Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Active Learning Experiences in Biology Instruction

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introductory biology courses form a cornerstone of undergraduate instruction. However, the predominantly used lecture approach fails to produce higher-order biology learning. Research shows that active learning strategies can increase student learning, yet few biology instructors use all identified active learning strategies. In this paper, we present a framework to design biology instruction that incorporates all active learning strategies. We review active learning research in undergraduate biology courses, present a framework for organizing active learning strategies, and provide clear implications and future research for designing instruction in introductory undergraduate biology courses.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen D, Tanner K (2003) Approaches to cell biology teaching: learning content in context–problem-based learning. Life Sci Educ 2(2):73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters BJ, Nelson CE (2002) Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution 56(10):1891–1901

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009) Vision and change in undergraduate biology: a view for the 21st century. Accessed 8/31/2101 at www.visionandchange.org

  • Anderson RC (1984) Reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educ Res 13(9):5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Samuel B (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Andre T (1997) Selected microinstructional methods to facilitate knowledge construction: Implications for instructional design. In: Tennyson RD, Schott F, Seel N, Dijkstra S (eds) Instructional design: international perspective: theory, research, and models, vol 1. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 243–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster P, Patel M, Johnson E, Weiss M (2009) Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 8(3):203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey JM, Slater TF (2005) Finding the forest amid the trees: tools for evaluating astronomy education and public outreach projects. Astron Educ Rev 3(2):47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer CA (2004) Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. Bioscience 54(11):1034–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee R, McCrae B, Laurie R (2009) PISA 2006: an assessment of scientific literacy. J Res Sci Teach 46(8):865–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86(2):175–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark R, Mayer R (2008) E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, 2nd edn. Pfeiffer, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A, Brown JS, Holum A (1991) Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. Am Educator 15(3):6–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2008) Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. Life Sci Educ 7(4):368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers PJJM, Thijs GD (1998) Making productive use of students’ initial conceptions in developing the concept of force. Sci Educ 82(1):31–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiCarlo SE (2006) Cell biology should be taught as science is practised. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(4):290–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy F, Segers M, Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D (2003) Effects of problem-based learning: a metaanalysis. Learn Instruct 13:533–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori YJ, Belcher J (2005) How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? J Learn Sci 14(2):243–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy TM, Cunningham DJ (1996) Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. MacMillan Library Reference, New York, pp 170–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl R (2008) Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Rev Res Educ 32:268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert-May D, Brewer C, Allred S (1997) Innovation in large lectures: teaching for active learning. Bioscience 47(9):601–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart M, Finkel E, Marion SF (1996) Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: a re-examination. Am Educ Res J 33(2):261–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortus D, Krajcik J, Dershimer RC, Marx RW, Mamlok-Naaman R (2005) Design-based science and real-world problem solving. Int J Sci Educ 27(7):855–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francom G, Bybee D, Wolfersberger M, Merrill MD (2009) Biology 100: a task-centered, peer-interactive redesign. TechTrends 53(3):85–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman S, O’Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D et al (2007) Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 6(2):132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frick T, Chadha R, Watson C, Wang Y, Green P (2009) College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Educ Technol Res Dev 57(5):705–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné RM (1968) Contributions of learning to human development. Psychol Rev 75(3):177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné RM (1985) The conditions of learning and theory of instruction, 4th edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

  • Gardner (2011) Testing the efficacy of Merrill’s first principles of instruction in improving understanding in introductory undergraduate biology courses. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University

