Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Investigations of Modellers and Model Viewers in an Out-of-School Gene Technology Laboratory

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

Abstract

Genetics is known to be one of the most challenging subjects in biology education because of its abstract concepts and processes. Therefore, hands-on experiments in authentic learning environments are supposed to increase comprehensibility and provide otherwise unavailable experiences to students. We applied a hands-on module in an out-of-school gene technology lab, combining experimentation and model work, in order to support the experimental work. In comparing the impact of two different approaches on cognitive achievement, cognitive load and instructional efficiency, we divided our sample (N = 254) into two groups: While both were subjected to the experimental part of the module, the modellers (n = 120) were required to generate a DNA model using assorted handcrafting materials, whereas the model viewers (n = 134) worked with a commercially available school model of DNA structure. Interestingly, the model viewers performed significantly better regarding a mid-term knowledge increase, while individual cognitive load scores during the activity remained similar. Accordingly, the model viewing approach produced significantly higher scores for instructional efficiency, pointing to enhanced cognitive achievement through a more intense perception of the DNA models’ correct contents. While at the first glance our results seem surprising, implications for teaching when models come into play and ways to avoid such discrepancies are discussed. Consequently, recommendations for classroom impacts are presented.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, H., Schwarz, C., Chen, J., Hokayem, H., & Zhan, L. (2011). Engaging elementary students in scientific modeling: The MoDeLS fifth-grade approach and finding. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling: cognitive tools for scientific enquiry (pp. 195–220). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bavarian Ministry of Education. (2007). Lehrplan für das Gymnasium G8 [Curriculum for Gymnasium G8]. Munich: ISB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden – On some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.024 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Nun, M. S., & Yarden, A. (2009). Learning molecular genetics in teacher-led outreach laboratories. Journal of Biological Education, 44(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2009.9656187 .

    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 

  • Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chittleborough, G. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Why models are advantageous to learning science. Educación química, 20(1), 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cokelez, A., Dumon, A., & Taber, K. S. (2008). Upper secondary French students, chemical transformations and the “register of models”: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 807–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701308458 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cokelez, A. (2012). Junior high school students’ ideas about the shape and size of the atom. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9223-8 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften [research methods and evaluation in social and human sciences] (5th ed.). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Alenka, G. (2003). Students’ understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000038231 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G., Bogner, F. X. (2011). Cognitive influences of students’ alternative conceptions within a hands-on gene technology module. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 2011, 158–170.

  • Gerstner, S., Bogner, F. X. (2010). Cognitive achievement and motivation in hands-on and teacher-centred science classes: Does an additional hands-on consolidation phase (concept mapping) optimise cognitive learning at work stations? International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 849–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902803604.

  • Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200106 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girwidz, R., Robitzko, T., Schaal, S., Bogner, F.X. (2006). Theoretical concepts for using multimedia in science education. Science Education International, 17(2), 77–93.

  • Goldschmidt, M., Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F. X. (2015). Instructional efficiency of different discussion approaches in an outreach laboratory: Teacherguided versus student-centered. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.917601.

  • Griffiths, K. A., & Preston, R. K. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grünkorn, J., Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2014). Assessing students’ understandings of biological models and their use in science to evaluate a theoretical framework. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1651–1684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.873155 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henze, I., & Van Driel, J. H. (2011). Science teachers’ knowledge about learning and teaching models and modeling in public understanding of science. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific inquiry (pp. 239–261). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2006). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • ISB [State Institute for School Quality and Educational Research, Munich]. (2004). Lehrplan im Fach Chemie für das gymnasium in Bayern [curriculum in chemistry for the gymnasium in Bavaria]. Wolnzach: Kastner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S. (2009). Learning how to model in science classroom: Key teacher’s role in supporting the development of students´ modelling skills. Educación química, 20(1), 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210163198 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002b). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindfield, A. C. (1991). Confusing chromosome number and structure: A common student error. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KMK (2005) Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz – Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss [resolution of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany - standards of biology education for secondary school]. Munich: Luchterhand.

  • Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? The Science Teacher, 79(3), 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langheinrich, J., Bogner, F. X. (2015). Student conceptions about the DNA structure within a hierarchical organizational level: Improvement by experiment- and computer-based outreach learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 43(6), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20888.

  • Langheinrich, J., Bogner, F. X. (2016). Computer-related self-concept: The impact on cognitive achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation 2016(50), 46–52.

  • Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471–492.

  • Maia, P. F., & Justi, R. (2009). Learning of chemical equilibrium through modelling-based teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 603–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malacinski, G. M., & Zell, P. W. (1996). Manipulating the ‘invisible’: Learning molecular biology using inexpensive models. American Biology Teacher, 58(7), 428–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students’ cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655718 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. Handbook of educational psychology, 47–62.

  • Meissner, B., Bogner, F. X. (2011). Enriching students’ education using interactive workstations at a salt mine turned science centre. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(4), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1006103.

  • Mierdel, J., Bogner, F. X. (2019a). Is creativity, hands-on modeling and cognitive learning gender-dependent? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 91–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.001.

  • Mierdel, J., Bogner, F. X. (2019b). Comparing the Use of Two Different Model Approaches on Students’ Understanding of DNA Models. Education Sciences, 9(2), 115.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. W. C., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003b). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. W. C., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003a). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 35(4), 737–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peebles, P., & Leonard, W. H. (1987). A hands-on approach to teaching about DNA structure and function. The American Biology Teacher, 49(7), 436–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randler, C., Bogner, F. X. (2006). Cognitive achievements in identification skills. Journal of Biological Education, 40(4), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2006.9656038.

  • Roberts, J. R., Hagedorn, E., Dillenburg, P., Patrick, M., & Herman, T. (2005). Physical models enhance molecular three-dimensional literacy in an introductory biochemistry course. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 33, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.494033022426 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion [textbook test theory – test construction] (2nd ed.). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 500–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20144 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F. X. (2011). A new two-step approach for Hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students’ activities during experimentation in an outreach gene technology lab. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9177-2.

  • Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F. X., Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology laboratory with educational focus: Results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.1.

  • Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., & Fortus, D. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellmann, D., Bogner, F. X. (2013). Climate change education: Quantitatively assessing the impact of a botanical garden as an informal learning environment. Environmental Education Research, 19, 2013(4), 415–429.

  • Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1), 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sins, P. H., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802192181 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotiriou, S., Bogner, F. X. (2008). Visualizing the invisible: Augmented reality as an innovative science education scheme. Advanced Science Letters, 1(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2008.012.

  • Steiner, G. (2006). Lernen und Wissenserwerb [learning and knowledge acquisition]. In A. Krapp & B. Weidemann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie. Ein Lehrbuch [Educational Psychology. A textbook] (pp. 166–170). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A. T., Gainer, M. J., & Hegarty, M. (2018). Learning by enacting: The role of embodiment in chemistry education. Learning and Instruction, 55, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.008 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A. T., & Hegarty, M. (2016). Model manipulation and learning: Fostering representational competence with virtual and concrete models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000077 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9425-5 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2006). Discussion of ‘emerging topics in cognitive load research: Using learner and information characteristics in the design of powerful learning environments’. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1251 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies (Vol. 1). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4 .

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Templin, M. A., & Fetters, M. K. (2002). A working model of protein synthesis using LegoTM building blocks. The American Biology Teacher, 64(9), 673–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2013). Modelle [Models]. In H. Großengießer, U. Harms, & U. Kattmann (Eds.), Fachdidaktik Biologie [Biology education] (pp. 325–334). Freising: Aulis Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43(2008), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayers, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, S., Förtsch, C., Boone, W., von Kotzebue, L., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2017). Investigating how German Biology teachers use three-dimensional physical models in classroom instruction: A video study. Research in Science Education, 49, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9624-4 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article reflects only the author’s views and the European Union as well as BMBF are not liable for any use that might be made of information contained herein. Special thanks go to teachers and students involved in this study for their cooperation. We also thank Michael Wiseman for discussing earlier stages of our paper.

Funding

This study was supported by the ‘CREATIONS’ project funded by the European Union’s HORIZON 2020-SEAC-2014-1 Program (Grant: 665917), by the ‘Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung’ Program funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; Grant: 01JA160) and by the University of Bayreuth.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Mierdel.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 27 kb)

Appendix. Items of the cognitive load questionnaire monitoring the mental effort during task performance in our gene technology module

Appendix. Items of the cognitive load questionnaire monitoring the mental effort during task performance in our gene technology module

Please appreciate retrospectively your mental effort for the phases of the module on a scale of 1 (very, very low ≙ it was very easy for me) to 9 (very, very high ≙ it was very difficult for me).

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mierdel, J., Bogner, F.X. Investigations of Modellers and Model Viewers in an Out-of-School Gene Technology Laboratory. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 2), 801–822 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09871-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09871-3

Keywords

Navigation