r.» .
(rlfs
am”

:
a)...“ .
a .
3...
.35... :thnm‘.# 4.13:.
. I .
fiézsss , ‘

$3me .V

.44.. .‘v
, :1 . fluiufiriz v
.
2.9.... 3 x
2 1
i h
.

.1 3:13..)
«Rn»

rite!
Still: 3......
.t.ex-n ‘

asl- ix
.{I.:ruv .
11.3.0} saxln’xa I. O
(09:30-12!!! :13
2 . : r126 \ fig
. £3.51;
(3110:»:23I:
ill $10.. :
(19L .3 :5
q’ga 1 all
‘ . at '7 .2]
30.41;!
s

nu...
hurnuevh.
60.“ n. 90"-
. t Huh“

.5

 

h: ‘ » {(5155.‘
it n

993‘.
I01;
’1’.“-
! £1123le1|
.1) v til» as!!tll!a.)l
v. 31...): .3! 4. 1.... 9|.
. . 1‘... v5

:1
9203. )».lt§51-rrip.v!
.‘151 n . ’9‘!!!
‘13::i: .

: >l‘l I4

3 1,
.156 .0
a: .Ill}.vtl’d.¢v

fin... .. :!

 

 

 

Z LIBRARV
2010 Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE IMPACT OF FORMATNE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES ON
THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY UNITS OF
PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND CELLULAR RESPIRATION

presented by

SHANNA FAWN TURY

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Biological Science
Science Interdepartmental

 

 

/? Allow»

Major Professor’s Signature

d6 [M M
”Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KIProj/AccSPres/ClflC/DateDueJndd

 

THE IMPACT OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES ON THE
INSTRUCTION OF THE HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY UNITS OF
PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND CELLULAR RESPIRATION
By

Shanna Fawn Tury

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Biological Science Interdepartmental

2010

ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES ON THE
INSTRUCTION OF THE HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY UNITS OF
PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND CELLULAR RESPIRATION
By
Shanna Fawn Tury
The effect of formative assessment on student learning during student-centered, inquiry-
based instruction was studied in a high school biology class. The objective of this study
was to test whether increasing the level of formative assessment, including feedback to
students and reflection on laboratory activities, would make an impact on the learning of
concepts related to cellular metabolism, such as cellular respiration and photosynthesis.
Two units of instruction were evaluated, one utilizing active learning strategies along
with formative assessment techniques, and the other taught in a more teacher-centered
manner. The revised methodology showed a statistically significant increase in student
learning gains as compared to the unimproved technique. The increased amount of hands-
on activities for students, observation of students in an informal context, student and
teacher interaction, immediate feedback to students, public discussion and reflection on
lab activities and results, and modification of instruction by the teacher is implicated in
the trend found in these data. The results suggest that the combined effect of active,
inquiry-based instruction and a variety of formative assessments can have a significant

positive effect on student learning of topics related to cellular metabolism, such as

photosynthesis and cellular respiration

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research study could not have been completed without the patient help, and
continued support and guidance of Dr. Merle Heidemann. Thank you for offering
suggestions and problem-solving strategies and for critically reading this manuscript.

I am also indebted to Kate Hagerman for our daily discussions about teaching, learning,
interacting with students, and the demands of our profession. She continually encourages
me to improve my teaching and to analyze all situations with a critical eye. Kate is not
only a dedicated teacher, but also a loving mother, and has helped me through some of
the most difficult challenges I have faced in my life. She is an incredible friend that I
value greatly.

Thank you to my parents Vicky and Chuck Comaire for their ever present love
and support, and for always believing in my strength and character. I want to thank my
sister Renee Anderson, my “almost twin”, for her free therapy sessions, reminders to take
breaks, and positive attitude. My gratitude extends to my great friends Dawn Langdon-
Paff, Wade Dana, and Sharon Waldron for talking me through the rough points and for
celebrating the high notes with me. Thank you for lending your ears, Offering advice, and
keeping me sane throughout the years. I would never make it without you and love each

of you very much.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. vi
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... l
IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................. 16
RESULTS AND EVALUATION ................................................................. 31
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................ 47
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 54
Appendix A: Curriculum Objectives .................................................... 54
Appendix B: Consent and Assent Form ................................................. 56
Appendix C: Labs and Activities ......................................................... 59
I. Photosynthesis Unit ...................................................... 59

a. Plant Pigment Chromatography Lab
b. Photosynthesis Inquiry Lab
II. Cellular Respiration Unit ................................................ 66
a. Cellular Respiration Flowchart
b. Respiration and Exercise Lab
c. Fermentation Inquiry Lab
Appendix D: Assessments ................................................................ 76
I. Photosynthesis Pretest/Posttest
11. Cellular Respiration Pretest/Posttest
Appendix E: Assessment Rubrics ........................................................ 80
I. Photosynthesis Pretest and Posttest Grading Rubric
11. Cellular Respiration Pretest and Posttest Grading Rubric
III. Lab Report Conclusion Grading Rubric
Appendix F: Surveys and Peer Evaluations ............................................. 86
I. Pre-Unit Survey
11. Lab Survey
III. Post-Unit Survey
IV. Lab Group Peer Evaluation

Appendix G: Student Results ............................................................. 92
1. Survey Data
a. Pre-Unit Survey
b. Lab Survey

c. Post-Unit Survey

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 96

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Photosynthesis Unit Outline ........................................................... 19
Table 1.2 Respiration Unit Outline ............................................................... 20
Table 1.3 Photosynthesis Average Pretest and Posttest Scores ............................... 36
Table 1.4 Cellular Respiration Average Pretest and Posttest Scores ......................... 40
Table 1.5 Lab Report Conclusion Average Scores ............................................. 46
Table 1.6 Photosynthesis Pretest and Posttest Rubric .......................................... 80
Table 1.7 Cellular Respiration Pretest and Posttest Rubric .................................... 82
Table 1.8 Critical Thinking Lab Report Conclusion Rubric ................................... 85

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Comparison of average pretest and posttest scores for photosynthesis
unit. .................................................................................................... 35

Figure 1.2 Comparison of average pretest and posttest scores for cellular respiration
unit .................................................................................................... 39

Figure 1.3 Comparison of average improvement between pretest and posttest for the
photosynthesis and cellular respiration units .................................................... 43

Figure 1.4 Comparison of lab report conclusions written by students after completing two
inquiry-based laboratories .......................................................................... 45

vi

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem and Rationale for the Study

The fundamental biology processes of photosynthesis and cellular respiration are
challenging for many students due to their abstract and complex nature (e. g. Salter, 2008;
Keeley, Eberle, and Tugel, 2007). These processes are difficult to comprehend and
therefore poorly understood by students, because they contain many new and unfamiliar
molecules, chemical reactions, as well as an advanced and technical vocabulary (Patro,
2008). The essential role that these processes play within organisms, ecosystems, and the
biosphere at large makes it imperative that students recognize their significance. Not only
must biology teachers facilitate learning of curriculum content objectives, they must
model the overarching goals of science and its process-driven nature, such as increasing
knowledge about the natural world through investigation and analysis, and using
explanations to make predictions. This can be achieved by asking questions, testing
hypotheses, and drawing conclusions through the analysis of empirical data. To mentor
students to think and write like scientists, educators must foster scientific literacy and
allow time for practice and development of scientific method and experimental design
skills (Berber-Jimenez, et. al, 2008; Wilke and Straits, 2005). Students need to conduct
scientific inquiry that is embedded within and relevant to discipline-specific content
knowledge.

The limitations Of teaching the basic molecules and chemistry of photosynthesis
and cellular respiration to underclassmen in high school are evident in low levels of
comprehension, low test scores on summative assessments, and low motivation for

learning. The latter complicates the task since not only is the subject matter extremely

challenging, students also have little appreciation for what they are learning. In addition,
most students are required to enroll in Biology prior to Chemistry in high school, making
it difficult for them to fully understand biological molecules and the associated chemical
reactions taking place within cells. Relevant chemical concepts are addressed by biology
teachers, but often are not internalized by students until much later in their educational
career.

The importance of planning and facilitating an inquiry-based science program for
students is strongly emphasized in the National Science Education Teaching Standards as
it allows for the development of investigative skills “as well as the curiosity, Openness to
new ideas and data, and skepticism that characterizes science” (NRC, 1996). Inquiry can
be defined as an approach to learning that is student-constructed as opposed to
information that is teacher-transmitted. A spectrum of inquiry-based learning exists since
investigations can be teacher-guided or completely student-led, or anywhere in between.
The National Science Education Teaching Standards also stress the importance of
ongoing assessment of learning by utilizing multiple methods to “gather data about
student understanding and ability”. In addition, the analysis of these assessment data is
crucial for the reflection on and improvement of teaching practices (NRC, 1996).

While the use of inquiry as a pedagogical guide to instruction is a useful method
for science educators, I have noticed in my own teaching that inquiry-based activities and
labs that lack necessary individual and group reflection time and follow-up discussion
with students fall short of their goals. In short, the absence of formative laboratory and
activity assessment in the biology classroom makes it difficult to recognize and respond

to student needs and challenges as they participate in daily tasks and labs. Not only is the

need for continuous evaluation great in this setting, negative perceptions of assessments
by students and even teachers makes their presence even more formidable.

I predict that by using more continuous, formative assessment I will gain a more
thorough knowledge of student understanding as they perform classroom activities and
laboratory investigations. This will enable me to better guide their learning toward a more
accurate and complete comprehension of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Student-
centered activities to use in this formative assessment process will be necessary as they
will allow for direct interaction of teacher and student and more emphasis on “responding
to individual student’s interest, strengths, and needs” (NRC, 1996). Through the use of
demonstrations, group discussions, modeling activities, manipulatives, individual and
group white boarding, lab results presentations, participation assessments, and peer
evaluations, I expect to be able to effectively evaluate my students as they progress
through the learning of these challenging concepts and to adjust my instruction to better
suit their specific needs.

Theoretical Framework

The importance of inquiry-based learning during which students take an active
role in performing investigations and formulating answers to testable questions, as well
as the authentic, real time (formative) assessment of that learning by teachers should not
be undervalued in the science classroom (Carlson, Humphrey, and Reinhardt, 2003).
Both inquiry and formative assessment are valuable tools available to educators as they
seek to facilitate student learning about scientific concepts. Inquiry-based instruction
allows students to increase their knowledge through direct observation of organisms and

related phenomena, much like science is conducted by researchers in the real world.

