Analysis (cont.)
In both Artifacts 4: VSEPR Theory and Artifact 8: Classifying Reactions, instruction was differentiated so as to include many different types of delivery of the information so as to deliver material in multiple ways so that students would get a chance to understand it in the way that they learn best. This led to no concrete conclusion as to whether this helped students to retain content material better, but it did lead to the conclusion that repetition of content material may help students to learn better. Yet I also tried compressing this, and delivering content material in many different ways within one lesson.
In Artifact 2: Electrons Review Activity, students went from station to station, presenting material that was going to be on the quiz in various different ways—from doing problems with the material, to creating real-world tie-ins, to acting out how molecules move (Artifact 2.1). The average quiz score after this was an 86.03%, which indicates that most of the students retained the content material very well. In the second review activity, Artifact 5: Speed Dating, students moved from partner to partner, answering a new chemistry review question every single time. On their midterms the next day, the average was a 78%, which indicates that students did retain the content material.
The survey data support this retention as well; in Artifact 2.3, Student 1, said “…because we had the review activity, I did not have a hard time studying. I would not even call it studying. I just reviewed the material before the quiz. Having such activities help us remember better," and in Artifact 5.2, out of the 28 people surveyed, 23 people said that this activity helped them to review.
In both of these review activities, total, there were five of the multiple intelligences somehow involved: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal (Artifact 2 Analysis, in red; Artifact 5 Analysis, in red), which supports that instruction was differentiated in many different ways, as in a regular classroom activity, only one or two of the multiple intelligences were involved. Both of these Artifacts thus support that when multiple intelligences are used within one activity, and the instruction is differentiated in several ways, students seem to retain the content material. This may have been because in the review activities, many times the students were asked to present the material in a manner that was different from how they learned it. Halpern & Hakel (2003) found that when students are asked to present material in a manner that is different from how they learned it, then they are more likely to retain it. In this sense, review activities that use these multiple intelligences may also help the students by providing a different context to present the content material in.
Furthermore, Halpern & Hakel (2003) also argue that information that is frequently retrieved becomes more retrievable. As the purpose of a review activity is to practice retrieving information, a review activity, in this sense, should increase the chances of students retaining the content material for a longer period of time if they have already learned it. However, information retrieval only works if the students have learned it beforehand, so it is unclear whether the review activity itself helped students to retain the content material because of the sheer repetitive nature of it, or whether the review activities did not help them retain the content material because they had already learned it in the first place (see Artifact 2 Analysis and Artifact 5 Analysis for complete details).
In Artifact 2: Electrons Review Activity, students went from station to station, presenting material that was going to be on the quiz in various different ways—from doing problems with the material, to creating real-world tie-ins, to acting out how molecules move (Artifact 2.1). The average quiz score after this was an 86.03%, which indicates that most of the students retained the content material very well. In the second review activity, Artifact 5: Speed Dating, students moved from partner to partner, answering a new chemistry review question every single time. On their midterms the next day, the average was a 78%, which indicates that students did retain the content material.
The survey data support this retention as well; in Artifact 2.3, Student 1, said “…because we had the review activity, I did not have a hard time studying. I would not even call it studying. I just reviewed the material before the quiz. Having such activities help us remember better," and in Artifact 5.2, out of the 28 people surveyed, 23 people said that this activity helped them to review.
In both of these review activities, total, there were five of the multiple intelligences somehow involved: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal (Artifact 2 Analysis, in red; Artifact 5 Analysis, in red), which supports that instruction was differentiated in many different ways, as in a regular classroom activity, only one or two of the multiple intelligences were involved. Both of these Artifacts thus support that when multiple intelligences are used within one activity, and the instruction is differentiated in several ways, students seem to retain the content material. This may have been because in the review activities, many times the students were asked to present the material in a manner that was different from how they learned it. Halpern & Hakel (2003) found that when students are asked to present material in a manner that is different from how they learned it, then they are more likely to retain it. In this sense, review activities that use these multiple intelligences may also help the students by providing a different context to present the content material in.
Furthermore, Halpern & Hakel (2003) also argue that information that is frequently retrieved becomes more retrievable. As the purpose of a review activity is to practice retrieving information, a review activity, in this sense, should increase the chances of students retaining the content material for a longer period of time if they have already learned it. However, information retrieval only works if the students have learned it beforehand, so it is unclear whether the review activity itself helped students to retain the content material because of the sheer repetitive nature of it, or whether the review activities did not help them retain the content material because they had already learned it in the first place (see Artifact 2 Analysis and Artifact 5 Analysis for complete details).