Abstract
This study aimed to promote scientific literacy among sports majors who were not interested in learning about science via a course called Addressing Macroscopic Issues in Biochemistry and Sports (AMIBAS). The participants were 54 students majoring in sports at an Indonesian university. Using a 1 group pre–post study design, students were required to participate in 2 consecutive biochemistry courses—conventional course and the AMIBAS course. The first part involved conventional teaching prior to administering a pretest, and AMIBAS was conducted in the second part, after the pretest. The 2 parts were conducted during two 7-week periods for 4 h a week. Data analysis results showed that the scientific literacy levels of 56% of the students rose from a nominal-functional level (pretest) to a conceptual-multidimensional level (posttest). Students’ attitudes toward biochemistry also became more positive. The students were able to macroscopically explain biochemistry-related issues. However, they were unable to describe issues microscopically, due to a lack of preexisting biochemistry knowledge, mental habits oriented toward macroscopic thinking, and inadequate science communication. Sharing, feedback, and discussion can scaffold students’ learning and help them to explain biochemistry and sports-related issues in more scientific terms, change their habits of mind, and become more scientifically literate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective in the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51–71.
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Learning content in context-problem-based learning. Cell Biology Education, 2, 73–81.
Belt, S. T., & Phipps, L. E. (1998). Using case studies to develop key skill in chemists: A preliminary account. University Chemistry Education, 2, 16–20.
Birmingham, D., & Barton, A. C. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286–314.
Blackie, M. A. L. (2014). Creating semantic waves: Using legitimation code theory as a tool to aid the teaching of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 462–469.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Brunner-La Rocca, H. P., Weilenmann, D., Rickli, H., Follath, F., & Kiowski, W. (1999). Is blood pressure response to the Valsalva maneuver related to neurohormones, exercise capacity, and clinical findings in heart failure? American College of Chest Physicians, 116, 861–867.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes of practices. Portsmouth, England: NH Heinmann Publishing.
Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2008). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structure problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Journal of Education Technology Research Development, 57, 99–129.
Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S.-W. & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697.
Coles, C. R. (1990). Elaborated learning in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education, 24, 14–22.
Costa, A. M. (2009). Macroscopic vs. microscopic identification of the maturity stages of female horse mackerel. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66, 509–516.
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P., & Roy, M. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket. Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(2), 6–98.
Daloz, L. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Vellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3–47.
Eison, J. (2010). Using active learning instructional strategies to create excitement and enhance learning. Department of Adult, Career & Higher Education, University of South Florida.
Erman, E. (2017). Factors contributing to students' misconception in learning covalent bonds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 520-537.
Erman, E. & Liliasari, L. (2012). Exercise to analyze sports cases to improve mastery of the biochemical concepts of sports science students. Journal of Educational and Learning, 19(1), 94-101.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073.
Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivisme: Reflection on lessons from practice. Educational Studies, 45, 39–58.
Hartono, S. & Erman, E. (2004). Students' perceptions regarding undergraduate program of sports science (Unpublished Research Report). Surabaya, Indonesia: Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Herron, J. D. (1975). Piaget for chemist: Explaining what good student cannot understand. Journal of Chemical Education, 52, 146–150.
Hutchinson, J. S. (2000). Teaching introductory chemistry using concept development case studies: Interactive and inductive learning. University Chemistry Education, 4, 1–7.
Indonesian-Sport Commission. (2000). Sport science and its developmental plans. Jakarta, Indonesia: National Education Minister.
Jack, B. D., Lin, H., & Yore, L. D. (2014). The synergistic effect of affective factors on student learning outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(8), 1084–1101.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Kanasa, H. & Nichols, K. (2008). Addressing emerging science and technology issues: Raising scientific literacy skills of middle years students in Queensland schools. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Brisban.
Kim, M., & Lavonen, J. (2009). Experts’ opinion on the high achievement of scientific literacy in PISA 2003. A comparative study in Finland and Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(4), 379–393.
Kristiyandaru, A. & Erman, E. (2005). Relationship between the level of thinking ability and students' learning outcomes in physiology and biomechanic courses (Unpublished Research Report). Surabaya, Indonesia: Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
Laugkhsch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Rondesbosch, South Africa: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Linn, M. C., & Elyon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating view of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Martini & Erman, E. (2009). Constructivism interventions in sports biochemistry teaching materials to train students capable of concrete thinking of understanding abstract concepts (Unpublished Research Report). Surabaya, Indonesia: Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
McGonigal, K. (2005). Teaching for transformation: From learning theory to teaching strategies. Spring 2005 Newsletter, 14(2).
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. Core concept of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow et al. (Eds.), Learning as transformation. Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, J. D. (1996, Nov.). Public understanding of science and technology in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Paper presented to the OECD Symposium on the Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
Miller, J. D. (2010). Adult science learning in the Internet era. Curator, 53, 191–208.
Morton, J. P., Doran, D. A., & McLaren, D. P. M. (2008). Common student misconception in exercise physiology and biochemistry. Advances in Physiology Education, 32, 142–146.
Mourtzakis, M., Saltin, B., Graham, T., & Pelegaard, H. (2006). Carbohydrate metabolism during prolonged exercise and recovery: Interactions between pyruvate dehydrogenase, fatty acids, and amino acids. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100, 1822–1830.
Nybo, L., Dalsgaard, M. K., Steenberg, A., Moller, K., & Secher, N. H. (2005). Cerebral ammonia uptake and accumulation during prolonged exercise in humans. The Journal of Physiology, 563(1), 285–290.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2006). Assessing scientific, reading, and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris, France: Author.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 science framework. In PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris, France: Author.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.
Parchman, I. (2009). Chemie im Kontext. Educacio Quimica EduQ, 2, 24–31.
Passos, R. M., Se, A. B., Wolff, V. L., Nobrega, Y. K., & Hermes-Lima, M. (2006). Pizza and pasta help students learn metabolism. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(2), 89–93.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.
Piaget, J. (1978). The development of thought (A. Rosin, Trans.). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.
Potter, N. M., & Overton, T. L. (2006). Chemistry in sport: Context-based e-learning in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(3), 195–202.
Schonborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2006). The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34(2), 94–102.
Selvakumar, M., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12007.
Shwarts, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-schools students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 203–225.
Simon, S. (2005). What is phi coefficient? (online). Available Nov. 2, 2010 at http://childrensmercy.org/stats/definitions/phi.htm. Accessed 2 Nov 2010.
Snow, R. J., Carey, M. F., Stathis, C. G., Febbraio, M. A., & Hargreaves, M. (2000). Effect of carbohydrate ingestion on ammonia metabolism during exercise in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology, 88, 1576–1680.
Song, Y., & Carheden, S. (2014). Dual meaning vocabulary (DMV) words in learning chemistry. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 128–141.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representation in chemical explanation. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.
Viru, A., & Viru, M. (2001). Biochemical monitoring of sport training. New Zealand: Human Kinetics.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wrenn, J., & Wrenn, B. (2009). Enhancing learning by integrating theory and practice. International Journal in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 258–265.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Design for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building community. Journal of The Learning Science, 18(1), 7–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 30 kb)
Appendix: Rubrics for Scoring AMIBAS Tasks
Appendix: Rubrics for Scoring AMIBAS Tasks
Rubric 1 Criteria used to select-sports cases
Sport Cases | Relevance to Sport | Relevance to Biochemistry Topics | Cases Selection Criteria |
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Etc | 1. Occurs while exercising 2. Impact of sports activity | 1. Related to cell metabolism process 2. In accordance with biochemical topics of the curriculum | Relevance both to sport and to biochemistry |
Rubric 2 Students’ abilities to identify what is explicitly written in sports articles
(ExBi) and other implicit aspects (ImBi)
Sport Cases | Rubric | Transformation Learning Score |
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Etc. | • Score 4: if all ExBi and ≥50% ImBi are identified • Score 3: if ≥ 50% of ExBi and <50% ImBi are identified • Score 2: if <50% ExBi and <50% ImBi are identified • Score 1: if <50% ExBi and 0% ImBi are identified | • Transformation of learning has been achieved if all aspects of biochemistry are identified on ExBi and ≥ 50% identified on the ImBi • Criteria minimum score for deep learning: 7 per case • Final score = score per case x number of cases |
Rubric 3 Students’ abilities to define biochemical aspects in sports articles
Aspects of Biochemistry | Rubric | Transformation Score |
Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Etc | • Score 4: if all aspects of biochemistry are defined precisely according to the biochemical context • Score 3: if more than half of the biochemical aspects are defined precisely in the biochemical context • Score 2: if less than half of the biochemical aspects are defined precisely in the biochemical context • Score 1: if the definition does not fit the biochemical context | • A minimum of more than half of the aspects are defined appropriately in the biochemical context • Criteria minimum score for transformation learning: 3 per case • Final score: score of x number of cases |
Rubric 4 Students’ abilities to describe aspects of the biochemistry of sports articles
Aspects of Biochemistry | Rubric | Transformation Score |
Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Etc | • Score 4: if it explains all aspects of biochemistry that have been identified in context (such as: material/component, function and relation to other variables in the biochemical context) • Score 3: if more than half explain all the biochemical aspects that have been identified in context (such as the material/component, its function and its relation to other variables in the biochemical context) • Score 2: if less than half explain all the biochemical aspects that have been identified in context (such as the material / component, its function and its relation to other variables in the biochemical context) • Score 1: if it does not explain the biochemical aspects that have been identified in context | • Transformation learning is evident if there is a minimal explanation score of 3 • Final score: number of cases x score |
Rubric 5 Students’ abilities to apply biochemistry to explain sports cases comprehensively
Aspects of Biochemistry | Explanation Rubric | Transformation Score |
Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Etc | • Score 4: if the description covers the question aspect: who, where, when, what, why, and how appropriately corresponds to the case • Score 3: if the description only covers what aspects of the question what, why and how exactly fit the case • Score 2: if the description only covers the question aspect: who, where, and when exactly appropriate case • Score 1: if description or case explanation is not correct | • Success if minimum score is 3 • Final score: number of cases multiplied by the score |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erman, E., Liliasari, L., Ramdani, M. et al. Addressing Macroscopic Issues: Helping Student Form Associations Between Biochemistry and Sports and Aiding Their Scientific Literacy. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 831–853 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09990-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09990-3