Investigations of Modellers and Model Viewers in an Out-of-School Gene Technology Laboratory

2020

Smart Learn. Environ.

Self Cite

Large-scale implementations of effective inquiry-based learning are rare. A European-wide initiative gave teachers access to innovative e-learning tools (ranging from virtual labs, virtual games and simulations to augmented reality applications) for lesson planning and classroom implementation. We examined 668 such implementations across 453 schools within the period of one school year. Teachers could use a platform with digital resources and tools and were encouraged to adopt five different phases of inquiry-based learning: orientation, hypothesizing, planning, analysis, and conclusion. Additionally, an integrated interface for lesson implementation tracked each students’ problem-solving competence (during the inquiry lessons), culminating in about 12,000 datasets. Every user generated an average of 22 digital inquiry-based digital scenarios, each of which required approximately 50.14 min for completion. These scenarios, using high quality resources adapted to school conditions, yielded significant learning outcomes for participating students (age: 14.4 years, gender balanced). While the PISA study identified 10% high achievers on average, we exceeded this number in our framework scoring 20–29% high achievers and 37–42% low achievers (which was close to the 45% PISA average). Offering tools to teachers, which help creating individual inquiry scenarios and monitoring students’ achievement, does not yield any insurmountable obstacles for classroom-implementation of inquiry-based lessons: Compared to the PISA study, levels of high achievers increased even if complex problem-solving competence was required.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inquiry-based learning and E-learning: how to serve high and low achievers

Sotiriou

Lazoudis

2020

Smart Learn. Environ.

Self Cite

“…When comparing influences on cognitive achievement, cognitive load, and instructional efficiency model viewers achieved significantly higher mid-term knowledge increases than modelers, while individual cognitive load scores remained similar. Accordingly, model viewing produced significantly higher scores for instructional efficiency, pointing to enhanced cognitive achievement [33]. The correct understanding of the three genetics concepts (DNA, gene, and chromosome) may have hindered the development of correct and complete DNA models from the modelers [17,33].…”

Section: Teaching Genetics: the Role Of Outreach Laboratories And Modmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, model viewing produced significantly higher scores for instructional efficiency, pointing to enhanced cognitive achievement [33]. The correct understanding of the three genetics concepts (DNA, gene, and chromosome) may have hindered the development of correct and complete DNA models from the modelers [17,33]. We also evaluated students' model quality and monitored potential influences on individual creativity and knowledge levels [34].…”

Section: Teaching Genetics: the Role Of Outreach Laboratories And Modmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, a high observer agreement was interpreted as an indication that the category system used was easily applicable and led to measurement accurate data [59]. Students completed the SUMS questionnaire (Students' Understanding of Models, [33]) three times: two weeks before participation (T0), immediately after the module (T1), and six weeks after participation (T2). We applied a shortened version of the SUMS questionnaire using the subscales ER (models as exact replicas) and CNM (the changing nature of models), as these subscales adequately fit the intent of the model-based learning sequences.…”

Section: Test Design and Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Mierdel

2019

Education Sciences

Self Cite

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.

“…One reason might be that students had no restrictions in presenting information and could act more creatively than in traditional model-supported approaches (16). At the same, time they managed to visualize and connect the theoretical dimensions of the experiment (17), which helped them understand the links between the different taxonomic levels in gene theory.…”

Section: Field Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simply InGEN(E)ious! How Creative DNA Modeling Can Enrich Classic Hands-On Experimentation

Mierdel

2020

J Microbiol Biol Educ.

Self Cite

DNA-modeling boxes (see Fig. 2) One-way drinking cups (foodsafe) Water bottle (foodsafe) with distilled water Small beakers with color solution (e.g., water with blue food coloring or ink) and empty white Eppendorf tube Plastic Pasteur pipettes (3 ml; sterile sealed) Pipette pumps (e.g., Karter Scientific Labware Manufacturing) Snap-cap vials (20 ml; clean and dry) (e.g., Resch Glas) Tweezers (clean and dry) Black placemats (e.g., laminated color paper) Centrifuge Linear pipettor stand with 6 micropipettes (two 1,000 ml, two 200 ml, two 20 ml) (e.g., Eppendorf) Racks with pipette tips in two sizes (sterilized; e.g., blue and yellow) Rack filled with Eppendorf tubes (all sterilized; filled with adequate reagents: 2 white, 2 green, 2 blue, 2 red; and 6 closed, empty Eppendorf tubes marked with "1, 2, 3" for each group) (see Table 3 for filling) Styrofoam box with ice cubes (ice bath) for storing the isopropyl alcohol snapcap vial (P) and 2 Eppendorf tubes with isopropyl alcohol (yellow)