Assignment 4.

1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 1

Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection

Lauren Grokett

National University

MAT 674: Differentiated Instruction

Professor Connie Wallace

February 27, 2014

Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 2

Abstract
Organizing students into small groups, peer partners, and panels allows the teacher and students

alike more flexibility with the types of activities that are possible in the classroom as well as allow for

greater freedom to differentiate instruction. The following paper discusses how each configuration is

used in the discussion of how “theory” has different meanings for laypersons and scientists as well as

an evaluation of what resources are scientifically credible.

Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 3

Chemistry Standards-based Lesson

Grade: 10
Subject: Chemistry
Lesson: Scientific Theory and Experimental Error

CA Standard: Investigation and Experimentation

1n. Know that when an observation does not agree with and accepted scientific theory, the
observation is sometimes mistaken or fraudulent (e.g., the Piltdown Man fossil or unidentified
flying objects) and that the theory is sometimes wrong (e.g., the Ptolemaic model of the
movement of the Sun, Moon, and planets.
1b. Identify and communicate sources of unavoidable experimental error.

Learning Objectives:
1. Students should be able to explain how scientific theory is different from layperson use of the
word “theory.”
2. Students will be able to list at least five ways of validating and evaluating source information.
3. Students will be able to identify several sources of error in laboratory experiments and data
manipulation.
4. Students will know that experimental error does not invalidate accepted theories and give
examples of how theories are disproven or altered over time.

This lesson takes place over two days and focuses on the differentiation between layperson use

and understanding of the word “theory” and how science uses the term. Students will be instructed in

whole group in the formal definitions of “theory” and break into small groups for discussion of content.

Students will work in pairs to research an example of a disproven theory chosen from a list or approved

by the teacher and representatives from each example will present their findings as a peer panel group

to the class for further discussion.

Whole Group

Near the beginning of the lesson, students will be given whole group instruction centered

around vocabulary development to differentiate between the formal scientific usage of the word

“theory” and use of the word in other settings. During direct instruction I will have graphic organizers

for each student to compare and contrast the two major uses of the word “theory” and have a large

Venn diagram on the board for discussion. While we discuss similarities and differences I will pose

simple questions for my early production English language learners such as yes or no questions or
Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 4

questions with one or two word responses and choose more advanced students to explain questions that

require more comprehensive answers. We will build our own Venn diagram as a class and students will

have personal diagrams for their notes and the rest of the lesson. To segue into the next portion of

instruction I will ask students to individually brainstorm two to three ways in which the evidence used

as the foundation for a scientifically-based theory can be discredited or validated.

Peer Pairs

Peer pairs can be self-directed or use assigned partners—the choice is dependent on the

ultimate goals and relative skill levels for the students in the partnership. There are two activities that

are completed in peer pairs: additional brainstorming of ideas about how they would validate or

discredit sources of information and discussing whether or not the errors inherent in laboratory

experiments constitute a threat to the validity of the experiment's findings.

First, students will take their individual ideas about valid versus uncredible sources and make a

final list. From their initial three to five ideas students will be asked to make a T-chart listing at least

three ideas each for valid and useless sources. If there are discrepancies between lists students will

discuss their responses until they reach a consensus and at the completion of their chart each pair will

make a contribution to another class-wide poster showing a master T-chart with all of the assembled

ideas. Many of these ideas will be simple, such as the use of opinion language when a factual

discussion is more appropriate (i.e., chemistry is bad) or when stated facts are incorrect (i.e., there are

only the elements of air, earth, fire and water); but critical ideas and mistaken concepts about either

category will warrant further discussion in the whole group review of the T-chart.

Second, students will be given a statement to either defend or argue against: If there are errors

or statistical anomalies in an experiment, then the findings or theory of the experiment are invalidated;

and If there are errors or statistical anomalies in an experiment, it is possible that the results or theory
Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 5

or theory of the experiment are still valid. Both statements are actually true, but this requreis students

to make a judgement call on the degree of error and to distinguish between expected error—inherent in

every real-world experiment—and poor methodology. Laboratory error is revisited and retaught with

every experiment because of the importance of differentiating between theoretical numbers and the

actual practice of scientific investigation. Students will also be expected to provide a real-world

example that supports their position, most likely using pre-assigned reading selections from the book

selected to provide passages most appropriate to skill level. If a student's reading fluency is severely

limited then an alternative passage will be selected from another source. Students may present their

findings in several ways: written proofs, diagrammatically, through a cartoon strip, via presentation to

the class, or in some other fashion that is pre-approved by the teacher.

