# Day 5: Three Representations

Thursday, September 13

A mass on a spring is pulled down and released, and allowed to oscillate. Student whiteboarded all three representations they now now: system schema, state diagrams, and energy bar charts.

Groups got done at different times, so I pivoted from my original idea for a classwide board meeting. Instead, I put two groups together and asked them to come up with a question for me out of their discussion.

As new bar charters, the students worked to balance several requirements at once: decide which energy storage modes are relevant to the problem; that the total energy in the system has to remain constant throughout all three states; and that the total energy in the system must equal the sum of the amount of energy stored in each of the relevant modes.

Our first quiz is tomorrow (Friday).

# Day 3: Two New Representations

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

A reading assigned for homework the night before did some heavy lifting for us, introducing system schema and state diagrams as representations (even if their understanding was incomplete and students were partially confused). Here’s an example:

We spent most of our time revisiting the observation stations from yesterday, adding system schema and state diagrams. We began on whiteboards and moved to paper during the class.

Here’s a snippet of the worksheet we used:

Students drawing system schema and state diagrams. Oh, and that says “puck.”

Whiteboard hooks above the student work table. I’m realizing now that “puck” looks like a different word at this distance.

These red arrows are how one group chose to represent motion in state diagrams.

It’s only the third day of school and the students are already debating when to declare a the initial state and final state in their state diagrams and are debating what items belong in the system.

In closing, a few fun pictures — it’s year 2 at this school AND Rosh Hashana all at the same time! Happy New Year, indeed.

# Day 2: Energy Observation Stations

Monday, September 10, 2018

Time flew today while students visited six observation stations. 3-4 minutes at each of the following gave them a chance to work in small groups and describe their observations:

• Pull back car
• Hover puck
• Mass on a spring
• Bouncing tennis ball
• Rubbing hands together
• Single bulb electric circuit

We had a choice from many more observation stations. Our decision ultimately boiled down two two criteria: 1) the station would be seen again in a future unit and 2) we covered the types of energy storage modes the students would see in this unit.

Background on the environment: this is a Physics First class for 9th graders. Three of us are teaching the course to about half the grade (the other half are in the accelerated course). We’re using Modeling Instruction materials with the Computational Modeling integrated. It’s based on the summer workshop two of us attended.

Since I didn’t write the activity, I feel it’s not my place to share an editable version, so instead, here’s a snippet:

Progress continues on the fire fighting robots.

How much work did it take to get to this point?

• work started Nov 28
• we’ve met for 27 class days since then
• which amounts to approximately 22 hours of work

The biggest mechanical obstacle that remains for the students is finding a fan that will extinguish a candle from anything but point-blank distance.

Teams of 2 seems ideal — everyone has an important role to play, they can work in parallel some tasks, yet both team members knows what’s going on with all parts of the robot.

The Gantt Chart project plans I added as part of the project aren’t helpful. They’re busy work as far as the kids are concerned. Plus, the students are novice enough that they’re poor estimators of their ability to make progress. Next year, I may drop this part.

I’m considering next year having a midterm demo day with a set of performance targets the bots have to hit by that date. For example, these bots should be able to navigate a hallway and make one turn. This year, we held a design review at the midterm (a little over a week ago), which went well from my point of view though I don’t think the kids got too much from it.

# Jan. 30: Buoyancy Activity

How does the reading on a force probe change as you submerge a weight under water? And what does that have to do with buoyancy?

What follows are pictures of an activity we’ll do in class on Thursday. With a student out of school for a week, I needed a way for her to participate in the activity at a distance. This sequence follows the activity nearly frame-for-frame.

Hang a 100g mass from a force probe. Confirm it reads 1N.

Yep, 100g and (approx.) 1N.

The weight is suspended above the water and the force probe reads 1N.

Half-submerged and the force probe reads a little under 1N. Clearly the water’s providing some type of upward force, taking some of the weight off the string.

Fully submerged and we’re reading about 0.9N — that’s about a 10% drop in weight on the force probe.

# Day 10: Braitenberg Vehicle Demo Day

Thursday, 21 September 2017

The Braitenberg Vehicles are done and today we demo’d them as a group. The bots show varied chassis styles, though the electronics are functionally the same:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

We learned to breadboard! Super cool experience that I’m sure will pay off later as we develop our own projects.

We learned about basic circuit components! Resistors, photoresistors, jumper wires, transistors, and diodes are all in our wheelhouses now.

We learned how motors work! Swapping the connection results in a backwards-spinning motor. So cool!

We strengthened troubleshooting skills! Man, those breadboard holes are close together. You wouldn’t believe how often that messed us up.

I only managed to record one bot during demo time — this guy runs from the light, which Braitenberg dubbed “Fear”:

Note to self for next year:

• Consider the ways that a cardboard box can be a structurally sound chassis and show the kids some of those methods. A flat piece of cardboard is iffy at best and electrical tape is way too stretchy.
• Locate a room that can be made quite dark. The classroom is way too bright to get the bots to turn toward a flashlight spot. For quick tests, it’s important to have a space.
• Invest in a few flashlights whose beams can be focused better than the ones I have. A broad beam tends to hit both photoresistors and the bot doesn’t turn (though fixing that problem is a fun design challenge, too, so maybe not). One student was driving his bot with a laser at the demo — does that method have long-term benefits worth investigating?
• Is it possible to use the same motors that come in the Ardumoto Shield Kit? They’ll be central to our line follower bot for the next project, so it’d be nice to reuse more materials to save costs and keep with familiar parts.
• Do I want to organize demo day in a more rigorous format? I had the kids share with another person, then we drove our vehicles around a dark-ish room for awhile and had fun reveling in the finished project, and finally we reflected on the experience.

EDIT: Parts List

Circuit diagram and explanation of how it works.

# Day 6: We’re Rolling!

Friday, 15 September 2017

Our Braitenberg bots are coming along! After a change of course from what I wrote a few days ago — turns out the particular op amp I was using put out too little current to drive the motors — the new circuits are now tracking the light properly.

It’s subtle but can you see how that last bot turns away from the light? The student who built that one had an interesting time figuring out why his robot ran from the light. He loved learning that cross-wiring the left photo resistor with the right motor would give him the light-seeking behavior he wanted.

Today, we spent much of the period building robot chassis out of cardboard boxes because that’s what we have in abundance.

A Braitenberg vehicle built to the same specs as we use in the video requires the following parts: