The SAIL Teaching Framework

This is a condensed version of the complete chart, but it's a good place to start. Click for a larger view (and to download).

October 1, 2017

Aaron Baker

From Spoon Vision, the blog of Aaron Baker, an 8th grade U.S. History teacher in Oklahoma.

Those Who Can't

Those who can’t,

For example,

Those who can’t sit alone at a desk all day,
Whose energy demands movement and interaction,

Those who can’t abide platitudes like, “kids these days,”
Who take the time to know every young person,

Those who can’t be satisfied with a job or even a career,
Whose everyday work must be filled with passion,

Those who can’t look the other way while our schools resegregate,
Who believe the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice,

Those who can’t stand by while our public institutions are privatized,
Whose collective conscience sees through the rhetoric of “choice,”

Those who can’t ignore the history of organized labor in the U.S.,
Who know that “the union makes us strong,”

Those who can’t punch a clock,
Whose passion can’t be confined to 8-4 or to August through May,

Those who can’t care only about some children,
Who are committed to the success of every student,

Those who can’t avoid conflict,
Whose acumen can diffuse the most hostile situations,

Those who can’t be happy climbing the corporate ladder,
Who will master their craft, and stay in the classroom for decades,

Those who can’t settle for anything less than constant improvement,
Whose minds are always searching for innovative new methods,

Those who can’t quit,
Who will continue to educate more students with less money,

But please know.

Those who can’t be fooled by political schemes,
Whose organizing can create a political revolution,

Notes on Radioactivity & Particle Physics

BP Tech Applied & Advanced Physics

Some notes on how we could approach teaching radioactivity/nuclear structure


The State of Massachusetts has revised its high-school science curriculum finally. But there is an orphan unit: radioactivity. I think this must be a new unit in the science curriculum, and the State first tried to add it to the Chemistry curriculum. Then to Earth Science. And finally to Physics. Where it truly is simply added, like a wart, to the front of the Physics curriculum. No attempt is made to connect it to anything else in the curriculum.

Now of course radioactivity is a proper physics topic, and the study of radioactivity led to important developments in modern physics. At BP Tech, where I teach, I always took a bit of the school year to look at basic atomic structure, knowing that students would see it again in chemistry. The problem with just tacking on radioactivity is that explaining radioactivity (as opposed to just describing it) draws you into quantum and particle physics, which could easily eat up an entire semester, or more. I spent a whole year thinking about how to present the topic without getting completely derailed from the rest of the physics curriculum. These notes explain what I came up with, on behalf of the entire physics teaching team at my school.

Part I

Here is how I’ve tried to approach atomic structure in the past. After exploring the gravitational field and early into electrostatics (after introducing electric fields and electrons), I take a moment to look at a simple atomic model:

This model explains several things: the electric neutrality of atoms, the mobility of electrons, where our mass comes from. Later, when talking about electric current, I begin the discussion of how materials are constructed of atoms (or more usually molecules), and how electrons can basically hop from atom to atom. There is a net flow of electrons throughout a circuit but no single electron moves through the entire circuit (hence my distaste for the water model of electric circuits). I also take this moment to show various simulations that try to represent electrons moving through a circuit, and how they are incorrect and misleading.

Now it might be useful to discuss the residual charge (or residual electric field) of the electrons. Residual charge explains stickiness and friction and why chemical reactions happen and the unusual properties of water. Then when we get to the strong force, the idea of residual force will come into play, and the students will have already experienced the concept.

So this is as far as I have carried this in the past. We need to dig deeper in order to explain radioactivity.

Part 2

The nucleus, made up of protons and neutrons. What holds it together?

Wouldn’t the protons repel? Yes, of course, and it does happen in nature. Some atoms spit out a proton or neutron now and again. There’s your first taste of radioactivity. So there must be another force that’s really strong but has a tiny range. Call it a nuclear force, because it only operates in the nucleus, and more specifically call it the strong force.

Two issues: why the tiny range? And why does it apply to neutrons as well as protons? Let’s assume that protons and neutrons are made of something similar, and let’s call these constituent particles quarks. It turns out that protons and neutrons are made of 3 quarks each. And protons and neutrons differ by only one quark. The strong force is what holds the quarks together. Here’s a model of a proton:

The strong force that exists outside the “boundary” of the proton is the residual strong force. This is what holds protons and neutrons together.

At this point, I think there is no sense in complicating this picture. You could point out that there are different kinds of quarks, but I wouldn’t even take it that far. And I definitely wouldn’t mention specific force field particles, like gluons. This will just draw you into quantum physics, and really the point here is just to explain radioactivity.

