Students’ writing can provide better insight into their thinking than can multiple-choice questions. However, resource constraints often prevent faculty from using writing assessments in large undergraduate science courses. We investigated the use of computer software to analyze student writing and to uncover student ideas about chemistry in an introductory biology course. Students were asked to predict acid–base behavior of biological functional groups and to explain their answers. Student explanations were rated by two independent raters. Responses were also analyzed using SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys and a custom library of science-related terms and lexical categories relevant to the assessment item. These analyses revealed conceptual connections made by students, student difficulties explaining these topics, and the heterogeneity of student ideas. We validated the lexical analysis by correlating student interviews with the lexical analysis. We used discriminant analysis to create classification functions that identified seven key lexical categories that predict expert scoring (interrater reliability with experts = 0.899). This study suggests that computerized lexical analysis may be useful for automatically categorizing large numbers of student open-ended responses. Lexical analysis provides instructors unique insights into student thinking and a whole-class perspective that are difficult to obtain from multiple-choice questions or reading individual responses.

Recent calls for college biology education reform have identified “pathways and transformations of matter and energy” as a big idea in biology crucial for students to learn. Previous work has been conducted on how college students think about such matter-transforming processes; however, little research has investigated how students connect these ideas. Here, we probe student thinking about matter transformations in the familiar context of human weight loss. Our analysis of 1192 student constructed responses revealed three scientific (which we label “Normative”) and five less scientific (which we label “Developing”) ideas that students use to explain weight loss. Additionally, students combine these ideas in their responses, with an average number of 2.19 ± 1.07 ideas per response, and 74.4% of responses containing two or more ideas. These results highlight the extent to which students hold multiple (both correct and incorrect) ideas about complex biological processes. We described student responses as conforming to either Scientific, Mixed, or Developing descriptive models, which had an average of 1.9 ± 0.6, 3.1 ± 0.9, and 1.7 ± 0.8 ideas per response, respectively. Such heterogeneous student thinking is characteristic of difficulties in both conceptual change and early expertise development and will require careful instructional intervention for lasting learning gains.

No abstract

No abstract