Making the Most of Your First Day of Class

Jon D. H. Gaffney, and Jacob T. Whitaker

Citation: The Physics Teacher 53, 137 (2015); doi: 10.1119/1.4908079

View online: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4908079
View Table of Contents: http://aapt.scitation.org/toc/pte/53/3
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Articles you may be interested in

They’re back! The first day of school
The Physics Teacher 27, 424 (1989); 10.1119/1.2342821

What do you do the first day of physics class?

The Physics Teacher 26, 291 (1988); 10.1119/1.2342536

First-day physics
The Physics Teacher 29, 336 (1991); 10.1119/1.2343339

Addressing physical intuition—A first-day event

The Physics Teacher 38, 318 (2000); 10.1119/1.880550

Who's Teaching What in High School Physics?

The Physics Teacher 53, 155 (2015); 10.1119/1.4908083

The LHC's Next Big Mystery

The Physics Teacher 53, 140 (2015); 10.1119/1.4908080
Making the Most of Your First Day of
Class
Jon D. H. Gaffney and Jacob T. Whitaker, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY
I
nstructors of physics courses face the demanding chal-
lenge of creating a safe, nurturing community in their
classroom while maintaining sufficient rigor. First-day
activities are especially important, because they need to both
motivate their students and prepare them for the course. Ex-
perienced instructors happily share their successful first-day
activities,1,2 but what works for one instructor or class might
not be as successful for another. We postulate that to be suc-
cessful, an activity will set expectations, attend to the face
needs of the students, and build the instructor’s credibility.
By modeling the course activities and fostering a supportive
learning community, well-suited activities can both orient
and motivate students.
Setting expectations
Students enter the classroom with a range of expectations,
generated by their experiences in other classes and beliefs
about what physics is. Often, students expect to be told about
content that is unapproachably difficult and disconnected
from “real life,” but expectations differ from student to stu-
dent and course to course.3 First-day activities can calibrate
students by jumping into physics investigations immediately4
or demonstrating fascinating phenomena.5 Alternatively, dis-
cussions about physical concepts and philosophy can connect
course material to real life.6
Classes with an active learning component (for example,
those with features similar to SCALE-UP,7 Peer Instruction,8
Interactive Lecture Demonstrations,9 or Physics by Inquiry10)
face an even greater challenge, since many students still hold
expectations that learning physics is an individual endeavor
that requires nothing more than memorizing and applying
equations. In such classes, instructors need to describe the
teaching and learning methods used in the course. Describing
those methods in the syllabus is necessary but not sufficient,
and simply reading the syllabus on the first day promotes a
hidden message that the students are expected to learn by
listening, rather than by utilizing the very methods that the
syllabus describes. First-day activities should follow the same
methods that students will be using every day.
Meeting face needs
The concept of face is often used to describe the social
value a person claims for oneself.11 In essence, our face is
how we perceive ourselves, constructed by interactions with
other people. Whenever we find ourselves in an embarrassing
situation, we often struggle to “save face,” and one aspect of a
healthy relationship with others is making efforts to prevent
them from “losing face.”
Face can be broken down into three distinct, but related,
needs:12 to feel included (fellowship), to feel appreciated and
capable (competence), and to feel in control of one’s own
DOI: 10.1119/1.4908079 The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 53, March 2015
choices (autonomy). Situations that threaten to expose those
needs and reduce social value are referred to as “face threat-
ening.” Efforts we make to mitigate face-threatening situa-
tions experienced by others, by reducing their quantity or
impact, are referred to as facework.
Facework can manifest differently, depending on the as-
pect of face being threatened. People who feel isolated can be
consoled with solidarity language, such as “we’re all in this to-
gether” or “I’ve been there before.” Feelings of incompetence
can be addressed with approbation, for example by highlight-
ing and praising a recent success. The most challenging (but
perhaps most familiar) form of facework is tact, which allows
someone to provide harsh criticism while still protecting the
other’s autonomy. Proper tact allows for the other to maintain