Exploring the atomic nucleus is tricky (and abstract) enough – too much information will muddy the waters. We’re just building on the concept of force fields (gravity, electricity, magnetism, and now strong nuclear). If you have students who wish to pursue this on their own, here is an excellent website called The Particle Adventure:

Part 3

So now we’re ready to talk about radioactivity as the result of the instability of large atomic nuclei, like those of uranium, or nuclei with too many neutrons. Basically there isn’t enough residual strong force out on the margins to hold these nuclei together.

An unstable nucleus will:
  • spit out single neutrons (neutron emission)
  • spit out single protons (rare)
  • spit out a chunk of nucleus made of 2 protons and 2 neutrons (alpha emission)
  • during these processes, the nucleus might also emit very high energy EM radiation (gamma emission)

All these emission products (particles, if you will) have a LOT of energy. If absorbed by other atoms, this energy can damage molecules and make atoms radioactive.

At this point, we are welcome to explore further anything we wish about radioactivity, including health effects or nuclear fission/fusion, or mass/energy conversion, or commercial nuclear energy, or what fuels the Sun. We have to keep it short and simple, though, because we’re not quite done.

Part 4

An unstable nucleus will also spit out – an electron! This is beta emission, and it's really weird. Why is this weird and unexpected? Well, where did the electron come from? Protons and neutrons aren’t made out of electrons!

So there must be another force, another nuclear force. This one is called the weak force. The weak force is odd, though, in that it does not cause anything to happen, it allows something to happen. Here’s the something:

But there’s leftover negative charge and energy and mass. Where does it go? The weak force temporarily holds the charge, mass, and energy, and then releases it as an electron. So that’s where the beta emission comes from.

A neutrino is also emitted, but I don’t know how much you want to get into neutrinos, other than to say that they are especially tiny sub-atomic particles with no charge. They are often the result of energy converting into mass.

So here is what the full interaction looks like:


Ultimately all this is to say that there are only four fundamental forces in nature: gravity, electro-magnetism, and the two nuclear forces, strong and weak. And we might not ever have known about the nuclear forces if it hadn’t been for radioactivity.

Cross-posted to Teaching and Instructional Design

August 28, 2016

New Physics Curriculum

New school year, new State science framework, so new physics curriculum. Here's the first iteration, a model unit in 3 steps: 1) identify the forces in an interaction, 2) identify what is transferred/transformed due to the interaction, 3) construct/manipulate a model of the interaction. That's it! Now apply this three-step model to the handful of physics topics/applications as dictated by the State. Don't forget to take advantage of the flow of certain concepts and processes through similar/related topics.

June 17, 2016

Thich Nhat Hanh

When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don't blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce. Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and argument. That is my experience. No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding. If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change. ― Thich Nhat Hanh, Peace is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life

January 19, 2015


While writing my last post, on pseudoteaching, I was compelled to change my Teaching Framework a little in response. I was thinking about when and how the learning actually happens in my classroom. According to Frank Noschese's concept, teaching happens when a student's pre-existing conceptions are challenged, and this happens when the student tries to actually do something (see Derek Muller on this point). At the crucial moment of potential failure, the teacher intervenes, and the student learns. I've actually written about this before:
So what is teaching? Well, the teacher does something, and then the student does something and thereby learns. What kind of something? Let's say that the teacher performs a certain action and the student mimics the action. The teacher watches the student, intervenes when necessary, and repeats the action. The student tries again. The process is repeated until the student is capable on his or her own. Teaching by example is probably the most fundamental and natural form of teaching.

But more is going on than meets the eye. A relationship of trust has been built between the teacher and student so that the interaction can work effectively. The teacher's intervention is extraordinarily important, and will depend exactly on what the student has grasped and what he has missed. The teacher directs the student's attention to the work: like this, not like that, here's why, can you see? Mere mimicry is not enough, the student must develop some understanding. The teacher will not always be there, the student must learn to correct himself, must learn how to learn.

What does it mean to intervene? In a classroom, intervention is often the word used to describe what a teacher does to alter a student's behavior. It is the I in PBIS, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, an approach to classroom management that I endorse. Notice that I also used it in the quotation above - "intervenes when necessary" - to describe an act of teaching. I hadn't really thought about intervention meaning the same thing in both cases, but it does. Education is changing a student's behavior as much as it is changing what a student knows, and intervention by the teacher is how it is done.

What does this look like in my classroom? People tend to like my classes - students, parents, other teachers, administrators - because I am energetic and engaging. And let's face it, physics can be a lot of fun. But when does the learning actually take place? Not, it turns out, when I'm doing the fun stuff. Students don't learn from my lectures or explanations, demonstrations, diagrams, simulations, videos, etc. etc. They are happy to take notes, often with great care, draw diagrams, watch demonstrations, and they really think they are learning something. But they are not. Their preconceptions block them, without their even knowing it.