Small Groups

Small groups are the best configuration for the final activity discussing theories and how

resources can either support or discredit them. Students will be organized into groups of three to four if

possible, but most of my field work classrooms show that four to five students is the norm. Each group

will evaluate a theory chosen from a list of debunked and/or outdated theories and models that were

part of the historical development of chemistry. Some theories might be the plum pudding model of the

atom; various alchemical principles; Bohr's model of the atom; pure elements are limited to precious

metals, air, earth, fire and water; and so on. There are four roles in the group: Historian, Modern

Scientist, Judge, and Editor. When groups have more than four students then the extra student shares

duties with the Modern Scientist or Historian. The Historian is responsible for researching the origin of

the theory or model that was debunked, the Modern Scientist must research what theory or model

replaced the old, the Judge reviews the evidence that was used to discredit the original theory, and the

Editor writes the annotations for the works cited page as well as reviewing the final project for errors or
Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 6

inconsistencies.

This activity is planned as a whole-lesson or as an on-going activity over several days,

depending on how long the class period is and what resources are available to students. Students will

need to do research using their textbooks, online resources, and any other resource that is both relevant

and meets the criteria for a credible resource using the T-chart. After students finish their project they

will have the opportunity to present their findings using a PowerPoint presentation, poster board

presentation, skit, or other manner to be pre-approved by the teacher.

Peer Panel

Each small group will have an opportunity to discuss its debunked theory with the class and

panels comprised of the Historians, Modern Scientists, Judges and Editors, respectively, will speak to

the class at large about their findings. At this time students can ask panelists about how they did their

research or any other pertinent questions and panelists will be able to talk about their findings. Once

Historians have had their chance to speak the Modern Scientists will take their turn, to be followed by

Judges and Editors. If a panelist is uncomfortable or unable to fully participate then he or she may

choose to use a partner from their group to help respond to questions, or even act as proxy. This will

depend entirely on the circumstances for the student, such as an early production English language

learner asking for a translator to help or preparing a few statements ahead of time to read aloud for his

or her contribution to the panel. If a student is entirely unable to participate in the panel then he or she

can gesture to diagrams, pass out handouts about the experiments, or participate physically if not

verbally.

Reinforcing the Content Standard and Differentiation

Each group configuration is chosen for the role it plays in differentiating instruction and making
Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 7

content more accessible to learners. Whole group instruction is used when there are small chunks of

information that need to be imparted to the class at large—such as initial vocabulary instruction,

review, and at times when content is unfamiliar to most students. I am using graphic organizers to

differentiate instruction for both the vocabulary review and again when we are reviewing the T-chart

results from the pairs (Ventriglia, 2009).

Peer pairs are excellent for in-depth analysis and identifying the “differences in structure and

purpose between various categories of information materials” (Ventriglia, 2009, pg. 111). English

language learners will likely feel more at ease speaking to a partner or in a small group and will be able

to discuss the content more freely, as well. The final product from their discussion of the statements is

also differentiated through the multiple means of expressing the final decisions on the truth or degrees

of accuracy present in the assigned statement.

The small groups differentiate in two ways: by role and by product. Each student will have a

specific set of responsibilities dictated by their role in the group. Strong writers might be encouraged

to be Editors, gifted and talented students might be encouraged to be Judges, and reluctant readers

might be encouraged to be Modern Scientists because of the availability of content—practically

speaking, each role has the potential to be differentiated even further by guiding students to the

appropriate research resources in the text, computer lab, by structuring the activities to more or less

support for independence, and so forth. The product of the group is also fairly flexible and every group

will participate in panels for each role in the group. The peer panel activity allows students to pose one

another questions (Ventriglia, 2009), and while each student may be required to ask two-three questions

over the course of the panels, students choose the kinds of questions they ask, which will allow high

level students to formulate higher order questions and permit shy or non-verbal students to hang back

and ask simpler questions .

Assignment 4.1: Peer Groups Reflection Grokett 8

References

Ventriglia, L. D. Ph.D. (2009). Best Practices: Differentiated Instruction: The Rule of Foot. 8th Ed.

Younglight Educate. Light up the Mind.