Recent Research in Science Teaching and Learning

This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research.This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or full text of articles. For articles listed as “Abstract available,” full text may be accessible at the indicated URL for readers whose institutions subscribe to the corresponding journal.1. Bush SD, Pelaez NJ, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Tanner KD, Williams KS (2013). Widespread distribution and unexpected variation among science faculty with education specialties (SFES) across the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 7170–7175.[Available at: www.pnas.org/content/110/18/7170.full.pdf+html?sid=f2823860-1fef-422c-b861-adfe8d82cef5]College and university basic science departments are taking an increasingly active role in innovating and improving science education and are hiring science faculty with education specialties (SFES) to reflect this emphasis. This paper describes a nationwide survey of these faculty at private and public degree-granting institutions. The authors assert that this is the first such analysis undertaken, despite the apparent importance of SFES at many, if not most, higher education institutions. It expands on earlier work summarizing survey results from SFES used in the California state university system (Bush et al., 2011 ).The methods incorporated a nationwide outreach that invited self-identified SFES to complete an anonymous, online survey. SFES are described as those “specifically hired in science departments to specialize in science education beyond typical faculty teaching duties” or “who have transitioned after their initial hire to a role as a faculty member focused on issues in science education beyond typical faculty teaching duties.” Two hundred eighty-nine individuals representing all major types of institutions of higher education completed the 95-question, face-validated instrument. Slightly more than half were female (52.9%), and 95.5% were white. There is extensive supporting information, including the survey instrument, appended to the article.Key findings are multiple. First, but not surprisingly, SFES are a national, widespread, and growing phenomenon. About half were hired since the year 2000 (the survey was completed in 2011). Interestingly, although 72.7% were in tenured or tenure-track positions, most did not have tenure before adopting SFES roles, suggesting that such roles are not, by themselves, an impediment to achieving tenure. A second key finding was that SFES differed significantly more between institutional types than between science disciplines. For example, SFES respondents at PhD-granting institutions were less likely to occupy tenure-track positions than those at MS-granting institutions and primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs). Also, SFES at PhD institutions reported spending more time on teaching and less on research than their non-SFES peers. This may be influenced, of course, by the probability that fewer faculty at MS and PUI institutions have research as a core responsibility. The pattern is complex, however, because all SFES at all types of institutions listed teaching, service, and research as professional activities. SFES did report that they were much more heavily engaged in service activities than their non-SFES peers across all three types of institutions. A significantly higher proportion of SFES respondents at MS-granting institutions had formal science education training (60.9%), as compared with those at PhD-granting institutions (39.3%) or PUIs (34.8%).A third finding dealt with success of SFES in obtaining funding for science education research, with funding success defined as cumulatively obtaining $100,000 or more in their current positions. Interestingly, the factors that most strongly correlated statistically with funding success were 1) occupying a tenure-track position, 2) employment at a PhD-granting institution, and 3) having also obtained funding for basic science research. Not correlated were disciplinary field and, surprisingly, formal science education training.Noting that MS-granting institutions show the highest proportions of SFES who are tenured or tenure-track, who are higher ranked, who are trained in science education, and who have professional expectations aligned with those of their non-SFES peers, the authors suggest that these institutions are in the vanguard of developing science education as an independent discipline, similar to ecology or organic chemistry. They also point out that SFES at PhD institutions appear to be a different subset, occupying primarily non–tenure track, teaching positions. To the extent that more science education research funding is being awarded to these latter SFES, who occupy less enfranchised roles within their departments, the authors suggest the possibility that such funding may not substantially improve science education at these institutions. However, the authors make it clear that the implications of their findings merit more careful examination and discussion.2. Opfer JE, Nehm RH, Ha M (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: knowing what students know about evolution. J Res Sci Teach 49, 744–777.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21028/abstract]The authors previously published an article (Nehm et al., 2012) documenting a new instrument (more specifically, a short-answer diagnostic test), Assessing Contextual Reasoning about Natural Selection (ACORNS). This article describes how cognitive principles were used in designing the theoretical framework of ACORNS. In particular, the authors attempted to follow up on the premise of a National Research Council (2001) report on educational assessment that use of research-based, cognitive models for student learning could improve the design of items used to measure students’ conceptual understandings.In applying this recommendation to design of the ACORNS, the authors were guided by four principles for assessing the progression from novice to expert in using core concepts of natural selection to explain and discuss the process of evolutionary change. The items in ACORNS are designed to assess whether, in moving toward expertise, individuals 1) use core concepts for facilitation of long-term recall; 2) continue to hold naïve ideas coexistent with more scientifically normative ones; 3) offer explanations centered around mechanistic rather than teleological causes; and 4) can use generalizations (abstract knowledge) to guide reasoning, rather than focusing on specifics or less-relevant surface features. Thus, these items prioritize recall over recognition, detect students’ use of causal features of natural selection, test for coexistence of normative and naïve conceptions, and assess students’ focus on surface features when offering explanations.The paper provides an illustrative set of four sample items, each of which describes an evolutionary change scenario with different surface features (familiar vs. unfamiliar taxa; plants vs. animals) and then prompts respondents to write explanations for how the change occurred. To evaluate the ability of items to detect gradations in expertise, the authors enlisted the participation of 320 students enrolled in an introductory biology sequence. Students’ written explanations for each of the four items were independently coded by two expert scorers for presence of core concepts and cognitive biases (deviations from scientifically normative ideas and causal reasoning). Indices were calculated to determine the frequency, diversity, and coherence of students’ concept usage. The authors also compared the students’ grades in a subsequent evolutionary biology course to determine whether the use of core concepts and cognitive biases in their ACORNS explanations could successfully predict future performance.Evidence from these qualitative and quantitative data analyses argued that the items were consistent with the cognitive model and four guiding principles used in their design, and that the assessment could successfully predict students’ level of academic achievement in subsequent study of evolutionary biology. The authors conclude by offering examples of student explanations to highlight the utility of this cognitive model for designing assessment items that document students’ progress toward expertise.3. Sampson V, Enderle P, Grooms J (2013). Development and initial validation of the Beliefs about Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) questionnaire. School Sci Math 113, 3–15.[Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2013.00175.x/full]The authors report on the development of a Beliefs about Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) instrument (questionnaire), designed to map teachers’ beliefs along a continuum from traditional to reform-minded. The authors define reformed views of science teaching and learning as being those that are consistent with constructivist philosophies. That is, as quoted from Driver et al. (1994 , p. 5), views that stem from the basic assumption that “knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by the learner” by adjusting current understandings (and associated rules and mental models) to accommodate and make sense of new information and experiences.The basic premise for the instrument development posed by the authors is that teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and of the teaching and learning of science serve as a filter for, and thus strongly influence how they enact, reform-based curricula in their classrooms. They cite a study from a high school physics setting (Feldman, 2002 ) to illustrate the impact that teachers’ differing beliefs can have on the ways in which they incorporate the same reform-based curriculum into their courses. They contend that, because educational reform efforts “privilege” constructivist views of teaching and learning, the BARSTL instrument could inform design of teacher education and professional development by monitoring the extent to which the experiences they offer are effective in shifting teachers’ beliefs toward the more constructivist end of the continuum.The BARTSL questionnaire described in the article has four subscales, with eight items per subscale. The four subscales are: a) how people learn about science; b) lesson design and implementation; c) characteristics of teachers and the learning environment; and d) the nature of the science curriculum. In each subscale, four of the items were designed to be aligned with reformed perspectives on science teaching and learning, and four to have a traditional perspective. Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with the item statements on a 4-point Likert scale. In scoring the responses, strong agreement with a reform-based item is assigned a score of 4 and strong disagreement a score of 1; scores for traditional items were assigned on a reverse scale (e.g., 1 for strong agreement). A more extensive characterization of the subscales is provided in the article, along with all of the instrument items (see Appendix).The article describes the seven-step process and associated analyses used to, in the words of the authors, “assess the degree to which the BARTSL instrument has accurately translated the construct, reformed beliefs about science teaching, into an operationalization.” The steps include: 1) defining the specific constructs (concepts that can be used to explain related phenomena) that the instrument would measure; 2) developing instrument items; 3) evaluating items for clarity and comprehensibility; 4) evaluating construct and content validity of the items and subscales; 5) a first round of evaluation of the instrument; 6) item and instrument revision; and 7) a second evaluation of validity and reliability (the extent to which the instrument yields the same results on repetition). Step 3 was accomplished by science education doctoral students who reviewed the items and provided feedback, and step 4 with assistance from a seven-person panel composed of science education faculty and doctoral students. Administration of the instrument to 104 elementary teacher education majors (ETEs) enrolled in a teaching method course was used to evaluate the first draft of the instrument and identify items for inclusion in the final instrument. The instrument was administered to a separate population of 146 ETEs in step 7.The authors used two estimates of internal consistency, a Spearman-Brown corrected correlation and coefficient alpha, to assess the reliability of the instrument; the resulting values were 0.80 and 0.77, respectively, interpreted as being indicative of satisfactory internal consistency. Content validity, defined by the authors as the degree to which the sample of items measures what the instrument was designed to measure, was assessed by a panel of experts who reviewed the items within each of the four subscales. The experts concluded that items that were designed to be consistent with reformed and traditional perspectives were in fact consistent and were evenly distributed throughout the instrument. To evaluate construct validity (which was defined as the instrument''s “theoretical integrity”), the authors performed a correlation analysis on the four subscales to examine the extent to which each could predict the final overall score on the instrument and thus be viewed as a single construct of reformed beliefs. They found that each of the subscales was a good predictor of overall score. Finally, they performed an exploratory factor analysis and additional follow-up analyses to determine whether the four subscales measure four dimensions of reformed beliefs and to ensure that items were appropriately distributed among the subscales. In general, the authors contend that the results of these analyses indicated good content and construct validity.The authors conclude by pointing out that BARTSL scores could be used for quantitative comparisons of teachers’ beliefs and stances about reform-minded science teaching and learning and for following changes over time. However, they recommend BARTSL scores not be used to infer a given level of reform-mindedness and are best used in combination with other data-collection techniques, such as observations and interviews.4. Meredith DC, Bolker JA (2012). Rounding off the cow: challenges and successes in an interdisciplinary physics course for life sciences students. Am J Phys 80, 913–922.[Abstract available at: http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v80/i10/p913_s1?isAuthorized=no]There is a well-recognized need to rethink and reform the way physics is taught to students in the life sciences, to evaluate those efforts, and to communicate the results to the education community. This paper describes a multiyear effort at the University of New Hampshire by faculties in physics and biological sciences to transform an introductory physics course populated mainly by biology students into an explicitly interdisciplinary course designed to meet students’ needs.The context was that of a large-enrollment (250–320 students), two-semester Introductory Physics for Life Science Students (IPLS) course; students attend one of two lecture sections that meet three times per week and one laboratory session per week. The IPLS course was developed and cotaught by the authors, with a goal of having “students understand how and why physics is important to biology at levels from ecology and evolution through organismal form and function, to instrumentation.” The selection of topics was drastically modified from that of a traditional physics course, with some time-honored topics omitted or de-emphasized (e.g., projectile motion, relativity), and others thought to be more relevant to biology introduced or emphasized (e.g., fluids, dynamics). In addition, several themes not always emphasized in a traditional physics course but important in understanding life processes were woven through the IPLS course: scaling, estimation, and gradient-driven flows.It is well recognized that life sciences students need to strengthen their quantitative reasoning skills. To address their students’ needs in this area, the instructors ensured that online tutorials were available to students, mathematical proofs that the students are not expected use were de-emphasized, and Modeling Instruction labs were incorporated that require students to model their own data with an equation and compose a verbal link between their equations and the physical world.Student learning outcomes were assessed through the use of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS), which measures students’ personal epistemologies of science by their responses on a Likert-scale survey. These data were supplemented by locally developed, open-ended surveys and Likert-scale surveys to gauge students’ appreciation for the role of physics in biology. Students’ conceptual understanding was evaluated using the Force and Motion Concept Evaluation (FCME) and Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics (TUG-K), as well as locally developed, open-ended physics problems that probed students’ understanding in the context of biology-relevant applications and whether their understanding of physics was evident in their use of mathematics.The results broadly supported the efficacy of the authors’ approaches in many respects. More than 80% of the students very strongly or strongly agreed with the statement “I found the biological applications interesting,” and almost 60% of the students very strongly or strongly agreed with the statements “I found the biological applications relevant to my other courses and/or my planned career” and “I found the biological applications helped me understand the physics.” Students were also broadly able to integrate physics into their understanding of living systems. Examples of questions that students addressed include one that asked students to evaluate the forces on animals living in water versus those on land. Ninety-one percent of the students were able to describe at least one key difference between motion in air and water. Gains in the TUG-K score averaged 33.5% across the 4 yr of the course offering and were consistent across items. However, the positive attitudes about biology applications in physics were not associated with gains in areas of conceptual understanding measured by the FCME instrument. These gains were more mixed than those from the TUG-K and dependent on the concept being evaluated, with values as low as 15% for some concepts and an average gain on all items of 24%. Overall, the gains on the two instruments designed to measure physics understanding were described by the authors as being “modest at best,” particularly in the case of the FCME, given that reported national averages for reformed courses for this instrument range from 33 to 93%.The authors summarize by identifying considerations they think are essential to design and implementation of a IPLS-like course: 1) the need to streamline the coverage of course topics to emphasize those that are truly aligned with the needs of life sciences majors; 2) the importance of drawing from the research literature for evidence-based strategies to motivate students and aid in their development of problem-solving skills; 3) taking the time to foster collaborations with biologists who will reinforce the physics principles in their teaching of biology courses; and 4) considering the potential constraints and limitations to teaching across disciplinary boundaries and beginning to strategize ways around them and build models for sustainability. The irony of this last recommendation is that the authors report having suspended the teaching of IPLS at their institution due to resource constraints. They recommend that institutions claiming to value interdisciplinary collaboration need to find innovative ways to reward and acknowledge such collaborations, because “external calls for change resonate with our own conviction that we can do better than the traditional introductory course to help life science students learn and appreciate physics.”I invite readers to suggest current themes or articles of interest in life science education, as well as influential papers published in the more distant past or in the broader field of education research, to be featured in Current Insights. Please send any suggestions to Deborah Allen (ude.ledu@nellaed).     

Recent Research in Science Teaching and Learning

This feature is designed to point CBE---Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research.This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or full text of articles. For articles listed as “Abstract available,” full text may be accessible at the indicated URL for readers whose institutions subscribe to the corresponding journal.

• 1. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410–8415. [Abstract available at www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410.abstract]

Online publication of this meta-analysis last spring no doubt launched a legion of local and national conversations about how science is best taught—as the authors state the essential issue, “Should we ask or should we tell?” To assess the relative effectiveness of active-learning (asking) versus lecture-based (telling) methods in college-level science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classes, the authors scoured the published and unpublished literature for studies that performed a side-by-side comparison of the two general types of methods. Using five predetermined criteria for admission to the study (described fully in the materials and methods section), at least two independent coders examined each potentially eligible paper to winnow down the number of eligible studies from 642 to 225. The working definition of what constitutes active learning (used to determine potential eligibility) was obtained from distilling definitions written by 338 seminar attendees; what constitutes lecture was defined as “continuous exposition by the teacher” (quoted from Bligh, 2000 ). The eligible studies were situated in introductory and upper-division courses from a full range of enrollment sizes and multiple STEM disciplines and included majors and nonmajors as participants. The frequency of use and types of active-learning methodologies described in the 225 eligible studies varied widely.Quantitative analysis of the eligible studies focused on comparison of two outcome variables: 1) scores on identical or formally equivalent examinations and 2) failure rates (receipt of a “D” or “F” grade or withdrawal from the course). Major findings were that student performance on exams and other assessments (such as concept inventories) was nearly half an SD higher in active-learning versus lecture courses, with an effect size (standardized mean weighted difference) of 0.47. Analyses also revealed that average failure rates were 55% higher for students in the lecture courses than in courses with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that 1) there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes with respect to disciplines; 2) effect sizes were lower when instructor-generated exams were used versus concept inventories with both types of courses (perhaps because concept inventories tend to require more higher-order thinking skills); 3) effect sizes were not significantly different in nonmajors versus majors courses or in lower versus upper-division courses; and 4) although active learning had the greatest positive effect in smaller-enrollment courses, effect sizes were higher with active learning at all enrollment sizes. Two types of analyses, calculation of fail-safe numbers and funnel plots, supported a lack of publication bias (tendency to not publish studies with low effect sizes). Finally, the authors demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in effect sizes despite variation in the quality of the controls on instructor and student equivalence, supporting the important conclusion that the differences in effectiveness between the two methods were not instructor dependent.In one of the more compelling sections of this meta-analysis, the authors translated the relatively dry numbers resulting from statistical comparisons to potential impacts on the lives of the students taking STEM courses. For example, for the 29,300 students reported for the lecture treatments across all students, the average difference in failure rates (21.8% in active learning vs. 33.8% with lecture) suggests that 3516 fewer students would have failed if enrolled in an active-learning course. This and other implications for the more beneficial impact of active learning on STEM students led the authors to state, “If the experiments analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit.” That is, the control group condition would have been halted because of the clear, beneficial effects of the treatment. The authors conclude by suggesting additional important implications for future undergraduate STEM education research. It may no longer be justified to conduct more “first-generation” research comparing active-learning approaches with traditional lecture; rather, for greater impact on course design, second-generation researchers should focus on what types and intensities of exposure to active learning are most effective for different students, instructors, and topics.

• 2. Weiman CE (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Early Edition, published ahead of print 22 May 2014. [Available at www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/05/21/1407304111.full.pdf+html]

This provocative commentary by Carl Weiman highlights the major findings reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Freeman et al. (2014) and underscores the implications. The graphical representations displaying the key data on effect sizes and failure rates presented in the Freeman et al. meta-analysis are redrawn in the commentary in a way that is likely to be more familiar to the typical reader, making the differences in outcomes for active learning versus lecture appear more striking. Weiman concludes by elaborating on the important implications of the meta-analysis for college-level STEM educators and administrators, suggesting that it “makes a powerful case that any college or university that is teaching its STEM courses by traditional lectures is providing an inferior education to its students. One hopes that it will inspire administrators to start paying attention to the teaching methods used in their classrooms … establishing accountability for using active-learning methods.”

• 3. Yadav A, Shaver GM, Meckl P, Firebaugh S (2014). Case-based instruction: improving students’ conceptual understanding through cases in a mechanical engineering course. J Res Sci Teach 51, 659–677.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21149/full]

