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] differentiated instruction



Thank you all for responding to my original questions. So far, here is what I am hearing:

1. It is hard to raise the issue of teaching different students differently without also raising the issue of how we teach ANY students anything. But if I say that I am going to use guided inquiry as supported by PER in all my classes with all my students, I have not responded to those who would see me "differentiate". So it is really a separate issue.

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.

3. If no one is doing it, or can tell what it would mean to do it, it seems silly and unnecessary to debate whether it would be better or worse than whatever it is that anyone is doing now.

Also, I detected concern from some of you that I am under duress from administrators about this. Please don't worry. As some have noted, as with many other educational initiatives, this too shall pass. I have an enduring understanding that tells me so.



-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:00 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction

Let's put all this in context. What you have to accept, as I
understand
it, that gains on certain tests measure, in some sense, teaching
effectiveness. Such a conclusion transcends common sense. American
education, which varies greatly from locale to locale, has produced a
number of eminent scientists who were taught by traditional methods.
The conclusion further obscures the fact that the ultimate
reponsibility for learning resides in the student. And, yes, there are
differences in learning ability - students do in fact range from bright
to
dull. These facts, not taken into account in the use of tests to
measure
teaching effectiveness - and don't forget the personality of the
teacher
as a possible factor that needs to be taken into account - makes so-
called
PER approaches an abuse of the term "research" because it involves the
use
of numerical measures with totally unknown systematic uncertainties.

"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn
Valley




On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, M. Horton wrote:

It's hard to prove that something is not research-based except to
point out
a lack of research.

In this case, however, there have been several reports published
recently
that the idea of learning styles is not supported by cognitive
psychology or
any other branch of science for that matter. This website has a
video from
a cognitive scientist who addresses this question directly. His
arguments
make a lot of sense. Considering that his arguments make sense and
there is
a lack of evidence supporting the opposite idea, that should be
pretty
convincing.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2009/03/learning_styles_true_
or_false.html?qs=learning+styles

This is not to say that ideas should not be taught a variety of ways.
There
is research saying that multiple exposures to information presented
in a
variety of formats enhances learning, but it has nothing to do with
learning
styles.

I receive the ASCD SmartBrief email everyday and it had an article
saying
virtually the same thing as the video within the last week.
Unfortunately,
I didn't think I'd ever need it again and deleted it.

M. Horton

----- Original Message -----
From: <trappe@physics.utexas.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction


I, too am curious about the statement: "non-research-based
idea of learning styles". Do you have more specific evidence that
these definitions are non-research based?

Having sat through too many workshops on learning styles, I wonder if
these definitions are largely dreamed up terms, or actually
researched
definitions of specific behaviors. Generally the workshops define
the
different styles "with authority", but that leaves much to
question...
So, what is the basis of Horton's statement? Karl
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

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

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