nailing one standard.

1. Joss,

Yes, you have the grading scheme right. Although that may change. I’d like to get the standards worth 10% of their grade. The instructional team has been meeting to discuss changes, and their may be some wiggle room. Seems silly for SBG to only be worth 5%… undermines it totally. But, my issue is more with having a system for giving feedback to students, and a structure for what they should be trying to learn. I got lots of positive responses from students when I piloted this for the last couple weeks of this semester. They found it more valuable than the reading quizzes.

My plan is when they show up, there are two standards they should be able to do based on the reading. The third standard is assessed as they walk out the door, and is likely to be more oriented toward problem-solving we did that day. But I hear what you are saying about 1standard per day. Three standards is a lot, although every so often, I have no new quizzes, just reassessment days. Also, I have them for 2.5 hours per day, twice per week, so maybe I’ll aim for 2 standards per day… one assessed at the beginning, which I think they should get from reading, and one assessed at the end.

1. Brian. How are you assessing them on the way out the door?

3. Joss, I am toying with the idea of giving them a quiz as the last thing they do, and having solutions in back for students to self-assess before handing back to me.

I can give feedback on the “reading quiz” assessment at beginning of class, while they are doing some computer exercises, but I want them to get immediate feedback on the way out, too.

4. Joss,

I did end up parsing it down the standards to 2 per day, and then went back over the 3 exams and final that were given this semester and try to match each problem to a standard. It offered a nice validity check for alignment with the course. There are a few gaps on both sides, but I think that’s appropriate. I don’t want a standard for everything little thing that could be asked… and I don’t mind there being some standards that I think are important stepping stones that are explicitly asked but are crucial for understanding.

1. I have definitely found that, when generating my own learning goals, having learning goals that cover all the subtleties of all the possible question I could ask ends up having the opposite of the desired effect. Instead of making the students feel like they have this list of everything that I could possibly ask, they just feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the list. My current mission with learning goals is to do a better job of generalizing them, but still making them very transparent for student, and cutting the overall list to something that is 3-4 per week.