Re: [Phys-l] tracking (WAS: differentiated instruction)

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
> bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Schnick
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:01 PM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction
>
> Research on tracking was mentioned in this thread.  The following is a
> link to a document on that topic:
>
> <http://www.principalspartnership.com/tracking.pdf>
The article points out quite clearly that tracking is controversial and the
research is often ambiguous.

But one point was made which I think is worth looking at.  Students who are
tracked are often given different instruction.  There is some evidence that
students with good math skills benefit from open ended labs, but that these
are bad for students who have low math skills.  So most of the PER based
labs are actually guided inquiry, with only a little open endedness.

But there are things one can observe which clearly hold back students in the
lower track.  The lower tracks tend to rely on very simple verification
labs.  The questions asked are often vague rather than being specific.
Students are taught to use a triangle for solving equations.
 F
M A
To find F cover it and calculate the result as m x a.  To find M cover it
and you know that you must divide F / A.  This is very destructive because
it gives them rote rules which essentially make no sense.  It retards the
formation of proportional reasoning.  But teachers don't want to hear that.

The article does point out that higher math is used in the upper classes,
but it is not clear that such higher math could be used in the lower
classes.  But hitting proportional reasoning strategies would be helpful in
the lower and higher classes, unless the high class students all exhibit
this ability.

Also the lower classes rely on things which are not actually physics to help
them remember facts rather than developing relationships.  So I think the
problem with tracking is probably the problem with the teaching.
Essentially the lower students are held back.  There is also the problem
that many of the materials aimed at the lower students are shockingly
inaccurate.  I saw video presentations used for middle school and 9th grade
that had many outright misconceptions, and also very inexact animations.

At present the teachers are trying very hard to get students through high
stakes testing so they give the students tricks and memorization rather than
having them do the necessary thinking.  Incidentally the lower level review
materials are also extremely deficient compared to the higher level ones.
The lower ones have misconceptions, and many poorly stated questions by
comparison.  I have actually compared them.

So tracking may or may not be bad by itself, but tracking with poorer
teaching for the low level students is a BIG deficit.  It is not clear that
combining the tracked classes will solve the situation, as teachers might
then just use the poor materials and strategies for all.  So separate but
equal does not work well, and it is not clear that integration will work
either.

If cognitive acceleration were used on the lower students, they probably
could survive in upper classes.  According to Feuerstein the lower ability
is due to "social deprivation" or in other words the students were not
exposed to the necessary tasks needed to build thinking skills.  They have
been exposed to direct instruction on ratios and fractions, but they still
lack proportional reasoning.  Neither the previous math or science classes
have been successful for them.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX