Identification of Students’ Content Mastery and Cognitive and Affective Percepts of a Bioinformatics Miniunit: A Case Study With Recommendations for Teacher Education
- 159 Downloads
Bioinformatics, merging biological data with computer science, is increasingly incorporated into school curricula at all levels. This case study of 10 secondary school students highlights student individual differences (especially the way they processed information and integrated procedural and analytical thought) and summarizes a variety of critical situations that teachers may encounter when teaching bioinformatics. Students who integrated factual information with procedural and analytical skills were closest to content mastery; while students who had fundamental deficiencies in factual recall or were less adept in integrating higher order knowledge with specific facts and procedural skills had difficulty mobilizing critical analytical skills needed to master the bioinformatics tasks. Broader implications are presented for teacher education, curriculum design, and research.
KeywordsBioinformatics Genetics Case study Constructivism
We wish to acknowledge Dr. Keith Sheppard, Dr. Angela Calabrese-Barton, Dr. Robert McClintock, and Dr. Harmen Bussemaker for their helpful suggestions.
- Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Meyers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990). Basic linear alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology, 215, 403–410.Google Scholar
- Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
- Biology Student Workbench. (2003). Retrieved May 18, 2005, from http://peptide.ncsa.uiuc.edu/.
- Bischoff, P. J., & Anderson, O. R. (2001). Development of knowledge frameworks and higher order cognitive operations among secondary school students who studied a unit on ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 81–88.Google Scholar
- Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
- Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Bybee, R. W. (1986). Science, technology, society: 1985 Yearbook of the National Science Teachers Association. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
- Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(1), 52–70.Google Scholar
- Dictionary of Genetic Terms. (2006). Oakridge National Laboratory Web site: Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Humangenome/publicat/primer2001/glossary.shtml.
- Dolan Learning Center Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (2003). Retrieved November 22, 2005, from http://www.dnalc.org.
- Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In E. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 175–200). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Gabric, K. M. (2003). Bioinformatics in the biology classroom. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/gabric.html.
- Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
- Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional designs, theories, and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kossida, S., Tahri, N., & Daizadeh, I. (2002). Bioinformatics by example: From sequence to target. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 1480–1485.Google Scholar
- Merrienboer, J. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
- National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2006). NCBI Education. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Education/.
- New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report. (2004). Retrieved April 4, 2006, from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2004/.
- Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 937–947.Google Scholar
- Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Pious, S. (2005). Research randomizer. Retrieved April 7, 2006, from http://www.socialpsychology.org.
- Tsai, C.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2002). Exploring students’ cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 163–169.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- West L. H. T., & Pines A. L. (Eds.). (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L. (2001). Participating in program development: Standard F. In D. S. W. McIntosh (Ed.), College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 18–22). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar