Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The relation between boys and girls (higher proportion of girls) is based on students’ choice for biology as ‘Leistungskurs’ at school.

References

  • Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussion in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for applications. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, T., & Robertson, I. (1985). What can they do? A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crameri, A., Whitehorn, E., Tate, E., & Stemmer, W. (1996). Improved green fluorescent protein by molecular evolution using DNA shuffling. Nature Biotechnology, 14, 315–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2006). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education, 47, 298–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research. Edinburgh: SRCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science. Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 855–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, E., Collier, W., Oxford, J., Bond, C., & Dansereau, D. (1998). Individual differences in dyadic cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. (1997). Chemistry teaching - Science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 262–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, C., & Manta, V. (1990). Specifity of restriction endonucleases and DNA modification methyltransferases—a review (edition 3). Gene, 92, 1–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. (1999). Learning science through writing: the role of rhetorical structures. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 132–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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).

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Mandel, M., & Higa, A. (1970). Calcium-dependent bacteriophage DNA infection. Journal of Molecular Biology, 53, 159–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P., & Bateson, P. (1988). Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide (2nd ed.). Cambrigde: Cambrigde University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Morin, P. A., & Smith, D. G. (1995). Nonradioactive detection of hypervariable simple sequence repeats in short polyacrylamide gels. BioTechniques, 19, 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • NCHPEG (National Coalition for Health Professionals Education in Genetics). (2007). Core competencies in genetics for health professionals (3rd ed.). Lutherville: NCHPG.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for Windows Professional Statistics Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S., Patterson, M., Skaggs, L., & Dansereau, D. (1991). Knowledge hypermaps and cooperative learning. Computers Education, 16, 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimmele, R. (2002). Das Programm Videograph [The software videograph]. Kiel: Leibniz Institute for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sherman, S. (1994). Cooperative learning and science. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 226–244). Westport: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigma (2002). Sigma GenElute Plasmid Miniprep Kit. Technical Bulletin MB 665

  • Smith, K. (1996). Cooperative learning: making “groupwork” work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, T. (2000). Cooperative students’ activities as learning devices. Analytical Chemistry A, 72, 293A–296A.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, R. (1997). Rating scales. In J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 958–965). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zöfel, P. (2002). Statistik verstehen. Ein Begleitbuch zur computergestützten Anwendung [Understanding statistics. A book for computer-aided applications]. München: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Math & Science Education, Institute of Biology Didactics, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany

    Franz-Josef Scharfenberg & Franz X. Bogner

Authors
  1. Franz-Josef Scharfenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franz X. Bogner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franz-Josef Scharfenberg.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Intra- and inter-observer reliability of categorizing students’ activities during experimentation
Full size table
Table 6 Characterization of the clusters identified with regard to students’ activities during the experimental phases
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scharfenberg, FJ., Bogner, F.X. A New Two-Step Approach for Hands-On Teaching of Gene Technology: Effects on Students’ Activities During Experimentation in an Outreach Gene Technology Lab. Res Sci Educ 41, 505–523 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9177-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9177-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation