Engaging students into their own learning of foundational genetics concepts through the 5E learning cycle and interleaving teaching techniques

Journal of Biological Education

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2020, Pages 514-520

  Ylostalo, Joni H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARY HARDIN BAYLOR   (United States)

Author keywords

5E learning cycle; active learning; genetics; interleaving; puzzle activity; undergraduate microbiology

Indexed keywords

EID: 85066153931     PISSN: 00219266     EISSN: 21576009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2019.1620311     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Auerbach, A. J., and E., Schussler. 2017. “ A Vision and Change Reform of Introductory Biology Shifts Faculty Perceptions and Use of Active Learning.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 16 (4) Winter: ar57. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-08-0258.
2. Freeman, S., S. L., Eddy, M., McDonough, M. K., Smith, N., Okoroafor, H., Jordt, and M. P., Wenderoth. 2014. “ Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (23) Jun 10: 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
3. Gericke, N., and M., Smith. 2014. “ Twenty-First-Century Genetics and Genomics: Contributions of Hps-Informed Research and Pedagogy.” In International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching, 1 ed., edited by M. R., Matthews. 423-467. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science and Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_15.
4. Gericke, N., and S., Wahlberg. 2013. “ Clusters of Concepts in Molecular Genetics: A Study of Swedish Upper Secondary Science Students Understanding.” Journal of Biological Education 47 (2): 73–83. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2012.716785.
5. Goodwin, B., 2018. “ Student Learning that Works: How Brain Science Informs a Student Learning Model.” McREL International. 1–12.
6. Haak, D. C., J., HilleRisLambers, E., Pitre, and S., Freeman. 2011. “ Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology.” Science 332 (6034) Jun 3: 1213–1216. doi: 10.1126/science.332.6026.173-c.
7. Heinrich, K. K., K. M., Robson, and C. V., Baxter. 2017. “ Investigating Aquatic Insect Emergence: A Demonstration of the 5e Learning Cycle.” The American Biology Teacher 79 (3): 225–232. doi: 10.1525/abt.2017.79.3.225.
8. Ledbetter, M. L., 2012. “ Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action Presentation to Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, July 2011.” Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 11 (1) Fall: A22–26.
9. Linderholm, T., J., Dobson, and M. B., Yarbrough. 2016. “ The Benefit of Self-Testing and Interleaving for Synthesizing Concepts across Multiple Physiology Texts.” Advances in Physiology Education 40 (3) Sep: 329–334. doi: 10.1152/advan.00009.2016.
10. Lumpkin, A., R. M., Achen, and R. K., Dodd. 2015. “ Student Perceptions of Active Learning.” College Student Journal 49 (1): 121–133.
11. Merkel, S., and A. S. M. Task Force on Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Microbiology. 2012. “ The Development of Curricular Guidelines for Introductory Microbiology that Focus on Understanding.” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 13 (1): 32–38. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.363.
12. Patro, E. T., 2008. “ Teaching Aerobic Cell Respiration Using the 5 Es.” The American Biology Teacher 70 (2): 85–87. doi: 10.1662/0002-7685(2008)70[85:TACRUT]2.0.CO;2.
13. Reinagel, A., and E., Bray Speth. 2016. “ Beyond the Central Dogma: Model-Based Learning of How Genes Determine Phenotypes.” [In eng]. CBE—Life Sciences Education 15 (1): ar4. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-04-0105.
14. Rose, D. H., and A., Meyer. 2002. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. ERIC. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
15. Weinstein, Y., C. R., Madan, and M. A., Sumeracki. 2018. “ Teaching the Science of Learning.” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 3 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/s41235-018-0099-2.
16. Yan, V. X., E. L., Bjork, and R. A., Bjork. 2016. “ On the Difficulty of Mending Metacognitive Illusions: A Priori Theories, Fluency Effects, and Misattributions of the Interleaving Benefit.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145 (7) Jul: 918–933. doi: 10.1037/xge0000177.