programs & services
staff web pages
  FONT  +
Allen D. Perry Jr
I am entering my 15th year as a science educator.  I graduated high school in 1992  from Dawson-Bryant (Coal Grove).  Following  high school, I attended Dension University in  Granville, OH as a Chemistry Major with a minor in education, where I ran track.  While in college the loss  of my grandfather lead me to a different  career.  I graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Mortuary Science in 1996 from the  Cincinnati College of Mortuary Science and  worked in public service as a Licensed Funeral  Director/embalmer for 10 years prior to returing to my intial goal of being a science teacher.  I received my Master's degree in Education in 2006 from Marshall University.
I began my teaching career at Spring Valley High School in Huntington, WV.  There I was elected as faculty senate president and identified as a teacher leader within the district.  I was approached by the June Harless Center to work with the West Virginia Department of Education as a 21st Century Fellow.  My emphasis was Project Based Learning.  Although blessed with the opportunity to work with many elementary and middle school teachers throughout the state I missed the classroom.  I eventually found my way to South Point High School where I taught for 7 years and coached volleyball. 
I have been married to my wife Amy Perry for 22 years and we have two children, Macy Perry age 17 and Mattox Perry age 13.  My hobbies are limited to traveling with my family, coaching volleyball, and playing disc golf.
I am very active in the Ohio High School Volleyball Coaches association where I hold the positions of Awards Coordinator and District 14 President. 


 7:45-8:40    Chemistry
 8:44-9:35    Chemistry
 9:39-10:30 Planning
 10:34-11:25 AP Chemistry
 11:29- 12:19    Physics
 12:54- 1:46 Physics
 1:50- 2:45 Chemistry
Student Tutoring/ Conference opportunities: (Times are subject to change with other obligations)
Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2:45 - 3:30
Monday, Wednesday and Friday 2:45-3:00 
During planning period 
I am also available additional times by request  


Chemistry (CP & AP)
Standard Blue or Black Ink Pen (not gel)
Highlighter (any color)
Loose Leaf Paper
3 ring binder (1.5")
college ruled bound composition book (lab notebook)
Standard Blue or Black Ink Pen (not gel)
Highlighter (any color)
Loose Leaf Paper
3 ring binder (1.5")


Assignments will be available on the individual google classrooms by clicking the links below.  (Parents/Guardians if you would like your own guardian access account to the pages the students will see please send me a message at 

AP Summer Assignment

This year I will be using the AP Chemistry Program through Khan Academy.  Each student will need access to their chromebook and the internet.  Students will need to pick up a login information sheet from Ms. Davis or Mr. Perry.  Once logged into the account the assignment will be listed for you.  Have a great summer!

Teaching Philosophy

My teaching philosophy is that every teacher is morally obligated to operate their classroom with the highest expectations for each of their students to become self-learners necessary throughout their lifetime.  With dedication, self discipline, and hard work, each student will be able to meet the expectations set forth. I promise to bring determination, consistency, and diligence to my job with the goal of preparing each student for a rigorous post secondary experience.  

I believe there are some essential elements that are necessary for a meaningful transition to becoming a self-learner:

  • The teacher’s role is to act as a facilitator of the students’ learning

  • Students must have access to cooperative/hands-on learning opportunities

  • Students have to be able to learn through their mistakes via trial and error and inquiry processes

  • Students must be pushed outside of their learning comfort zone

  • Students need the opportunity to practice within a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

My preferred teaching pedagogy is an Active Learner approach.  In the active learner approach, the teacher is more of a guide during the students’ learning process.  This style may include some limited whole group lecture and example problems, but will focus more on students developing skills and less on the transfer of information.  It requires students to read, collaborate with classmates, research, ask questions and practice. With practice students work through their difficulties in a Zone of Proximal Development.  

As defined by Saul McCloud at Simply Psychology  “The zone of proximal development refers to the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can achieve with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.”  He also explains “When a student is in the zone of proximal development for a particular task, providing the appropriate assistance will give the student enough of a "boost" to achieve the task. or assist a person to move through the zone of proximal development, educators are encouraged to focus on three important components which aid the learning process:”

  • The presence of someone with knowledge and skills beyond that of the learner (a more knowledgeable other). Although the implication is that the MKO is a teacher or an older adult, this is not necessarily the case. Many times it is a child's peers

  • Social interactions with a skillful tutor that allow the learner to observe and practice their skills.

  • Scaffolding, or supportive activities provided by the educator, or more competent peer, to support the student as he or she is led through the ZPD.

This process requires the instructor to question the students in order to get them to think through a problem on their own in order to solve it on their own.  According to Vanderbuilt Center for Teaching, the Active Learner approach “requires higher order thinking skills and places some emphasis on the students’ exploration of their own attitudes and values”.  The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) provides a very simple definition of the active learning style: “Active learning involves students’ efforts to actively construct their knowledge”. This process is especially within the STEM related fields.  This style of teaching is considered an evidenced-based teaching style and is widely valued throughout education. I have attached a small piece of evidence below.

The evidence that active learning approaches help students learn more effectively than transmissionist approaches in which instructors rely on “teaching by telling” is robust and stretches back more than thirty years (see, for example, Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Here, we will focus on two reports that review and analyze multiple active learning studies.

Freeman and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 225 studies comparing “constructivist versus exposition-centered course designs” in STEM disciplines (Freeman et al., 2014). They included studies that examined the design of class sessions (as opposed to out-of-class work or laboratories) with at least some active learning versus traditional lecturing, comparing failure rates and student scores on examinations, concept inventories, or other assessments. They found that students in traditional lectures were 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in courses with active learning (odds ratio of 1.95, Z = 10.4, P<<0.001). Further, they found that on average, student performance on exams, concept inventories, or other assessments increased by about half a standard deviation when some active learning was included in course design (weighted standardized mean difference of 0.47, Z = 9.781, P<<0.001)

. prob-fail

These results were consistent across disciplines: they observed no significant difference in the effects of active learning in biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, geology, math, physics, and psychology courses. They performed two analyses examining the possibility that the results were due to a publication bias (i.e., a bias toward publishing studies with larger effects), finding that there would have to be a large number of unpublished studies that observed no difference between active learning and lecturing to negate their findings: 114 reporting no difference on exam or concept inventory performance and 438 reporting no difference in failure rate. The authors conclude that the evidence for the benefits of active learning are very strong, stating that, “If the experiments analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit—meaning that enrolling patients in the control condition might be discontinued because the treatment being tested was clearly more beneficial.”

These results support other, earlier reviews (e.g., Hake, 1998; Prince, 2004; Springer et al., 1999). In one such review, Ruiz-Primo and colleagues examined published studies examining the effects of active learning approaches in undergraduate biology, chemistry, engineering and physics courses (Ruiz-Primo et al., 2011). They identified 166 studies that reported an effect size when comparing the effects of an innovation (i.e., active learning approaches) to traditional instruction that did not include the innovation. Overall, they found that inclusion of the active learning approaches improved student outcomes (mean effect size = 0.47), although there are important caveats to consider. First, the authors coded the active learning activities as conceptually oriented tasks, collaborative learning activities, technology-enabled activities, inquiry-based projects, or some combination of those four categories, and important differences existed within the categories (for example, technology-assisted inquiry-based projects on average did not produce positive effects). Second, more than 80% of the studies included were quasi-experimental rather than experimental, and the positive benefits (average effect size = 0.26) were lower for the experimental studies in which students were randomly assigned to a treatment group. Finally, many of the studies did not control for pre-existing knowledge and abilities in the treatment groups. Nonetheless, the review does provide qualified support for the inclusion of active learning approaches in instruction.



Curriculum Road Maps

Wheelersburg Local School District   620 Center Street P.O. Box 340, Wheelersburg, OH  45694  |  Phone: 740.574.8484  |  Fax: 740.574.6134
© 2019. All Rights Reserved. School CMS created by eSchoolView
View text-based website