Aiming for the Bullseye: Targeted activities decrease misconceptions related to enzyme function for undergraduate biochemistry students.
active learning
assessment and the design of probes for student understanding and learning
assessment of educational activities
concept inventory
enzyme substrate interactions
enzymes and catalysis
molecular visualization
physical models as learning tools
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:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
revised:
10
06
2021
received:
01
12
2020
accepted:
10
08
2021
pubmed:
22
8
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
21
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Biochemistry curricula present a particular challenge to undergraduate students with abstract concepts which can lead to misconceptions that impede learning. In particular, these students have difficulty understanding enzyme structure and function concepts. Targeted learning activities and three-dimensional (3D) physical models are proposed to help students challenge these misconceptions and increase conceptual understanding. Here we assessed such pedagogical tools using the Enzyme-Substrate Interactions Concept Inventory (ESICI) to measure (mis)conceptual changes from Pre- to Post- time points in a single semester undergraduate biochemistry course. A Control group of students engaged with the active learning activities without the 3D physical models and students in the Intervention group utilized these activities with the 3D physical models. At the Post- time point both groups had higher, yet similar ESICI scores of the same magnitude as the highest scoring group from the national sample. Concomitantly, many misconception markers decreased compared to the national sample, although some of these differed between the Control and Intervention groups. Based on this assessment, both pedagogical approaches successfully increased conceptual understanding and targeted many of the misconceptions measured by the ESICI, however, several misconceptions persisted. Surprisingly, the students who used the 3D physical models did not demonstrate a further decrease in the misconception markers. Additionally, psychometric evaluation of the ESICI with our sample recommends the revision of several questions to improve the validity of this assessment. We also offer suggestions to improve instruction and pedagogical tools with further avenues for research on learning.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
904-916Informations de copyright
© 2021 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Références
Howell ME, Booth CS, Sikich SM, Helikar T, van Dijk K, Roston R, et al. Interactive learning modules with 3D printed models improve student understanding of protein structure-function relationships. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2020;48:356-68.
Cooper AK, Oliver-Hoyo MT. Creating 3D physical models to probe student understanding of macromolecular structure: creating 3D physical models. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2017;45:491-500.
Babilonia-Rosa MA, Kuo HK, Oliver-Hoyo MT. Using 3D printed physical models to monitor knowledge integration in biochemistry. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2018;19:1199-215.
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 Ed. 2016;44:326-35.
Newman DL, Stefkovich M, Clasen C, Franzen MA, Wright LK. Physical models can provide superior learning opportunities beyond the benefits of active engagements: physical models improve learning. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2018;46:435-44.
Terrell CR, Listenberger LL. Using molecular visualization to explore protein structure and function and enhance student facility with computational tools. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2017;45:318-28.
Terrell CR, Franzen MA, Herman T, Malapati S, Newman DL, Wright LK. Physical models support active learning as effective thinking tools. In: Bussey TJ, Linenberger Cortes K, Austin RC, editors. ACS symposium series. Volume 1337. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society; 2019. p. 43-62.
Srivastava A. Building mental models by dissecting physical models: building mental models by dissecting physical models. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2016;44:7-11.
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 Ed. 2005;33:105-10.
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 Ed. 2007;84:979.
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;8:29-43.
Jittivadhna K, Ruenwongsa P, Panijpan B. Beyond textbook illustrations: hand-held models of ordered DNA and protein structures as 3D supplements to enhance student learning of helical biopolymers. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2010;38:359-64.
Jenkinson J, McGill G. Visualizing protein interactions and dynamics: evolving a visual language for molecular animation. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2012;11:103-10.
DeSutter D, Stieff M. Teaching students to think spatially through embodied actions: design principles for learning environments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Cogn Ther Res. 2017;2:22.
Howell ME, van Dijk K, Booth CS, Helikar T, Couch BA, Roston RL. Visualizing the invisible: a guide to designing, printing, and incorporating dynamic 3D molecular models to teach structure-function relationships. J Mol Biol Ed. 2018;19:1-3.
Howell ME, Booth CS, Sikich SM, Helikar T, Roston RL, Couch BA, et al. Student understanding of DNA structure-function relationships improves from using 3D learning modules with dynamic 3D printed models. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2019;47:303-17.
Herman T, Morris J, Colton S, Batiza A, Patrick M, Franzen M, et al. Tactile teaching: exploring protein structure/function using physical models. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2006;34:247-54.
Larsson C, Tibell LAE. Challenging Students' intuitions-the influence of a tangible model of virus assembly on Students' conceptual reasoning about the process of self-assembly. Res Sci Ed. 2015;45:663-90.
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Foundational Concepts. https://www.asbmb.org/education/core-concept-teaching-strategies/foundational-concepts. Accessed November 29, 2020.
Bretz SL, Linenberger KJ. Development of the enzyme-substrate interactions concept inventory. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2012;40:229-33.
Linenberger KJ, Bretz SL. Biochemistry Students' ideas about how an enzyme interacts with a substrate: enzyme interacts with a substrate. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2015;43:213-22.
Linenberger KJ, Bretz SL. Biochemistry Students' ideas about shape and charge in enzyme-substrate interactions: shape and charge misconceptions about enzyme-substrate interactions. Biochem Mol Biol Ed. 2014;42:203-12.
Schönborn KJ, Anderson T. A model of factors determining Students' ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. Int J Sci Educ. 2009;31:193-232.
Kozma RB, Russell J. Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teach. 1997;34:949-68.
Kindfield ACH. Understanding a basic biological process: expert and novice models of meiosis. Sci Educ. 1994;78:255-83.
Ametller J, Pintó R. Students' reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. Int J Sci Educ. 2002;24:285-312.
Stylianidou F, Ormerod F, Ogborn J. Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils' readings of them. Int J Sci Educ. 2002;24:257-83.
Pena BM, Gil Quilez MJ. The importance of images in astronomy education. Int J Sci Educ. 2001;23:1125-35.
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.
Marshall P. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In: 1st International conference on tangible and embedded interaction, TEI '07: February 15-17, 2007, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA ; [theme of the CCT 14th Annual Mardi Grass Conference]; Ulmer, B., Association for Computing Machinery, Eds.; Curran: Red Hook, NY; 2007.
Harrison AG, Treagust DF. Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Sci Educ. 2000;84:352-81.
Gabel D, Sherwood R. The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. J Res Sci Teach. 1980;17:75-81.
Ainsworth S. The functions of multiple representations. Comput Educ. 1993;33:131-52.
Gilbert JK. Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. Visualiz Sci Educ. 2005;1:9-27.
Gillet A, Sanner M, Stoffler D, Olson A. Tangible interfaces for structural molecular biology. Structure. 2005;13:483-91.
Martin T, Schwartz DL. Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cogn Sci. 2005;29:587-625.
Cowart M. Embodied cognition. In: The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/embodcog/. Accessed December 6, 2019.
St. Louis, Christian. Tipranavir (Protease Inhibitor). YouTube. Retrieved from: Boehringer Ingelheim, (Producer); 2003. HIV replication. [Web Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxoQWknNJ8 . Accessed June 10, 2021.
Ghosh AK, Sridhar PR, Leshchenko S, Hussain AK, Li J, Kovalevsky AY, et al. Structure-based Design of Novel HIV-1 protease inhibitors to combat drug resistance. J Med Chem. 2006;49:5252-61.
Turner SR et al. Tipranavir (PNU-140690): a potent, orally bioavailable Nonpeptidic HIV protease inhibitor of the 5,6-Dihydro-4-hydroxy-2-pyrone sulfonamide class J. Med Chem. 1998;41:3467-76.
Nelson DL, Cox MM, Lehninger AL. Lehninger principles of biochemistry. 6th ed. New York: Macmillan; 2013.
Terrell C.R., Kersten, C. (2021) It's a Substrate…It's a Protein… No-It's an Enzyme! Teaching using 3D Serine Protease Physical Modeling Activities to Confront Misconceptions. CourseSource. Accepted April 21, 2021.
Kane MT. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores: validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. J Educ Meas. 2013;50:1-73.
Revelle W. Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research [software]. Northwestern University; 2018. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing; 2019. https://www.R-project.org/.
Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105:399-412.
Viladrich C, Angulo-Brunet A, Doval E. Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Ann Psicol (Spain). 2017;33:755.
Kaiser HF. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35:401-15.
Howard MC. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we improve? Int J Hum-Comp Interface. 2016;32:51-62.
Flora DB, LaBrish C, Chalmers RP. Old and new ideas for data screening and assumption testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Front Psych. 2012;3:1-21.
Linenberger KJ. Biochemistry Students' understandings of enzyme-substrate interactions as investigated through multiple representations and the enzyme-substrate interactions concept inventory. Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. Miami University; 2011. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.
Villafañe SM, Loertscher J, Minderhout V, Lewis JE. Uncovering students' incorrect ideas about foundational concepts for biochemistry. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2011;12:210-8.
Grayson DJ, Anderson TR, Crossley LG. A four-level framework for identifying and classifying student conceptual and reasoning difficulties. Int J Sci Educ. 2001;23:611-22.