National societies, committee reports, and accrediting bodies recommend that engineering curricula be designed to prepare future engineers for the complex interdisciplinary nature of the field and for the multitude of skills and perspectives they will need to be successful practitioners. The authors posit that case-based instruction, with its emphasis on honing skills in solving authentic, interdisciplinary, and ill-defined problems, aligns well with these recommendations. However, the methodology is still relatively underutilized, and its effectiveness is underexamined. This article describes a study designed to advance these issues by comparing lecture- and case-based methods within the same offering of a 72-student, upper-level, required course in mechanical engineering.The study used a within-subjects, posttest only, A-B-A-B research design across four key course topics. That is, two lecture-based modules (the A or baseline phases) alternated with case-based modules (the B or treatment phases). Following each module, students responded to open-response quiz questions and a survey about learning and engagement (adapted from the Student Assessment of Learning Gains instrument). The quiz questions assessed ability to apply knowledge to problem solving (so-called “traditional” questions) and ability to explain the concepts that were used (“conceptual” questions). This study design had the advantage that the same students experienced both the baseline and treatment conditions twice. The authors describe in detail the pedagogical approaches used in both sets of the A and B phases.The quizzes were scored by independent raters (with high interrater reliability) on a 0–3 scale; scores were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. Survey items were analyzed using a principal-components factor analysis; composite scores were generated for a learning confidence factor and an engagement–connections factor. Analyses revealed that the two pedagogical approaches had similar outcomes with respect to the traditional questions, but conceptual understanding scores (indicating better understanding of the concepts that were applied to problem solving) were significantly higher for the case-based modules. Students reported that they appreciated how cases were better than lecture in helping them make connections to real-world concerns and see the relevance of what they were learning, but there were no significant differences in students’ perceptions of their learning gains in the case-based versus the lecture modules. The authors note that many studies have likewise demonstrated that students’ perceptions of their learning gains in more learner-centered courses are often not accurate reflections of the actual learning outcomes.The authors conclude that while these results are promising indications of the effectiveness of case-based instruction in engineering curricula, the studies need to be replicated across a number of semesters and in different engineering disciplines and extended to assess the long-term effect of case-based instruction on students’ ability to remember and apply their knowledge.Although this study was limited to an engineering context, the case-based methodologies and research design seem well-suited for use in action research in other disciplines.

• 4. Heddy BC, Sinatra GM (2013). Transforming misconceptions: using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students’ learning about biological evolution. Sci Educ 97, 723–744.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21072/abstract]

Well-documented challenges to conceptual change faced by students of evolution include the necessity of unseating existing naïve theories (such as natural selection having purposiveness), having the ability to view the complex and emergent nature of evolutionary processes through systems-type thinking, and being able to see the connections between evolutionary content learned in the classroom and everyday life events that can facilitate appreciation of its importance and motivate learning. To help students meet these challenges, the authors adapted a pedagogical model called Teaching for Transformative Experiences in Science (TTES) in the course of instruction on six major concepts in evolutionary biology. This article reports on a comparison of the effectiveness of TTES approaches in fostering conceptual change and positive affect with that of instruction enhanced with use of refutational texts (RT). Use of RTs to promote conceptual change, a strategy with documented effectiveness, entails first stating a misconception (the term used by the authors), then explicitly refuting it by elaborating on a scientific explanation. By contrast, the TTES model promotes teaching that fosters transformative learning experiences—teaching in which instructors 1) place the content in a context allows the students to see its utility or experiential value; 2) model their own transformative experiences in learning course concepts; and 3) scaffold a process that allows students to rethink or “resee” a concept from the perspective of their previous, related life experiences.The authors designed the study to address three questions relevant to the comparison of the two approaches: would the TTES group (vs. the RT group) demonstrate or report 1) greater conceptual change, 2) higher levels of transformative experience, and 3) differences in topic emotions (more positive affect) related to learning about evolution? The study used three survey instruments, one that measured the types and depth of students’ transformative experiences (the Transformative Experience Survey, adapted from Pugh et al., 2010 ), another that assessed conceptual knowledge (Evolutionary Reasoning Scale; Shulman, 2006 ), and a third that evaluated the emotional reactions of students to the evolution content they were learning (Evolution Emotions Survey, derived from Broughton et al., 2011 ). In addition to Likert-scale items, the Transformative Experience Survey contained three open-ended response questions; the responses were scored by two independent raters using a coding scheme for degree of out-of-school engagement. The authors provide additional detail about the nuances of what these instruments were designed to measure and their scoring schemes and include the instruments in the appendices. The Evolutionary Reasoning Scale and the Evolution Emotions survey were administered as both pre- and posttests, and the Transformative Experience survey was administered only at the end of the intervention. The treatment (TTES, n = 28) and comparison (RT, n = 27) groups were not significantly different with respect to all measured demographic variables and the number of high school or college-level science courses taken.Briefly, the evolutionary biology learning experience that participants were exposed to was 3 d in duration for both the treatment and comparison groups. On day 1, the instructor (the same person for both groups) gave a PowerPoint lecture on the same six evolutionary concepts, with illustrative examples. For the treatment group only, the instructor drew from his own transformative experiences in connection with the illustrative examples, describing how he used the concepts, what their value was to him, and how each had expanded his understanding and perception of evolution. On days 2 and 3 for the treatment group, the students and instructor engaged in whole-class discussions about their everyday experiences with evolution concepts (and related misconceptions) and their usefulness; the instructor scaffolded various “reseeing” experiences throughout the discussions. For the comparison group, misconceptions and refutations were addressed in the course of the day 1 lecture, and on days 2 and 3, the participants read refutational texts and then took part in discussions of the texts led by the instructor.Survey results and accompanying statistical analyses indicated that both groups exhibited gains (with significant t statistics) in understanding of the evolution concepts as measured by the Evolutionary Reasoning Scale (Shulman, 2006 ). However, the gains were greater for the treatment (TTES) group: effect size, reported as a value for eta-squared, η², equaled 0.29. The authors point out by way of context for this outcome that use of RTs, along with follow-up discussions that contrast misconceptions with scientific explanations, has been previously shown to be effective in promoting conceptual change; thus, the comparison was with a well-regarded methodology. Additionally, the Transformation Experience survey findings indicated higher levels of transformative experience for the TTES group participants; they more extensively reported that the concepts had everyday value and meaning and expanded their perspectives. The TTES group alone showed pre- to posttest gains in enjoyment while learning about evolution, a positive emotion that may have classroom implications in terms of receptivity to learning about evolution and willingness to continue study in this and related fields.The authors conclude that the TTES model can effectively engage students in transformative experiences in ways that can facilitate conceptual change in content areas in which that change is difficult to achieve. In discussing possible limitations of the study, they note in particular that the predominance of female study participants (71% of the total) argues for its replication with a more diverse sample.I invite readers to suggest current themes or articles of interest in life sciences education, as well as influential papers published in the more distant past or in the broader field of education research, to be featured in Current Insights. Please send any suggestions to Deborah Allen (ude.ledu@nellaed).     

Recent Research in Science Teaching and Learning

This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research.This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education, as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or full text of articles. For articles listed as “Abstract available,” full text may be accessible at the indicated URL for readers whose institutions subscribe to the corresponding journal. This themed issue focuses on recent studies of concepts and conceptualization—from how textbook images and students’ attitudes and levels of acceptance can influence their understandings to design of tools that educators can use to understand what their students know.1. Novick LR, Stull AT, Catley KM (2012). Reading phylogenetic trees: the effects of tree orientation and text processing on comprehension. BioScience 62, 757–764.[Abstract available: www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.8]Cladograms—branching, nested hierarchical diagrams drawn in a variety of formats—are commonly used to depict how organisms might be related. Although differently formatted cladograms can convey the same information, informationally equivalent cladograms are not necessarily equivalent “computationally,” that is, with respect to the ease with which observers interpret and use them. Because diagonal cladograms with a slanting up-to-the-right (UR) orientation are most commonly used in college-level textbooks, the authors explored whether a diagonal cladogram drawn with a UR backbone line is computationally equivalent to its informationally equivalent mirror-image, drawn in a slanting down-to-the-right (DR) orientation. Drawing from existing studies on the influence of processing biases and prior experience on directional scanning of visual materials, the authors hypothesized that the direction of the slant influences students’ processing of the cladogram and that the more commonly used UR format is harder for students to understand.They tested this hypothesis with a study population of 19 upper-division students majoring in biology or biology-related subjects. The subjects processed a series of 24 diagonal cladograms, each paired with a rectangular-format cladogram. The diagonal cladograms varied in one of three ways: 1) UR or DR orientation, 2) forward or reverse alphabetical order of taxa labeling, and 3) the taxon topology (branching pattern). The subjects initially viewed a diagonal cladogram presented on the center of a computer screen, and their eye movements were tracked electronically. When they indicated that they understood the diagonal cladogram, they were presented with a rectangular cladogram, and then were asked whether the evolutionary relationships depicted in the two cladograms were the same. The authors used rectangular cladograms for comparison, because information about how students interpret them was available from a previous study (Novick and Catley, 2007 ). Incorrect rectangular cladograms could therefore be modeled after common types of interpretation and translation errors observed in this earlier study.Analysis of the results indicated that, for both the UR and DR orientations, the subjects tended to scan the cladograms from left to right (upward for the UR cladograms and downward for the DRs); that is, most used the processing direction that they use to read text. There was a significant effect of cladogram orientation on the accuracy of translation to the rectangular format. As predicted, the subjects were more successful at translating the diagonal cladogram to the rectangular format when the DR orientation was used. As a possible explanation for this finding, the authors suggest that people generally encounter the branching points in an order that reflects the nesting pattern when reading from left to right in the DR orientation. Thus, in this study, informationally equivalent UR and DR cladogram formats were not computationally equivalent for students.The authors conclude by discussing the implications for instruction. They suggest that if textbook diagrams do not change, students could benefit from instruction and practice in how to change their processing strategies to successfully interpret the computationally more difficult UR-oriented cladograms.2. Liben LS, Kastens K, Christensen AE (2011). Spatial foundations of science education: the illustrative case of instruction on introductory geological concepts. Cogn Instr 29, 45–87.[Abstract available: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370008.2010.533596]The concepts of strike and dip, used to describe planar features such as the orientation of layers of rock, are notoriously difficult aspects of spatial thinking for novice learners of geology to grasp. The “strike” of a planar surface (such as a fault, bed, or other type of geologic formation) refers to the compass direction of a line of intersection of the planar surface with a horizontal plane; the latter is often referenced to the surface of a still body of water. The “dip” is the angle of tilt of the surface from the horizontal. Textbook illustrations of the strike and dip of geologic features often attempt to make the concepts more accessible by using water level and falling water to help students understand these concepts. However, educators are becoming increasingly aware that, for some students, these illustrations may convey insufficient information about three-dimensional spatial relationships. In this study, the authors used various tasks related to strike and dip to explore the nature of students’ underlying difficulties. In doing so, they anticipated that performance on stripe and dip tasks would shed light on broader issues related to spatial perception and how it influences science learning.The study population consisted of 125 college students (roughly equal numbers of males and females) who had completed a pencil-and-paper water-level test in which they drew lines of predicted water levels on diagrams of straight-sided empty bottles tilted at different angles. Participants were assigned to high-, medium-, and low-scoring water-level groups (WLG) based on their test scores. Each WLG was then assigned a series of additional field and laboratory tasks. Field tasks included estimating and recording (on a campus map) the strike and dip of an artificial rock outcrop, indicating the location of a wooden rod placed on the ground on a campus map, and additional tasks that assessed sense of direction. Laboratory tasks consisted of a series of three-dimensional horizontality (shoreline) and verticality (drop) tasks. Both sets of tasks used plastic models with paper-covered planar surfaces of different shapes attached to clear Plexiglas pillars; the dip of the surfaces varied, but the strike was held constant In the shoreline task, subjects were asked to imagine that the whole model was covered in water up to the midpoint of the paper-covered surface and to then draw on the paper how the water would look. In verticality tasks, the subjects were asked to imagine that a drop of water had fallen on the paper surface, were then asked to draw the path of the drop along the paper after it fell. Participants were asked to supply information about their level of confidence in their performance on all tasks, and observations were made of their behaviors and the strategies they used.The authors determined the variance of the absolute values by which scores on the directional responses to field and laboratory tasks deviated from the correct scores, with WLG and participant gender as between-subject factors. Although they found that students in the low WLG generally had the lowest task scores, the entire study population appeared to be challenged by the tasks. The authors used multiple regression analysis, in which confidence served as the criterion variable to determine whether the water-level “pretest,” actual performance on the field and laboratory tasks, and being female were predictive of participants’ confidence level. They found that low water-level scores and being female were predictive of low confidence scores, and performance on tasks was generally predictive of participants’ confidence ratings. In groups of students with similar scores on the water-level test, females scored lower than males on a number of the tasks. The authors speculate that the water-level test may not have identified all key components of spatial skill needed to complete the tasks, because the gender differences were most pronounced when participants had to orient in relation to a larger, more distal environment and were absent when more local frames of reference for orientation could be used. Finally, observations of the participants’ task performance indicated that they often did not use strategies that educators might assume are too basic to warrant mentioning in the course of instruction.The authors conclude that, in fact, strike and dip are difficult geological concepts to teach, and the difficulty may lie in part with underdevelopment of students’ “Euclidean conceptual system” (p. 81). They suggest the need for more research to inform the design of instructional programs that would foster development of specific foundational spatial concepts and skills.3. Fulop RM, Tanner KD (2012). Investigating high school students’ conceptualizations of the biological basis of learning. Adv Physiol Educ 36, 131–142.[Full text available: http://advan.physiology.org/content/36/2/131.long]This study sets the stage for increasing the amount and relevance of high school neuroscience education by exploring what students already know about the biological basis of learning. Recent studies (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007 ) suggest that the nature of students’ understandings about this area of cognitive neuroscience—the biological basis of learning—has implications for their academic success.High school juniors (n = 339) enrolled in chemistry classes in a large urban high school participated in the study, which used a mixed-methods design consisting of written assessments (both multiple-choice and open-ended assessment prompts) and interviews. Although all participants were invited to participate in the interviews, only a few (n = 15) actually did so. Most of the 19 “yes/no/I don''t know” multiple-choice assessment prompts were taken from the literature, and all were demonstrated to elicit agreement from neuroscientists (>90%) on the answer. The first of the two open-ended prompts was designed to determine whether students would place the process of learning within a biological or some other framework; the second was designed to explicitly elicit responses of a biological nature. Two independent observers analyzed the interview responses by: 1) sorting them into one of three categories (nonbiological, minimally biological, or primarily biological) using a rubric; 2) scoring for the level of understanding they revealed about neural structures, mechanisms of learning, and plasticity of the nervous system using a second rubric; and then 3) coding them for emergent conceptual themes.The findings indicated a low level of knowledge about the biological basis for learning in this set of high school juniors: <70% of the students agreed with the neuroscientists’ responses to the majority of the multiple-choice prompts; 75% of the responses to the first open-ended assessment exhibited a nonbiological framework; and 67% of the interviewed subjects revealed misconceptions during the interview. The authors provide numerous quotes from students to illustrate these conclusions. Fewer than half of the interview subjects reported having had prior (albeit minimal) instruction about neuroscience, a topic that is included in the National Science Education Standards. However, the majority thought that understanding how people learn was of value to their own learning.The authors conclude by underscoring the importance to the general public of teaching about the biology of the brain, particularly since high school biology represents the last opportunity for formal education to reshape preconceptions of the >70% of the U.S. population that will not go on to college. Although the teaching of neuroscience in high school is not yet prevalent, in the words of the authors, the good news is that “students appear to be ready, willing and able to learn about their own brains” (p. 139).4. Nadelson LS, Southerland S (2012). A more fine-grained measure of students’ acceptance of evolution: development of the inventory of student evolution acceptance: I-SEA. Int J Sci Educ 34, 1637–1666.[Abstract available: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2012.702235]Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics educators and education researchers are becomingly increasingly aware of the potential role that affective constructs, such as learning dispositions, self-efficacy, beliefs, and motivation, can play in shaping the learning process. This study is based on a premise that, for emotionally charged topics such as evolution, the affective perceptions of belief and acceptance can interfere with conceptual understanding. The authors have developed an instrument for measuring students’ acceptance of biological evolution in a way that avoids blending acceptance with belief or understanding of specific content. They report having taken particular care in designing the instrument to distinguish acceptance of evolution—based on the validity of the evidence supporting it and its plausibility and utility as an explanatory paradigm—from beliefs about evolution based on feelings, personal convictions, or faith.The article guides the reader through the processes of instrument design, item and scale development, and field-testing (with groups of high school and college students) of an initial 49-item Likert-scale instrument: the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA). The instrument has three subscales designed to differentiate between areas of evolution that are perceived differently by the general public: microevolution (the results of evolution in the short term), macroevolution (long term), and human evolution. After field-testing, the authors performed statistical analyses to determine instrument and subscale reliability, as well as an exploratory factor analysis to guide instrument refinement. They conducted a refined analysis of the resulting 24-item instrument as a whole and for each of the three subscales. Ten postsecondary biology faculty contributed to the process of expert validation and final refinement of the items. The authors point out the potential usefulness of the instrument, as well as its possible limitations, in making curricular decisions and assessing their subsequent impact on student perceptions. Appendices include the items from both the field-tested and final versions of the I-SEA.I invite readers to suggest current themes or articles of interest in life science education, as well as influential papers published in the more distant past or in the broader field of education research, to be featured in Current Insights. Please send any suggestions to Deborah Allen (ude.ledu@nellaed).     