  • Griffith BE, Benson GD (1994) Scientific thought as dogmatism. Int J Sci Educ 16(6):625–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin MJ, Hannafin KM, Land SM, Oliver K (1997) Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev 45(3):101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver CE (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16(3):235–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung W (2006) The 3C3R model: a conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdiscip J Probl Based Learn 1(1):55–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd PD (1998) Scientific literacy: new minds for a new world. Sci Educ 82(3):407–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH (1997) Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educ Technol Res Dev 45(1):65–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH (1999) Designing constructivist learning environments. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory, vol 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, pp 215–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ Technol Res Dev 48(4):63–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller JM (1987) Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. J Instr Dev 10(3):2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiboss JK, Ndirangu M, Wekesa EW (2004) Effectiveness of a computer-mediated simulations program in school biology on pupils’ learning outcomes in cell theory. J Sci Educ Technol 13(2):207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klymkowski M, Garvin-Doxas K, Zeilik M (2003) Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy: what biologists can learn from physicists. Cell Biol Educ 2:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner JL (1997) Educational implications of analogy: a view from case-based reasoning. Am Psychol 52(1):57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn D (2005) Education for thinking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov JB, Reid AH, Yamamoto KR (2010) Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sci Educ 9(1):10–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapadat JC (2000) Construction of science knowledge: scaffolding conceptual change through discourse. J Classr Interact 35(2):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks HM (2000) Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. Am Educ Res J 37:153–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano RJ, Pickering DJ, Pollock JE (2001) Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RH (1999) Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, vol 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, pp 141–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendenhall AB, Caixia W, Suhaka M, Mills G (2006) A task-centered approach to entrepreneurship. TechTrends 50(4):84–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill MD (2002) First principles of instruction. Educ Technol Res Dev 50(3):43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill MD (2006) First principles of instruction: a synthesis. In: Reiser RA, Dempsey JV (eds) Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, vol 2. Merrill/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 62–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill MD (2007) A task-centered instructional strategy. J Res Technol Educ 40(1):5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill MD (2009) First principles of instruction. In: Reigeluth C, Carr-Chellman A (eds) Instructional-design theories and models, volume III: building a common knowledge base. Routledge, New York, pp 41–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Mervis J (2009) Universities begin to rethink first-year biology courses. Science 325:527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael J (2006) Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ 30(4):159

    Google Scholar 

  • Nastase AJ, Scharmann LC (1991) Nonmajors’ biology: enhanced curricular considerations. Am Biol Teach 53(1):31–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson CE (2008) Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integr Comp Biol 48(2):213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omer S, Hickson G, Taché S, Blind R, Masters S, Loeser H et al (2008) Applying innovative educational principles when classes grow and resources are limited. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 36(6):387–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne J (2010) Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328:463–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins DN, Unger C (1999) Teaching and learning for understanding. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory, vol 2. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 91–114

  • Reuter JG, Perrin NA (1999) Using a simulation to teach food web dynamics. Am Biol Teach 61(2):116–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Riffell S, Sibley D (2005) Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: an evaluation of a hybrid course format. Comput Educ 44(3):217–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanger MJ, Brecheisen DM, Hynek BM (2001) Can computer animations affect college biology students’ conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? Am Biol Teach 63(2):104–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank R (2001) Designing world-class e-learning: how IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University Are Succeeding At E-Learning

  • Schwartz DL, Lin X, Brophy S, Bransford JD (1999) Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, vol 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, pp 183–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra G (2005) The ‘warming trend’ in conceptual change research: the legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educ Psychol 40(2):107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith AC, Stewart R, Shields P, Hayes-Klosteridis J, Robinson P, Yuan R (2005) Introductory biology courses: a framework to support active learning in large enrollment introductory science courses. Life Sci Educ 4(2):143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spektor-Levy O, Eylon B, Scherz Z (2009) Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: does it make a difference? Int J Sci Math Educ 7:873–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, Inc (2002) Thomson job impact study: the next generation of learning [electronic version]. Retrieved June 13, 2009 from http://www.delmarlearning.com/resources/job_impact_study_whitepaper.pdf

  • Venville GJ, Treagust DF (1998) Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. J Res Sci Teach 35:1031–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volpe P (1984) The shame of science education. Integr Comp Biol 24(2):433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou S (1994) Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learn Instr 4:45–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterman MA (1998) Investigative case study approach for biology learning. Bioscene. J College Biol Teach 24(1):3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood WB (2009) Innovations in undergraduate biology teaching and why we need them. Ann Rev Cell Dev Biol 25:93–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff S (2001) Changing the culture of undergraduate science teaching. J College Sci Teach 30(5):306–312

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Franklin University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Joel Gardner

  2. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Brian R. Belland

Authors
  1. Joel Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian R. Belland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel Gardner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gardner, J., Belland, B.R. A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Active Learning Experiences in Biology Instruction. J Sci Educ Technol 21, 465–475 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9338-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9338-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation