Comparing the Use of Two Different Model Approaches on Students’ Understanding of DNA Models

Abstract

As effective methods to foster students’ understanding of scientific models in science education are needed, increased reflection on thinking about models is regarded as a relevant competence associated with scientific literacy. Our study focuses on the influence of model-based approaches (modeling vs. model viewing) in an out-of-school laboratory module on the students’ understanding of scientific models. A mixed method design examines three subsections of the construct: (1) students’ reasoning about multiple models in science, (2) students’ understanding of models as exact replicas, and (3) students’ understanding of the changing nature of models. There were 293 ninth graders from Bavarian grammar schools that participated in our hands-on module using creative model-based tasks. An open-ended test item evaluated the students’ understanding of “multiple models” (MM). We defined five categories with a majority of students arguing that the individuality of DNA structure leads to various DNA models (modelers = 36.3%, model viewers = 41.1%). Additionally, when applying two subscales of the quantitative instrument Students’ Understanding of Models in Science (SUMS) at three testing points (before, after, and delayed-after participation), a short- and mid-term decrease for the subscale “models as exact replicas” (ER) appeared, while mean scores increased short- and mid-term for the subscale “the changing nature of models” (CNM). Despite the lack of differences between the two approaches, a positive impact of model-based learning on students’ understanding of scientific models was observed.

Self-evaluative Scientific Modeling in an Outreach Gene Technology Laboratory

“…Here, students compared their hypothesis about the outcome of their experiments with the gel electrophoresis' images. They also discussed their individual models in class and compared these to the molecular DNA model by Watson and Crick which, in most cases, differed from the students' models (Mierdel and Bogner 2019b).…”

“…For the second question, "Explain why one might create different models of one biological original (in our case, the structure of the DNA)? ", we applied the adapted category system of Mierdel and Bogner (2019b) and identified five categories: individuality of DNA, different interpretation, different model design, different focus, and different research state (for definitions, examples, and frequencies, see ESM 5). We randomly selected 27 out of 150 statements for a second scoring (18.0%).…”

Active Learning: Subtypes, Intra-Exam Comparison, and Student Survey in an Undergraduate Biology Course

“…Therefore, we have evidence to believe that within a student course, material comprehension improves with active learning methods. Using the same professor to teach both groups (active learning and traditional lecture formats) removed the teacher as an additional variable in this comparison [41,42].…”

Molecular Models in Chemistry Education at University and Upper Secondary School - Structure of Amides

“…There are a number of computational methods available to create molecular models (e.g. semiempirical methods, ab-initio methods, electron density function theory) [9]. In our study, PM6 semiempirical method implemented in the Spartan 16 program was preferred because of its simplicity and speed.…”