Title: Effects of Reading Interventions on Student Understanding of and Misconceptions about Antibiotic Resistance
Abstract Students possess informal, intuitive ways of reasoning about the world, including biological phenomena. Although useful in some cases, intuitive reasoning can also lead to the development of scientifically inaccurate ideas that conflict with central concepts taught in formal biology education settings, including evolution. Using antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution, we developed a set of reading interventions and an assessment tool to examine the extent to which differences in instructional language affect undergraduate student misconceptions and intuitive reasoning. We find that readings that confront intuitive misconceptions can be more effective in reducing those misconceptions than factual explanations of antibiotic resistance that fail to confront misconceptions. Overall, our findings build upon investigations of intuitive reasoning in biology, examine possible instructional interventions, and raise questions about effective implementation of reading interventions in addressing persistent misconceptions about biology. more »« less
Nielson, Catie; Pitt, Emma; Fux, Michal; Nesnera, Kristin de; Betz, Nicole; S Leffers, Jessica; Tanner, Kimberly D; Coley, John D
(, CBE—Life Sciences Education)
Fiedler, Daniela
(Ed.)
Previous research has shown that students employ intuitive thinking when understanding scientific concepts. Three types of intuitive thinking—essentialist, teleological, and anthropic thinking—are used in biology learning and can lead to misconceptions. However, it is unknown how commonly these types of intuitive thinking, or cognitive construals, are used spontaneously in students’ explanations across biological concepts and whether this usage is related to endorsement of construal-consistent misconceptions. In this study, we examined how frequently undergraduate students across two U.S. universities ( N = 807) used construal-consistent language (CCL) to explain in response to open-ended questions related to five core biology concepts (e.g., evolution), how CCL use differed by concept, and how this usage was related to misconceptions agreement. We found that the majority of students used some kind of CCL in the responses to these open-ended questions and that CCL use varied by target concept. We also found that students who used CCL in their response agreed more strongly with misconception statements, a relationship driven by anthropocentric language use, or language that focused on humans. These findings suggest that American university students use intuitive thinking when reasoning about biological concepts with implications for their understanding.
Roh, K.H.; Dawkins, P.C.; Eckman, D.; Tucci, A.; Ruiz, S.
(, Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education)
Cook, S.; Katz, B.; Moore-Russo, D.
(Ed.)
This study explores how instructional interventions and teacher moves might support students’ learning of logic in mathematical contexts. We conducted an exploratory teaching experiment with a pair of undergraduate students to leverage set-based reasoning for proofs of conditional statements. The students initially displayed a lack of knowledge of contrapositive equivalence and converse independence in validating if a given proof-text proves a given theorem. However, they came to conceive of these logical principles as the teaching experiment progressed. We will discuss how our instructional interventions played a critical role in facilitating students’ joint reflection and modification of their reasoning about contrapositive equivalence and converse independence in reading proofs.
We conducted an observational study to document student misconceptions about cybersecurity using thematic analysis of 25 think-aloud interviews. By understanding patterns in student misconceptions, we provide a basis for developing rigorous evidence-based recommendations for improving teaching and assessment methods in cybersecurity and inform future research. This study is the first to explore student cognition and reasoning about cybersecurity. We interviewed students from three diverse institutions. During these interviews, students grappled with security scenarios designed to probe their understanding of cybersecurity, especially adversarial thinking. We analyzed student statements using a structured qualitative method, novice-led paired thematic analysis, to document patterns in student misconceptions and problematic reasoning that transcend institutions, scenarios, or demographics. Themes generated from this analysis describe a taxonomy of misconceptions but not their causes or remedies. Four themes emerged: overgeneralizations, conflated concepts, biases, and incorrect assumptions. Together, these themes reveal that students generally failed to grasp the complexity and subtlety of possible vulnerabilities, threats, risks, and mitigations, suggesting a need for instructional methods that engage students in reasoning about complex scenarios with an adversarial mindset. These findings can guide teachers’ attention during instruction and inform the development of cybersecurity assessment tools that enable cross-institutional assessments that measure the effectiveness of pedagogies.
Khushal, Anum
(, University of Nebraska Digital Commons)
Quantitative reasoning (QR) is the ability to apply mathematics and statistics in the context of real-life situations and scientific problems. It is an important skill that students require to make sense of complex biological phenomena and handle large datasets in biology courses and research as well as in professional contexts. Biology educators and researchers are responding to the increasing need for QR through curricular reforms and research into biology education. This qualitative study investigates how undergraduate biology instructors implement QR into their teaching. The study used pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and a QR framework to explore instructors’ instructional goals, strategies, and perceived challenges and affordances in undergraduate biology instruction. The participants included 21 biology faculty across various institutions in the United States, who intentionally integrated QR in their instruction. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data focusing on participants’ beliefs, experiences, and classroom practices. Findings indicated that instructors adapt their QR instruction based on course level and student preparedness. In lower-division courses, strategies emphasized building foundational skills, reducing math anxiety, and using scaffolded instruction to promote confidence. In upper-division courses, instructors expected greater math fluency but still encountered a wide range of student abilities, prompting a focus on correcting misconceptions in integrating math knowledge and fostering deeper conceptual understanding in biology. Many instructors reported that their personal and educational experiences, especially struggles with math, often shaped their inclusive and empathetic teaching practices. Additionally, instructors’ research backgrounds influenced instructional design, particularly in the use of authentic data, statistical tools, and real-world applications. Instructors’ teaching experiences led to refinement in lesson planning, pacing, and active learning strategies. Despite their efforts, instructors faced both internal and external challenges in implementing QR, including discomfort with teaching math, time limitations, student resistance, and institutional barriers. However, affordances such as departmental support, interdisciplinary collaboration, and curricular flexibility helped to overcome some of these challenges. This study highlights the complex relationships between instructors’ experiences, beliefs, and contextual factors in shaping QR instruction. This calls for professional development that supports reflective practice, builds interdisciplinary competence, and promotes instructional strategies that bridge biology and mathematics and will help instructors design a learning environment that better support students’ development of QR skills. These findings offer valuable guidance for professional development aimed at helping biology instructors incorporate quantitative reasoning into their teaching. Such efforts can better equip students to meet the quantitative demands of modern biology and promote their continued engagement in STEM fields through more inclusive and integrated instructional approaches.
In this study, we have explored the effectiveness of two instructional approaches in the context of the motion of objects falling at terminal speed in the presence of air resistance. We ground these instructional approaches in dual-process theories of reasoning, which assert that human cognition relies on two thinking processes. Dual-process theories suggest multiple possible avenues by which instruction might impact student reasoning. In this paper, we compare two possible instructional approaches: one designed to reinforce the normative approach (improving the outputs of the intuitive process) and another that guides students to reflect on and analyze their initial ideas (supporting the analytic process). The results suggest that for students who have already demonstrated a minimum level of requisite knowledge, instruction that supports analysis of their likely intuitive mental model leads to greater learning benefits in the short term than instruction that focuses solely on providing practice with the normative mindware. These results have implications for the design of instructional materials and help to demonstrate how dual-process theories can be leveraged to explain the success of existing research-based materials. Published by the American Physical Society2024
Pickett, Sarah B., Nielson, Catie, Marshall, Hydea, Tanner, Kimberly D., and Coley, John D. Effects of Reading Interventions on Student Understanding of and Misconceptions about Antibiotic Resistance. Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10368016. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 23.1 Web. doi:10.1128/jmbe.00220-21.
Pickett, Sarah B., Nielson, Catie, Marshall, Hydea, Tanner, Kimberly D., & Coley, John D. Effects of Reading Interventions on Student Understanding of and Misconceptions about Antibiotic Resistance. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23 (1). Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10368016. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00220-21
Pickett, Sarah B., Nielson, Catie, Marshall, Hydea, Tanner, Kimberly D., and Coley, John D.
"Effects of Reading Interventions on Student Understanding of and Misconceptions about Antibiotic Resistance". Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 23 (1). Country unknown/Code not available. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00220-21.https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10368016.
@article{osti_10368016,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
title = {Effects of Reading Interventions on Student Understanding of and Misconceptions about Antibiotic Resistance},
url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10368016},
DOI = {10.1128/jmbe.00220-21},
abstractNote = {Abstract Students possess informal, intuitive ways of reasoning about the world, including biological phenomena. Although useful in some cases, intuitive reasoning can also lead to the development of scientifically inaccurate ideas that conflict with central concepts taught in formal biology education settings, including evolution. Using antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution, we developed a set of reading interventions and an assessment tool to examine the extent to which differences in instructional language affect undergraduate student misconceptions and intuitive reasoning. We find that readings that confront intuitive misconceptions can be more effective in reducing those misconceptions than factual explanations of antibiotic resistance that fail to confront misconceptions. Overall, our findings build upon investigations of intuitive reasoning in biology, examine possible instructional interventions, and raise questions about effective implementation of reading interventions in addressing persistent misconceptions about biology.},
journal = {Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education},
volume = {23},
number = {1},
author = {Pickett, Sarah B. and Nielson, Catie and Marshall, Hydea and Tanner, Kimberly D. and Coley, John D.},
}
Warning: Leaving National Science Foundation Website
You are now leaving the National Science Foundation website to go to a non-government website.
Website:
NSF takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the views expressed or the accuracy of
the information contained on this site. Also be aware that NSF's privacy policy does not apply to this site.