1887

Learning about Chemiosmosis and ATP Synthesis with Animations Outside of the Classroom

    Authors: Eric E. Goff1, Katie M. Reindl2, Christina Johnson3, Phillip McClean3, Erika G. Offerdahl2, Noah L. Schroeder4, Alan R. White1,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208; 2: Department of Biological Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102; 3: Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102; 4: Department of Leadership Studies in Education and Organizations, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1223
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    471.90 Kb
  • XML
    79.17 Kb
  • HTML
    73.16 Kb

    Abstract:

    Many undergraduate biology courses have begun to implement instructional strategies aimed at increasing student interaction with course material outside of the classroom. Two examples of such practices are introducing students to concepts as preparation prior to instruction, and as conceptual reinforcement after the instructional period. Using a three-group design, we investigate the impact of an animation developed as part of the Virtual Cell Animation Collection on the topic of concentration gradients and their role in the actions of ATP synthase as a means of pre-class preparation or post-class reinforcement compared with a no-intervention control group. Results from seven sections of introductory biology ( = 732) randomized to treatments over two semesters show that students who viewed animation as preparation ( = 0.44, < 0.001) or as reinforcement ( = 0.53, < 0.001) both outperformed students in the control group on a follow-up assessment. Direct comparison of the preparation and reinforcement treatments shows no significant difference in student outcomes between the two treatment groups ( = 0.87). Results suggest that while student interaction with animations on the topic of concentration gradients outside of the classroom may lead to greater learning outcomes than the control group, in the traditional lecture-based course the timing of such interactions may not be as important.

Key Concept Ranking

Lead
0.88724494
Respiration
0.8675283
Spring
0.8280953
Inclusions
0.53958327
Stems
0.51985884
Mitosis
0.4756878
0.88724494

References & Citations

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science2011Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action: a summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, July 15–17, 2009Washington, DC
2. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)2012Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematicsExecutive Office of the PresidentWashington, DC
3. Allen D, Tanner K2005Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: seven strategies, from the simple to complexCell Biol Educ4426226810.1187/cbe.05-08-0113163448581305885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113
4. Freeman S, O’Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP2007Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biologyCBE Life Sci Educ6213213910.1187/cbe.06-09-0194175488751885904 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194
5. Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW2014Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementationCBE Life Sci Educ13110211010.1187/cbe.13-08-0169245915093940451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0169
6. Aronson BD, Silveira LA2009From genes to proteins to behavior: a laboratory project that enhances student understanding in cell and molecular biologyCBE Life Sci Educ8429130810.1187/cbe.09-07-0048199520982786280 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-07-0048
7. Brownell SE, Kloser MJ, Fukami T, Shavelson R2012Undergraduate biology lab courses: comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiencesJ Coll Sci Teach4143645
8. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt N, Wenderoth MP2014Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematicsProc Natl Acad Sci111238410841510.1073/pnas.1319030111248217564060654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
9. Davis KS2003“Change is hard”: what science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practicesSci Educ87133010.1002/sce.10037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10037
10. White C, Bradley E, Martindale J, Roy P, Patel K, Yoon M, Worden MK2014Why are medical students “checking out” of active learning in a new curriculum?Med Educ48331532410.1111/medu.1235624528466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12356
11. Persky AM2015Qualitative analysis of animation versus reading for pre-class preparation in a “flipped” classroomJ Excel Coll Teach261528
12. French M, Taverna F, Neumann M, Kushnir LP, Harlow J, Harrison D, Serbanescu R2015Textbook use in the sciences and its relation to course performanceColl Teach63417117710.1080/87567555.2015.1057099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1057099
13. Lee CD2014Worksheet usage, reading achievement, classes’ lack of readiness, and science achievement: a cross-country comparisonInt J Educ Math Sci Technol229610610.18404/ijemst.38331 http://dx.doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.38331
14. Long T, Logan J, Waugh M2016Students’ perceptions of the value of using videos as a pre-class learning experience in the flipped classroomTech Trends60324525210.1007/s11528-016-0045-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0045-4
15. Hill M, Sharma MD, Johnston H2015How online learning modules can improve the representational fluency and conceptual understanding of university physics studentsEur J Phys3644501910.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045019
16. Ferdig RE, Trammell KD2004Content delivery in the “blogosphere.”J Technol Horiz Educ31712
17. Aagaard L, Conner TW, Skidmore RL2014College textbook reading assignments and class time activityJ Scholarsh Teach Learn14313214510.14434/josotl.v14i3.5031 http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v14i3.5031
18. Hodges LC, Anderson EC, Carpenter TS, Cui L, Gierasch TM, Leupen S, Nanes KM, Wagner CR2015Using reading quizzes in STEM classes—the what, why, and howJ Coll Sci Teach451495510.2505/4/jcst15_045_01_49 http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst15_045_01_49
19. Gross D, Pietri ES, Anderson G, Moyano-Camihort K, Graham MJ2015Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroomCBE Life Sci Educ14410.1187/cbe.15-02-0040263961514710397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040
20. Lineweaver TT2010Online discussion assignments improve students’ class preparationTeach Psychol37320420910.1080/00986283.2010.488546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986283.2010.488546
21. Wieman R, Arbaugh F2014Making homework more meaningfulMath Teach Middle Sch20316016510.5951/mathteacmiddscho.20.3.0160 http://dx.doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.20.3.0160
22. Gieger L, Nardo J, Schmeichel K, Zinner L2014A quantitative and qualitative comparison of homework structures in undergraduate mathematics
23. Hauk S, Powers RA, Segalla A2015A comparison of web-based and paper-and-pencil homework on student performance in college algebraPRIMUS251617910.1080/10511970.2014.906006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2014.906006
24. Malik K, Martinez N, Romero J, Schubel S, Janowicz PA2014Mixed-methods study of online and written organic chemistry homeworkJ Chem Educ91111804180910.1021/ed400798t http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400798t
25. Tas Y, Sungur-Vural S, Öztekin C2014A study of science teachers’ homework practicesRes Educ91456410.7227/RIE.91.1.5 http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/RIE.91.1.5
26. Bowman CR, Gulacar O, King DB2014Predicting student success via online homework usageJ Learn Des724761
27. Planchard M, Daniel KL, Maroo J, Mishra C, McLean T2015Homework, motivation, and academic achievement in a college genetics courseBioscene J Coll Biol Teach4121118
28. Santoro K, Bilisoly R2015Creating, automating, and assessing online homework in introductory statistics and mathematics classesArXiv Prepr ArXiv:1501.03215 [stat.OT]
29. Lazarova K2015The role of online homework in low-enrollment college introductory physics coursesJ Coll Sci Teach443172110.2505/4/jcst15_044_03_17 http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst15_044_03_17
30. Feng M, Roschelle J, Heffernan N, Fairman J, Murphy R2014Implementation of an intelligent tutoring system for online homework support in an efficacy trial
31. Shaw D2015The impact of using a clicker system and online homework on teaching effectiveness and student learning experienceFASEB J291 Suppl687
32. Boucheix J-M, Schneider E2009Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systemsLearn Instr19211212710.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.004
33. Höffler TN, Leutner D2011The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations—evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesisComput Hum Behav27120921610.1016/j.chb.2010.07.042 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.042
34. Yarden H, Yarden A2010Learning using dynamic and static visualizations: students’ comprehension, prior knowledge and conceptual status of a biotechnological methodRes Sci Educ40337540210.1007/s11165-009-9126-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9126-0
35. Katsioloudis P, Dickerson D, Jovanovic V, Jones M2015Evaluation of static vs. dynamic visualizations for engineering technology students and implications on spatial visualization ability: a quasi-experimental studyEng Des Graph J7911428
36. Lowe RK2003Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphicsLearn Instr13215717610.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X
37. Driver R, Bell B1986Students’ thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist viewSch Sci Rev67240443456
38. Songer CJ, Mintzes JJ1994Understanding cellular respiration: an analysis of conceptual change in college biologyJ Res Sci Teach31662163710.1002/tea.3660310605 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310605
39. Alparslan C, Tekkaya C, Geban Ö2003Using the conceptual change instruction to improve learningJ Biol Educ37313313710.1080/00219266.2003.9655868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655868
40. Mann M, Treagust DF1998A pencil and paper instrument to diagnose students’ conceptions of breathing, gas exchange and respirationAust Sci Teach J44255
41. Seymour J, Longden B1991Respiration—that’s breathing isn’t it?J Biol Educ25317718310.1080/00219266.1991.9655203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1991.9655203
42. McDermott LC1991Millikan lecture 1990: what we teach and what is learned—closing the gapAm J Phys59430131510.1119/1.16539 http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.16539
43. Wright LK, Fisk JN, Newman DL2014DNA → RNA: what do students think the arrow means?CBE Life Sci Educ13233834810.1187/cbe.CBE-13-09-01884041510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.CBE-13-09-0188
44. Jensen JL, Kummer TA, Godoy PDdM2015Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learningCBE Life Sci Educ141ar510.1187/cbe.14-08-0129256995434353080 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129
45. Andrews TM, Leonard MJ, Colgrove CA, Kalinowski ST2011Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology coursesCBE Life Sci Educ10439440510.1187/cbe.11-07-0061221353733228657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
46. Anliker R, Aydt M, Kellams M, Rothlisberger J1997Improving student achievement through encouragement of homework completionInstitute of Education SciencesWashington, DC
47. Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham DT2013Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychologyPsychol Sci Public Interest14145810.1177/152910061245326626173288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
48. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP2008Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biologyCBE Life Sci Educ7436838110.1187/cbe.08-05-0024190474242592046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
49. Mayer RE2009Multimedia learningCambridge University PressCambridge, MA10.1017/CBO9780511811678 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
50. Mayer RE, Moreno R2002Animation as an aid to multimedia learningEduc Psychol Rev141879910.1023/A:1013184611077 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013184611077
51. Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW1983Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis3WileyNew York, NY
52. Bray F2007Gender and technologyAnnu Rev Anthropol361375310.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094328
53. Ching CC, Basham JD, Jang E2005The legacy of the digital divide gender, socioeconomic status, and early exposure as predictors of full-spectrum technology use among young adultsUrban Educ40439441110.1177/0042085905276389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085905276389
54. Islam MA, Rahim NAA, Liang TC, Momtaz H2011Effect of demographic factors on e-learning effectiveness in a higher learning institution in MalaysiaInt Educ Stud4111210.5539/ies.v4n1p112 http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n1p112
55. O’Day DH2010Animations are dynamic, effective tools for science teaching: if you just follow the rules!J Coll Teach Learn7121925
56. Wong M, Castro-Alonso JC, Ayres P, Paas F2015Gender effects when learning manipulative tasks from instructional animations and static presentationsEduc Technol Soc1843752
57. McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson CA, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Mumper RJ2014The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions schoolAcad Med89223624310.1097/ACM.0000000000000086 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000086
58. O’Flaherty J, Phillips C2015The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping reviewInternet High Educ25859510.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
59. Eagan K, Stolzenberg EB, Lozano JB, Aragon MC, Suchard MR, Hurtado S2014Undergraduate teaching faculty: the 2013–2014 HERI faculty surveyHigher Education Research Institute, UCLALos Angeles, CA
jmbe.v18i1.1223.citations
jmbe/18/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1223
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1223
2017-04-21
2017-11-19