Formative assessment enables teachers to continuously gauge student understanding and
adjust instruction to meet the needs of those students as difficulties arise.

The call for “hands-on, minds-on” science education is strongly emphasized in the
National Science Education Standards, where it is clearly stated that learning science is
an active process, and is “something that students do, not something that is done to them”
(NRC, 1996). The goal of the Standards is to promote reform throughout the educational
system by changing the emphasis from the teacher as a technician presenting knowledge
through lecture, text, and demonstration to the teacher as an “intellectual, reflective
practitioner” who “[guides] students in active and extended scientific inquiry.” Also
important is the placing of more emphasis on communicating ideas and work to
classmates in a public forum and continuous assessment of student understanding, and
less emphasis on private communication between student and teacher as well as
evaluating student’s knowledge of factual information at the conclusion of an
instructional period (NRC, 1996). Clearly, the need for students as active learners
performing inquiry-based lab investigations mentored by thoughtful instructors that focus
on formative assessment is a vital component of science education as it progresses further
into the twenty-first century.

It has been stated that “inquiry as an instructional method is here to stay”
(Erekson, 2004). Therefore, imperative that teachers of science not only provide
opportunities for students to conduct inquiry, but also to develop a learning environment
where increased assessment and reflection on the process as well as content subject
matter is both the norm and the expectation. Students must recognize that the process of

science produces knowledge, and when performing inquiry-based activities they are

engaging in many of the same thinking processes “as scientists who are seeking to
expand human knowledge of the natural world” (NRC, 2000). Traditional assessment
techniques may not be as effective for evaluating student comprehension during inquiry-
based learning; revised methods must be considered and researched (Erekson, 2004).

The advantages of inquiry-based science teaching are numerous and include
active, meaningful, and higher level learning (Wilke and Straits, 2005). Active learning
strategies that require involvement by students promote “deep content learning” instead
of just memorizing factual information and vocabulary (Ueckert and Gess-Newsome,
2008). This “knowledge reorganization”, in which recognition of major concepts and
relationships among ideas are added to student’s existing knowledge base, has the ability
to challenge preexisting ideas and misconceptions. The problem is that what many
students experience in the classroom, and while studying at home, is often described as
“passive learning” (Bransford, Brown, and Cooking, 2000), which is “contrary to what
we know about both learning and the generation of scientific knowledge” (Ueckert and
Gess-Newsome, 2008). Scientists and students alike must be actively engaged in the
process of asking questions, observing, proposing hypotheses, designing experiments,
collecting and analyzing data, interpreting evidence and making conclusions. Science is
never performed in isolation, and active learning necessitates that individuals “engage
with the content, and with others, unveil prior ideas, and construct new knowledge from
their experiences” (U eckert and Gess-Newsome, 2008).

Accordingly, the SE approach (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate)
has been recently popularized in education research and practice because, unlike

commonly encountered teaching methods, this instructional format allows students to

take on a more active role in their learning. The various components of the SES appeal to
different learning styles and are easily incorporated into an inquiry-based classroom.
Patro (2008) found that utilizing the SE technique to teach cellular respiration improved
the test scores of his students and increased their engagement during class time. In
addition, using this method allows for presentation of the material in a variety of modes,
including “visual, auditory, tactile etc.”, and provides a system to monitor student
learning continuously and modify instruction as needed (Patro, 2008).

As evidenced by the wealth of literature concerned with changing teaching
strategies to include more active learning strategies, it is necessary to focus more
attention on accurately assigning assessment methods with types that align with these
learning goals (Crowe, Dirks, and Wenderoth, 2008; Ueckert and Gess-Newsome, 2008;
Peters, 2008; Straits and Wilke, 2002; Hackett, 1998). Bloom’s taxonomy is a well
known and accepted tool for categorizing thinking into different levels: knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Not only do educators
need to facilitate student use of the higher order cognitive skills of Bloom’s taxonomy
(application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) through inquiry-related practices, but
relevant formative assessment methods must be developed to accentuate the learning
process.

Assessments, whether diagnostic, formative, or summative, must employ a variety
of methods to completely and accurately gauge the learning of students in the science
classroom. Diagnostic assessments, such as pretests, allow educators to find out what
prior knowledge students possess, while summative assessments, including paper and

pencil tests and quizzes, quantify learning at the end of a unit or class. Many types of

formative assessments occurring during the instructional period offer students “feedback
on their work to improve their learning” (Heady, 2000). Assessment should take the form
of a cycle between student and instructor in which adjustments are made by each party as
necessary to enhance learning; this feedback should be focused and immediate (Wilke
and Straits, 2005). One of the advantages for teachers is that formative assessments,
while useful and productive for students, do not require formal grading. This is a time
saver in an era of increased accountability and paperwork for educators and reduced state
funding for schools. For example, my school district has eliminated prep periods for
teachers in order to save money, so therefore I will be teaching one extra hour each day,
decreasing the amount of time I can devote to grading of homework and other summative
assessments.