What preconceptions? Have you ever thrown a ball to someone, or dropped a dish and watched it fall and break, or twirled a key on a lanyard, or skidded while driving a car, or burned yourself with a hot skillet? All that is physics, and these experiences taught you something that then became a concept in your mind, and quite possibly an incorrect concept from the point of view of physics. How is it possible to learn physics correctly? It requires the intervention of a teacher, a teacher you trust.

In my classroom the intervention happens when students are asked to do something, or produce something, or perform an action. This work is done in the classroom, what is called seatwork. Students must answer a question, use a vocabulary word correctly, perform a calculation, solve a word problem, write a coherent sentence, take an accurate measurement, build a model. These activities will reveal the flaws in their thinking, the gaps in their understanding, and these failures are the teachable moments that will only result in learning if I am there to intervene when the failure happens. All the other activities, the notes and explanations, diagrams, demonstrations, videos, group questions and discussions, are shared experiences that I and the student can refer to so I can prompt and goad and question until the student finally sees the failure and makes a correction.

I have altered my Teaching Framework so that, under Instruction, a collection of activities is now labeled Intervention. Under Attention & Focus I have gathered some of the activities and added more to a category also called Intervention. This strengthens the intervention parallel between behavioral learning and academic knowledge, and fills out the Attention & Focus section so it encompasses classroom management more obviously.

January 1, 2015

Legibility and Pseudoteaching

One of my favorite parts of the 1989 movie "Look Who's Talking" is when the infant tries to figure out how to drive a car. You just put the little stick into the hole, move your foot back and forth, and move the big circle around. We've all seen it done, how hard can it be?

We've all seen what teachers do, too, thanks to years of schooling. As with the car-driving baby, our picture of what teachers do was formed when we were children, but that doesn't stop us from thinking that we know what teaching is. How hard can it be? We know what it looks like, or, more to the point of this blog post, we know it when we see it. We know what it should look like.

I first encountered the concept of legibility in a blog post by Venkatesh Rao in his blog Ribbonfarm. The concept was originally expressed in a book by James C. Scott called Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. I'll quote Rao's excellent summary of how the failure comes about:
Here is the recipe:
  • Look at a complex and confusing reality, such as the social dynamics of an old city
  • Fail to understand all the subtleties of how the complex reality works
  • Attribute that failure to the irrationality of what you are looking at, rather than your own limitations
  • Come up with an idealized blank-slate vision of what that reality ought to look like
  • Argue that the relative simplicity and platonic orderliness of the vision represents rationality
  • Use authoritarian power to impose that vision, by demolishing the old reality if necessary
  • Watch your rational Utopia fail horribly
The big mistake in this pattern of failure is projecting your subjective lack of comprehension onto the object you are looking at, as "irrationality." We make this mistake because we are tempted by a desire for legibility.

The Illegibility of Teaching
I read this article just as I had started teaching again after a 25-year hiatus. I was being reminded of what I love about teaching and what annoys me about teaching. I realized that I had found the perfect concept for describing what annoys me: though everyone thinks they know what teaching is, teaching is largely illegible, even to other education professionals.

This illegibility is never attributed to the observer's ignorance. It is always seen as a sign of chaos in need of order. The preferred order is for the classroom and the teachers and the students to have a certain "look." This might mean signs of "discipline," an atmosphere of "quiet, steady diligence," or the appearance of "motivated" students led by an "engaging" teacher. Whatever signifies legible order for the observer is the ideal, even if that order results in no actual learning. One of my school principals insisted that he could poke his head into a classroom and tell at a glance if a teacher was "getting it done." Legibility is more important than education. More to the point, education is to be found in the legibility of the enterprise rather than the results.

I don't mean to complain, I'm just trying to understand. Certainly there are bureaucratic, political, and commercial forces pushing education in directions that suit their various non-educational agendas. This happens in all spheres of life, and it is easy to spot and understand. What bothers me is when intelligent and well-intentioned people confuse complexity with irrationality. It is very difficult to correct this misperception.

*   *   *

This brings me to a related concept called pseudoteaching. This concept is defined by Frank Noschese in his blog Action-Reaction:
The key idea of pseudoteaching is that it looks like good teaching. In class, students feel like they are learning, and any observer who saw a teacher in the middle of pseudoteaching would feel like he’s watching a great lesson. The only problem is, very little learning is taking place.

What is so seductive about pseudoteaching is its legibility, not its effectiveness. Everybody is happy; the teacher feels great, the students know exactly what is expected of them, any visitor to the classroom is suitably impressed. What makes everyone happy is that no-one's misconceptions or misperceptions are being seriously challenged. And that's also why so little learning is taking place.

Here we have a mutually-agreed-upon legibility, what Timothy Slater has called the Hidden Contract.  Inasmuch as we all agree that a classroom should look like this, and as long as the classroom in fact does look like this, then everyone is comforted by the apparent order (or apparent lack of chaos).

