Time to shuffle the students a bit.
The lesson on windows went well, and I think the estimation of the room's window U value was not too overwhelming for the students. This was partly because I had structured the problem solving a bit more. Scaffolding is also very helpful in the construction of knowledge. Also I had them change groups at the beginning and tried to get mixed skill sets together.
I had put them into groups in week four and it's a good idea to change after two or three weeks have passed. The dynamics of groups have been characterised by the stages of Forming, Storming and Norming. After norming we hope for performing, but instead it can get boring! Changing groups every week is a bit too disruptive, but leaving the same groups for too long risks unfairness for people who have ended up in a dysfunctional group as well as a missed opportunity for having the students meet more people and make more friends.
The first time I put them into groups, I began by asking everyone these questions:
Then I asked them to make groups of four, with different majors, different favourite subjects, and new friends. I told them that maths was going to be useful, so if they weren't good at maths they should find someone who is. Also, if possible, I wanted different nationalities and mixed genders. The class is about 85% Japanese and 70% male, so this was not going to happen with every group.
In the first couple of weeks, and in previous years, I had tried to have Japanese-speaking and English-speaking groups, but last year I realised that resulted in me having a false sense of the English level of the room, and some parts completely lost. Spreading out the English speakers means they can work more to mediate between my English explanations and instructions, and the Japanese of the students who often have more interest in, and aptitude for, the topic.
Three weeks later they were still more or less in those groups of four, but a group of women had formed in the back corner of the class, and I'm sure the same couple of architecture students had been sitting next to each other every class. It's not really bad to sit next to the same person every week, but a changing environment is conducive to learning since memories are formed by connections and associations. Also they may meet some new people.
So I asked them, within their groups, to first decide who was best at writing. Next, I asked who was best at English. The writer then had to write down those names. Next I asked who was best at communicating. If it was their best English speaker, they should choose the next best English speaker as their English speaker. Finally I asked who was best at mathematics, and if it was their best communicator or best English speaker, they should choose a different best communicator or English speaker.
Then I shuffled the deck by having each writer stay put, each English speaker move around the class clockwise to the next group, the communicator move two groups clockwise, and the mathematician move one group anti-clockwise. I figured the mathematician would be able to handle the negative number. As usual, I had to do some traffic direction, partly because there was one group in the middle of the class, and it wasn't completely obvious which way was clockwise and which was anti-clockwise.
Now I had a high chance of diverse groups. They had all worked in different groups before and would hopefully bring the best experiences into the new group.
When it came to calculating the U value of the windows, I asked them to pick a leader, a designer, a calculator and a checker.
I reminded them of the problem solving steps:
1. Formulate problem, ideally drawing it!
2. Plan a strategy, making sure they write it down!
3. Find equations
4. Find data, but not until they had done the first three steps
5. Calculate
6. Check
7. Check again
After a while I reminded them about surface resistance, then gave them some equations, thermal conductivities and dimensions.
A little later, as I wandered the class looking at their calculations, I noticed a couple of U values of over thirty for the glazing, which looked way out. I went back to check and noticed I'd given them the wrong value for conductivity of air by a factor of ten. It should be 0.024 W/Km but I'd given them 0.24. A great example of how everyone makes mistakes, and how important checking is. Making mistakes is not a problem in itself—everyone does that!—you have to realise when you have made mistakes, and then fix them.
- What is your major?
- Are you good at maths?
- Are you good at English?
- Are you good at drawing?
- What is your favourite subject?
Then I asked them to make groups of four, with different majors, different favourite subjects, and new friends. I told them that maths was going to be useful, so if they weren't good at maths they should find someone who is. Also, if possible, I wanted different nationalities and mixed genders. The class is about 85% Japanese and 70% male, so this was not going to happen with every group.
In the first couple of weeks, and in previous years, I had tried to have Japanese-speaking and English-speaking groups, but last year I realised that resulted in me having a false sense of the English level of the room, and some parts completely lost. Spreading out the English speakers means they can work more to mediate between my English explanations and instructions, and the Japanese of the students who often have more interest in, and aptitude for, the topic.
Three weeks later they were still more or less in those groups of four, but a group of women had formed in the back corner of the class, and I'm sure the same couple of architecture students had been sitting next to each other every class. It's not really bad to sit next to the same person every week, but a changing environment is conducive to learning since memories are formed by connections and associations. Also they may meet some new people.
So I asked them, within their groups, to first decide who was best at writing. Next, I asked who was best at English. The writer then had to write down those names. Next I asked who was best at communicating. If it was their best English speaker, they should choose the next best English speaker as their English speaker. Finally I asked who was best at mathematics, and if it was their best communicator or best English speaker, they should choose a different best communicator or English speaker.
Then I shuffled the deck by having each writer stay put, each English speaker move around the class clockwise to the next group, the communicator move two groups clockwise, and the mathematician move one group anti-clockwise. I figured the mathematician would be able to handle the negative number. As usual, I had to do some traffic direction, partly because there was one group in the middle of the class, and it wasn't completely obvious which way was clockwise and which was anti-clockwise.
Now I had a high chance of diverse groups. They had all worked in different groups before and would hopefully bring the best experiences into the new group.
When it came to calculating the U value of the windows, I asked them to pick a leader, a designer, a calculator and a checker.
I reminded them of the problem solving steps:
1. Formulate problem, ideally drawing it!
2. Plan a strategy, making sure they write it down!
3. Find equations
4. Find data, but not until they had done the first three steps
5. Calculate
6. Check
7. Check again
After a while I reminded them about surface resistance, then gave them some equations, thermal conductivities and dimensions.
A little later, as I wandered the class looking at their calculations, I noticed a couple of U values of over thirty for the glazing, which looked way out. I went back to check and noticed I'd given them the wrong value for conductivity of air by a factor of ten. It should be 0.024 W/Km but I'd given them 0.24. A great example of how everyone makes mistakes, and how important checking is. Making mistakes is not a problem in itself—everyone does that!—you have to realise when you have made mistakes, and then fix them.
