Formative Assessment Pre-Test to Identify College Students’ Prior Knowledge, Misconceptions and Learning Difficulties in Biology

  • Reuven LazarowitzEmail author
  • Carl Lieb


A formative assessment pretest was administered to undergraduate students at the beginning of a science course in order to find out their prior knowledge, misconceptions and learning difficulties on the topic of the human respiratory system and energy issues. Those findings could provide their instructors with the valuable information required in order to adapt their teaching methods to the students’ needs. The test included open-ended questions and was administered on the first day of the course. The data obtained were analysed in relation to the students’ gender, age and having attended or not attended advanced courses in biology at the high-school level. Students could have prior knowledge on a topic to be learned, which, if identified and accounted for in the teaching, could serve as a receptor for a constructivist mode of study. The results indicated that undergraduate students hold misconceptions which could obstruct the acquisition of new knowledge. They encounter learning difficulties, which, if are known to the instructors and addressed in their teaching, could facilitate students’ learning. The possible use of a formative pre-assessment procedure, which could guide the instruction and learning process from the beginning of a course, is discussed.

Key Words

formative assessment naïve knowledge non-major college students in biology preconceptions and misconceptions in biology prior knowledge 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D.L., Fisher, K.M. & Norman, G.J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J.B. (1980). Developmental processes and learning outcomes. In J.R. Kirby & J.B. Biggs (Eds.), Cognition development and instruction. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, A.B. & Anderson, C.W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, P.J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21, 49–97.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P.J. (1995). Can teachers use assessment to improve learning? British Journal of Curriculum & Assessment, 5(2), 7–11.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  10. Brattstorm, B.H. (1999). Are students learning from their teachers or the media? The American Biology Teacher, 61(6), 420–422.Google Scholar
  11. BSCS Yellow Version, Israeli adaptation (1975). The Israeli Center for Science Teaching, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  12. Cowie, B. & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 101–116.Google Scholar
  13. Crooks, T.J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.Google Scholar
  15. Duit, R. & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Learning in science–from behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B.J. Fraser & K.J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Great Britain: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Farmer, W.A. & Farreil, M.A. (1980). Systematic instruction in science for the middle and high school years. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Finley, F., Stewart, J. & Yarroch, L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66(4), 531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hegarty-Hazel, E. & Prosser, M. (1991a). Relationship between students’ conceptual knowledge and study strategies–part 1: Student learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 303–312.Google Scholar
  19. Hegarty-Hazel, E. & Prosser, M. (1991b). Relationship between students’ conceptual knowledge and study strategies–part 2: Student learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 421–430.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, A.M. & Lawson, E.A. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnstone, A.H. & Mahmoud, N.A. (1980). Isolating topics of high perceived difficulty in school biology. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 163–166.Google Scholar
  22. Karplus, R., Dawson. A., Wollman, W., Howe, A., Bernhoff, R. & Sullivan, B. (1977). Workshop on science teaching and the development of reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  23. Lawson, A.E. (1988). A better way to teach biology. The American Biology Teacher, 50(5), 266–278.Google Scholar
  24. Lawson, A.E. & Renner, J.W. (1975). Relationships of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawson, A.E. & Thompson, L.D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawson, A.E. & Worsnop, W.A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazarowitz, R. (2000). Research in science, content knowledge structure, and secondary school curricula. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 48, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazarowitz, R. & Penso, S. (1992). High school students’ difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 215–223.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, J.C. (2002). College students’ beliefs, alternate conceptions and understanding of the theory of common descent. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). New Orleans, Louisiana, April 2002.Google Scholar
  30. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  31. Shayer, M. (1978). The analysis of science curricula for Piagetian level of demands. Studies in Science Education, 5, 115–130.Google Scholar
  32. Shemesh, M. & Lazarowitz, R. (1989). Pupils’ reasoning skills and their mastery of biological concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 23(1), 59–63.Google Scholar
  33. Staver, J. (1986). The effects of problem format, number of independent variables, and their interaction on student performance on a control of variables, reasoning problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(6), 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stern, L. & Mokady, O. (2004). Will dinosaurs ever appear again? University biology students’ conceptions of determinism in nature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, (NARST). Vancouver, Canada, April 2004.Google Scholar
  35. Stern, L. & Roseman, A. (2004). Can Middle school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stewart, J.H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44(2), 80–84.Google Scholar
  37. Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L.H.T. West & A.L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure andconceptual change (pp. 211–231). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Treagust, D.F. (1988), Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169.Google Scholar
  39. Walker, R.A., Hendrix, J.R. & Mertens, R.T. (1980). Sequenced instruction in genetics and Piagetian cognitive development. The American Biology Teacher, 42(2), 104–109.Google Scholar
  40. Wright, L.E. (2004). Reform in undergraduate science teaching: university and federal perspective, pp. 12–17. International Conference on Learning and Assessment in Science, Engineering & Management in Higher Education. In O. Herscovitz (Ed.) Conference proceedings, Technion City, Haifa, Israel, December 2004.Google Scholar
  41. Zohar, A. & Ginossar, S. (1998). Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in biology education–heretical suggestions. Science Education, 82(6), 679–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceIIT TechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations