Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Phys-l Digest, Vol 56, Issue 21



Hey Paul.

What you have done sounds great. Would you like to post some samples of what
you are doing on, say PGP site? Might be useful for trs who have yet to
start in this direction.

Julie

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Paul Martenis <pmartenis@martenis.com>wrote:


On Tuesday, September 29, 2009, at 12:00 PM,
phys-l-request@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu wrote:
From: Philip Keller <PKeller@holmdelschools.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators' <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
...
2. No one has claimed to be (or to know of) a high school physics
teacher who is using differentiated instruction in their classes. I
am not counting it if you say "I do it all the time" in an informal
way. After all, teachers have always answered questions from
individual students with individual responses, thus differentiating
based on student need as identified by the questions they ask. But I
am looking for someone who follows Tomlinson's suggestion and
differentiates by content, process and product in a planned program.
...

OK, I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but here goes.

We've been doing something that I think of as a kind of
differentiation. At our school, most ninth graders take Intro Physics
in heterogeneous sections. Math skills are quite varied among the
students. For several topics, I've written different levels of
worksheets to be used to practice and apply whatever math we're doing.
Typically there are three levels. One reviews and provides a gentle,
scaffolded introduction, another is targeted at the level of our tests
and quizzes, and a third makes things complicated in various ways. This
is not an everyday thing. Most of the course is not differentiated in
this way: everybody does the labs in mixed-ability groups, takes the
same tests, listens to the same explanations, etc.

Here is an example. Recently we had the kids "rediscover" Hooke's Law.
We followed up by calculating the slopes of their graphs, what the
units mean, etc. All that was done together, or in groups of mixed
apparent math ability. But when it came time to practice and review,
there were differentiated class assignments. Kids who've shown signs of
difficulty with math got a page that started with qualitative
descriptions of slope, worked examples to verify, guided questions
about parts of the task, gradually working up to a full calculation of
slope (with units) from a graph. The others got a page that was a
fairly traditional problem set, comparable to what would be on the
quiz. I didn't fuss much over who got which, as the process is
self-correcting: a student who races through an easy page advances to
the next; when I see somebody stuck on the standard page, I give them
the review/intro. For those who finish the standard page, I've got more
challenging/interesting questions about comparing pairs of springs
side-by-side or linked end-to-end (plus a few springs on hand for them
to verify their reasoning in a qualitative way).

Assembling the leveled worksheets is extra work, but not much. Over the
years, I've accumulated more question sets than I can possibly use, so
it's a matter of selecting, editing and formatting, and it only needs
to be done once. Even so, I've only done it for some topics.

I've been pleased with the results. I do not claim a miracle cure: I've
seen only a modest improvement in test scores, and these are hardly
controlled conditions. Yet I've found it worthwhile. Conversations
during that class time seem more productive: less about the work being
too hard/easy, more about how they're handling the problem in front of
them.

- Paul Martenis

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l