The development of a conceptual framework and tools to assess undergraduates' principled use of models in cellular biology

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 441-452

  Richmond, Gail ^a   Merritt, Brett ^a   Urban Lurain, Mark ^a   Parker, Joyce ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CYTOLOGY; EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; SCIENCE; STUDENT; TEACHING;

CELL BIOLOGY; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EID: 78650695803     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.09-11-0082     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., and Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39, 952-978.
2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., and Bloom, B. S. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Longman.
3. Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. (2nd ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
4. Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ. 5, 7-74.
5. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals (1st ed.), New York: Longman, Green.
6. Boyer, E. (1998). The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities. Stony Brook, NY.
7. Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. (eds.). (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/html/howpeople1.
8. Brewer, C. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. Bioscience. 54, 1034-1039.
9. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 9-20.
10. Campbell, J., and Mayer, R. (2006). Fostering cognitive activity in college lecture classes. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (April 10, 2006), San Francisco, CA.
11. Cartier, J. (2000a). Using a Modeling Approach to Explore Scientific Epistemology with High School Biology Students. Research, Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
12. Cartier, J. (2000b). Assessment of Explanatory Models in Genetics: Insights into Students' Conceptions of Scientific Models. Research, Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
13. Coll, R. K., and Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners' mental models of ionic bonding. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 464-486.
14. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning (2000). How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Crowe, A., Dirks, C., and Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7, 368-381.
16. DiSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction 10, 105-225.
17. Downes, S. (1992). The importance of models in theorizing: a deflationary semantic view. In D. Hull, M. Forbes, and K. Okruhlik (Eds.), PSA 1992, Vol. 1. Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 142-153.
18. Fitch, J. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: a technology solution. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 52, 71-77.
19. Garvin-Doxas, K., and Klymkowsky, M. W. (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.
20. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding Scientific Reasoning (3rd ed.), Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
22. Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philos. Sci. 71, 742-752.
23. Gilbert, S. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 73-79.
24. Gilbert, J., Boulter, C., and Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. In: Developing Models in Science Education, ed. J. Gilbert and C. Boulter, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 193-208.
25. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., and Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 799-822.
26. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30, 141-158.
27. Khodor, J., Halme, D. G., and Walker, G. C. (2004). A hierarchical biology concept framework: a tool for course design. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 111-121.
28. Klymkowsky, M. W., and Garvin-Doxas, K. (2008). Recognizing student misconceptions through Ed's tools and the biology concept inventory. PLoS Biol. 6, e3.
29. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In: Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters, ed. T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, and F. Dremock, Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 29-54.
30. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Language and Educational Processes, Norwood, N.J: Ablex Publishing Corp.
31. Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics, London, England: Taylor and Francis.
32. Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., and Thagard, P. (eds.). (1999). Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
33. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
34. Mazur, E. (1996). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35. McDermott, L.C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: what we teach and what is learned-closing the gap. Am. J. Physics 59, 301-315.
36. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform: Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
37. National Research Council (NRC) (1996a). From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id_9128.
38. NRC (1996b). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html
39. NRC (1999). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
40. NRC (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html.
41. NRC (2003a). Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id_10711.
42. NRC (2003b). BIO 2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id_10497.
43. National Science Board (1986). Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education, Washington, DC.
44. National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Plan of Action for Improving Mathematics, Science and Technology Education for all American Elementary and Secondary Students so That Their Achievement is the Best in the World by 1995, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
45. National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: Arlington, VA. www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1996/nsf96139/nsf96139.txt.
46. Nemirovsky, R., Rosebery, A. S., Solomon, J., and Warren, B. (eds.) (2005). Everyday Matters in Science and Mathematics: Studies of Complex Classroom Events, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum Associates.
47. Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., and Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual changes. Sci. Educ. 66, 211-227.
49. Prigogine, I. (1961). Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, New York: Interscience.
50. Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of Chaos, New York: Bantam.
51. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, New York: Oxford University Press.
52. Redish, E. F. (2003). A theoretical framework for physics education research: modeling student thinking. Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School in Physics, Course CLVI. Italian Physical Society.
53. Romesburg, H. C. (1984). Cluster Analysis for Researchers, Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications.
54. Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and Power: Toward a Political Philosophy of Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
55. Rutherford, F. J. (1990). Science for All Americans, New York: Oxford University Press.
56. Salthe, S. N. (1985). Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and Representation, New York: Columbia University Press.
57. Schrödinger, E. (1967). What is Life? Mind and Matter, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58. Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
59. Smith, J. I., and Tanner, K. (2010). The problem of revealing how students think: concept inventories and beyond. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 1-5.
60. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., and Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: a new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7, 422-430.
61. Strike, K. A., and Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In: Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology and Educational Theory and Practice, ed. R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 147-176.
62. Tanner, K., and Allen, D. (2002). Approaches to cell biology teaching: a primer on standards. Cell Biol. Educ. 1, 95-100.
63. Tanner, K., and Allen, D. (2005). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: understanding the wrong answers-teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 112-117.
64. Tobias, S. (1990). They're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier (Occasional paper on neglected problems in science education), Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
65. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., and Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. Intl. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 357.
66. Wilson, C., Anderson, C. W., Merrill, J. E., Heidemann, M., Merritt, B. W., and Richmond, G. (in preparation). Principled reasoning, procedural display, and misconceptions in undergraduate students' accounts of cellular respiration.
67. Wilson, C. D., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J. E., Merritt, B. W., Richmond, G., Sibley, D. F., and Parker, J. M. (2006). Assessing students' ability to trace matter in dynamic systems in cell biology. Cell Biol. Educ. 5, 323-331.
68. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Educ. 45, 477-501.
69. Zhang, B., Patterson, R., Richmond, G., Parker, J. M., Merrill, J. E., and Urban-Lurain, M. (2005). Using self-response system and online learning environment in large college science classes-the technologies, instructional design, and implications. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, Singapore.