Analysis (cont.)
In Artifacts 4 and 8, I used three methods of instruction to teach one concept, yet the data from Artifact 4 was inconclusive as to whether or not these multiple methods of instruction helped the students to retain the content material, while as the data in Artifact 8 support that using the multiple methods of instruction did help. Yet why is there this discrepancy between the two artifacts? Why is it that one set of data was inconclusive while as the other supports multiple methods of instruction?
This discrepancy may be due to the difficulty of the material itself. John Sweller (1994) suggests that the ability to learn information is affected by the interconnectivity of the information itself, not the amount of it. In other words, if a knowing concept is dependent upon knowing several concepts, then they become harder to learn. Math is an example of such a concept because in order to move onto the next topic in math, you must have a solid foundation in the previous one. On the other hand, concepts that are not dependent upon knowledge of other concepts are easier to learn, like a vocabulary list (Sweller, 1994). Similarly, VSEPR theory (Artifact 4: VSEPR Theory) involves being able to conceptualize a molecule and use prior knowledge about both the molecule itself, its chemical formula, and the kinds of bonds that it has to determine its 3D orientation, while classifying reactions (Artifact 8: Classifying Reactions) is mostly sheer memorization of the five different chemical reactions we studied and their formulas. Thus, students may have retained the classifying reactions content material better, as evidenced by the item analysis (Artifact 8.1), because it is more straight-forward and only requires memorization. On the other hand, it was inconclusive whether students retained VSEPR theory, as evidenced by the artifact analysis (Artifact 4.2), because it is much more conceptual and involves several different topics that need to be understood before the concept as a whole can be understood.
Another explanation as to why the results for the two artifacts (Artifact 4: VSEPR Theory, and Artifact 8: Classifying Reactions) turned out so differently may also have been in the manner by which retention was assessed. As mentioned previously, the first question in Artifact 4 was a multiple choice question, while as the second was an open ended question. On the other hand, all four questions in the item analysis of Artifact 8 were multiple choice questions. Therefore, the reason that there was a difference in the retention rates between Artifacts 4 and 8 may have been because the level of retention was assessed differently—students may have an easier of a harder time with multiple choice and open-ended questions depending on the type of learner that they are. In the future, the retention should be assessed with the same type of questions for both types of content material to determine whether or not students retained it.
This discrepancy may be due to the difficulty of the material itself. John Sweller (1994) suggests that the ability to learn information is affected by the interconnectivity of the information itself, not the amount of it. In other words, if a knowing concept is dependent upon knowing several concepts, then they become harder to learn. Math is an example of such a concept because in order to move onto the next topic in math, you must have a solid foundation in the previous one. On the other hand, concepts that are not dependent upon knowledge of other concepts are easier to learn, like a vocabulary list (Sweller, 1994). Similarly, VSEPR theory (Artifact 4: VSEPR Theory) involves being able to conceptualize a molecule and use prior knowledge about both the molecule itself, its chemical formula, and the kinds of bonds that it has to determine its 3D orientation, while classifying reactions (Artifact 8: Classifying Reactions) is mostly sheer memorization of the five different chemical reactions we studied and their formulas. Thus, students may have retained the classifying reactions content material better, as evidenced by the item analysis (Artifact 8.1), because it is more straight-forward and only requires memorization. On the other hand, it was inconclusive whether students retained VSEPR theory, as evidenced by the artifact analysis (Artifact 4.2), because it is much more conceptual and involves several different topics that need to be understood before the concept as a whole can be understood.
Another explanation as to why the results for the two artifacts (Artifact 4: VSEPR Theory, and Artifact 8: Classifying Reactions) turned out so differently may also have been in the manner by which retention was assessed. As mentioned previously, the first question in Artifact 4 was a multiple choice question, while as the second was an open ended question. On the other hand, all four questions in the item analysis of Artifact 8 were multiple choice questions. Therefore, the reason that there was a difference in the retention rates between Artifacts 4 and 8 may have been because the level of retention was assessed differently—students may have an easier of a harder time with multiple choice and open-ended questions depending on the type of learner that they are. In the future, the retention should be assessed with the same type of questions for both types of content material to determine whether or not students retained it.