Geneticus Investigatio: a technology-enhanced learning environment for scaffolding complex learning in genetics
Tóm tắt
Bioscientists such as geneticists and molecular biologists regularly demonstrate the integration of domain concepts and science inquiry practices/skills while explaining a natural phenomenon. The complexity of these concepts and skills becomes manifold at the tertiary undergraduate level and are known to be challenging for learners. They learn these in silos as part of theory classes, practical labs, and tutorial sessions while in an industry, they will be required to integrate and apply in a given authentic context. To support learners in this process, we have designed and developed Geneticus Investigatio (GI), a technology-enhanced learning (TEL) environment for scaffolding complex learning in the context of Mendelian genetics. GI facilitates this complex learning by the integration of domain concepts and science inquiry practices through inquiry-driven reflective learning experiences, which are interspersed with inquiry-based learning steps in an authentic context along with metacognitive reflection. In this paper, we present two cycles of iterative design, development, and evaluation of GI, based on the design-based research (DBR) approach. In the first DBR cycle, we identified the pedagogical design features and learning activities of GI based on an exploratory study with bio-science instructors for facilitating complex learning. We then report a pre-post classroom study (N = 37) in which we investigated the learning and perceptions of usability and usefulness of GI. The results indicate high learning gains after interacting with GI and learner perceptions that activities in GI help learn concepts and inquiry practices along with its integration. It is followed by the identification of interaction and other difficulties by the learner, which were triangulated with different data sources. It provided insights into the pedagogical and design changes required in GI. The revised version of GI was evaluated with a quasi-experimental classroom study (N = 121). The results indicate that the drawbacks of the previous version of GI were addressed. The main contributions of this research are a pedagogical design for facilitating complex learning and its implementation in the form of GI TEL environment.
Tài liệu tham khảo
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. DC: Washington.
Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2).
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn, (vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press.
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4–7.
Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J., Fukami, T., & Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 36.
Chen et al. 2013) W. Chen, C. Looi, W. Xie, & Y. Wen, (2013) Empowering argumentation in the science classroom with a complex CSCL environment. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computers in Education. Indonesia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Concord Consortium. (2010). Geniverse (Accessed: 16 May. 2019). Geniverse [Online]. Available: https://geniverse-lab.concord.org
Cooper, S., Hanmer, D., & Cerbin, B. (2006). Problem-solving modules in large introductory biology lectures. The American Biology Teacher, 68(9), 524–530.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
De Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3.
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of educational research, 68(2), 179–201.
Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939–954.
Etkina, E, Van Heuvelen, A, White-Brahmia, S, Brookes, DT, Gentile, M, Murthy, S, Warren, A. (2006). Scientific abilities and their assessment. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res, 2(2), 020103.
Frerejean, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., Roex, A., Aertgeerts, B., & Marcellis, M. (2019). Designing instruction for complex learning: 4C/ID in higher education. European Journal of Education.
Guan, J., Su, X., Qian, D., & Yu, E. (2014). Current situation and strategy of the promotion of e-schoolbag application area—Based on analysis of content of teachers’ interviews. E-Education Research, 35(10), 53–59.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.
Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M., Najafi, V., & Nesari, A. J. (2011). What is mobile learning? Challenges and capabilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2477–2481.
Hester, S. D., Nadler, M., Katcher, J., Elfring, L. K., Dykstra, E., Rezende, L. F., & Bolger, M. S. (2018). Authentic Inquiry through Modeling in Biology (AIM-Bio): An introductory laboratory curriculum that increases undergraduates’ scientific agency and skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar63.
Hoskinson, A. M., Caballero, M. D., & Knight, J. K. (2013). How can we improve problem-solving in undergraduate biology? Applying lessons from 30 years of physics education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 153–161.
Jouble (2013). H5p.org (Accessed: 20 May. 2019). H5p [Online]. Available: https://h5p.org/
Karagoz, M., & Çakir, M. (2011). Problem solving in genetics: Conceptual and procedural difficulties. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1668–1674.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem-solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.
Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2008). Ten steps to complex learning a new approach to instruction and instructional design.
Lang, J. D., Cruse, S., McVey, F. D., & McMasters, J. (1999). Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1), 43–51.
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of educational research, 86(3), 681–718.
Makransky, G., Bonde, M. T., Wulff, J. S., Wandall, J., Hood, M., Creed, P. A., … Nørremølle, A. (2016). Simulation-based virtual learning environment in medical genetics counselling: An example of bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education. BMC medical education, 16(1), 98.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Educational design research, In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 131-140) (). New York, NY: Springer.
NRC (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Orcajo, T., & Aznar, M. (2005). Solving problems in genetics II: Conceptual restructuring. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1495–1519.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., … Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47–61.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., … Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2).
Schon, D. A. (1983). 1983, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills”—can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–55.
Slotta, J. (2002). Designing the web-based inquiry science environment (WISE). Educational technology, 42(5), 15–20.
Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38–55.
Thompson, N., & McGill, T. J. (2017). Genetics with Jean: The design, development and evaluation of an affective tutoring system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 279–299.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Educational Technology.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2015). Research on instructional design in the health sciences: From taxonomies of learning to whole-task models. Researching medical education, 193-206.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Alternate models of instructional design: Holistic design approaches and complex learning. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 72–81.
Xun, G. E., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational technology research and development, 52(2), 5–22.
Yin, C. J., Uosaki, N., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Hwang, J. J., Hatono, I., & Tabata, Y. (2017). Learning behavioural pattern analysis based on students’ logs in reading digital books. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 549-557).