Search

Drawings are an underutilized assessment format in Human Anatomy and Physiology (HA&P), despite their potential to reveal student content understanding and alternative conceptions. This study used studentgenerated drawings to explore student knowledge in a HA&P course. The drawing tasks in this study focused on chemical synapses between neurons, an abstract concept in HA&P. Using two preinstruction drawing tasks, students were asked to depict synaptic transmission and summation. In response to the first drawing task, 20% of students (n = 352) created accurate representations of neuron anatomy. The remaining students created drawings suggesting an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of synaptic transmission. Of the 208 inaccurate student-generated drawings, 21% depicted the neurons as touching. When asked to illustrate summation, only 10 students (roughly 4%) were able to produce an accurate drawing. Overall, students were more successful at drawing anatomy (synapse) than physiology (summation) before formal instruction. The common errors observed in student-generated drawings indicate students do not enter the classroom as blank slates. The error of "touching" neurons in a chemical synapse suggests that students may be using intuitive or experiential knowledge when reasoning about physiological concepts. These results 1) support the utility of drawing tasks as a tool to reveal student content knowledge about neuroanatomy and neurophysiology; and 2) suggest students enter the classroom with better knowledge of anatomy than physiology. Collectively, the findings from this study inform both practitioners and researchers about the prevalence and nature of student difficulties in HA&P, while also demonstrating the utility of drawing in revealing student knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biology majors often take introductory biology, chemistry, and physics courses during their first two years of college. The various and sometimes conflicting discourse about and explanations of matter and energy in these courses may contribute to confusion and alternative conceptions (those that differ from scientific consensus) in biology learners. An important area of biology education research -- students' alternative conceptions -- has produced a lengthy list of alternative conceptions related to students' understanding of matter and energy flow through biological systems through processes such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration. By synthesizing the research literature and conducting interviews of science faculty members, we have identified similarities and differences in matter and energy discourse and teaching in these different science disciplines. This study can help biology instructors recognize and appreciate the ways in which instructors present concepts related to energy and matter in their courses and alter their discourse and teaching practices to promote learning and minimize confusion among their students. INSET: Interview responses regarding students conceptions of matter.... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physiology is hard: a replication study of students' perceived learning difficulties. Adv Physiol Educ 43: 121-127, 2019; doi:10.1152/advan.00040.2018.- Human Anatomy and Physiology (HAP) has long been recognized as a difficult course. A 2007 study (Michael J. Adv Physiol Educ 31: 34-40, 2007) sought to better understand this difficulty by asking faculty for their perceptions of why students struggle to learn in HAP. Later research built on these findings by investigating why students find physiology difficult (Sturges D, Maurer T. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract 11: 1-10, 2013). However, without replication, these claims are limited in their generalizability. There is a need in physiology education research to replicate studies like these across different institutions to support generalizations. We, therefore, replicated both of these studies by collecting survey responses from 466 students at 4 different institutions and 17 instructors at 15 different institutions. We found that students in our study identified similar factors as the students surveyed in the original study. Students most strongly agreed with items that attributed the difficulty of HAP to the nature of the discipline, as opposed to the way physiology is taught or the way students approach learning it. Faculty in our sample, like those in the original study by Michael, agreed most strongly with items that attributed physiology's difficulty to discipline specific factors. Our data reinforce the results of Sturges and Maurer and Michael. We can more confidently claim that HAP students and faculty believe the difficulty in learning physiology is the result of inherent features of the discipline itself and not factors related to instruction or the students themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phylogenetic trees have become an important component of biology education, but their utility in the classroom is compromised by widespread misinterpretations among students. One factor that may contribute to student difficulties is style, as diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees are both commonly used in biology. Previous research using surveys found that students performed better with bracket phylogenetic trees across a variety of interpretation tasks. The present study builds on prior research by comparing how students interpret diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees in the context of an introductory biology course and by expanding the style comparison to include construction tasks. Students performed significantly better with bracket phylogenetic trees for some, but not all, interpretation tasks. In addition, students who constructed bracket phylogenetic trees were significantly more accurate compared to those who used the diagonal style. Thus, our results reinforce previous research for interpretations, and the performance gap between styles extended to construction tasks. It remains to be seen, however, if such differences persist after instruction that balances the use of diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As active learning pedagogies continue to increase in popularity in higher education, new questions have emerged about how instructors can manage all of the associated 'moving parts' of active learning, including how and when to deliver feedback. Currently, little is known about how students perceive the effects of verbal feedback during in-class activities. This study examined two large sections of introductory biology held in an active learning SCALE-UP (Student-Centred Active Learning Environments with Upside-down Pedagogies) classroom. Thematic analysis of repeated stimulated recall interviews with 15 students (72 total interviews) uncovered three main categories of feedback effects that students perceived: assure, alert and add (AAA). These three categories were supported by repeated stimulated recall surveys with a larger student population (262 students). We describe each category, quantify the frequency of each category in the target course, outline the students' perceived impact of each on examination preparation and performance, and conclude with implications regarding how understanding students' perceptions of their feedback experience may help instructors to deliver student-centred feedback during active learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class," by L. Deslauriers et al. in the May 13, 2011 issue.

Professional development (PD) workshops designed to help faculty move from teacher- to learner-centered science courses for undergraduates are typically evaluated with self-reported surveys that address faculty’s satisfaction with a workshop, what they learned, and what they applied in the classroom. Professional development outcomes are seldom evaluated through analysis of observed teaching practices. We analyzed videotapes of biology faculty teaching following PD to address three questions: (1) How learner centered was their teaching? (2) Did self-reported data about faculty teaching differ from the data from independent observers? (3) What variables predict teaching practices by faculty? Following PD, 89% of the respondents stated that they made changes in their courses that included active, learner-centered instruction. In contrast, observational data showed that participation in PD did not result in learner-centered teaching. The majority of faculty (75%) used lecture-based, teacher-centered pedagogy, showing a clear disconnect between faculty’s perceptions of their teaching and their actual practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]