Analysis (cont.)
In Artifact 4: VSEPR (Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion) Theory, I tried teaching VSEPR theory in three different ways: I had the student view a video first, them I gave a guided lecture, and finally, I had them do a modeling lab. However, I could not determine whether or not the three methods of differentiation had affected student content knowledge retention. To measure students’ retention of the VSEPR concept, I had them take a quiz and then did and item analysis on the quiz questions pertinent to VSEPR theory. I found that 21/31 students got the first quiz question right, but only 12/31 students got the second quiz question right in the item analysis (Artifact 4.2). It is thus hard to conclude whether using multiple forms of differentiation affected content retention as students got such different scores on the two questions that were used to assess retention. But why was there such a big discrepancy?
One explanation might be that they were two different types of questions—question one was a multiple choice question, while as question two was an open-ended question (Artifact 4.2), and “the short answer question [may not have been] worded in a manner that made students realize that they needed to use VSEPR theory (in red, Analysis of Artifact 4).” Therefore, next time I try to determine whether or not students retained the content material, I would add in more questions into the item analysis and I would try to assess their knowledge in more formative manners as well by either having them apply VSEPR theory on an exit ticket or having a quick-answer session on white boards (see Artifact 4 Analysis for a complete analysis).
Though the data for Artifact 4 were inconclusive, I also tried teaching reaction classification in three different ways in Artifact 8: Classifying Reactions. First, I gave a guided lecture on classifying reactions, then I assigned an extended homework assignment in which student had to represent their notes in a visual manner, and finally, I had students do group work to classify different chemical reactions. Afterwards, students took a quiz, which I did an item analysis on. Here, I found that 29/31 people got the first question right, all 31 students got the second right, 26/31 students got the third question right, and 27/31 students got the fourth question right (Artifact 8.1). This data lead me to conclude that students did retain the content material after the multiple forms of instruction (see Artifact 8 Analysis for a complete analysis).
One explanation might be that they were two different types of questions—question one was a multiple choice question, while as question two was an open-ended question (Artifact 4.2), and “the short answer question [may not have been] worded in a manner that made students realize that they needed to use VSEPR theory (in red, Analysis of Artifact 4).” Therefore, next time I try to determine whether or not students retained the content material, I would add in more questions into the item analysis and I would try to assess their knowledge in more formative manners as well by either having them apply VSEPR theory on an exit ticket or having a quick-answer session on white boards (see Artifact 4 Analysis for a complete analysis).
Though the data for Artifact 4 were inconclusive, I also tried teaching reaction classification in three different ways in Artifact 8: Classifying Reactions. First, I gave a guided lecture on classifying reactions, then I assigned an extended homework assignment in which student had to represent their notes in a visual manner, and finally, I had students do group work to classify different chemical reactions. Afterwards, students took a quiz, which I did an item analysis on. Here, I found that 29/31 people got the first question right, all 31 students got the second right, 26/31 students got the third question right, and 27/31 students got the fourth question right (Artifact 8.1). This data lead me to conclude that students did retain the content material after the multiple forms of instruction (see Artifact 8 Analysis for a complete analysis).