A clicker-based case study that untangles student thinking about the processes in the central dogma

Pelletreau, Karen N.; Andrews, Tessa C.; Armstrong, Nancy; Bedell, Mary A.; Dastoor, Farahad; Dean, Neta; Erster, Susan; Fata-Hartley, Cori L.; Guild, Nancy; Greig, Hamish S.; Hall, David; Knight, Jennifer K.; Koslowsky, Donna J.; Lemons, Paula P.; Martin, Jennifer; McCourt, Jill; Merrill, John; Moscarella, Rosa A.; Nehm, Ross H.; Northington, Robert M.; Olsen, Brian J.; Prevost, Luanna B.; Stolzfus, Jon; Urban‐Lurain, Mark; Smith, Michelle K.

doi:10.24918/cs.2016.15

Cited by 21 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the validated published Central Dogma Concept Inventory tool [9], we showed that students make significantly higher learning gains on assessment questions that align with a physical model-based activity compared with assessment questions that align with a different (nonmodel based) active-engagement strategy like clickers or peer discussion problems. While no one test can assess all student learning objectives, we find the results from the CDCI tool to be especially encouraging because concepts related to the Central Dogma and information flow are difficult for many students [9,[11][12][13], and this works suggest a strategy that might be very useful to other instructors. Many different learning theories suggest that models and modelbased activities should be effective learning tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Physical models can provide superior learning opportunities beyond the benefits of active engagements

Newman

Stefkovich

Clasen

et al. 2018

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The essence of molecular biology education lies in understanding of gene expression, with subtopics including the central dogma processes, such as transcription and translation. While these concepts are core to the discipline, they are also notoriously difficult for students to learn, probably because they cannot be directly observed. While nearly all active learning strategies have been shown to improve learning compared with passive lectures, little has been done to compare different types of active learning. We hypothesized that physical models of central dogma processes would be especially helpful for learning, because they provide a resource that students can see, touch, and manipulate while trying to build their knowledge. For students enrolled in an entirely active‐learning‐based Cell & Molecular Biology course, we examined whether model‐based activities were more effective than non‐model based activities. To test their understanding at the beginning and end of the semester, we employed the multiple‐select Central Dogma Concept Inventory (CDCI). Each student acted as their own control, as all students engaged in all lessons yet some questions related to model‐based activities and some related to clicker questions, group problem‐solving, and other non‐model‐based activities. While all students demonstrated learning gains on both types of question, they showed much higher learning gains on model‐based questions. Examining their selected answers in detail showed that while higher performing students were prompted to refine their already‐good mental models to be even better, lower performing students were able to construct new knowledge that was much more consistent with an expert's understanding. © 2018 The Authors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology., 46(5):435–444, 2018.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Physical models can provide superior learning opportunities beyond the benefits of active engagements

Newman

Stefkovich

Clasen

et al. 2018

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the basis of the EcoEvo-MAPS results, some faculty members in this program have decided to also use the ACORNS tool ( Nehm et al , 2012 ) and/or the Genetics Concept Assessment ( Smith et al , 2008 ) at the beginning and end of their courses to explore learning gains in evolution and heredity within a course. In addition, other faculty members have used short-answer questions from the Automated Analysis of Constructed Response project ( https://create4stem.msu.edu/project/aacr ; Haudek et al , 2011 ; Pelletreau et al , 2016 ) or other assessments they individually developed ( Trenckmann et al ., 2017 ) to examine student learning before and after specific lessons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EcoEvo-MAPS: An Ecology and Evolution Assessment for Introductory through Advanced Undergraduates

Summers

Couch

Knight

et al. 2018

LSE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new assessment tool, Ecology and Evolution–Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science or EcoEvo-MAPS, measures student thinking in ecology and evolution during an undergraduate course of study. EcoEvo-MAPS targets foundational concepts in ecology and evolution and uses a novel approach that asks students to evaluate a series of predictions, conclusions, or interpretations as likely or unlikely to be true given a specific scenario. We collected evidence of validity and reliability for EcoEvo-MAPS through an iterative process of faculty review, student interviews, and analyses of assessment data from more than 3000 students at 34 associate’s-, bachelor’s-, master’s-, and doctoral-granting institutions. The 63 likely/unlikely statements range in difficulty and target student understanding of key concepts aligned with the Vision and Change report. This assessment provides departments with a tool to measure student thinking at different time points in the curriculum and provides data that can be used to inform curricular and instructional modifications.

show abstract

“…Several instructors participated in a virtual community of practice, developing an activity addressing student misconceptions about the central dogma that were revealed by an AACR question ( Pelletreau et al , 2016 ). Liz, who did not participate directly in the development, was able to observe the classroom activity through a colleague in her AACR group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Motivates Biology Instructors to Engage and Persist in Teaching Professional Development?

McCourt

Andrews

Knight

et al. 2017

LSE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A clicker-based case study that untangles student thinking about the processes in the central dogma

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

Physical models can provide superior learning opportunities beyond the benefits of active engagements

Physical models can provide superior learning opportunities beyond the benefits of active engagements

EcoEvo-MAPS: An Ecology and Evolution Assessment for Introductory through Advanced Undergraduates

What Motivates Biology Instructors to Engage and Persist in Teaching Professional Development?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About