Using intervention-oriented evaluation to diagnose and correct students’ persistent climate change misconceptions: A Singapore case study

Identification of biology students’ misconceptions in human anatomy and physiology course through three-tier diagnostic test

“…This suggests that Biology students are unable to comprehend the concepts in Human Anatomy and Physiology. Based on the study conducted by Pascua & Chang (2015), partial understanding refers to the condition when students can only answer correctly at the first tier but are unable to provide the correct reasoning to the answer at the second tier. Other research findings have also revealed that the tendency of students to memorize information results makes it difficult to understand and synthesize essential concepts in Human Anatomy and Physiology (Badenhorst et al 2016;Johnston et al 2015).…”

Preaching to the choir or composing new verses? Toward a writerly climate literacy in introductory undergraduate biology

“…What can educators do if they want students to leave their courses with an increased understanding of the science of climate change and with a sense of purpose and empowerment? As a place to start, we recommend educators ask themselves questions like the following, as they (re)plan and (re)design their courses: “What do my students already know or think about climate change as they enter my course?” Because no student enters her introductory science course a blank slate, it is important for instructors to get a sense for student conceptions of climate change—both to aid in addressing misconceptions (see Monroe, Plate, Oxarart, Bowers, & Chaves, ; Pascua & Chang, ) and to ensure that valuable class time can be devoted to extending what students know, rather than attempting to convince them of things they come to us already accepting. Diagnostically or formatively assessing students' understandings of climate change—whether through surveying or testing them in some manner, as we did (see surveys in Appendices and ) and as others have done (e.g., Pascua & Chang, ; Versprille et al, ); or by engaging in additional activities, like concept mapping (Rebich & Gautier, ) and other in‐class writing tasks (see, e.g., Hand et al, )—can provide a powerful basis for tailoring instruction to meet students where they are at, and to meet their intellectual and affective needs in ways that promote writerly climate literacy. “What things are being done locally (by individuals or communities) that are effectively combating climate change?” Important as it may be to support students in understanding global climate systems, there is a need to complement this knowledge with a nuanced understanding of how effective climate action can be, and is being, taken at local scales.…”

“…"What do my students already know or think about climate change as they enter my course?" Because no student enters her introductory science course a blank slate, it is important for instructors to get a sense for student conceptions of climate change-both to aid in addressing misconceptions (see Monroe, Plate, Oxarart, Bowers, & Chaves, 2017;Pascua & Chang, 2015) and to ensure that valuable class time can be devoted to extending what students know, rather than attempting to convince them of things they come to us already accepting. Diagnostically or formatively assessing students' understandings of climate change-whether through surveying or testing them in some manner, as we did (see surveys in Appendices S2 and S3) and…”

“…as others have done (e.g., Pascua & Chang, 2015;Versprille et al, 2017); or by engaging in additional activities, like concept mapping (Rebich & Gautier, 2005) and other in-class writing tasks (see, e.g., Hand et al, 1999)-can provide a powerful basis for tailoring instruction to meet students where they are at, and to meet their intellectual and affective needs in ways that promote writerly climate literacy.…”

“…Nevertheless, research on climate education often focuses primarily or exclusively on students' knowledge of climate change, attending more closely to student understandings and misunderstandings than to other aspects of climate literacy (e.g., Pascua & Chang, ). This narrower, knowledge‐centric approach to climate literacy is one Busch and Román () discuss in the K‐12 educational context as “derived” climate science literacy, which they contrast with “fundamental” climate science literacy: an “ability to read, evaluate, and produce” climate‐related scientific content, making scientific knowledge intelligible and actionable (Busch & Román, , p. 121; see also Norris & Phillips, ; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, ).…”