Introduction (cont.)
Thus, I began to try out new methods of instruction in my classroom to try to increase the level of retention and decrease the number of glazed-over faces. One day, I found the following in Artifact 1: Problem of Practice:
“…I was teaching the class about the nucleus and how both protons and neutrons exist in it, in a very tight format. So I showed them a couple of pictures of it and taught atomic and mass number, but then instead of just moving on to the next topic, I decided to make a game out of it. I divided the class into two different groups and had them form human nuclei from the mass and atomic number I gave them. What amazed me…was that the 5-6 people who are usually my core… leaders during lecture fell to the wayside when I tried this new activity. New leaders all of a sudden emerged, and the sleepers in my class become the most active participants. They were actively engaged in managing their teammates and applying the concepts of atomic and mass numbers to forming a nucleus in as accurate a format as possible (in red, Artifact 1.1).”
Just as I had “come alive” when my science teachers tried new methods of instruction, some of my students did as well. Yet what perplexed me was that not all of the students liked this. I had thought that all my students would relish the opportunity to get out of their seats, but my usual leaders became silent, while a whole new group of students became the leaders.
As it turns out, this particular event in teaching was not just a wild-card in my box of chocolates, but a pretty typical event in the classroom (Artifact 1 Analysis). Many studies have been conducted on how students learn, and they all come to the same consensus: students learn differently (Subban, 2006, Gardner, 1983, Gardner, 1998). Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory states that all people have a different combination of a fixed set of multiple intelligences which include, but are not limited to, linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and existential intelligences (Gardner, 1983, Gardner, 1998). It should “…thus be possible to identify an individual’s intellectual profile at an early age and then draw upon this knowledge to enhance that persons’ educational opportunities and options (Gardner, 1983 p.10)…”
After the observation I made in Artifact 1: Problem of Practice, I became interested in using the idea that students learn differently to help them retain the content material. To do this, I began differentiating instruction, a teaching approach that provides a variety of learning options to students based on the fact that they learn differently (Rule & Lord, 2003; Subban, 2006). I chose this method of instruction because, in previous studies, differentiated instruction has been shown to work positively in the classroom; Subban (2006) found that students performances were significantly better when they were instructed using their specific “proclivities” towards a certain learning style rather than traditional teaching methods, and Rule & Lord (2003) found that classrooms that are structured to accommodate differentiated instruction present increased opportunity for students to receive individualized attention and instruction.
These combined factors led me to wonder: how does differentiating instruction in the science classroom affect the retention of content knowledge?
“…I was teaching the class about the nucleus and how both protons and neutrons exist in it, in a very tight format. So I showed them a couple of pictures of it and taught atomic and mass number, but then instead of just moving on to the next topic, I decided to make a game out of it. I divided the class into two different groups and had them form human nuclei from the mass and atomic number I gave them. What amazed me…was that the 5-6 people who are usually my core… leaders during lecture fell to the wayside when I tried this new activity. New leaders all of a sudden emerged, and the sleepers in my class become the most active participants. They were actively engaged in managing their teammates and applying the concepts of atomic and mass numbers to forming a nucleus in as accurate a format as possible (in red, Artifact 1.1).”
Just as I had “come alive” when my science teachers tried new methods of instruction, some of my students did as well. Yet what perplexed me was that not all of the students liked this. I had thought that all my students would relish the opportunity to get out of their seats, but my usual leaders became silent, while a whole new group of students became the leaders.
As it turns out, this particular event in teaching was not just a wild-card in my box of chocolates, but a pretty typical event in the classroom (Artifact 1 Analysis). Many studies have been conducted on how students learn, and they all come to the same consensus: students learn differently (Subban, 2006, Gardner, 1983, Gardner, 1998). Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory states that all people have a different combination of a fixed set of multiple intelligences which include, but are not limited to, linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and existential intelligences (Gardner, 1983, Gardner, 1998). It should “…thus be possible to identify an individual’s intellectual profile at an early age and then draw upon this knowledge to enhance that persons’ educational opportunities and options (Gardner, 1983 p.10)…”
After the observation I made in Artifact 1: Problem of Practice, I became interested in using the idea that students learn differently to help them retain the content material. To do this, I began differentiating instruction, a teaching approach that provides a variety of learning options to students based on the fact that they learn differently (Rule & Lord, 2003; Subban, 2006). I chose this method of instruction because, in previous studies, differentiated instruction has been shown to work positively in the classroom; Subban (2006) found that students performances were significantly better when they were instructed using their specific “proclivities” towards a certain learning style rather than traditional teaching methods, and Rule & Lord (2003) found that classrooms that are structured to accommodate differentiated instruction present increased opportunity for students to receive individualized attention and instruction.
These combined factors led me to wonder: how does differentiating instruction in the science classroom affect the retention of content knowledge?