Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Several times, on this board, I've seen it suggested that a teacher should have different work for different level learners. I'm curious as to how those who make this suggestion would recommend a teacher handling the workload of say, quadrupling (assuming four levels per class) their preps. Is that even, remotely, doable? What about lab based classes like mine? How do you propose having some kids work ahead? How would they do labs when the teacher is needed to lecture the rest of the class?
There was HW assigned every day, but it was optional. It counted for bonus points (usually +1, +2, or +3 depending on the length of the HW) on the tests, which were somewhat hard.
The averages on the tests were somewhat low, but since everyone did the HW, that made up for it, and they learned as well. Many people did well on the AP test that year.
Also, 25% of every exam covered material from previous tests. So an April exam could have a question from October in it...
When I was in high school, classes were offered on several different levels. So there was an honors physics class, a college prep physics class, and a basic physics class. A kid who could not keep up with honors physics could transfer to a lower level class, or vice versa. It was like this with nearly all classes... English, Algebra, Trigonometry, Chemistry, etc. For English and some Math classes, there were remedial classes as well... remedial-level kids probably should not be taking a class like physics or chemistry, though, as they would not have math background to make it feasible.
Do they not separate by level at your school? Or are all kids required to take the higher science classes even if they don't have the appropriate math background? If the latter is the case, then I have no suggestions for you, other than to complain to whomever is in charge of that sort of thing.
When I was in high school, classes were offered on several different levels. So there was an honors physics class, a college prep physics class, and a basic physics class. A kid who could not keep up with honors physics could transfer to a lower level class, or vice versa. It was like this with nearly all classes... English, Algebra, Trigonometry, Chemistry, etc. For English and some Math classes, there were remedial classes as well... remedial-level kids probably should not be taking a class like physics or chemistry, though, as they would not have math background to make it feasible.
Do they not separate by level at your school? Or are all kids required to take the higher science classes even if they don't have the appropriate math background? If the latter is the case, then I have no suggestions for you, other than to complain to whomever is in charge of that sort of thing.
They do offer separate levels for other courses but not physics. Chemistry has two levels. Standard chemistry and Chemcom. Our school is too small to have more than one chemistry teacher and I teach physics too so two chemistry courses and one physics gives me 3 different preps and that's a lot. They'd have to hire another teacher to have more courses and that won't happen with budget cuts. Advanced physics, engineering or chemistry courses will attract small numbers of students and wouldn't work out to a full day for a teacher so they can't justify another full time teacher to offer them.
Several times, on this board, I've seen it suggested that a teacher should have different work for different level learners. I'm curious as to how those who make this suggestion would recommend a teacher handling the workload of say, quadrupling (assuming four levels per class) their preps. Is that even, remotely, doable? What about lab based classes like mine? How do you propose having some kids work ahead? How would they do labs when the teacher is needed to lecture the rest of the class?
This is precisely why I DON'T advocate this approach. It's unwieldy, amounting to multiple preps per class. If you assume that you have to prep three different levels per class, and you teach three different preps, that's the fundamental equivalent of teaching nine preps -- and not getting paid any differently than if you prepared for just the three.
This, among other reasons, is why I think it's imperative to advocate for subject- and whole-grade placement according to ability, not age.
Sorry to not have answered your question -- I sympathize with your situation.
I think it's quite obvious that teaching to individual levels lends itself better to certain subjects than others and to different grade levels as well.
K-3 absolutely have to teach to several levels in order to accommodate the lowest level student the average student the above average and the gifted. Perhaps they don't write separate preps but instead simplify for the lower, expand for the above and add something extra for the gifted.
Starting around 4th often core subjects are either taught by specialized teachers or by groups according to levels. Meaning, one teacher teaches math to all 4th graders and is able to work in 3-4 different lines of prep since they are focusing only on the one core subject. Or the students are assessed and combined by ability and each teacher teaches a specific level.
In middle school and high school core subjects are already divided into the 3 basic levels-below grade level, on level and honors/AP. You don't typically have a teacher in middle/high school teaching more than 2 levels of any given core subject.
Of course as core subjects are divided more into specialized subjects such as biology, chemistry and physics, the teaching switches to more specialized teaching preps anyway. The need for individualized preps is less in the specialized subjects compared to the core subjects because of the specialization.
Having said that, it can indeed still be done to individualize preps to a certain degree. The best example I have right now is the 6th grade science teacher at my daughter's middle school. She teaches 5 on level science classes and a GT/Honors class. In that GT/Honors class she has lesson plans that allow the students, after being taught the lesson, to choose from several options of assignments to complete. It's set up so that students can choose from things such as doing heavy research and writing an essay, to being creative and writing and performing a skit, to making a brochure or even simply writing a basic report. Of course the teacher has to grade several different types of assignments, but the number of assignments is no different. According to the teacher it's much easier this way for her because some choices don't take near as much time to grade as others. For instance, she says, the skit is much easier than the essay to grade and a brochure is quicker than a report since it's much more concise.
She's been doing this successfully for several years now and some of the other teachers do a similar version in their own classes as well. It takes organization and simplification she says to do this effectively, but it can be done on some level.
