Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

> This idea has come up only a few times at my (private) school. To me, it
> means that students learn in different ways, so the more creative we
> teach, the more they can (theoretically) succeed.
>
> lectures
> demos
> hands-on activities
> peer instruction
> group work/activities
> concept homework
> math homework
> projects
> labs
> tests*
But not all methods of instruction are equal, and some methods are
destructive.
1.  Lectures are only OK if very short in duration, and extended lectures
have very low effectiveness for all students.
2.  Demos are ONLY effective if they follow the rules of interactive lecture
demos.  Mazur and Crouch have shown that traditional demos have close to
zero effectiveness.
3.  peer instruction - This is not well defined as stated.  If this means
Mazur's "Peer Instruction", then it is well known to work better.
Essentially this is similar to group work.  There is evidence from Schwartz
that group interaction promotes transfer, and the lack of it impedes
transfer.
4.  concept homework - Again this is not necessarily distinct from math
homework.  To be effective all problem solving must be based on apply in
concepts first, and math second.  The use of motion maps and graphs as means
of solving problems has been found to help students more than just equation
based problem solving.  Equations always should come last.
5.  Projects have very little evidence for improved learning, but they may
have some ability to raise interest as long as they are not done frequently.
> From my experience the parents tend to do the projects, and as a result we
resent them.
6.  hands-on activities -  These have little intrinsic value.  However if
they involve inquiry labs and not traditional verification labs they can
have great value.  But the evidence is that labs done with simulations can
in some cases improve student understanding more than labs with physical
equipment.  Similarly Thornton and Sokoloff have found that ILDs can also be
very effective even when you tell them the result, rather than having the
computer show them the result.  They do say that students have to see the
physical situation.
7.  Labs actually are a variety of hands on activities and successful labs
such as the Modeling labs or Real Time Physics emphasize inquiry and
understanding rather than formal lab reports.  Traditional verification labs
just generally have the students go through the motions, and do not improve
thinking.

8. Group work/activites - Basically all of the PER inspired materials rely
on this type of thing, rather than on lectures.  For institutional reasons
some do incorporate lectures.

There are some type of variations which might be used as evidence for
differentiated instruction.
1.  Multiple representations - It is known that students do not truly
understand concepts well unless they can translate between different types
of representations.  These are verbal, pictorial, graphical and equations.
Notice that graphical is actually also mathematical.  Pictorial in the case
of free body diagram, and motion maps, and energy bar charts are also
mathematical.  So these each can be used as evidence for varied instruction.

2.  Sometimes using simulations, physical labs, or labs on paper
(gedankenlabs?) could also be used as evidence of differentiated
instruction, as these seem to be different modalities, but they are actually
the same thing.  You can call a lab on paper a worksheet so it appears like
something different.

In reality there is only one form of instruction that really works.  That is
instruction which makes the students do the thinking, and where you do not
explain everything.  But there is firm evidence from cognitive science that
having students do the thinking in groups is extremely beneficial.  Only
solitary engagement with problems tends to produce lower learning, and
impedes transfer.  Actually the person who helps someone else, will learn
more at the same time the other person benefits.  There is also the factor
that practice problems often are harmful because the student practices the
wrong thing.  There is also the factor of immediate feedback.  So having
students in groups explain problems to each other can be beneficial even
when the problems have been done at home as homework.  This is the essence
of the Modeling program whiteboard technique.  But it also tries to get
students to ask each other the necessary questions.

Part of the problem of differentiated instruction is the premise that
students learn in only 1 way.  This is a fallacy.  In reality all students
have to learn using all modalities.  They also have to express their ideas
verbally as well as hearing others express ideas.  And in the end they have
to draw the pictures they need rather than just seeing them already drawn.
They have to make correct free body diagrams and motion maps rather than
just seeing them in books.  Every student has to do all of these things.
And kinesthetic feedback has to occur.  Studies show that students can often
show understanding using hand motions before they can verbalize it.  So they
all have to have some kinesthetic involvement.  I have seen cases where a
student couldn't understand a problem until they could model the motion with
their hands, just as Arons pointed out.  But students who can't interact
with pictures or visual representations my find physics impossible.
Students who can't draw straight lines or perpendicular lines using a ruler
may be severely handicapped.

John M. Clement
Houton, TX