Artifact 4 Analysis
Context:
In this particular unit of chemistry, we were moving in Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory, in which students are taught to apply geometry to molecules so as to try to figure out what 3D shape they have. However, I knew from the start that this was going to be hard to conceptualize, so I decided to teach it in three different ways.First, I had them all view a video before we started the activity in class, and I had them all write a response or a question to the video Second, I gave an in-class lecture on what VSEPR theory is and how to apply it using powerpoint slides, and third, I had them all do a lab in which they were building 3D versions of the molecules and then applying VSEPR theory to those molecules to determine what their shape was
To determine whether or not students had retained the content material, I did an item analysis on the questions on the test pertinent to VSEPR, and then I had all of the students write a reflection down on a post-it note. The prompt was as follows: “VSEPR theory was taught in 3 different ways: the video, as a lecture in class, and via the molecule building lab. Which way helped you to learn it the best and why?” To view survey results, click here.
Artifact Analysis/Relationship to Focus of Inquiry:
To analyze the different responses, I tallied them up as to which they preferred the most. The results were that 3 preferred the video, 4 preferred the lecture, and 8 preferred the lab (click here to see the survey results).
These results surprised me because though I had expected most of them to like the lab, I did not expect the numbers for the video to be so low. Previous evidence has led me to believe that this class was a very visual class, and so I posted the video as an introduction to the concept to cater to their visual/spatial intelligences. However only 3 of the 15 surveyed said that they liked the video, which leads me to believe that either the video was bad, or they only watched the video because it was homework. On the other hand, maybe many of them did not respond well to it because the video was the first introduction to VSEPR. Maybe if the video had been shown after the in-class lecture people would have liked it better. Furthermore, maybe the lab was a lot more helpful than the video because VSEPR is all about being able to conceptualize what molecules look like in 3D, which is easier to see when it’s in your hands, than when it’s on a screen.
It also surprised me how many people liked the in-class lecture. This was meant to be just the standard delivery of material, which is mostly auditory and visual in nature. Yet what surprised me was that of the 4 people who chose this, only one of them related their choice to the auditory intelligence: “In-class lecture cause I heard it everyday.” Two of the others liked the lecture because they need the face-to-face time. So maybe some students like lecture not because of the visual or the auditory nature, but because this is the only time they have direct contact with the instructor and can ask the questions on the spot. As an
afterthought, the two students who wrote this are also some of the top participators in class.
To piggy back on this lecture idea, the fact that the students liked this one in particular was also surprising because I do not think it went so well. The lecture was intended to be an introduction to the lab, and I was so excited about getting to the lab that I rushed through the lecture. While I was designing these activities to teach VSEPR, I was leaning towards cutting the lecture out altogether because I know that I, as a student, would have found it boring, and I know that my own students start drifting away when I talk at them for more than 10 minutes. However, after this response, I am glad that I did not. This data is showing me that even though I may not think one particular way of teaching is the best, at least some students are picking up on it (teacher as learner).
Finally, though more of the students than I had expected chose the lecture as their instruction of choice, the overwhelming majority of the students surveyed chose the lab. Over half of the students surveyed said that the lab helped them the most. This was expected on my part, because I knew that they would find building molecules fun, because it’s a lot like building with K’nex. This lab was designed to integrate
the visual, kinesthetic, and logical-mathematical intelligences. It was interesting how many of the students who liked the lab also cited these intelligences in their responses:
Visual: “The lab helped more because we built the model ourselves and saw what the actual model was like”
Kinesthetic: “The lab helped me learn the theory the best because we actually got to test out combinations and it was hands-on”
Logical/Mathematical: “The lab helped a lot to understand VSEPR theory because it was hands on and we could see patterns ourselves to determine what the molecular compounds were.”
However, I think that many of them may have preferred this way of learning because VSEPR theory is a very visual one with a lot of logic involved, and the lab helped them to see how this theory is working, not necessarily just why.
After I got all of this data, I did an item analysis on the questions that they had on the test. On the multiple choice question, 21/31 students got it right, and on the essay portion, 12/31 students got it right. Therefore, the results are inconclusive as to whether the students retained the content knowledge. it seems that they remember it in a multiple choice question, but do not apply it right in an open-ended question. This may also reflect on the wording of the questions--maybe the short answer question was not worded in a manner that made students realize that they needed to use VSEPR theory.
All in all, this data tells me that this method of differentiating instruction is a good thing, because it seems that different students are picking up on different aspects of the instruction due to different reasons. In the future, I am going to try to present the material in these different ways as well so that students have a better chance of getting the information in a way that makes sense to them. I am also going to try out teaching a concept in three different ways again, except maybe with a different concept to see if they strongly preferred the kinesthetic intelligence in general, or because just this concept is geared towards it.
In this particular unit of chemistry, we were moving in Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory, in which students are taught to apply geometry to molecules so as to try to figure out what 3D shape they have. However, I knew from the start that this was going to be hard to conceptualize, so I decided to teach it in three different ways.First, I had them all view a video before we started the activity in class, and I had them all write a response or a question to the video Second, I gave an in-class lecture on what VSEPR theory is and how to apply it using powerpoint slides, and third, I had them all do a lab in which they were building 3D versions of the molecules and then applying VSEPR theory to those molecules to determine what their shape was
To determine whether or not students had retained the content material, I did an item analysis on the questions on the test pertinent to VSEPR, and then I had all of the students write a reflection down on a post-it note. The prompt was as follows: “VSEPR theory was taught in 3 different ways: the video, as a lecture in class, and via the molecule building lab. Which way helped you to learn it the best and why?” To view survey results, click here.
Artifact Analysis/Relationship to Focus of Inquiry:
To analyze the different responses, I tallied them up as to which they preferred the most. The results were that 3 preferred the video, 4 preferred the lecture, and 8 preferred the lab (click here to see the survey results).
These results surprised me because though I had expected most of them to like the lab, I did not expect the numbers for the video to be so low. Previous evidence has led me to believe that this class was a very visual class, and so I posted the video as an introduction to the concept to cater to their visual/spatial intelligences. However only 3 of the 15 surveyed said that they liked the video, which leads me to believe that either the video was bad, or they only watched the video because it was homework. On the other hand, maybe many of them did not respond well to it because the video was the first introduction to VSEPR. Maybe if the video had been shown after the in-class lecture people would have liked it better. Furthermore, maybe the lab was a lot more helpful than the video because VSEPR is all about being able to conceptualize what molecules look like in 3D, which is easier to see when it’s in your hands, than when it’s on a screen.
It also surprised me how many people liked the in-class lecture. This was meant to be just the standard delivery of material, which is mostly auditory and visual in nature. Yet what surprised me was that of the 4 people who chose this, only one of them related their choice to the auditory intelligence: “In-class lecture cause I heard it everyday.” Two of the others liked the lecture because they need the face-to-face time. So maybe some students like lecture not because of the visual or the auditory nature, but because this is the only time they have direct contact with the instructor and can ask the questions on the spot. As an
afterthought, the two students who wrote this are also some of the top participators in class.
To piggy back on this lecture idea, the fact that the students liked this one in particular was also surprising because I do not think it went so well. The lecture was intended to be an introduction to the lab, and I was so excited about getting to the lab that I rushed through the lecture. While I was designing these activities to teach VSEPR, I was leaning towards cutting the lecture out altogether because I know that I, as a student, would have found it boring, and I know that my own students start drifting away when I talk at them for more than 10 minutes. However, after this response, I am glad that I did not. This data is showing me that even though I may not think one particular way of teaching is the best, at least some students are picking up on it (teacher as learner).
Finally, though more of the students than I had expected chose the lecture as their instruction of choice, the overwhelming majority of the students surveyed chose the lab. Over half of the students surveyed said that the lab helped them the most. This was expected on my part, because I knew that they would find building molecules fun, because it’s a lot like building with K’nex. This lab was designed to integrate
the visual, kinesthetic, and logical-mathematical intelligences. It was interesting how many of the students who liked the lab also cited these intelligences in their responses:
Visual: “The lab helped more because we built the model ourselves and saw what the actual model was like”
Kinesthetic: “The lab helped me learn the theory the best because we actually got to test out combinations and it was hands-on”
Logical/Mathematical: “The lab helped a lot to understand VSEPR theory because it was hands on and we could see patterns ourselves to determine what the molecular compounds were.”
However, I think that many of them may have preferred this way of learning because VSEPR theory is a very visual one with a lot of logic involved, and the lab helped them to see how this theory is working, not necessarily just why.
After I got all of this data, I did an item analysis on the questions that they had on the test. On the multiple choice question, 21/31 students got it right, and on the essay portion, 12/31 students got it right. Therefore, the results are inconclusive as to whether the students retained the content knowledge. it seems that they remember it in a multiple choice question, but do not apply it right in an open-ended question. This may also reflect on the wording of the questions--maybe the short answer question was not worded in a manner that made students realize that they needed to use VSEPR theory.
All in all, this data tells me that this method of differentiating instruction is a good thing, because it seems that different students are picking up on different aspects of the instruction due to different reasons. In the future, I am going to try to present the material in these different ways as well so that students have a better chance of getting the information in a way that makes sense to them. I am also going to try out teaching a concept in three different ways again, except maybe with a different concept to see if they strongly preferred the kinesthetic intelligence in general, or because just this concept is geared towards it.