The only choices I was ever given as a student back in the 1960s were whether I wanted regular or chocolate milk in the snack line and whether I wanted a hamburger or hot dog for lunch. Everything else was decided for me.
Years later, when I began teaching, I understood that it was easier for everyone to have the same lesson with little or no deviation. Over the years, though, the approach to teaching became less rigid — and with good reason.
I remember when the learning resources teacher asked me if she could have a copy of the next biology test so that she could read aloud the questions to one of her students who had dyslexia. Sure, I said, happy to oblige. Anything I could do to help our students learn science was fine.
That summer, I attended a National Writing Project training at Mississippi State University to learn how to incorporate reading and writing strategies into my biology, physics, and chemistry classrooms. I returned to Room 23 at West Point High School in West Point, Mississippi, that August with a list of strategies. I was 15 years into my teaching career, but I felt like a chemist with new materials for the lab — and I began to experiment.
For example, I used skit-writing to engage students in a botany lesson. With a cactus, a philodendron, and an ivy plant, I asked the teens what these plants would tell us if they could talk. They worked in pairs, and some of the resulting skits were downright funny.
These creative assignments yielded immediate improvements in my students’ understanding of the content, as well as their classroom behavior. I went on to identify seven modes of learning and assessing: journaling, artwork, lab work, written tests, oral reports, small group work, and a writing cluster I called DFPE, for Drama, Fiction, Poetry, and Essay. Starting the following school year, students in my class could choose how they wanted to show me their understanding of the science lesson at hand. They were required to select at least three modes but could choose more.
Since this was an unusual way for a teacher to assess student work, I made sure to acquaint parents with this new system before there were lots of questions. I held three different evening sessions at the beginning of the school year to model how I’d be evaluating students. I took the parents through each mode. They were my students for the night. Our local business partners were on-site to provide refreshments and door prizes.
On the first day of school, I began to orient my students, going over expectations and answering questions. I also told them that before they selected how they wanted to be assessed, I would guide them through each one so that they could have a better idea of what each mode was about.
Choose carefully, I warned. Once you make your selections, you’re locked in for nine weeks.
What if we mess up and choose the wrong things? one student asked.
You can change your choices at the beginning of the next grading period, I told them.
I staggered deadlines for projects in each category so that no student had more than one science project due on any day.
You mean we don’t have to take tests? one student asked.
That’s right, unless you have chosen written tests as one of your options, I clarified.
They seemed a bit confused at first.
We would all be studying the same topic, I explained to them. However, each person would be assessed with the modes of evaluation that they have selected.
The most popular choices included lab work, journaling, and small group work. This made sense since most science classes should include hands-on laboratory experiences, communicating results, and developing a collaborative spirit. However, there was plenty of variation. That made sense, too, since each student has individual learning styles and gifts.
After the first grading period, most of the students seemed fine and told me that they liked having choices. I observed engagement on a level I had never seen in my classroom. I had few class disruptions due to misbehavior.
I continued to use “menu selection” for another 15 years until I retired from teaching full-time. Giving students some choices and ownership made me a happy teacher and made them more productive, responsible learners. Identifying their strong suits and being able to use them to explain how well they understand the content is not rocket science.
It is, however, an effective approach to teaching and learning science.
John Dorroh taught high school science for about 30 years in Mississippi, Georgia, and the Lake District of England. He incorporated reading and writing strategies with the help of Bob Tierney and other science educators. After retiring from full-time teaching, he worked as an education consultant. He lives in southwest Illinois, near St. Louis.