Brian Orr
Energy Systems Tutor
Student Paragraphs
Zita;
I’m not sure how critical you want these to be. I’m basing this on my comments from
students’ homework, so much of what I have to say may have a negative connotation.
However, I tried to reflect improvement over the quarter when improvement occurred.
I’m not sure if this is precisely what you want, but I hope it will suffice.
Archibald, Derik: Initially, Derik had trouble setting-up the calculus and physics
problems and often did not show his work. I suggested that he organize the problems
with a set-up and explain his reasoning between steps. Derik responded to my
suggestions/comments in part; he consistently showed his work, but his set-up, when
included, lacked organization and he often did not explain his reasoning from step to step.
I did not tutor Derik.
Boyd, Lara: Initially, Lara set-up calculus problems well and organized her
mathematical analyses coherently, but did not explain her reasoning between steps. Also,
Lara’s physics problems often had an incomplete set-up which resulted in poor
organization overall. Lara responded well to my suggestions/comments on her physics
homework, as she began to organize the problem in the set-up, which aided the overall
organization of the problem. Lara began to explain her reasoning from step to step on
some physics and some calculus problems, though her explanations were minimal. I did
not tutor Lara.
Brovard, Miles: Initially, Miles only provided answers to his physics and calculus
homework. Miles responded to some of my suggestions/comments and began to show
his work and set-up on physics problems and a few calculus problems. His set-up
remained poor and incomplete, despite further suggestions to identify variables and
equations within the set-up. Because of this, it was difficult to understand how Miles
organized his problems. I did not tutor Miles, despite suggestions to attend the tutoring
sessions on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Fenshe, Robin: Initially, Robin did not organize the physics problems with a complete
set-up, which made it difficult to follow her mathematical analyses. Robin did set-up her
calculus problems, but did not explain her reasoning between steps. Robin responded to
my suggestions/comments in part; she began to set-up her physics problems with more
coherence, but did not identify variables or equations within the set-up (as I suggested
upon later homework assignments). Also, Robin began to analyze calculus with greater
skill, showing improvement when she put effort into organizing her homework properly.
Robin did not explain her reasoning from step to step on either her physics and/or
calculus homework. I did not tutor Robin.
Griffin, Eric: Initially, Eric had trouble setting-up physics and calculus problems, which
resulted in poor organization, he and did not explain his reasoning between steps. Eric
responded well to my suggestions/comments. Eric began setting-up physics problems, in
which he identified the variables, and used phrases to explain his reasoning when
necessary. Also, Eric’s math skills improved greatly as he became accustomed to
working with algebra in his calculus solutions and using a “reality check” to see if his
answer made sense. Eric attended most of the Wednesday E.S. tutoring sessions and two
Friday sessions. Eric also came to the QuaSR Center during my hours on several
occasions. Tutoring Eric was a delight. Eric was most engaged with the interpretation of
physics problems into steps to solve the problem, and usually had conceptual questions to
that effect. Eric was very helpful to other students who attended the tutoring sessions,
contributing greatly to group-think conferences.
Hanson, Dave: Initially, Dave’s physics and calculus problems lacked a set-up and were
organized poorly, making it difficult to follow his math and his reasoning. Dave
responded to some of my suggestions/comments, as he began to set-up physics problems
and organize his work on calculus problems. Dave’s math skills remained the same
throughout his homework. Dave did not respond to my suggestions to attend the E.S.
tutoring sessions or go to the QuSR Center. I did not tutor Dave.
Haycox, Devyn: Initially, Devyn organized her calculus and physics problems well and
it was easy to follow her math, but she did not explain her reasoning between steps.
Devyn responded to my suggestions/comments and would occasionally identify variables
in her set-up and use phrases to explain her reasoning from step to step. Devyn still
needs to make this a consistent practice. I did not tutor Devyn.
Hoyopatubbi, Tiffany: Initially, Tiffany made good use of space on the page and her
math skills were fine on the calculus problems, but interpreting and setting-up physics
problems was difficult for her. Tiffany responded to my suggestions/comments readily
and began to use phrases to explain her reasoning in the calculus homework and
developed a method for setting-up the physics problems. Tiffany also began using a
“reality check” to evaluate her answers to the physics homework. Tiffany attended
Wednesday E.S. tutoring sessions regularly and attended Friday sessions on occasion.
Tiffany usually requested help in physics concepts and interpretation. Occasionally,
Tiffany also required assistance setting-up and/or solving a calculus problem. Tiffany
usually caught any math errors I made on the board, and paid particular attention to
Nanako during group-think conferences.
Llewellyn, Laura: Initially, Lew organized her calculus problems well, and it was very
easy to follow her mathematical analyses when she showed her work. Lew had strong
calculus skills coming into the program and often overlooked an explanation of her
reasoning between steps on her calculus homework because of this. Also, Lew
occasionally had trouble setting-up and organizing physics problems. Lew responded
well to my suggestions/comments. Through explaining her reasoning, Lew began
organizing her physics problems, and began using a “reality check” to evaluate her
answers. Lew also made a point of showing all the steps as she conducted her calculus
problems. Lew came to two E.S. tutoring sessions. Lew was a great help in calculus and
worked with Brennon at tutoring sessions. Lew brought questions about interpreting and
setting-up some of the more difficult physics problems and worked with Tiffany at
tutoring sessions on these.
Maxwell, Jada: Initially, Jada did not put much effort into the presentation of her
homework, which made it difficult to follow her mathematical analyses when she showed
her work. Jada responded to some of my suggestions/comments. Jada began including a
set-up on some physics problems, but not on any calculus problems. Jada began to show
her work consistently, and her mathematical analyses of the calculus problems had few
errors. Jada did not explain her reasoning between steps on either the physics or calculus
homework. I did not tutor Jada.
Murphy, Brennon: I would like to note that Brennon is the only E.S. student who
turned-in all of the assigned homework – all of which was complete. Initially, Brennon
organized both the physics and calculus problems poorly. He did not include a set-up for
most problems, he made many mathematical errors, and he did not explain his reasoning
between steps. Brennon took my suggestions/comments to heart and made phenomenal
progress by the end of the quarter. Brennon identifies variables in his set-up for physics
problems, organizes his calculus and physics problems with steps (sometimes with
phrases to explain his reasoning), is much more careful with his math, and uses a “reality
check” to evaluate his answers. Brennon regularly attended the Wednesday E.S. tutoring
sessions and frequented the Friday sessions. Additionally, Brennon also visited me in the
QuaSR Center once or twice per week for one-on-one tutoring. Brennon was willing to
struggle with both the concepts of physics and calculus and the application of each to the
homework. Brennon usually required a lot of help for interpreting both the physics and
calculus problems, as well as assistance in conducting the steps necessary for solving the
problem. Brennon never gave-up, and his determination is evident in his work.
Payne, J.J.: J.J. turned-in one homework assignment, which was incomplete and did not
include the graded problems. J.J. showed no work and did not come to any tutoring
sessions.
Pratt, Weston: Weston often did not show his work, initially only giving answers.
Weston responded to my suggestions/comments in part; he began showing his work but
the organization was poor, making it difficult to follow his mathematical analyses.
Weston did not include a set-up for physics or calculus problems, did not explain his
reasoning between steps, and did not attend any E.S. tutoring sessions (despite my
frequent suggestions to do so).
Radford, Michael: Initially, Michael showed his work on most calculus and physics
problems, but did not include a complete set-up or offer any explanation of reasoning.
Michael had solid mathematical skills and seemed to understand the key concepts of the
physics and calculus readings. Michael responded well to my suggestions/comments.
Michael began organizing the physics and calculus problems more efficiently, used more
space, and put more effort into setting-up the physics problems. However, Michael did
not identify variables in his set-up, nor did he explain his reasoning from step to step in
his mathematical analyses. I did not tutor Michael.
Retzlaf, Mark: Initially, Mark did not show any work on his physics or calculus
homework. Upon realizing that the homework was graded for content rather than answer
accuracy, Mark began showing his work on later calculus and physics homework
assignments. When Mark first began showing his work, he did not include a set-up for
his physics problems, nor did he explain his reasoning between steps of his mathematical
analyses on either the calculus or physics problems. Because of this, it was difficult to
follow Mark’s mathematical analyses. Mark responded to some of my
suggestions/comments. Mark offered incomplete set-ups for his physics problems, and
put a bit more effort into organizing his calculus and physics problems. Mark did not
offer any explanations for his reasoning from step to step. I did not tutor Mark.
Sturpin, Alfred: Alfred turned-in one incomplete calculus assignment and one physics
assignement. Alfred did not show his work on either assignment. My
suggestions/comments to Alfred were to show his work, with a set-up and an explanation
of his reasoning.
Taisch, Jeff: Initially, Jeff had strong physics and math skills upon entering the E.S.
program and overlooked the necessity of showing his work. Jeff responded to some of
my suggestions/comments and began showing his work. Jeff included a mediocre set-up
for most of the physics problems, but did not include a set-up for the calculus problems.
Jeff’s mathematical analyses were wonderful, but he often skipped steps and never
explained his reasoning from step to step. I did not tutor Jeff.
Yamaguchi, Nanako: Nanako was a regular attendee of the Wednesday E.S. tutor
sessions, and occasionally came to the Friday sessions as well. Nanako also visited me in
the QuaSR Center for physics help twice. Nanako came into the E.S. program with poor
mathematical skills and is not fluent in English. Despite this, Nanako made a significant
effort to apply herself, as reflected by her attendance at the tutoring sessions and the
completeness of most of the homework that she turned-in. Nanako did not include a setup for either the physics or calculus problems, which resulted in poor organization and
made it difficult to follow her mathematical analyses. Nanako had significant
mathematical errors in her work, and did not explain her reasoning between steps.
Because of Nanako’s myriad difficulties, my suggestions/comments to Nanako were to
come to the QuaSR Center during my hours for one-on-one tutoring. I would have liked
to have seen Nanako at the QusSR Center more often, as she did not get as much out of
the E.S. tutoring sessions as the other students.