Andy Thank you for inviting me to your Chemistry class last week.

It was a first period class with 11 students (10 sophomores and Gabby). The students were in tables in the shape of a U (with all of the boys on its west side and all of the girls on the south). The emphasis of the lesson was on the relationship between the various characteristics of a gas. In order, you presented the inverse relationship between Pressure and Volume which led to an explanation of Boyles Law, the proportional relationship between Pressure and Temperature which led to Gay-Lussacs Law, and the proportional relationship of between Volume and Temperature which led to Charles Law. Here are some of my observations about the lesson: The classroom atmosphere was very warm. You help set this tone with a friendly and casual rapport with the students. Your explanations are extremely patient. It was clear that there was no such thing as a dumb question. This, too, adds to its compassionate atmosphere. Your explanations are also extremely clear. If a kid didnt understand pressure, volume or temperature after that lesson, they have bigger issues than Chemistry. The three points above seem to me to be strengths of your instructional style. I believe they have improved in your time at NA. Congratulations on the hard work. Your patience and explanatory pace did make me wonder, though, if you were going a bit too slowly. I know these werent Honors students, but I think they could have done a little more heavy lifting in terms of answering your questions and in terms of connecting the dots from one idea to the next. It is clear that some of them lack self-confidence in this discipline, but maybe you could train them by increasing expectations. What do you think? A related concern about this particular lesson was that it was quite teachercentered. Although your students were very engaged, I think you could amp up the nature of their engagement if you made them do more active workget out of their seats, take charge of somethingrather than be passive, albeit engaged, learners. Even when a lesson needs to be direct in its instruction, I like the goal of having them take the reins at least once. A wonderful element of your instruction was its constructivist nature. Do you do this a lot? Bravo. You began the lesson using their own data on pressure vs volume. It was from the data that their relationship was obvious the moment it was graphed. This approachrather than a purely mimetic approachgreatly increases the probability that this scientific relationship will be retained. Nice job. In order to present the data and the rest of the lesson, for that matter, you used technology. I thought that you managed this excellently and smoothly. You

modeled the use of Excel for its intended purposes (data storage and manipulation; and graphical representation). Anyone who takes Chemistry with you should leave with these critical quantitative skills. Thank you very much for that. Implied in this is a significant degree of preparation. Students appreciate it when their teachers prepare and organize clear lessons for them. Ill end with a suggestion. You did a bunch of basic algebraic manipulation of Ps, Vs, and Ts so bring your students to the appropriate Laws. In that way, their mathematical proofs were clear. Especially with regular students, though, Id spend at least as much time giving real-world, common sense examples (e.g. What happens to the Poland Spring bottle in your car when it gets cold? Why might the lid of a stove-top pot come off when the its water boils? Why do your ears pop on an airplane?) Not only might that make Chemisty real to kids who may see themselves as non-science kids, but it may help cement the relationship between the key variables as you make your way to PV=nRT.

Andy, I enjoyed your class and look forward to your continued growth into a master teacher at NA. Mostly, I appreciate the fact that our student enjoy learning from you. Thanks for all you do. Rich DiBianca Upper School Principal January 2014