Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 505–523 | Cite as

A New Two-Step Approach for Hands-On Teaching of Gene Technology: Effects on Students’ Activities During Experimentation in an Outreach Gene Technology Lab

  • Franz-Josef Scharfenberg
  • Franz X. Bogner
Article

Abstract

Emphasis on improving higher level biology education continues. A new two-step approach to the experimental phases within an outreach gene technology lab, derived from cognitive load theory, is presented. We compared our approach using a quasi-experimental design with the conventional one-step mode. The difference consisted of additional focused discussions combined with students writing down their ideas (step one) prior to starting any experimental procedure (step two). We monitored students’ activities during the experimental phases by continuously videotaping 20 work groups within each approach (N = 131). Subsequent classification of students’ activities yielded 10 categories (with well-fitting intra- and inter-observer scores with respect to reliability). Based on the students’ individual time budgets, we evaluated students’ roles during experimentation from their prevalent activities (by independently using two cluster analysis methods). Independently of the approach, two common clusters emerged, which we labeled as ‘all-rounders’ and as ‘passive students’, and two clusters specific to each approach: ‘observers’ as well as ‘high-experimenters’ were identified only within the one-step approach whereas under the two-step conditions ‘managers’ and ‘scribes’ were identified. Potential changes in group-leadership style during experimentation are discussed, and conclusions for optimizing science teaching are drawn.

Keywords

Biology education Hands-on experiments Outreach learning Science education Students’ roles Video analysis Cooperative learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the cooperation of teachers and students involved in this study. We appreciate the helpful and valuable discussion of the manuscript with M. Wiseman as well as the helpful comments of four anonymous reviewers. The study was funded by Bavarian State Ministries (of Environment, Public Health, & Consumer Protection, and of Education), and German National Science Foundation (DFG BO 944/4-2).

References

  1. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussion in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for applications. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergman, L., Magnusson, D., & El-Khouri, B. (2003). Studying individual development in an inter-individual context. A person-oriented approach. Mahwah, London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: student learning of science in small groups. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 34, 1039–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogue, B. (2005). Assessment driven change: How systemic evaluation can lead to more productive outreach. Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference & Exposition, 1592–1598.Google Scholar
  7. Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryce, T., & Robertson, I. (1985). What can they do? A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, H.-P., & Lederman, N. (1994). The effect of levels of cooperation within physical science laboratory groups on physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crameri, A., Whitehorn, E., Tate, E., & Stemmer, W. (1996). Improved green fluorescent protein by molecular evolution using DNA shuffling. Nature Biotechnology, 14, 315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolan, E., Soots, B., Lemaux, P., Rhee, S., & Reiser, L. (2004). Strategies for avoiding reinventing the precollege education and outreach wheel. Genetics, 166, 1601–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunn, J., & Boud, D. (1986). Sequencing and organization. In D. Boud, J. Dunn, & E. Hegarty-Hazel (Eds.), Teaching in laboratories (pp. 57–78). Exeter: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  15. Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2006). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education, 47, 298–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Euler, M. (2004). The role of experiments in the teaching and learning of physics. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research on physics education (pp. 175–221). Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
  17. Felix, D., Hertle, M., Conley, J., Washington, L., & Bruns, P. (2004). Assessing precollege science education outreach initiatives. A funder’s perspective. Cell Biology Education, 3, 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gayford, C. (1992). Patterns of group behaviour in open-ended problem solving in sciuence classes of 15-year-old students in England. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research. Edinburgh: SRCE.Google Scholar
  20. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science. Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 855–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horn, E., Collier, W., Oxford, J., Bond, C., & Dansereau, D. (1998). Individual differences in dyadic cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobs, J., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., Hollingsworth, H., Bogard Givvin, K., Rust, K., et al. (2003). Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1999 Video Study Technical Report Volume 1: Mathematics Technical Report. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  26. Johnstone, A. (1997). Chemistry teaching - Science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kessler, C., & Manta, V. (1990). Specifity of restriction endonucleases and DNA modification methyltransferases—a review (edition 3). Gene, 92, 1–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein, P. (1999). Learning science through writing: the role of rhetorical structures. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 132–153.Google Scholar
  29. KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz [Conference of German federal state ministries of education]), 2005: Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10) [10th grade standards in biology education within medium stratification]. (Luchterhand, München)Google Scholar
  30. Koch, S., & Zumbach, J. (2002). The use of video analysis software in behaviour observation research: Interaction patterns in task-oriented small groups. Forum Qualitative Social Research (On-line Journal), 3, art. 18; URL http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0202187 (online 01/15/2010).
  31. Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., & Graf, J. (2007). What good is a scienctist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE-Life Science Education, 6, 49–64.Google Scholar
  32. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, part one (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht: Kluver Academic.Google Scholar
  33. Mandel, M., & Higa, A. (1970). Calcium-dependent bacteriophage DNA infection. Journal of Molecular Biology, 53, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin, P., & Bateson, P. (1988). Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide (2nd ed.). Cambrigde: Cambrigde University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Maxton-Küchenmeister, J., & Herrmann, R. (2003). Genlabor & Schule - eine Übersicht über Experimentierangebote zur Vermittlung von Gen- und Biotechnologie an Schulen [Genetics labs and school—a review of offers with regard to experimental teaching of gene and biotechnology]. BIOspektrum, 9, 382–385.Google Scholar
  36. Morin, P. A., & Smith, D. G. (1995). Nonradioactive detection of hypervariable simple sequence repeats in short polyacrylamide gels. BioTechniques, 19, 223–228.Google Scholar
  37. Munn, M., O’Neil Skinner, P., Conn, L., Horsma, H. G., & Gregory, P. (1999). The involvement of genome researchers in high school science education. Genome Research, 9, 597–607.Google Scholar
  38. NCHPEG (National Coalition for Health Professionals Education in Genetics). (2007). Core competencies in genetics for health professionals (3rd ed.). Lutherville: NCHPG.Google Scholar
  39. Niedderer, H., Aufschaiter, Sv, Tiberghien, A., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander, F., et al. (2002). Talking physics in labwork contexts—A category-based analysis of videotapes. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 31–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for Windows Professional Statistics Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds, S., Patterson, M., Skaggs, L., & Dansereau, D. (1991). Knowledge hypermaps and cooperative learning. Computers Education, 16, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rimmele, R. (2002). Das Programm Videograph [The software videograph]. Kiel: Leibniz Institute for Science Education.Google Scholar
  45. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. (2010). Instructional efficiency of changing cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 829–844.Google Scholar
  46. Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology lab with educational focus: results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seidel, T. (2005). Video analysis strategies of the IPN Video Study—a methodological overview. In T. Seidel, M. Prenzel, & M. Kobarg (Eds.), How to run a video study (pp. 70–78). New York: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  48. Sherman, S. (1994). Cooperative learning and science. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 226–244). Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  49. Sigma (2002). Sigma GenElute Plasmid Miniprep Kit. Technical Bulletin MB 665Google Scholar
  50. Smith, K. (1996). Cooperative learning: making “groupwork” work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.Google Scholar
  52. Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 556–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sweller, J. (2006). How the human cognitive system deals with complexity. In J. Elen & R. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  54. Tanner, K., Chatman, L., & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: cooperative learning in the science classroom - beyond students working in groups. Cell Biology Education, 2, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wenzel, T. (2000). Cooperative students’ activities as learning devices. Analytical Chemistry A, 72, 293A–296A.Google Scholar
  57. Winberg, T., & Berg, C. (2007). Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1108–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolf, R. (1997). Rating scales. In J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 958–965). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  59. Zöfel, P. (2002). Statistik verstehen. Ein Begleitbuch zur computergestützten Anwendung [Understanding statistics. A book for computer-aided applications]. München: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Math & Science Education, Institute of Biology DidacticsUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations