Retention effects of an experiential pedagogical approach Kelsea Adams, University of Rhode Island Undergraduate & Dr. Bryan Dewsbury, University of Rhode Island Assistant Professor in Biology Education Introduction The quality and nature of delivery of education, especially at the K12 level is a major focus of the education reform movement. As an aspiring teacher, I am interested in developing a personal understanding of the efficacy of different modes of delivery. A large body of studies has examined the differences between experiential learning versus traditional classroom learning as well as its effects on student retention. Traditional classroom learning involves literary texts, PowerPoint presentations and teacher-centered learning. In contrast, experiential learning is a hands-on, real world experience that provides students with an environment to expand their critical thinking skills and apply their learned knowledge outside of the classroom. As part of my professional development to become an elementary and middle level teacher, I became extremely interested in investigating different teaching styles and their impact on a students ability to retain lessons. In this study I utilized different teaching methodologies in order to educate children with a marine science lesson in order to compare student retention as well as measuring the effectiveness of my teaching. My hypothesis was that students who received education through experiential learning would have a higher retention of concepts compared to students receiving education in a traditional classroom environment. Methods Experiential Environment: Educated children with an outdoor marine science lesson on an interactive tour boat and field site at the Long Island Aquarium and Exhibition Center on Long Island, NY. Students were able to completely immerse themselves in an estuary and a salt marsh as we traveled down the Peconic River, entered Flanders Bay and beached the tour boat at Hubbard County Park. Students were exposed to all living marine animals on the tour boat during a “touch and feel program” and were exposed to the marine animals on the beach while exploring. On the beach, we had various tools for students to use such as a seine net, shovels, a crab trap, buckets, a hydrometer to measure the salinity, etc. It was conducted during the beginning of the summer; therefore, students were in their last few weeks of school in the month of June. Lastly, there were multiple classes (1-2) on the tour boat at a time over the summer, and students may have been easily distracted from my presentation by their outdoor surroundings. Traditional Classroom Environment: Educated children with an indoor marine science lesson at Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, CT. Students were able to learn about specific marine habitats (an estuary and a salt marsh) based upon pictures, maps and video clips on an overhead PowerPoint presentation. Students were exposed to some living marine animals (mostly dead or molts) in the classroom during a “touch and feel program”; however, students were not able to immerse themselves in a marine environment in which the animals lived. It was conducted during the Fall; therefore, students were in their first few months of school. Lastly, there was 1 class in the classroom at a time, and students were in an environment with little distractions as they were able to hear my presentation and see all of the marine animals from where they were seated. Four school districts: Sylvan Avenue Elementary School, Blue Point Elementary School, Mulvey Elementary School (Experiential Learning) and Paul Cuffee School (Traditional Classroom Learning) Pre and post assessment: To measure student achievement and retention, students received a uniform pre and post assessment that aligned with the marine science curriculum provided. Students completed the pre assessment before attending the field trip at either location, and completed the post assessment back at their school districts and mailed the results back to me. Statistical Analysis: Average student assessment scores for the pre and post assessments were determined for each school, student T-Tests were conducted to determine if there were significant differences between pre and post assessment scores, and the change in the number of students correctly answering assessment questions after my instruction was calculated as well. Results Discussion This study was conducted with three main goals: 1) to test my ability to teach a marine lesson in order to see if my methodologies were effective, 2) to compare the retention results of students in experiential learning versus classroom learning, and 3) to compare the students’ achievement across varying demographics. The general trends showed a positive increase in student gains after my marine science instruction and the increase was relatively the same regardless of the teaching method used. Contrary to my original hypothesis, I found that experiential learning was equally effective as conventional model- based instruction, as students from Paul Cuffee School experienced strong gains in student retention in a non-experiential, traditional classroom learning environment. However, variations in improvement were seen along income and demographic lines. These results may have implications for resource-limited schools interested in exposing students to the natural sciences. In conclusion, schools in low- income areas with insufficient funding can increase their marine science education without expensive experiential resources. Acknowledgements The Long Island Aquarium and Exhibition Center, Long Island, NY Mystic Aquarium, Mystic, CT The University of Rhode Island Paul Cuffee School, Sylvan Avenue Elementary School, Blue Point Elementary School, Mulvey Elementary School SEAS: Science Education And Society Laboratory Fig. 1: The average pre and post assessment results are demonstrated for students from Sylvan Elementary School after learning a marine science lesson with experiential instruction. Students significantly improved their marine science assessment scores from 56% (0.56) to 89% (0.89) accuracy after my experiential instruction. Fig. 2: The change in number of correctly answering students at Sylvan Elementary School on each question of the marine science assessment after experiential instruction is demonstrated. For example, there were 31 students that correctly answered question #2 on the post assessment after my experiential instruction, that did not originally answer the question correctly before instruction. Fig. 3: The average pre and post assessment results are demonstrated for students from Blue Point Elementary School after learning a marine science lesson with experiential instruction. Students significantly improved their marine science assessment scores from 58% (0.58) to 88% (0.88) accuracy after my experiential instruction. Fig. 4: The change in number of correctly answering students at Blue Point Elementary School on each question of the marine science assessment after experiential instruction is demonstrated. For example, there were 35 students that correctly answered question #19 on the post assessment after my experiential instruction, that did not originally answer the question correctly before instruction. Fig. 6: The change in number of correctly answering students at Mulvey Elementary School on each question of the marine science assessment after experiential instruction is demonstrated. For example, there was no change in students correctly answering question #3 on the post assessment after my experiential instruction, as all of the students that answered question #3 correctly did so before and after my instruction. Fig. 5: The average pre and post assessment results are demonstrated for students from Mulvey Elementary School after learning a marine science lesson with experiential instruction. Students significantly improved their marine science assessment scores from 51% (0.51) to 74% (0.74) accuracy after my experiential instruction. Fig. 8: The change in number of correctly answering students at Paul Cuffee School on each question of the marine science assessment after traditional instruction is demonstrated. For example, there were 40 students that correctly answered question #9 on the post assessment after my traditional instruction, that did not originally answer the question correctly before instruction. Fig. 7: The average pre and post assessment results are demonstrated for students from Paul Cuffee School after learning a marine science lesson with traditional instruction. Students significantly improved their marine science assessment scores from 50% (0.50) to 86% (0.86) accuracy after my traditional instruction. Fig. 11: Seine net fishing in an experiential environment at The Long Island Aquarium and Exhibition Center, Long Island, NY. Fig. 9: Variations in schools’ demographics and access were also considered in our interpretation of the effects of the different teaching approaches. Fig. 12: Interactive tour boat in an experiential environment at The Long Island Aquarium and Exhibition Center, Long Island, NY. Fig. 14: Traditional classroom environment at Mystic Aquarium, Mystic, CT. Fig. 10: Example of one page of the uniform pre and post assessment received by all students participating in this experiment. p<0.05 Fig. 13: PowerPoint lecture and “Touch and Feel” program in a traditional classroom environment at Mystic Aquarium, Mystic, CT.