Application of genetic problem base online discussion to improve genetic literacy of prospective teachers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v8i1.19035Keywords:
Genetic literacy , Genetic problem, Online discussionAbstract
Genetics is a subject that is quite difficult according to students. Various strategies and methods are used to understand genetics in learning to have genetic literacy. One way of increasing genetic literacy in students is to apply genetic problems based on an online discussion in genetics lectures. The research was conducted to determine the effect of genetic problem-based online discussion on increasing students' genetic literacy. The research design used a pre-posttest control group design. It was carried out experimentally on three treatment groups: the genetic problem base of students, the genetic problem base of educators - students, and the genetic problem base of educators. According to the genetic literacy domain, genetic literacy is measured through multiple-choice tests, including genetic models, meiotic models, and molecular models. Manova analyzed the value of gene literacy, and a post-doc further test was performed to differentiate genetic literacy in the three treatment groups. The results showed that genetic literacy increased in all treatment groups, with the highest increase in the group that applied a genetic problem base focused on student problems.
Downloads
References
Alanazi, F. H. (2021). Saudi students’ and science teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1884584
Allison, J., & Pan, W. (2017). Implementing and evaluating the integration of critical thinking into problem based learning in environmental building implementing and evaluating the integration of critical thinking into problem based learning in environmental building, Journal for Education in the Built Environment 6(2), 93-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2011.06020093.
Alozie, N., Eklund, J., Rogat, A., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Genetics in the 21st century: The benefits & challenges of incorporating a project-based genetics unit in biology classrooms. American Biology Teacher, 72(4), 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.4.5
Alozie, N. M., Grueber, D. J., & Dereski, M. O. (2015). Promoting 21st-century skills in the science classroom by adapting cookbook lab activities: the case of dna extraction of wheat germ, The American Biology Teacher, 74(7), 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.7.10
Andrade, M. S. (2015). Teaching online : a theory-based approach to student success, Journal of Educatioan and Training Studies, 3(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i5.904
Andrews, T. M., Price, R. M., Mead, L. S., Mcelhinny, T. L., Thanukos, A., Perez, K. E., Lemons, P. P. (2012). Biology undergraduates’ misconceptions about genetic drift, CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-12-0107
Ari, D., & Sadi, Ö. (2019). Effectiveness of cooperative learning on students’ achievement in genetics, self-efficacy, and conceptions of learning biology. I.E.: Inquiry in Education, 11(2), 4. https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol11/iss2/4.
Bailey, C., Bell, E., Johnson, M., Mattos, C., Sears, D., & White, H. B. (2010). Student centered education commentary : biochemistry and molecular biology educators launch national network, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(4), 266–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20424
Barthet, M. M. (2021). Teaching molecular techniques at home: Molecular biology labs that can be performed anywhere and enable hands-on learning of restriction digestion/ligation and DNA amplification. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 49(4), 598–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21517
Batardière, M.-T. (2015). Promoting critical thinking in online intercultural communication. The EuroCALL Review, 23(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2015.4562
Beckmann, J., & Weber, P. (2016). Cognitive presence in virtual collaborative learning: Assessing and improving critical thinking in online discussion forums. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2015-0034
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (2002). Biotechnology, ethics and the politics of cloning. Democracy and Nature, 8(3), 439–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/1085566022000022128
Buma, A., & Nyamupangedengu, E. (2020). Investigating teacher talk moves in lessons on basic genetics concepts in a teacher education classroom. African journal of research in mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2020.1731647
Burian, R. M. (2013). On gene concepts and teaching genetics : episodes from classical genetics, Sci & Educ, 22: 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9367-y
Butler, C., Bello, J., York, A., Orvis, K., & Pittendrigh, B. R. (2008). Genomics analogy model for educators (game): fuzzy dna model to enable the learning of gene sequencing by visually-impaired and blind students, The Science Education Review, 7(2), 1–9. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1050890.pdf.
