1887

Using Pre-Assessment and In-Class Questions to Change Student Understanding of Molecular Movements

    Authors: J. Shi1,*, Jennifer K. Knight2, Hyonho Chun3, Nancy A. Guild2, Jennifer M. Martin2
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309; 2: Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309; 3: Department of Statistics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 22 June 2016 Accepted 15 December 2016 Published 21 April 2017
    • ©2017 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

    • Supplemental materials available at http://asmscience.org/jmbe
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Integrative Physiology, 354 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0347. Phone: 303-492-8078. Fax: 303-492-4009. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    64.08 Kb
  • XML
    65.53 Kb
  • PDF
    672.29 Kb

    Abstract:

    Understanding how different types of molecules move through cell membranes is a fundamental part of cell biology. To identify and address student misconceptions surrounding molecular movement through cell membranes, we surveyed student understanding on this topic using pre-class questions, in-class clicker questions, and subsequent exam questions in a large introductory biology course. Common misconceptions identified in student responses to the pre-class assessment questions were used to generate distractors for clicker questions. Two-tier diagnostic clicker questions were used to probe incoming common student misconceptions (first tier) and their reasoning (second tier). Two subsequent lectures with assessment clicker questions were used to help students construct a new framework to understand molecular movement through cell membranes. Comparison of pre-assessment and post-assessment (exam) performance showed dramatic improvement in students’ understanding of molecular movement: student answers to exam questions were 74.6% correct with correct reasoning while only 1.3% of the student answers were correct with correct reasoning on the pre-class assessment. Our results show that students’ conceptual understanding of molecular movement through cell membranes progressively increases through discussions of a series of clicker questions and suggest that this clicker-based teaching strategy was highly effective in correcting common student misconceptions on this topic.

Key Concept Ranking

Cell Movements
0.47742146
Proteins
0.4207578
0.47742146

References & Citations

1. Wandersee JH, Mintzes JJ, Novak JD 1994 Research on alternative conceptions in science 177 210 Gabel D Handbook of research on science teaching and learning Simon & Schuster Macmillan New York
2. Eisen Y, Stavy R 1988 Students’ understanding of photosynthesis Am Biol Teach 50 4 208 212 10.2307/4448710 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4448710
3. Hazel E, Prosser M 1994 First-year university students’ understanding of photosynthesis, their study strategies and learning context Am Biol Teach 56 5 274 279 10.2307/4449820 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4449820
4. Haslam F, Treagust DF 1987 Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple-choice instrument J Biol Educ 21 203 211 10.1080/00219266.1987.9654897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1987.9654897
5. Fisher KM 1985 A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation J Res Sci Teach 22 53 62 10.1002/tea.3660220105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220105
6. Robic S 2010 Ten common misconceptions about protein structure, folding, and stability CBE Life Sci Educ 9 189 195 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0018 20810950 2931665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0018
7. Darnell J, Lodish H, Baltimore D 1990 Molecular cell biology 2nd ed W. H. Freeman and Co New York, NY
8. Kalinowski ST, Leonard MJ, Andrews TM 2010 Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of DNA CBE Life Sci Educ 9 87 97 10.1187/cbe.09-12-0088 20516354 2879385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0088
9. Odom AL 1995 Secondary & college biology students’ misconceptions about diffusion & osmosis Am Biol Teach 57 409 415 10.2307/4450030 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4450030
10. Garvin-Doxas K, Klymkowsky MW 2008 Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: lessons learned from building the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI) CBE Life Sci Educ 7 227 233 10.1187/cbe.07-08-0063 18519614 2424310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-08-0063
11. Meir E, Perry JP, Stal D, Maruca S, Klopfer E 2005 How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biol Educ 4 235 248 10.1187/cbe.04-09-0049 16220144 1200778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-09-0049
12. Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA 1982 Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change Sci Educ 66 2 211 227 10.1002/sce.3730660207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
13. Novak JD 1990 Concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education Instr Sci 19 29 52 10.1007/BF00377984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00377984
14. Abraham JK, Meir E, Perry J, Herron JC, Maruca S, Stal D 2009 Addressing undergraduate student misconceptions about natural selection with an interactive simulated laboratory Evol Educ Outreach 2 3 393 404 10.1007/s12052-009-0142-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0142-3
15. Katz DA 1991 Science demonstrations, experiments, and resources: a reference list for elementary through college teachers emphasizing chemistry with some physics and life science J Chem Educ 68 3 235 244 10.1021/ed068p235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed068p235
16. Keles E, Kefeli P 2010 Determination of student misconceptions in “photosynthesis and respiration” unit and correcting them with the help of CAI material Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2 3111 3118 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.474
17. Balci S, Cakiroglu J, Tekkaya C 2006 Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools Biochem Mol Biol Educ 34 199 203 10.1002/bmb.2006.49403403199 21638670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2006.49403403199
18. Tanner KD 2010 Order matters: using the 5E model to align teaching with how people learn CBE Life Sci Educ 9 159 164 10.1187/cbe.10-06-0082 20810945 2931660 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-06-0082
19. Shi J, Wood WB, Martin JM, Guild NA, Vicens Q, Knight JK 2010 A diagnostic assessment for Introductory Molecular and Cell Biology CBE Life Sci Educ 9 453 461 10.1187/cbe.10-04-0055 21123692 2995763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-04-0055
20. Brame CJ, Biel R 2015 Test-enhancing learning: the potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science courses CBE Life Sci Educ 14 1 12 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0208
21. Karpicke JD, Blunt JR 2011 Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping Science 331 772 775 10.1126/science.1199327 21252317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327
22. Roediger HL, Karpicke JD 2006 Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention Psychol Sci 17 3 249 255 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x 16507066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
23. Agresti A 1990 Categorical data analysis 350 354 Wiley New York, NY
24. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild NA, Sue TT 2009 Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions Science 323 122 124 10.1126/science.1165919 19119232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919
25. Finkelstein A 1987 Water movement through lipid bilayers, pores and plasma membranes: theory and reality 4:94 106 Wiley Interscience, Distinguished Lecture Series of the Society of General Physiologists
26. Smith JP, diSessa AA, Roschelle J 1993 Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition J Learn Sci 3 2 115 163 10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
27. Baker DP, Fabrega R, Galindo C, Mishook J 2004 Instructional time and national achievement: cross-national evidence Prosp Quart Rev Compar Educ 34 3 311 334 10.1007/s11125-004-5310-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-004-5310-1
28. Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK 2011 Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions CBE Life Sci Educ 10 55 63 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101 21364100 3046888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
2017-04-21
2019-10-14

Abstract:

Understanding how different types of molecules move through cell membranes is a fundamental part of cell biology. To identify and address student misconceptions surrounding molecular movement through cell membranes, we surveyed student understanding on this topic using pre-class questions, in-class clicker questions, and subsequent exam questions in a large introductory biology course. Common misconceptions identified in student responses to the pre-class assessment questions were used to generate distractors for clicker questions. Two-tier diagnostic clicker questions were used to probe incoming common student misconceptions (first tier) and their reasoning (second tier). Two subsequent lectures with assessment clicker questions were used to help students construct a new framework to understand molecular movement through cell membranes. Comparison of pre-assessment and post-assessment (exam) performance showed dramatic improvement in students’ understanding of molecular movement: student answers to exam questions were 74.6% correct with correct reasoning while only 1.3% of the student answers were correct with correct reasoning on the pre-class assessment. Our results show that students’ conceptual understanding of molecular movement through cell membranes progressively increases through discussions of a series of clicker questions and suggest that this clicker-based teaching strategy was highly effective in correcting common student misconceptions on this topic.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/18/1/jmbe-18-3.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Study design. Students randomly received two questions (pre-assessment) on paper about MMTM in class ( 157). The first question was factual and the second question required explanations of their answers to the first question. Student free responses were used as the distracters for the clicker questions, which were designed to identify student misconceptions in the area of MMTM. Assessment clicker questions addressed the importance of molecular polarity and relative size on MMTM. Exam questions were used to assess student retention of these concepts. MMTM = molecular movement through cell membranes.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2A

Click to view

FIGURE 2A

Pre-assessment question 1. Students were asked to select the molecules that are not able to diffuse through a membrane composed only of phospholipids (without proteins, part 1) and explain their reasoning (part 2). The correct answers are polar molecules B, C, F, J and charged molecules D and G.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2B

Click to view

FIGURE 2B

Pre-assessment question 2. Students were asked to select the molecule that will diffuse fastest through a membrane composed only of phospholipids (without proteins, first tier) and explain their reasoning (second tier). Student answers were as follows: 18% chose A (propanol), 20% chose B (methanol), 62% chose C (water). The correct answer is C.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Performance on diagnostic clicker questions. The percentage of students who correctly answered each diagnostic clicker question is shown ( 279). Question 1 (Q1) is about polarity and Question 3 (Q3) is about size. Questions 2 and 4 (Q2 and Q4) are about the reasoning for Q1 and Q2 respectively. * The percentage of correct answers increased after student discussion ( 0.001; McNemar’s chi-squared test). # The percentage of correct answers decreased from Q1 and Q3 (choose a correct answer) to Q2 and Q4 (reasoning), respectively ( 0.001; McNemar’s chi-squared test). Error bars show the SEM. The short brackets are used to indicate the comparison of performance for individual clicker questions before and after the peer discussion. The longer brackets are used to indicate the comparison of performance between first tier and second tier clicker questions. AD = after discussion; SEM = standard error of the mean.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 4

Click to view

FIGURE 4

Question addressing the importance of polarity and size in determining how a molecule diffuses through membranes. The percentage of students answering the clicker questions correctly is shown ( 281 for class 2 and 282 for class 3). In both classes, question 1 (Q1) is about how a molecule can diffuse through membranes composed only of phospholipids and question 2 (Q2) is about how a molecule can diffuse through those same membranes. Student discussions and instructor explanation occurred at the end of each clicker question. * 0.001, McNemar’s chi-squared test. Error bars show the SEM. The long brackets are used to indicate the comparison of performance for two different questions that assess the same concept, asked respectively in class 1 and class 2. SEM = standard error of the mean.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 5

Click to view

FIGURE 5

Exam question ( 258). Students were asked to select the molecule that will diffuse the fastest through a pure phospholipid bilayer (without proteins) and explain their reasoning. The correct answer is C (74.6% students chose this answer). Incorrect answers B and E were chosen respectively by 7.2% and 18.2% of students.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1195
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