the ability to make choices and to respond to the criticism.
When students make efforts to save face by using hedging
language such as “I don’t know, maybe,” or tacking on “just
kidding” when corrected, they are indicating that they may be
in a threatening situation. When instructors quickly respond
in such situations with facework strategies, they build trust
and confidence in their students, which in turn likely pro-
motes motivation.13 Because instructors are held at a higher
status level than students, students are unlikely to expect
them to mitigate face-threatening situations.14 Therefore,
instructors who do facework may surprise their students by
exceeding expectations, improving student attitudes while
building the instructor’s credibility.15
Building credibility
Credibility is defined as students’ perceptions of the in-
structor’s character (trustworthiness, honesty, and fairness),
competence, and caring. When students rate their instructor
as highly credible, they are more receptive toward course
content and tend to have better attitudes toward the course as
a whole. Instructor “misbehaviors,” such as being demeaning
or apathetic, significantly harm the classroom culture.16
Credibility is generally hard to earn but easily lost, and the
many factors that influence it are often complex and inter-
related.17 Nonetheless, some first-day activities seem par-
ticularly well suited to building credibility, especially when
they provide opportunities for meeting the face needs of the
students in the class. Below, we discuss how some first-day
activities provide necessary facework for class and build the
instructor’s credibility. We hope that these few examples will
prove useful and inspiring for instructors thinking about how
to match first-day activities to their courses.
Ask me anything
Hubisz18 notes that students are reluctant to speak up in
class, especially early in the semester. In response, he prompts
students to write down open-ended questions about any top-
137
ic, even those outside the scope of the course. He then reads
and respectfully answers those questions to the class, reveal-
ing personal information when appropriate.
Activities such as these take courage on the part of the in-
structor because they involve risk: what if the instructor does
not know the answer to a question or attempts to use humor
that falls flat or is perceived as insulting? Strikingly, those
concerns are similar to some of the fears that students them-
selves face in the classroom when they speak up. By showing
his willingness to stand in that face-threatening situation, the
instructor models how to navigate such situations and dem-
onstrates that they are necessary for growth. Students learn
that they will have their face needs considered and taken seri-
ously, which improves the instructor’s credibility.
Eat your vegetables
While developing a first-day activity for his student-cen-
tered class, Smith was influenced by a memory of his parents
admonishing him to eat his vegetables.19 He realized that
what he had been doing in class was essentially this: by justi-
fying why he taught the way he did and then telling students
how to study in his class, he came across as a salesman who
insisted that students buy in or as a parent telling children to
“eat their vegetables” because it would be good for them in
the long run. However, students on the receiving end of such
instruction are likely to feel the autonomy aspect of their face
threatened. Smith faced a combative learning environment
and low teaching evaluations, evidence that he lost credibility
with his students.
First-day activities need to do more than transmit in-
formation about the course or justify the methods used in
that course. They need to acknowledge the face needs of the
students and demonstrate (not just tell!) that the instructor
is genuinely interested in building a relationship with each of
them.
Smith responded by creating a first-day activity that asks
students to rank the most important outcomes for class and
then determine what they could comfortably do outside of
class to maximize the efficiency of class time.19 Doing so ac-
knowledged students’ need to feel in control over their own
learning. As a bonus, the activity allowed students to figure
out how they were going to prevent situations that could
threaten the competency aspect of their face: students knew
that by reading for class every day, they would not need to
fear appearing unprepared for that day’s work. By starting the
semester with preventative facework, Smith enjoyed a much
more relaxed classroom and higher teacher evaluations than
when he had simply told the students what was expected of
them.
Discovering the rules of the game
In courses where students will be expected to do inquiry