Cantor, A., Hippman, C., Hercher, L., & Austin, J. C. (2019). Genetic counseling students’ experiences with mental illness during training: An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 67(4), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1481076
Castro-Faix, M., Duncan, R. G., & Choi, J. (2021). Data-driven refinements of a genetics learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21631
Choden, T., & Kijkuakul, S. (2020). Blending problem based learning with scientific argumentation to enhance students’ understanding of basic genetics. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13129a
Chu, Y., & Reid, N. (2012). Genetics at school level: addressing the difficulties, Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 285–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.732059.
Chung, L. I. M. S., Sum, C. W., & Foon, H. E. W. K. (2011). Critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion : an investigation of student facilitation techniques. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 52–65. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ955477.pdf.
Coan, H. A., Goehle, G., & Youker, R. T. (2020). Teaching biochemistry and molecular biology with virtual reality — lesson creation and student response. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v14i1.6234
Covey, S. D. (2021). An adaptable dry lab for SYBR based RT-qPCR primer design to reinforce concepts in molecular biology and nucleic acids. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 49(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21446
Crosswaite, M., & Asbury, K. (2019). Teacher beliefs about the aetiology of individual differences in cognitive ability, and the relevance of behavioural genetics to education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12224
Cruz, R. O. D. (2020). Pedagogical practice preferences among generational groups of learners: Towards effective twenty-first century higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.5.6
Duncan, R. G., Castro-faix, M., & Choi, J. (2015). Informing a learning progression in genetics : International Journal of science and mathematics education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9568-3
Duncan, R. G., & Tseng, K. A., (2010). Designing project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics, Science Education, 21–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20407
Ebrahimi, A., Faghih, E., & Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (2017). Student perceptions of effective discussion in online forums: A case study of pre-service teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1143858
Edens, K. M. (2000). Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 48(2), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550009595813
Enochsson, A. B. (2018). Reflective discussions in teacher training: A comparison between online and offline discussions of course literature in a class of pre-service teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9602-5
Erickson, K. A., & Franciszkowicz, M. J. (2010). Problems with DNA, PRIMUS: Problems, Resources , and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 20(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970903486475
Freidenreich, H. B., Duncan, R. G., & Shea, N. (2011.). Exploring middle school students’ understanding of three conceptual models in genetics exploring middle school students’ understanding of three conceptual, International Journal of Science Education, 33(17), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.536997
Halverson, K. L., Freyermuth, S. K., Siegel, M. A., & Clark, C. G. (2010). What undergraduates misunderstand about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2253–2272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903367344
Hammes, M., & Duryea, E. (1986). Problem base learning: A teaching technique to enhance skills for problem-solving. Health Education, 17(6), 44–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00970050.1987.10615982
Karagöz, M. & Cakir M., (2011). Problem solving in genetics : conceptual and procedural difficulties, Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1668–1674, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936343.pdf.
Karantzas, G. C., Avery, M. R., MacFarlane, S., Mussap, A., Tooley, G., Hazelwood, Z., & Fitness, J. (2013). Enhancing critical analysis and problem-solving skills in undergraduate psychology: An evaluation of a collaborative learning and problem-based learning approach. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12009
Kilinc, H., & Altinpulluk, H. (2021). Discussion forums as a learning material in higher education institutions. International Journal of Higher Education Pedagogies, 2(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.33422/ijhep.v2i1.25
Kisa, T. M., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways: a foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549452
Knippels, M. P. J., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics, Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 108-112, https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655976.
