Impact of pre-lab learning activities, a post-lab written report, and content reduction on evolution-based learning in an undergraduate plant biodiversity lab

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：John M Basey (1)
  Anastasia P Maines (1)
  Clinton D Francis (2)
  Brett Melbourne (1)
  Sarah B Wise (1)
  Rebecca J Safran (1)
  Pieter TJ Johnson (1)
  
• 关键词：Science education ; Biodiversity ; Labs ; Evolution ; Science reasoning
• 刊名：Evolution: Education and Outreach
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：December 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：7
• 期：1
• 全文大小：377 KB
• 参考文献：1. Addy, HD, & Longair, RW. (2009). / Laboratory manual for biology 223, organismal biology of plants and animals. Plymouth, MI: Hayden McNeil Publishing Inc.
  2. Alters, BJ, & Nelson, CE. (2002). Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. / Evolution, 56, 1891-01.
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2010). / Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. DC: Washington.
  4. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. / Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213-20. CrossRef
  5. Crowe, A, Dirks, C, & Wenderoth, MP. (2008). Biology in bloom; implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. / CBE Life Science Education, 7, 368-81. CrossRef
  6. Harris-Haller, T. (2008). / Laboratory manual for biology 112 (4th ed.). Plymouth, MI: Hayden McNeil Publishing Inc.
  7. Heil, CSS, Hunter, MJ, Noor, JKF, Miglia, K, Manzano-Winkler, B, McDermott, SR, & Noor, MAF. (2012). Witnessing phenotypic and molecular evolution in the fruit fly. / Evolution Education Outreach, 5, 629-34. CrossRef
  8. Hokayem, H, & BouJaoude, S. (2008). College students' perceptions of the theory of evolution. / Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 395-19. CrossRef
  9. Jensen, LJ, & Lawson, AE. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. / CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10, 64-3. CrossRef
  10. Johnson, MA, & Lawson, AE. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? / Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 89-03. CrossRef
  11. Kalinowski, ST, Taper, ML, & Metz- AM. (2006). Can random mutation mimic design?: a guided inquiry lab for undergraduate students. / Genetics, 174, 1073-079. CrossRef
  12. Lawson, AE, Abraham, MR, & Renner, JW. (1989). / A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. NARST Monograph, Number One. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
  13. Lawson, AE, Clark, B, Cramer-Meldrum, E, Falconer, KA, Sequist, JM, & Kwon, YJ. (2000). Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? / Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 81-01. CrossRef
  14. Lawson, AE, & Johnson, M. (2002). The validity of Kolb learning styles and neo-Piagetian developmental levels in college biology. / Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 79-0. CrossRef
  15. Meisel, RP. (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. / Evolution (NY), 3(4), 621-28.
  16. Miller, GD. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. / Psychology Review, 63, 81-7. CrossRef
  17. National Research Council. (1998). / Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  18. R Core Team. (2012). / R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org.
  19. Reid, N. (2008). A scientific approach to the teaching of chemistry. What do we know about how students learn in the sciences, and how can we make our teaching match this to maximize performance? / Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 51-9. CrossRef
  20. Scully, TA, & Fisher, RWW. (2009). / Discovering biology in the lab, an introductory laboratory manual. New York, NY: Norton & Company.
  21. Sim, J, & Wright, CC. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. / Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257-68.
  22. Spiro, MD, & Knisely, KI. (2008). Alternation of generations and experimental design: a guied-inquiry lab exploring the nature of her1 developmental mutant of / Ceratopteris richardii (C-fern). / CBE-Life Science Education, 7, 82-8. CrossRef
  23. Smith, JJ, & Cheruvelil, S. (2009). Using inquiry and tree-thinking to “March through the animal phyla- teaching introductory comparative biology in an evolutionary context. / Evolution Education Outreach. doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0156-x.
  24. Timmerman, BE, Strickland, DC, & Carstensen, SM. (2008). Curricular reform and inquiry teaching in biology: where are our efforts most fruitfully invested. / Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 226-40. CrossRef
  25. van Merrienboer, JJG, & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future direction. / Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-77. CrossRef
  26. Vodopich, D, & Moore, R. (2008). / Biology, laboratory manual to accompany Brooker Biology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  
• 作者单位：John M Basey (1)
  Anastasia P Maines (1)
  Clinton D Francis (2)
  Brett Melbourne (1)
  Sarah B Wise (1)
  Rebecca J Safran (1)
  Pieter TJ Johnson (1)
  
  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder, 334 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0334, USA
  2. NESCent: the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, 2024W. Main St., Suite A200, Durham, NC, 27705, USA
  
• ISSN：1936-6434

文摘

Background Commonplace biodiversity labs in introductory undergraduate biology typically emphasize declarative knowledge. We contend that shifting these labs to emphasize evolution, higher-order cognition, and science reasoning would benefit student learning. Four factors that likely make evolution-based higher-order learning goals difficult to achieve in these labs are: the novelty and quantity of required declarative knowledge, the number of integrated concepts, the theoretical nature of evolution, and limitations on working memory. Thus, we propose that a model to shift learning from lower-order declarative knowledge to evolution-based higher-order integration in these labs would reduce overall lower-order content, increase time efficiency through hands-on pre-lab activities, and increase evidence-based reasoning through written post-labs that emphasize evolution-based higher-order integration. We tested this contention by comparing exam performances of students who did and did not participate in the redesigned lab. Methods A new plant biodiversity lab design was implemented in an introductory undergraduate biology lab class. The lab class was a separate class from the complementary lecture class, but the content-oriented learning goals were similar between the lecture and lab. We compared achievement of students in lecture-?lab to those in lecture only with a pre-assessment and a mid-semester exam which contained questions that were both related and unrelated to the plant biodiversity lab learning goals. Results Students in ‘lecture-?lab-relative to ‘lecture only-did not perform significantly different on the pre-assessment lower or higher-order questions. On the post-assessment, students in lab-?lecture performed significantly better on knowledge questions that were unrelated to lab with an improvement of 5.9%. Moreover, students in lab-?lecture also performed significantly better on lab-related knowledge questions and lab-related evolution-based integrative reasoning questions with a range of 6.3 to 11% improvement, compared to students in the lecture only group. Conclusions The proposed framework was successful in improving student learning for both lower-order declarative knowledge questions and evolution-based questions involving higher-order integration of concepts. In addition, because students in lecture-?lab outperformed students in lecture only on questions unrelated to lab content, our proposed model highlights the importance of multiple inquiry-oriented lab experiences in higher education.