This is precisely why I DON'T advocate this approach. It's unwieldy, amounting to multiple preps per class. If you assume that you have to prep three different levels per class, and you teach three different preps, that's the fundamental equivalent of teaching nine preps -- and not getting paid any differently than if you prepared for just the three.
This, among other reasons, is why I think it's imperative to advocate for subject- and whole-grade placement according to ability, not age.
Sorry to not have answered your question -- I sympathize with your situation.
Unfortunately, you need a bigger school to offer multiple levels of classes like chemistry and physics and more than one teacher. Three preps is killing me. I just can't do 4 to add in honors chem. I wouldn't do honors physics. There aren't enough kids who'd want to take it. It would, simply, be a faster version of regular physics where we'd cover more material in the end given I don't have the lab equipment for high end experiments. I can't do a lower physics either because, again, I don't have equipment. Funny how it gets really lab based on either end. The Chemcom class I'm teaching is very lab based. I set up a lab every to every other week in there, whereas, it's more like every three weeks in regular chem but, of course, we cover theory in more detail in there.
Sadly, I have to admit, my real reason for wishing there were honors chem is just to see how my students who think they're all that would really do if placed in a challenging situation. Many of my students complain about how much work their other honors classes are. I think honors would be easier on the teacher because you could put more on the student. I find the lower down I go the harder my preps are.
Frustrating huh...some schools will continue to require more "preps" within one class. Differentiated learning is the new buzz word for the current moment.
How to address the needs of each student in a class of 25-35 different learning styles.
My opinion is there are TWO learning styles--
Those who understand it (some are better at understanding, but all share the ability to understand)
Those who DO NOT understand and need it repeated multiple times, and even then may not have a clear understanding.
Call it motivation (from home), expectations (at home), curiosity (from self) but students either know they have to do well or they know it just doesn't matter (aka no one CARES).
Yes, there are the SpEd kids, but outside the real disabilities, even SpEd has become a dumping ground for the kids who just don't get it.
As a SpEd teacher, how can I be effective in teaching a classroom (even with less than 8 kids) all at different levels 6 content areas (Math, Language Arts, Reading, Social Studies, Science, Social Skills, and Arts and Crafts) and they want me to throw in Phys Ed and computers?
And there is NO prep time?
So the idea that all kids need individualized differentiated instruction seems rather subjective from my P.O.V.
While all kids can learn, not all kids want to laern or will go to college. Fact.
If they do, how will we explain the vocational options are limited to collecting trash or digging ditches with a B.A degree?
If I a) believed you were sincerely interested in the answer, or b) were going to read my response, I would be more inclined to go into depth on how to do this at the junior and senior high school levels.
As neither a nor b applies, I'll cover it in cursory fashion for the nonce.
There are two times when increased individualization is the hardest - the first year you do it and the beginning of the year. The keys to individualization are:
1) Solid assessments
2) Solid knowledge of the subject
3) Good time management by the teacher
4) Good information management by the teacher
1) Solid assessments
At the beginning of the year, and all the way along, the teacher needs to know what the students know and do not know. It's most important at the beginning to establish the baseline - what is each student's starting point? If you don't know this, then you can't even start effective individualization.
With it, you can group students based on current knowledge and learning styles. You probably can't group as easily at the outset by learning speed unless you've had them previously.
2) Solid knowledge of the subject
How much remedial work are your lowest students going to need before they can get going with the current year's work? How far ahead of the curve are the most advanced students? Are there any serious outliers?
If you don't address those who started the year behind, they are just going to get further and further behind - but if you only address their needs, then you are abandoning everybody else, not just the advanced kids.
Generally speaking I start with 3 or 4 groups in the first month, depending on how things break down and the size of the specific class. The reason the start of the year is so hard is that everybody is getting a prep. But as the year goes on, the prep I did for the advanced students is usable for the next group, etc. Similarly, the reason the first year is so hard is that one is creating/learning assessment techniques for the first time, and creating nuanced lesson plans for the first time. When you've done something once, the 2nd time is usually easier, and the 3rd easier still.
3) Good time management by the teacher
Balancing time in the classroom among the groups is work - not in terms of 'fairness,' but just in terms of their needs for moving forward. It's far too easy, especially when one is new to this form of teaching, to get involved with one group of students and not get around to each of the other groups.
4) Good information management by the teacher
If the teacher does not keep good track of the assessments and of observations of how the different students seem to learn and to react to different lessons, then it is much much harder to make adjustments to the groups as the term goes along. I seldom keep any group together for two consecutive months, and certainly not three - their needs/speeds/approaches vary. This is probably more true in math than in many other fields, because backgrounds have such variation - but it seems to work as well for me in English classes.
*******
Lab sciences are the least conducive to the varied rates of progress by students because of the nature of labs and their timing. It's also impacted by lab supplies. In biology, it depends on how much is being done, for example, by computer programming dissection vs. dead frogs in jars (or even live frogs to be killed by the students - *shudder!*).
However, even if you have neither an aid nor other mechanism to vary the rate of chemistry labs, individualization by learning style is still very feasible - and again is hard primarily in the first year, because of unfamiliarity.
And, again, while it may be hard, if there is no individualization, then the kids who walk into the Chem class without, for example, sufficient algebra are doomed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
