Game-based activities targeting visual literacy skills to increase understanding of biomolecule structure and function concepts in undergraduate biochemistry.
active learning
biochemistry
biomolecules
card sorting
game-based
novice expert
structure-function
visual literacy
Journal
Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN: 1539-3429
Titre abrégé: Biochem Mol Biol Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100970605
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
25
11
2019
revised:
23
04
2020
accepted:
26
05
2020
pubmed:
18
11
2020
medline:
8
7
2021
entrez:
17
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Introductory biochemistry courses are often challenging for students because they require the integration of chemistry, biology, physics, math, and physiology knowledge and frameworks to understand and apply a large body of knowledge. This can be complicated by students' persistent misconceptions of fundamental concepts and lack of fluency with the extensive visual and symbolic literacy used in biochemistry. Card sorting tasks and game-based activities have been used to reveal insights into how students are assimilating, organizing, and structuring disciplinary knowledge, and how they are progressing along a continuum from disciplinary novice to expert. In this study, game-based activities and card sorting tasks were used to promote and evaluate students' understanding of fundamental structure-function relationships in biochemistry. Our results suggest that while many markers of expertise increased for both the control and intervention groups over the course of the semester, students involved in the intervention activities tended to move further towards expert-like sorting. This indicates that intentional visual literacy game-based activities have the ability to build underdeveloped skills in undergraduate students.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
94-107Subventions
Organisme : National Science Foundation
Informations de copyright
© 2020 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Références
Treagust D. Teaching science for conceptual change: Theory and practice. In: Vosniadou S, editor. International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York, NY: Routledge, 1988; p. 629-646.
Chi MTH. Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In: Vosniadou S, editor. Handbook of research on conceptual change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 2008; p. 61-82.
Cranford KN, Tiettmeyer JM, Chuprinko BC, Jordan S, Grove NP. Measuring load on working memory: the use of heart rate as a means of measuring chemistry students' cognitive load. J Chem Educ. 2014;91(5):641-647.
Wood EJ. Biochemistry is a difficult subject for both student and teacher. Biochem Educ. 1990;18(4):170-172.
Offerdahl EG, Arneson JB, Byrne N. Lighten the load: Scaffolding visual literacy in biochemistry and molecular biology. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2017;16(1):1-11.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: AAAS, 2011.
National Research Council (U.S.), Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press, 2012.
Linenberger KJ, Holme TA. Biochemistry instructors' views toward developing and assessing visual literacy in their courses. J Chem Educ. 2015;92(1):23-31.
Arneson JB, Offerdahl EG. Visual literacy in bloom: Using bloom's taxonomy to support visual learning skills. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2018;17(1):1-11.
Schönborn KJ, Anderson TR. The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2006;34(2):94-102.
Kramer IM, Dahmani H-R, Delouche P, Bidabe M, Schneeberger P. Education catching up with science: Preparing students for three-dimensional literacy in cell biology. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2012;11(4):437-447.
Chi MTH, Feltovich PJ, Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices*. Cognit Sci. 1981;5(2):121-152.
Irby SM, Phu AL, Borda EJ, Haskell TR, Steed N, Meyer Z. Use of a card sort task to assess students' ability to coordinate three levels of representation in chemistry. Chem Educ Res Practice. 2016;17(2):337-352.
Smith MU. Expertise and the organization of knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic counselors, faculty, and students on problem categorization tasks. J Res Sci Teach. 1992;29(2):179-205.
Snyder JL. An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics. Int J Sci Educ. 2000;22(9):979-992.
Mason A, Singh C. Assessing expertise in introductory physics using categorization task. Phys Rev Spec Topics Phys Educ Res. 2011;7(2):020110.
Mason A, Singh C. Using categorization of problems as an instructional tool to help introductory students learn physics. Phys Educ. 2016;51(2):025009.
Smith JI, Combs ED, Nagami PH, et al. Development of the biology card sorting task to measure conceptual expertise in biology. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2013;12(4):628-644.
Krieter FE, Julius RW, Tanner KD, Bush SD, Scott GE. Thinking like a chemist: Development of a chemistry card-sorting task to probe conceptual expertise. J Chem Educ. 2016;93(5):811-820.
Ke J, Monk M, Duschl R. Learning introductory quantum physics: Sensorimotor experiences and mental models. Int J Sci Educ. 2005;27(13):1571-1594.
Rottman BM, Gentner D, Goldwater MB. Causal systems categories: Differences in novice and expert categorization of causal phenomena. Cognit Sci. 2012;36(5):919-932.
Kozma RB, Russell J. Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teach. 1997;34(9):949-968.
Domin DS, Al-Masum M, Mensah J. Students' categorizations of organic compounds. Chem Educ Res Practice. 2008;9(2):114-121.
Stains M, Talanquer V. Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise. J Res Sci Teach. 2008;45(7):771-793.
Galloway KR, Leung MW, Flynn AB. Patterns of reactions: A card sort task to investigate students' organization of organic chemistry reactions. Chem Educ Res Practice. 2019;20(1):30-52.
Bissonnette SA, Combs ED, Nagami PH, et al. Using the biology card sorting task to measure changes in conceptual expertise during postsecondary biology education. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2017;16(1):1-15.
Wolf SF, Dougherty DP, Kortemeyer G. Empirical approach to interpreting card-sorting data. Phys Rev Special Topics Phys Educ Res. 2012a;8(1):010124.
Wolf SF, Dougherty DP, Kortemeyer G. Rigging the deck: Selecting good problems for expert-novice card-sorting experiments. Phys Rev Special Topics Phys Educ Res. 2012b;8(2):020116.
Johnstone AH. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn. 1991;7(2):75-83.
Hortin J. Visual literacy and visual thinking. In: Burbank L, Pett D, editors. Contributions to the study of visual literacy. Bloomington, IN: International Visual Literacy Association, 1983; p. 92-106.
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (2019). Accreditation program for bachelor's degrees in biochemistry and molecular biology. Retrieved September 13, 2019. Available from: http://www.asbmb.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Application/Application%20Guide_2019.pdf
Avgerinou M, Ericson J. A review of the concept of visual literacy. Br J Educ Technol. 1997;28(4):280-291.
Lowe RK. Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. Eur J Psychol Educ. 1996;11(4):377-397.
Lowe RK. Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn Instr. 2003;13(2003):157-176.
Roth W-M. Reading graphs: Contributions to an integrative concept of literacy. J Curric Stud. 2002;34(1):1-24.
Cheng C-H, Lowe RK, Scaife M. Cognitive science approaches to understanding diagrammatic representations. Artif Intell Rev. 2001;15(1):79-94.
Winn W. An account of how readers search from information in diagrams. Contemp Educ Psychol. 1993;18(2):162-185.
Kindfield ACH. Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. J Learn Sci. 1993/1994;3(1):1-36.
Schönborn KJ, Anderson TR. Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap: Foundations for assessing and developing biochemistry students' visual literacy. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2010;38(5):347-354.
Forbes-Lorman RM, Harris MA, Chang WS, Dent EW, Nordheim EV, Franzen MA. Physical models have gender-specific effects on student understanding of protein structure-function relationships: Protein structure-function relationships. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2016;44(4):326-335.
Cooper AK, Oliver-Hoyo MT. Creating 3D physical models to probe student understanding of macromolecular structure: Creating 3D physical models. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2017;45(6):491-500.
Roberts JR, Hagedorn E, Dillenburg P, Patrick M, Herman T. Physical models enhance molecular three-dimensional literacy in an introductory biochemistry course. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2005;33(2):105-110.
Harris MA, Peck RF, Colton S, Morris J, Chaibub Neto E, Kallio J. A combination of hand-held models and computer imaging programs helps students answer oral questions about molecular structure and function: A controlled investigation of student learning. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2009;8(1):29-43.
Terrell CR, Listenberger LL. Using molecular visualization to explore protein structure and function and enhance student facility with computational tools. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2017;45(4):318-328.
Jaswal SS, O'Hara PB, Williamson PL, Springer AL. Teaching structure: Student use of software tools for understanding macromolecular structure in an undergraduate biochemistry course. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2013;41(5):351-359.
Srivastava A. Building mental models by dissecting physical models: Building mental models by dissecting physical models. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2016;44(1):7-11.
Guzman K, Bartlett J. Using simple manipulatives to improve student comprehension of a complex biological process: Protein synthesis. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2012;40(5):320-327.
Herman T, Morris J, Colton S, et al. Tactile teaching: Exploring protein structure/function using physical models. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2006;34(4):247-254.
Gunersel AB, Fleming S. Bio-organic reaction animations (BioORA): Student performance, student perceptions, and instructor feedback. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2014;42(3):190-202.
Rigsby RE, Parker AB. Using the PyMOL application to reinforce visual understanding of protein structure. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2016;44(5):433-437.
Geldenhuys WJ, Hayes M, Van der Schyf CJ, Allen DD, Malan SF. Receptor surface models in the classroom: Introducing molecular modeling to students in a 3-D world. J Chem Educ. 2007;84(6):979.
Herráez A. Biomolecules in the computer: Jmol to the rescue. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2006;34(4):255-261.
Shaffer DW, Squire KR, Halverson R, Gee JP. Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 2005;87(2):105-111.
Piaget J. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1962.
DeLoache JS. Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science. 1987;238(4833):1556-1557.
Plass JL, Homer BD, Kinzer CK. Foundations of game-based learning. Educ Psychol. 2015;50(4):258-283.
Astington JW, Harris PL, Olson DR. Developing theories of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Homer BD, Hayward E. Cognitive and representational development in children. In: Cartwright KB, editor. Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2008; p. 19-41.
Deater-Deckard K, Chang M, Evans ME. Engagement states and learning from educational games. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2013;2013(139):21-30.
Meece JL, Blumenfeld PC, Hoyle RH. Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. J Educ Psychol. 1989;80(4):514.
Ke F, Xie K, Xie Y. Game-based learning engagement: A theory- and data-driven exploration: Game-based learning engagement. Br J Educ Technol. 2016;47(6):1183-1201.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018.
De Winter JC. Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment. Res Eval. 2013;18(10):1-12.