One of the guest pseudoteaching entries in Action-Reaction is Khan Academy and the Effectiveness of Science Videos by Derek Muller. He describes the phenomenon of student satisfaction with pseudoteaching this way:
Research has shown that these types of videos may be positively received by students. They feel like they are learning and become more confident in their answers, but tests reveal they haven’t learned anything.
And what is meant by "not learning anything?"
Students have existing ideas about scientific phenomena before viewing a video. If the video presents scientific concepts in a clear, well illustrated way, students believe they are learning but they do not engage with the media on a deep enough level to realize that what is presented differs from their prior knowledge.
(Read more about Muller's research here: What Puts the Pseudo in Pseudoteaching?)

Rationalizing Teaching
One way to "rationalize" teaching so it is more legible is to simplify the end result. As Rao points out,
. . . a reality that serves many purposes presents itself as illegible to a vision informed by a singular purpose. Any elements that are non-functional with respect to the singular purpose tend to confuse, and are therefore eliminated during the attempt to "rationalize."
If the end result of teaching is reduced to, say, students passing a certain test, then teaching itself can be rationalized and made quite efficient and effective. The IQ test, for instance, was originally developed as an expedient military management tool. It has become the very definition of intelligence in the minds of many, reducing a complex human trait to a single legible number.

There is a kind of learning called procedural learning. Procedural learning is the first step toward acquiring a skill, and it usually involves practicing a procedure, recipe, or algorithm until it can be performed correctly and automatically. It is a favorite goal for teaching because the path to successful learning is quite straightforward. Procedures, even complex ones, are ultimately rational, and thus legible. A classroom that is focused on procedural learning is also legible.

There are those who would like to define education as being simply this; learning how to successfully execute a procedure. I, for one, would prefer a definition that encompasses a great deal more. As a physics teacher I value rational thinking, the interplay of perception and concept, creative problem-solving, and the exercise of judgement when executing procedures. I also value observing, dreaming, and play. Can any of these preferences of mine be successfully taught? Should I even try? When does the goal become so complex that it becomes illegible to me, and I fall into the traps of rationalizing or pseudoteaching?

Maybe I could define education as simply this; learning how to convert an illegibly complex experience into a legible one without falsely rationalizing it.

Cross-posted to Teaching and Instructional Design

August 10, 2014

Defining Teaching

Here's an outline I've been constructing around the task of defining teaching:

The Task: To describe (and possibly define) what teaching is.

What teachers talk to each other about is the craft or practice of teaching, the employment of techniques and the solution to problems, but not what teaching itself actually is. Asking a teacher what teaching is is akin to asking a fish what swimming is - "I don't know, I just do it." It's actually more like asking a doctor what "doctoring" is. There's a lot to it, but it can be easier to describe the collection of daily tasks, the little tricks and moves, the tools and techniques, than it can be to articulate a definition of what "doctoring" is.

How would a teacher describe teaching to a lay person? How do teachers describe (and justify) what they are doing to each other, to administrators, supervisors, and bureaucrats? Should teachers try, among themselves, to define teaching, even as an exercise? Or should "experts" do the defining while the teachers get on with their work?

Why define teaching? Because if teachers don't define it, others will, and possibly to the detriment of teachers. Which brings us to The Problem.

The Problem: The "wrong" definition of teaching will harm and interfere with a teacher's ability to teach.

Here are some "wrong" descriptions of teaching:

  • babysitting
  • coaching
  • guiding
  • facilitating
  • managing
  • delivering curriculum
  • the inverse of learning

Why are these descriptions wrong? Because they are an oversimplification of what is actually happening. Because the focus is entirely on a single dimension of teaching which can be described as effectiveness, and not at all on an equally important but often unseen dimension which can be described as engagement.

There are two current difficulties that tend to hide the engagement dimension:

  • 1. Effective teaching includes designing instructional materials and designing tests. Both of these activities can be done on a corporate, academic, or bureaucratic level by experts, with an eye toward monopolizing and/or automating such activity. It benefits corporate, academic, and bureaucratic agents to define teaching as simply delivering or implementing their products.
  • 2. For teachers, much of what should be thought of as engagement is instead thought of as classroom management, and often results in moralistic approaches to control and discipline. Psychological approaches to behavior modification are an improvement, but best would be pedagogical approaches to teaching behavior, directly and indirectly, in the classroom. Engagement needs to be clarified as being part of the actual teaching of the curriculum rather than as a separate side project of classroom control and discipline.

The Solution: Understand the engagement part of teaching.

A key to this is understanding the role of behavioral techniques, especially stagecraft, in engaging students with the instructional materials. In other words, the behavioral techniques, the stagecraft, are an integral part of teaching. Without engagement, you are not teaching - you really are just delivering instructional materials to students who have been "managed" into doing work.

Remember - teaching happens when a teacher engages the student. Instructional materials do not teach themselves. Without a teacher, a student is simply self-taught.