Framework for Empirical Research on Science Teaching and Learning

In view of the research on education—and subject-related education in particular—that has been conducted in recent years, it would seem useful to describe the current state and future trends of research on science teaching and learning. In the present article, research findings are described, the deficits of science education are analyzed, and medium- and long-term research goals are specified from the perspective of an interdisciplinary cooperative effort between specialists in the fields of empirical educational research; the psychology of learning and instruction; and biology, chemistry, and physics education. Revised and supplemented version of Fischer, H. E., Klemm, K., Leutner, D., Sumfleth, E., Tiemann, R., and Wirth, J. (2003). Naturwissenschaftsdidaktische Lehr-Lernforschung: Defizite und Desiderata [Natural science-didactical learning research: Deficits and desiderata]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 9, 179–208.     

Success in Science Learning and Preservice Science Teaching Self-Efficacy

This study examined relationships between conceptual understanding, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy beliefs as preservice teachers learned science in a constructivist-oriented methods class. Participants included 49 preservice elementary teachers. Analysis revealed that participants increased in self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and conceptual understanding. Engaging preservice teachers in hands-on, minds-on activities and discussion were important contributors. Participants reported that they would be inclined to teach from a constructivist perspective in the future. One implication from this study is that increasing the quantity of science content courses that preservice elementary teachers are required to take may not be sufficient to overcome their reluctance to teach science if some of their learning does not take place in a constructivist environment. In our teaching, we have tried to integrate pedagogy with learning science content.     

研究性学习在自然科学教学中的应用

研究性学习作为一种新的学习方式已被人们接受并实践，对自然科学教学而言，正确把握研究性学习的实质，结合自然科学，构建相关的理科网络知识，通过“研究”的途径，培养学生的创新意识，把研究性学习应用到自然科学教学中，是时代的需要，自然科学教学的需要。     

Teaching and Learning in the Mixed-Reality Science Classroom

As emerging technologies become increasingly inexpensive and robust, there is an exciting opportunity to move beyond general purpose computing platforms to realize a new generation of K-12 technology-based learning environments. Mixed-reality technologies integrate real world components with interactive digital media to offer new potential to combine best practices in traditional science learning with the powerful affordances of audio/visual simulations. This paper introduces the realization of a learning environment called SMALLab, the Situated Multimedia Arts Learning Laboratory. We present a recent teaching experiment for high school chemistry students. A mix of qualitative and quantitative research documents the efficacy of this approach for students and teachers. We conclude that mixed-reality learning is viable in mainstream high school classrooms and that students can achieve significant learning gains when this technology is co-designed with educators.     

网络研究性学习中的教与学

网络研究性学习是一种崭新的教学模式，是现代教育技术发展的产物，是现代课程与教学论研究的热点。本分析网络研究性学习的特点，研究网络研究性学习过程中教师与学生的关系，并阐述了教师在网络研究性学习各个阶段的职能。