or authentic investigations into physical phenomena, activi-
ties that draw upon students’ natural curiosity and ability to
find patterns are good fits. In one such activity, students are
formed into small groups and try to determine the rules of a
strategy game based on a few artifacts: a game board, pieces,
138 The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 53, March 2015
and a move history written in code.20
We have found this activity to be a very successful ice-
breaker in Physics for Teachers courses, where elementary
and middle school education majors typically begin the
semester uncomfortable and timid about physics.21 Placing
students into a situation where they are dependent upon each
other immediately provides solidarity facework, and students
quickly warm up to the idea that they will not be isolated in
class. Additionally, the instructor is able to connect her or his
experience as a scientist with the students’ experience in fig-
uring out the rules to the game.
Competency facework is provided during the debriefing
session that follows the activity. Students receive nothing but
positive feedback, and the instructor praises their ideas—
even when those ideas are ultimately incorrect. They are thus
reassured that not only can they succeed, but also that failure
and struggle are highly prized stages along the way.
Because there are games of varying difficulties to choose
from, it is important to select one that is both difficult enough
that students need to rely on each other and simple enough
that students are able to succeed. We learned to find this bal-
ance the hard way; when students were given a SciGame that
was too difficult, it reinforced fears of incompetency and
damaged the instructor’s credibility.
We have also seen that in courses where students are
expected to spend most of their time solving quantitative
problems, this activity does not properly set expectations for
the course. While students enjoyed it at the time, they were
quickly disillusioned when they realized that everyday classes
would not be that way.
Fermi questions
In courses where students will be expected to do consider-
able quantitative reasoning, Fermi questions22 set the stage
quite effectively. One of our favorite questions is to determine
the time it would take to walk from the classroom to a differ-
ent city. We find that students naturally begin by estimating
distance and then proceed with a simple calculation with
an assumed average velocity. Assumptions used by students
leave lots of space for discussion and validation. Addition-
ally, students find that they are able to get much better results
working with others than they do alone, and they recognize
that there is no single “right” answer to some questions.
Fermi questions can initially threaten students’ competen-
cy face: students are not used to being asked questions where
information is missing and needs to be estimated. Many
students struggle at first, worrying that they do not know the
distance between two cities. However, they work through
these problems in groups, and they learn that everyone has
something to offer the group—an experience from driv-
ing between two nearby cities or from walking a marathon.
Students give each other solidarity facework as they work to-
gether to answer the questions, and the instructor reinforces
that facework in the debriefing of the activity. Moreover, the
groups generally find their estimates to be similar, reinforcing
their competency face. The instructor also has the opportu-
nity to do competency facework with students who produce
outlying estimates simply by asking them to explain their as-
sumptions and by validating those assumptions to the class.
However, by the Fermi questions’ initially threatening nature,
the instructor must be attentive to respond with necessary
facework and not leave any students feeling incompetent or
isolated by the activity.
Rumors
To gather information on students’ initial expectations
and worries about the course, we ask students to discuss ru-
mors they heard about the course, instructor, or physics in
general in small groups.23 We ask them to list those rumors
on whiteboards and share them with the class. Students are
reassured that they are merely reporting rumors, not present-
ing the claims as their own. We have found students to be
suprisingly honest and willing to share previous experiences
and concerns.
In the class-wide discussion that follows, the instruc-
tor can gain credibility by responding honestly to concerns,
dispelling inaccuracies, highlighting vital content from the
syllabus, and negotiating certain aspects of the course. Such a
discussion can provide necessary autonomy facework, if the
instructor is suitably tactful. The “rumors” disguise allows the
students to dissociate themselves from their concerns, which
protects their face when the instructor corrects the rumor.
Of course, soliciting rumors involves risk on the part of
the instructor. Like Hubisz’s activity earlier, the instructor
becomes vulnerable. In return, the instructor gains the op-
portunity to demonstrate openness and a sense of humor
about herself or himself, which could gain credibility from
the students. Additionally, such openness brings the instruc-
tor into the classroom community, which does necessary
solidarity facework, conveying the message that “we’re all in
this together.”
Carrying through
We hypothesize that effective first-day activities set expec-
tations for the course while recognizing and validating stu-
dents’ particular face needs for that class. By modeling how
she or he will meet face needs during the upcoming semester,
the instructor gains credibility. As a result, students can relax,
knowing that they are in the hands of a competent, trustwor-
thy leader who cares about them. Then begins an even more
challenging task for the instructor: to fulfill those expecta-
tions in the physics lessons encountered during the second
day and beyond.
References
1. For example, see Arthur Eisenkraft, “They’re back! The first
day of school,” Phys. Teach. 27, 424–431 (Sept. 1989).
2. The Science Education Initiative collects first-day activities for
STEM courses. See http://www.colorado.edu/sei/fac-resources/
framing.html.
3. For more about the importance of shifting pedagogical expec-
tations, see Jon D. H. Gaffney, Amy L. Housley Gaffney, and
Robert J. Beichner, “Do they see it coming? Using expectancy
violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms,” Phys.
The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 53, March 2015
Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010102 (Feb. 2010).
4. Yvette Van Hise and Thomas Phillips, “What do you do the
first day of physics class?” Phys. Teach. 26, 291–292 (May
1988).
5. William B. Lynch, “First-day physics,” Phys. Teach. 29, 336
(Sept. 1991).
6. David Keeports, “Addressing physical intuition – A first day
event,” Phys. Teach. 38, 318–319 (May 2000).
7. Jon D. H. Gaffney, Evan Richards, Mary Bridget Kustusch, Lin
Ding, and Robert J. Beichner, “Scaling up education reform,” J.
Coll. Sci. Teach. 37, 48–53 (May 2008).
8. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Addison-Wesley,
Boston, MA, 1996).
9. David R. Sokoloff and Ronald K. Thornton, “Using Interactive
Lecture Demonstrations to create an active learning environ-
ment,” Phys. Teach. 35, 340–347 (Sept. 1997).
10. Lillian C. McDermott, Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ,
1996).
11. Erving Goffman, On Face-Work, Interaction Ritual: Essays on
Face-to-Face Behavior (Pantheon, New York, 1967), pp. 5–46.
12. Tae-Seop Lim and John Waite Bowers, “Facework solidar-
ity, approbation, and tact,” Human Comm. Res. 17, 415–450
(March 1991).
13. Jeff Kerssen-Griep, Jon A. Hess, and April R. Trees, “Sustaining
the desire to learn: Dimensions of perceived instructional face-
work related to student involvement and motivation to learn,”
Western J. Comm. 67, 357–381 (Fall 2003).
14. Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 1978).
15. Paul L. Witt and Jeff Kerssen-Griep, “Instructional feedback I:
The interaction of facework and immediacy on students’ per-
ceptions of instructor credibility,” Comm. Educ. 60, 75–94 (Jan.
2011).
16. See, for example, Katherine S. Thweatt and James C. McCros-
key, “The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on
teacher credibility,” Comm. Educ. 47, 348–358 (Oct. 1998).
17. See, for example, Paul Schrodt and Paul D. Turman, “The im-
pact of instructional technology use, course design, and sex
differences on students’ initial perceptions of instructor cred-
ibility,” Comm. Quarterly 53, 177–196 (April 2005).
18. John L. Hubisz, “Quarter-sheet questions,” Phys. Teach. 48,
138–139 (Feb. 2010).
19. Gary A. Smith, “First-day questions for the learner-centered
classroom,” Nat. Teach. Learn. Forum 17, 1–4 (Sept. 2008).
20. David P. Maloney and Mark F. Masters, “Learning the game of
formulating hypotheses and theories,” Phys. Teach. 48, 22–24
(Jan. 2010).
21. Jon D. H. Gaffney, “Education majors’ expectations and report-
ed experiences with inquiry-based physics: Implications for
student affect,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010112 (April
2013).
22. Many useful examples can be found in the recurring column
“Fermi Questions” in The Physics Teacher. Edited by Larry
Weinstein.
23. We learned this activity from Robert Beichner, who has used it
on the first day of SCALE-UP courses.
Jon Gaffney and Jacob Whitaker, Eastern Kentucky University,
Richmond, KY 40475: Jon.Gaffney@eku.edu
139