Abstract:

Many undergraduate biology courses have begun to implement instructional strategies aimed at increasing student interaction with course material outside of the classroom. Two examples of such practices are introducing students to concepts as preparation prior to instruction, and as conceptual reinforcement after the instructional period. Using a three-group design, we investigate the impact of an animation developed as part of the Virtual Cell Animation Collection on the topic of concentration gradients and their role in the actions of ATP synthase as a means of pre-class preparation or post-class reinforcement compared with a no-intervention control group. Results from seven sections of introductory biology ( = 732) randomized to treatments over two semesters show that students who viewed animation as preparation ( = 0.44, < 0.001) or as reinforcement ( = 0.53, < 0.001) both outperformed students in the control group on a follow-up assessment. Direct comparison of the preparation and reinforcement treatments shows no significant difference in student outcomes between the two treatment groups ( = 0.87). Results suggest that while student interaction with animations on the topic of concentration gradients outside of the classroom may lead to greater learning outcomes than the control group, in the traditional lecture-based course the timing of such interactions may not be as important.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/18/1/jmbe-18-5.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1223&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Experimental treatment groups as defined by the presence and timing of their interaction with Virtual Cell animations.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1223
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Descriptive statistics for mean score on the follow-up assignment by treatment condition. Bars in the boxes represent the median; the box represents the range between the first and third quartile, and the whiskers represent the standard deviation.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1223
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error