Machová, M., & Ehler, E. (2021). Secondary school students’ misconceptions in genetics: origins and solutions. Journal of Biological Education, 00(00), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021. 1933136
Mallett, O. (2019, May 4). Collaboration in entrepreneurship education: challenges, opportunities and innovations. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1541681
Maryuningsih, Y., Hidayat, T., Riandi, R., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2019a). Critical thinking skills of prospective biology teacher on the chromosomal basic of inheritance learning through online discussion forums. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(2). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022090
Maryuningsih, Y., Hidayat, T., Riandi, R., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2020a). Contribution of internet resources to mastery genetic concept on prospective teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042010
Maryuningsih, Y., Hidayat, T., Riandi, R., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2020b). Profile of information and communication technologies (ICT) skills of prospective teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042009
Maryuningsih, Y., Hidayat, T., Riandi, R., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2019). Developing Gen-21cs on smartphone to cultivate the 21st-century skills on biology teacher candidates. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 5(3), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i3.9714
Maryuningsih, Y., Hidayat, T., Riandi, R., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2020). The critical thinking skills of biology teacher candidates toward the ethical issues. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 6(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v6i1.10779
Mcelhinny, T. L., Dougherty, M. J., Bowling, B. V, & Libarkin, J. C. (2012). The status of genetics curriculum in higher education in the united states : goals and assessment. Sci & Educ, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9566-1
Mohamad, M., & Shaharuddin, S. (2014). Online forum discussion to promote sense of learning community among the group members. International Education Studies, 7(13), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n13p61
Morreale, S. P., Valenzano, J. M., & Bauer, J. A. (2017). Why communication education is important: a third study on the centrality of the discipline’s content and pedagogy. Communication Education, 66(4), 402–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265136
Nedungadi, P., & Raman, R. (2012). A new approach to personalization: integrating e-learning and m-learning, Education Tech Research Dev, Special issue on personalized learning, 60: 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9250-9
Nold, H. (2017). Using critical thinking teaching methods to increase student success : an action research project, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 17–32. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1136016.pdf.
Noordegraaf-Eelens, L., Kloeg, J., & Noordzij, G. (2019). PBL and sustainable education: addressing the problem of isolation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(5), 971–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09927-z
Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2018). Teaching tree thinking in an upper level organismal biology course: testing the effectiveness of a multifaceted curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 52(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1285804
Ofstedal, K., & Dahlberg, K. (2009). Collaboration in student teaching: Introducing the collaboration self-assessment tool. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020802668043
Poehnl, S., Bogner, F. X., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Cognitive load and alternative conceptions in learning genetics, The Journal of Educational Research, 106(3), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.687790
Rausch, A., Schley, T., & Warwas, J. (2015). Problem solving in everyday office work—a diary study on differences between experts and novices. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(4), 448–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2015.1060023
Reinagel, A., & Speth, E. B. (2016). Beyond the central dogma : model-based learning of how genes determine phenotypes, CBE Life Sciences Education 15, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0105
Seager, R. D. (2014). Genetic dominance & cellular processes. American Biology Teacher, 76(9), 576–581. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2014.76.9.2
Shan, J. H., & Wang, W. (2021). Making and sharing in asynchronous discussion: exploring the collaboration process in online maker community. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1916764
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment : a new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics, CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08
Smith, M. U., & Gericke, N. M. (2013). Mendel in the modern classroom. Sci & Educ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9629-y
Stern, F., & Kampourakis, K. (2017). Teaching for genetics literacy in the post-genomic era. Studies in Science Education, 53(2), 193–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2017.1392731
Study, A. P. (2016). Emphasizing the history of genetics in an explicit and reflective approach to teaching the nature of science, Sci & Educ, 25. 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9821-y
Terblanché, E. (2015). Deciding to teach online: communication, opportunities and challenges for educators in distance education. Communicatio, 41(4), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2015.1115416
Thomas, M. S. C., Kovas, Y., Meaburn, E. L., & Tolmie, A. (2015). What can the study of genetics offer to educators ?, Mind Brain & Education, 9(2), 72–80. https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/11891/1/Thomas_etal_genetics&education_final_MBE.pdf.
Trezise, B. (2020). Performative pedagogies: feeling the experience of being (the) social in twenty-first century learning. Research in Drama Education, 25(3), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2020. 1789454
Walker, P., & Finney, N. (1999). Skill development and critical thinking in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(4), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251990040409
White, K. (2005). Stem cells 201: An overview of the ethics of stem cell research. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 12(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1310/J0DQ-TJ8X-P222-5W3J
Ylostalo, J. H. (2020). Engaging students into their own learning of foundational genetics concepts through the 5E learning cycle and interleaving teaching techniques. Journal of Biological Education, 54(5), 514–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1620311
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia) agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in JPBI, copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the publishing right to the publisher.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
