A New Two-Step Approach for Hands-On Teaching of Gene Technology: Effects on Students’ Activities During Experimentation in an Outreach Gene Technology Lab
Tóm tắt
Emphasis on improving higher level biology education continues. A new two-step approach to the experimental phases within an outreach gene technology lab, derived from cognitive load theory, is presented. We compared our approach using a quasi-experimental design with the conventional one-step mode. The difference consisted of additional focused discussions combined with students writing down their ideas (step one) prior to starting any experimental procedure (step two). We monitored students’ activities during the experimental phases by continuously videotaping 20 work groups within each approach (N = 131). Subsequent classification of students’ activities yielded 10 categories (with well-fitting intra- and inter-observer scores with respect to reliability). Based on the students’ individual time budgets, we evaluated students’ roles during experimentation from their prevalent activities (by independently using two cluster analysis methods). Independently of the approach, two common clusters emerged, which we labeled as ‘all-rounders’ and as ‘passive students’, and two clusters specific to each approach: ‘observers’ as well as ‘high-experimenters’ were identified only within the one-step approach whereas under the two-step conditions ‘managers’ and ‘scribes’ were identified. Potential changes in group-leadership style during experimentation are discussed, and conclusions for optimizing science teaching are drawn.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussion in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 393–406.
Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for applications. New York: Academic.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
Bergman, L., Magnusson, D., & El-Khouri, B. (2003). Studying individual development in an inter-individual context. A person-oriented approach. Mahwah, London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: student learning of science in small groups. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 34, 1039–1065.
Bogue, B. (2005). Assessment driven change: How systemic evaluation can lead to more productive outreach. Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference & Exposition, 1592–1598.
Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.
Bryce, T., & Robertson, I. (1985). What can they do? A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1–24.
Chang, H.-P., & Lederman, N. (1994). The effect of levels of cooperation within physical science laboratory groups on physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 167–181.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.
Crameri, A., Whitehorn, E., Tate, E., & Stemmer, W. (1996). Improved green fluorescent protein by molecular evolution using DNA shuffling. Nature Biotechnology, 14, 315–319.
Dolan, E., Soots, B., Lemaux, P., Rhee, S., & Reiser, L. (2004). Strategies for avoiding reinventing the precollege education and outreach wheel. Genetics, 166, 1601–1609.
Dunn, J., & Boud, D. (1986). Sequencing and organization. In D. Boud, J. Dunn, & E. Hegarty-Hazel (Eds.), Teaching in laboratories (pp. 57–78). Exeter: NFER-Nelson.
Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2006). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education, 47, 298–315.
Euler, M. (2004). The role of experiments in the teaching and learning of physics. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research on physics education (pp. 175–221). Amsterdam: IOS.
Felix, D., Hertle, M., Conley, J., Washington, L., & Bruns, P. (2004). Assessing precollege science education outreach initiatives. A funder’s perspective. Cell Biology Education, 3, 189–195.
Gayford, C. (1992). Patterns of group behaviour in open-ended problem solving in sciuence classes of 15-year-old students in England. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 41–49.
Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research. Edinburgh: SRCE.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science. Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 855–882.
Horn, E., Collier, W., Oxford, J., Bond, C., & Dansereau, D. (1998). Individual differences in dyadic cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 153–161.
Jacobs, J., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., Hollingsworth, H., Bogard Givvin, K., Rust, K., et al. (2003). Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1999 Video Study Technical Report Volume 1: Mathematics Technical Report. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.
Johnstone, A. (1997). Chemistry teaching - Science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 262–268.
Kessler, C., & Manta, V. (1990). Specifity of restriction endonucleases and DNA modification methyltransferases—a review (edition 3). Gene, 92, 1–248.
Klein, P. (1999). Learning science through writing: the role of rhetorical structures. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 132–153.
KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz [Conference of German federal state ministries of education]), 2005: Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10) [10th grade standards in biology education within medium stratification]. (Luchterhand, München)
Koch, S., & Zumbach, J. (2002). The use of video analysis software in behaviour observation research: Interaction patterns in task-oriented small groups. Forum Qualitative Social Research (On-line Journal), 3, art. 18; URL http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0202187 (online 01/15/2010).
Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., & Graf, J. (2007). What good is a scienctist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE-Life Science Education, 6, 49–64.
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, part one (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht: Kluver Academic.
Mandel, M., & Higa, A. (1970). Calcium-dependent bacteriophage DNA infection. Journal of Molecular Biology, 53, 159–162.
Martin, P., & Bateson, P. (1988). Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide (2nd ed.). Cambrigde: Cambrigde University Press.
Maxton-Küchenmeister, J., & Herrmann, R. (2003). Genlabor & Schule - eine Übersicht über Experimentierangebote zur Vermittlung von Gen- und Biotechnologie an Schulen [Genetics labs and school—a review of offers with regard to experimental teaching of gene and biotechnology]. BIOspektrum, 9, 382–385.
Morin, P. A., & Smith, D. G. (1995). Nonradioactive detection of hypervariable simple sequence repeats in short polyacrylamide gels. BioTechniques, 19, 223–228.
Munn, M., O’Neil Skinner, P., Conn, L., Horsma, H. G., & Gregory, P. (1999). The involvement of genome researchers in high school science education. Genome Research, 9, 597–607.
NCHPEG (National Coalition for Health Professionals Education in Genetics). (2007). Core competencies in genetics for health professionals (3rd ed.). Lutherville: NCHPG.
Niedderer, H., Aufschaiter, Sv, Tiberghien, A., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander, F., et al. (2002). Talking physics in labwork contexts—A category-based analysis of videotapes. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 31–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for Windows Professional Statistics Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53, 25–34.
Reynolds, S., Patterson, M., Skaggs, L., & Dansereau, D. (1991). Knowledge hypermaps and cooperative learning. Computers Education, 16, 167–173.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.
Rimmele, R. (2002). Das Programm Videograph [The software videograph]. Kiel: Leibniz Institute for Science Education.
Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. (2010). Instructional efficiency of changing cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 829–844.
Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology lab with educational focus: results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 28–39.
Seidel, T. (2005). Video analysis strategies of the IPN Video Study—a methodological overview. In T. Seidel, M. Prenzel, & M. Kobarg (Eds.), How to run a video study (pp. 70–78). New York: Waxmann.
Sherman, S. (1994). Cooperative learning and science. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 226–244). Westport: Greenwood.
Sigma (2002). Sigma GenElute Plasmid Miniprep Kit. Technical Bulletin MB 665
Smith, K. (1996). Cooperative learning: making “groupwork” work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 71–82.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 556–576.
Sweller, J. (2006). How the human cognitive system deals with complexity. In J. Elen & R. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Tanner, K., Chatman, L., & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: cooperative learning in the science classroom - beyond students working in groups. Cell Biology Education, 2, 1–5.
Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.
Wenzel, T. (2000). Cooperative students’ activities as learning devices. Analytical Chemistry A, 72, 293A–296A.
Winberg, T., & Berg, C. (2007). Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1108–1133.
Wolf, R. (1997). Rating scales. In J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 958–965). Oxford: Elsevier.
Zöfel, P. (2002). Statistik verstehen. Ein Begleitbuch zur computergestützten Anwendung [Understanding statistics. A book for computer-aided applications]. München: Addison-Wesley.