The primary purpose of assessment is “to help students do higher quality work”
(NRC, 2001). F orrnative assessments are ongoing, built into the design of teaching, and
provide teachers with a wealth of data about their student’s needs and challenges while
students are experiencing them. When that assessment information is used to inform and
influence teaching and learning, only then is it formative in nature (NRC, 2001). The
techniques of continuous, formative assessment may include: participant observation,
purposeful questioning, science conversations, and student self-assessment. The purposes
and uses may include: serving instruction while monitoring growth, enhancing student
learning, enabling teachers’ professional growth, and providing information to report
students’ progress (Carlson, Humphrey, and Reinhardt, 2003).

A review of more than 250 sources (Black and William, 1998) cites formative

assessment as an essential feature of classroom work, and also reports that the “learning

gains from systematic attention to formative assessment are larger than most of those
found for any other educational interventions” (NRC, 2001). The Black and William
study also states that formative assessment practices are currently underused by a
majority of educators. When assessment becomes a daily classroom focus, it becomes
less intimidating to students, and has been shown to have a positive effect on learning and
achievement in science classrooms. Thus, assessment is a powerful tool not only for
grading and placement of students, but also to improve learning and inform instruction.

Since formative assessment can improve the abilities of educators to promote high
quality student outcomes, and inquiry learning can produce higher achievement and
positive student attitudes, it is imperative that the development and use of these
assessments takes place within an inquiry-based science curriculum (Straits and Wilke,
2002). Formative assessments used to glean information during the learning process can
be informal and serve as “spot checks” to reveal students’ current level of understanding.
In addition, this sort of reflection by educators can act as an impetus for the continual
improvement of teaching, “ensuring that inquiry learning activities become more refined,
appropriate, and effective” (Straits and Wilke, 2002). It should be noted that inquiry-
based learning and formative assessment techniques are not the answer to all problems
associated with science education today, but do deserve a prominent place in the
pedagogical repertoire of quality science teachers.

Successful teachers use a variety of methods to measure student understanding of
science concepts including laboratory-based assessment techniques. Erekson (2004)
reports that lab group presentations using Whiteboards coupled with guided teacher

questions can help “assess student understanding of inquiry-related activities.” When

students visually and orally present their findings from lab investigations, they are
mirroring the work of scientists as they share information. This process is a formative
assessment technique because it helps to identify misconceptions and gaps in student
learning, produces a less-threatening environment for exchange of ideas, and helps to
guide further instruction for educators.

Reflective thinking and writing immediately following inquiry-based learning
activities allow students to analyze and make judgments about what happened during the
investigation. Reflection may help students to improve communication skills, both
written and oral, and informs the instructor of students’ current level of expertise with the
topic or question. McDonald and Dominguez (2009) state that science journal reflections,
small group reports, and guided reflection papers all help students to construct meaning
and expand learning and understanding. They also emphasize that much of the
information gathered from these assessments should be utilized to adjust teaching, and
not to assign grades. Peters (2008) provides strategies for improving inquiry assessment,
such as letting students show what they know, multiple types of assessment, and frequent
feedback loops, in order to develop a classroom culture that views assessment “as
information rather than judgment”. Allowing opportunities for frequent peer assessment
and self-assessment can show students that evaluations such as these can provide
information to improve their work and increase their learning (Peters, 2008).

One type of advanced literacy that is practiced and developed throughout high
school science classes is writing lab reports. This expository form of writing can benefit
students as they become more familiar with the text, style, and language used in science

(Berber-Jimenez, et a1, 2008). A well-written lab report, specifically the conclusion

section, can show instructors that students have made connections between the observed
results and scientific concepts. Furthermore, when students conduct a task in which they
use their data to form and defend an explanation, they are developing and refining
scientific inquiry skills (Hackett, 1998). It seems logical that providing students with a
rubric in advance of a task such as a lab report conclusion, as well as providing feedback
during the reflective writing process, will improve the quality of work students are able to
produce.

In summary, active learning fosters opportunities for students to engage with
science content, interact socially, consider prior understandings, connect ideas, and
construct new knowledge. Inquiry-based investigations are a type of active learning that
does the aforementioned activities and also develops scientific method and experimental
design skills. Additionally, assessment of student learning must be expanded beyond the
limited scope of the traditional types Of summative tests used as ending activities to
include a more varied and progressive assortment of formative assessments to help both
teachers and students monitor progress.

Scientific Background

The topic of cellular metabolism, specifically the processes of photosynthesis and
cellular respiration within living organisms, plays an essential role in the maintenance Of
life on earth (see Michigan Science Content Expectations, Appendix A). Photosynthesis
captures light energy from the sun and converts it into chemical energy in the form of
carbohydrates and other organic biological molecules within plants, some protists and
bacteria. Cellular respiration, taking place within autotrophs and heterotrophs alike,

releases this stored chemical energy transforming it into a readily useable and renewable

10

molecule, known as ATP, which living organisms utilize to drive endergonic metabolic
reactions taking place within cells. Although many students are under the misconception
that photosynthesis and cellular respiration are inverse reactions of each other due to the
reciprocal nature of their overall chemical equations, it should be noted that these
processes take place within different organelles and involve completely different sets of
chemical reactions and associated enzymatic catalysts.

In order to maintain homeostasis and life processes, the cells of living organisms
must take in energy from outside sources. This energy enters ecosystems as sunlight
which is utilized during the process of photosynthesis to drive the formation of organic
compounds which are later oxidized by cellular respiration, transferring chemical energy
to produce ATP to be used for cellular work. This energy ultimately leaves the ecosystem
as heat given off by respiring organisms. Photosynthetic organisms comprise the base of
the food chains and food webs within ecosystems and therefore most of the energy within
living things is indirectly derived from their metabolism. Net primary production is the
amount Of organic material produced by autotrophs that is available to higher trophic
levels after subtracting the amount necessary to sustain respiration, growth, and
homeostasis within the cells of the autotrophs themselves. Heterotrophic organisms then
feed on this organic material, incorporating it into their own bodies or using it for energy.
The amount of available energy decreases as it progresses through the various trophic
levels due to the fact that most of this energy is lost as heat. Therefore, the processes of
photosynthesis and cellular respiration are relevant not only at the cellular level but also
to organisms, communities, and ecosystems because of their relationship to physiology

and energy flow.

11

Photosynthetic pigments, such as chlorophyll, are contained within protein
complexes known as photosystems embedded in the thylakoid membranes of the
chloroplast. The energy-capturing pigment chlorophyll reflects green wavelengths of
visible light making photosynthetic cells appear green to an observer. Students Often are
under the impression that plants appear green because they absorb green light, when just
the opposite is true. The remaining wavelengths of the spectrum are absorbed and the
light energy gained is used to drive the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis. The
light reactions are carried out by enzymes and electron-carrying molecules in the
thylakoid membranes, including photosystems I and II and the associated electron

transport chains, converting light energy to the chemical energy of ATP and NADPH.
Water is also split during this process and O; is released as a byproduct to the atmosphere

or is used by the organism for its own cellular respiration. The Calvin cycle reactions,
sometimes referred to as the dark reactions, take place in the stroma of the chloroplast

and utilize the chemical potential energy of ATP and NADPH made previously in the
light reactions to convert C02 to the three carbon sugar glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate,

which is later converted to other organic compounds such as sucrose, starch, amino acids,
and fatty acids. The Calvin cycle reactions take place whenever ATP and NADPH are
available from the light reactions, but not while the organism is in the dark.

Another misconception held by students is the idea that photosynthesis is the
direct conversion of sunlight into food. Although it is true that the energy gathered,
converted, and stored during the light reactions is later used to build sugar in the Calvin
cycle, the laws of conservation of energy and mass make it impossible to transform

energy into mass. The atoms used to build organic material during the Calvin cycle

12

originate primarily from the atmosphere in the form of C02 taken in by photosynthesizers.

It is also largely inaccurate when students believe that photosynthetic organisms, such as
plants, consume soil and water to gain mass. The minerals and water obtained from the
soil are necessary to the biochemical reactions taking place within these organisms, but a
plant’s mass is derived almost entirely from carbon dioxide, with only a small percentage
of it coming from hydrogen atoms of water taken up by the root system.

Cellular respiration is a central metabolic process in aerobic organisms that is
used to harvest energy through the oxidation of glucose and other organic compounds
and use it to regenerate ATP, the universal energy molecule used to power most energy
requiring metabolic reactions. The three main parts of cellular respiration are glycolysis,
the Krebs cycle (citric acid cycle), and oxidative phosphorylation taking place in the cell
cytoplasm, mitrochondrial matrix, and mitochondrial membranes, respectively.
Glycolysis is a series of enzyme-catalyzed reactions in most living cells that effectively
converts the six carbon sugar glucose (or other energy-containing organic compound)
into two molecules of the three carbon acid pyruvate. Some of the energy in the C-C and
C-H bonds in glucose is converted into a small amount of ATP (2) and NADH (2) under
usual conditions. Following glycolysis, fermentation by facultative anaerobes converts
pyruvate into ethanol (yeast) or lactic acid (human muscle cells), although this does not
produce any additional ATP.

Under aerobic conditions, carbon dioxide is removed from pyruvate and
coenzyme A is added to form the two carbon molecule acetyl CoA which feeds into the
Krebs cycle. The Krebs cycle is another enzyme-catalyzed series of oxidation-reduction

(redox) reactions occurring in the mitochondrial matrix in eukaryotes (and the cytoplasm

13

in prokaryotes) that transforms acetyl COA into C02. Some of the energy in the C-C and
C-H bonds in acetyl COA is converted into a small amount of ATP (2), NADH (2-3), and

F ADH2 (2) under usual conditions. Lastly, much of the chemical energy in NADH and
FADH2 is converted to chemical energy in ATP as electrons removed from NADH and

FADHZ travel through the electron transport chain and are involved in a series of redox

reactions in the inner mitochondrial membrane in eukaryotes (and the plasma membrane
in prokaryotes). At the end of the electron transport chain, the electrons combine with
hydrogen ions and oxygen gas to form water. This oxidative phosphorylation (ultimately
removing electrons from food molecules) produces a large amount of ATP through
chemiosmosis of hydrogen ions across the inner mitochondrial membrane. The ATP
produced during cellular respiration is used by cells to maintain homeostasis and provide
chemical energy for anabolic reactions within organisms.

Correspondingly, students sometimes assume that only plants photosynthesize
while only animals respire, or that photosynthesis is a plant’s form of cellular respiration.
This of course is not true, as all organisms, regardless of their nutritional requirements,
need to conduct cellular respiration and/or fermentation to produce ATP for life processes.
It is also a misconception that plants respite only when they are not photosynthesizing,
when in reality cellular respiration is a continuous process carried out at all times by most
living things. Fermentation is also ofien misunderstood by students who do not recognize
that the purpose of this process is to regenerate NAD+, and not to generate additional
ATP post glycoysis.

Finally, the distinctions between cellular respiration, external respiration

(breathing), digestion/absorption, and nutrient circulation by the cardiovascular system

14

within advanced animals, such as humans, are particularly unclear to students. While
digestion, absorption, and the blood function to break down and deliver organic nutrients
to cells, and breathing with lungs delivers oxygen to cells via the blood, cellular
respiration through redox reactions releases energy through the oxidation of food thus
regenerating ATP for cellular work.

School Demographics

The Hartland Consolidated School District, located in the northeastern comer of
Livingston County, is home to eight schools and a total enrollment of nearly 5,600
students in grades K-12. During the past three decades the district has experienced a rapid
rate of growth, transforming itself from a small rural farming community into a large
suburban bedroom community. Hartland High School is an NCA-endorsed, Class A high
school of approximately 1800 students with a graduation rate of 97.9%. The student
population displays low ethnic diversity: 97% Caucasian, 1% Hispanic, 1% African
American, and 1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and approximately 10% of students receive
free and reduced lunch (HHS School Profile, 2009).

Data for the graduating classes of 2008, 2009, and 2010 indicate that 74% of
eleventh grade students achieved Michigan Merit Exam (MME) proficiency in the area of
science, as compared to the statewide level of 56% for those years. In addition, the
average score for the Science portion of the ACT exam is generally about one point
higher than the state average and two points higher than the national average (Hartland
Class of 2009: 21.9; Michigan 2009: 20.1; and US. 2009: 20.9) (HHS Annual Report,
2009). Although Hartland students continue to score above the state and national average,

they have been shown to perform poorly on the test items based on objectives that

15

contained the verbs, “analyze, synthesize, understand, justify, and reflect.” Therefore, one
of the NCA target goals for the high school includes the improvement of critical thinking
across the curriculum, with an emphasis on math and science instruction incorporating
inquiry-oriented instruction, inferring from data, and using contextual clues to make
conclusions (HHS Annual Report, 2009).

The research study documented here, in which the use of formative assessment of
inquiry-based activities to enable a more thorough knowledge of student understanding
and better guide learning toward a more accurate and complete comprehension of
photosynthesis and cellular respiration, was conducted in 4 sections of Biology taught to
primarily tenth grade Students. The data were collected from a group of 31 consenting
students consisting of 4 freshman and 27 sophomores, which is a representative sample of
the age distribution of the students enrolled in those sections. The parental consent and
student assent form utilized for this study is located in Appendix B. The sample group
contained 12 female students and 19 male students, earning the following semester
grades in Biology: 12 “As”, 11 “BS”, 5 “Cs”, 2 “Ds”, and 1 “E”. The average grade point
average (GPA) for the sample group was 3.087, while the overall average GPA for
Hartland High School is 2.839.

IMPLEMENTATION
Description

This research study focused on the comparison of two units of instruction
incorporating inquiry-based learning that were taught with varying types of assessment
techniques. The topic of the first unit was photosynthesis and was taught using previous

methods of instruction, laboratory-based activities, and formal summative assessments.

l6

The topic of the second unit was cellular respiration and was taught using a more student-
centered mode of instruction, laboratory—based activities with increased discussion and
reflection, and many embedded informal formative assessments in addition to the formal
summative evaluations. The data set collected from the photosynthesis unit served as the
control group, while the data from the cellular respiration unit was used as the
experimental group for this study.

A pre-unit survey (Appendix F) was developed to gauge student perceptions
about various topics including classes, grades, studying, class activities, laboratories, tests
and quizzes, etc. A lab survey (Appendix F) was also administered to students with
questions on the topics of student preferences and expectations for learning in the
laboratory setting. Student responses for both of these surveys were gathered at the
beginning of the photosynthesis unit, while a post-unit survey (Appendix F) was given
after the completion of the cellular respiration unit. The compiled results of these surveys
are tabulated in Appendix G, and will be further discussed in the results section of this
paper.

A pretest (Appendix D) was also developed and administered for these two units
of instruction in order to evaluate the prior knowledge of students regarding the topics of
photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Both of the pretests consisted of open-ended
essay questions covering the major concepts of their respective biological processes. A
posttest, with identical essay questions as the pretest, was given to students at the
conclusion of each instructional unit as a portion of their summative unit test. The data
collected allowed for the comparison of average pretest and posttest scores for the

photosynthesis unit; the same comparison was made for the cellular respiration unit. In

17

addition, the average levels of improvement for the photosynthesis unit were directly
compared with those of the cellular respiration unit to evaluate the effectiveness of the
instructional and assessment techniques utilized in the second unit.

Both units of instruction consisted of a pretest, various class work and homework
assignments, one standard lab with detailed procedure, one student designed, inquiry-
based lab, review materials, and a posttest. Students wrote lab report conclusions for the
inquiry-based labs that were formally assessed along with the pretests and posttests and
included in the data set. To increase formative assessment opportunities, more student-
centered activities were incorporated into the cellular respiration unit. These activities
included a calorimetry demonstration and group discussion, molecular modeling of
compounds with chemistry kits, a kinesthetic flow chart activity, individual whiteboard
reflections and group sharing, and lab group whiteboard presentations, in addition to
daily lab participation grades given by the instructor and peer evaluations of student lab
groups.

Despite attempts to isolate and control variables present, this study is limited by
its design since direct comparisons were made between the different, but related topics of
photosynthesis and cellular respiration. In addition to the varying content, the cellular
respiration unit was taught after the photosynthesis unit making it possible that
conceptual knowledge was transferred from the latter to the former. Therefore,
conclusions made from the data collected are tentative since the combination of variables

present makes it likely that a synergistic effect was taking place.

18

Timeline/U nit Outlines

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 overviews of the curriculum and instruction provided to

students during the photosynthesis and cellular respiration units. These units took place

during the middle of the school year, specifically December and January, after students

were familiar with the topics of organization and taxonomy of life, cells and molecules,

cell transport, and cell life cycles.

Table 1.1 Photosynthesis Unit Outline (* indicates new activies/labs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day/Date Topic! Warmup Lesson
Curriculum
Objective(s)
Day One ATP & Energy Pg. 230, 0 Class Lecture/Discussion on ATP
12/8/09 (BZ.5e) Skill structure and energy (powerpoint)
Review #6 0 Work time for Bioluminescence WS
Day Two Introduction of Pg. 228, 0 Introduction of Master’s Thesis
12/9/09 Research/ Problem Research
PreSurvey/ Solving Lab 0 Administered Pre-Survey and
Pretest #1—2 Photosynthesis Pre-test to students
12/10/09 No Class N/A ACT Plan test for all 10th graders
Day Three * Plant Pigment N/A 0 Discussion of plant
12/11/09 Chromato- pigments/absorbance spectrum
graphy Lab graph/lab procedure (powerpoint)*
(82.5f; Bl.1C; 0 Completion of labs in groups of 2-3
Bl.1E) (students chose groups)
Day Four Photosynthesis Why does a 0 Lecture/Discussion on Plant
12/ 14/09 Overview leaf on a Pigments, Light Reactions & Calvin
(B3.1A; B3.lB; tree appear Cycle of Photosynthesis (powerpoint)
B3.1C; B3.1f) green? Why 0 Work time for Photosynthesis WS
do you see
other colors
in the Fall?
Day Five Design Photosyn— 0 Introduce Photosynthesis Lab
12/ 15/09 Photosynthesis thesis 0 Discuss step #1 & 2 as a class
Inquiry Lab Concept 0 Students choose groups and work on
(Bl.1h; Bl.1f) Map steps #3-6
0 Monitor/assist groups as needed,
teacher approval on all steps
Day Six Photosynthesis Lab Pre- 0 Perform Photosynthesis Lab in
12/ 16/09 Inquiry Lab Survey groups
(Bl.1C; Bl.1h; 0 Monitor, assist as needed
Bl.1B; Bl.2h)

 

19

 

Table 1.1 Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day * Historical Define the o Notes/Discussion on Historical
Seven Perspective/Lab following Photosynthesis Experiments—
12/17/09 Recap and Lab terms: (powerpoint)*
Report xylem, 0 Lab groups report their results to the
Conclusions phloem, class orally
(Bl.2h; B 1 .1E; stomata, 0 Discussion of how to write lab
B 1 . 1B) transpiration report conclusions*
Day Eight Energy, Problem 0 Discuss answers to Photosynthesis
12/18/09 Photosynthesis, Solving Lab WS
Plants Review 23-2, #1-4, 0 Grade Photosynthesis Review
(B3.1D; B3.1e) pg. 639
Day Nine Photosynthesis N/A 0 Students take PhotosynthesisUnit
12/21/09 Unit Test Test—Multiple Choice and Post-test

Essay Questions

 

 

Table 1.2 Respiration Unit Outline (* indicates new activies/Iabs; 0 indicates
formative assessments)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day/Date Topic/ Warmup Lesson
Curriculum
Objeective(s)
Day One *Intro to Free Topic 0 Respiration Pretest
1/4/10 Cellular 0 Cellular Respiration Information
Respiration Article & Qs"
BB.1B)
Day Two *Potato Chip How is 0 Burning Potato Chip Demo“ 9
1/5/ 10 Demo/Cellular cellular 0 Cellular Respiration Modeling with
Respiration respiration chemistry kits (glucose + oxygen ->
Modeling used in carbon dioxide + water)* 0
(B3.lB; B3.1C; everyday
B3. 1e) life?

 

20

 

 

Table 1.2 Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day Three Cellular Questions Warmupz“ 0
1/6/10 Respiration— from 1. What happened to the potato chip?

The Details previous What happened to the water?

(82.5e; 32.5f; day’s demo: Why?

B3.lB; B3.1e) see lesson 2. What must happen to the food you
eat before your cells can use the
food’s energy?

3. Explain how the process of
burning is similar to cellular
respiration; explain how it is
different.

4. Write the chemical equation for
respiration. Identify the reactants
and products of this process.

0 Class Notes/Discussion on Cellular

Respiration (powerpoint)

Day Four *Cellular Pg. 33 0 Students complete Cellular
1/7/10 Respiration & Understand- Respiration & Exercise Lab in groups

Exercise Lab ing Main of 3-4*

Bl.1C; Bl.1B; Ideas #1-5, 0 Monitor and assist as needed

B3.1B) & Thinking

Critically #1
Day Five *Lab Pg. 255, # 0 Individual whiteboard activity—
1/8/10 Reflection] 1-10 concepts learned from yesterday’s

F errnentation exercise lab, share ideas as a class“ 0

(BI .18; B1 . l E; 0 Cellular Respiration Flowchart

B3.1B) Activity* 0

0 Class Notes/Discussion on

Fermentation (powerpoint)

Day Six Design Pg. 249 0 Introduce Fermentation Lab, discuss
1/11/10 Fermentation Assessing step #1& 2 as a class

Inquiry Lab Knowledge 0 Teacher selected groups, work on

(Bl.1h; Bl.1f) & Skills, steps #3-6

#1-4 0 Monitor/assist groups as needed,
teacher approval on all steps

Day Perform What is an 0 Perform Fermentation Lab in groups
Seven Fermentation acid? What 0 Monitor and assist as needed
1/12/10 Inquiry Lab is a base?

(Bl.1C; Bl.1h; Describe the

81.13; Bl .2h) pH scale.

 

21

 

Table 1.2 Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day Eight *Lab Free Topic 0 Students design lab result
1/13/10 Presentations/ presentations of Fermentation Lab in
Lab Report groups on large whiteboards* 9
Conclusions 0 Each group presents to the class* 0
(Bl .2h; Bl.1E; 0 Discussion of expectations for lab
Bl.1B) report conclusions using critical
thinking rubric, show examples of
“good” and “bad” conclusions from
photosynthesis lab*
Day Nine Photosynthesis Why would 0 Venn Diagram Activity comparing
1/14/10 vs. Respiration/ human Photosynthesis vs. Respiration and
Aerobic muscle cells Aerobic Respiration vs. Fermentation
Respiration vs. contain 0 Share ideas on board as a class
Fermentation more
(B2.5e; b2.5f; mitochondr-
B3.1B; B3.1C; ia than skin
B3.1D; B3.1e) cells?
Day Ten External Respiratory 0 Peer evaluation of group members
1/15/10 Respiratory System WS from Fermentation Lab“ 0
System 0 Class Notes/Discussion on Human
(B2.3d; 32.3f) Respiratory System (powerpoint)
1/18/10 NO SCHOOL N/A In observance of MLK Day
Day Respiration Pg. 255, 0 Individual whiteboard activity—3
Eleven Review Thinking concepts learned from the unit, share
(1/19/10) Critically #3 ideas as a class* 0
0 Grade Respiration Review
Day Respiration N/A 0 Students take Respiration Unit
Twelve Unit Test Test—Multiple Choice and Post-test
1/20/10 Essay Questions

 

 

Explanation/Overview of Activities for Photosynthesis Unit
Plant Pigment Chromatography Lab (Appendix C)

The plant pigment chromatography lab required students to apply the technique of
paper chromatography to separate individual plant pigments from spinach leaves. The
various pigments found in plants absorb and reflect various colors of light, and are used
for photosynthesis, to attract pollinators, to signal fruit ripeness, to serve as chemical
defense, or to block UV radiation, for example. Pigments from fresh spinach leaves were

transferred to chromatography paper using coins and the paper was placed into a solution

22

containing a mixture of acetone and ether. The chromatography solution moved up the
paper thus separating the pigments by kind and color. This lab contained a standard
detailed procedure for students to follow as they performed the experiment and analyzed
the results. It did not require the use of inquiry-based skills, but did necessitate that
students use proper lab technique and care. Questions following the results section were
used to evaluate student comprehension of plant pigments, and their respective colors and
functions. Students were given the responsibility to select their own lab groups for this
exercise.

This lab was successful and Showed students that green plants such as spinach
contain chlorophyll a and b, as well as carotene and xanthophylls, which were faint on
the chromatographs and in some cases hard for students to visualize. Although most
students did make the connection that the color observed is reflected by the pigment and
the colors not observed are absorbed, approximately one-third of them were not able to
accurately extend this knowledge to explain why the seasonal color change of deciduous
trees is caused by various pigments in addition to chlorophyll within the leaves.
Photosynthesis Inquiry Lab (Appendix C).

This guided inquiry lab allowed students to develop and implement an experiment
to test the effect of a chosen variable on the rate of photosynthesis in the aquatic plant
Elodea. This was quantified by the rate of release of oxygen gas, which was compared
under varying environmental conditions chosen by the students.

This activity began with students reflecting individually, and then as a class, the
factors that affect the process of photosynthesis. Possible methods for measuring the rate

of photosynthesis in Elodea were discussed. Students were asked to investigate how

23

changes in the environment Of Elodea could affect its rate of photosynthesis, by
formulating hypotheses and conducting experiments that included identification of the
independent variable, the dependent variable, the experimental group, the control group,
the number of samples/trials, a materials list, a plan for data collection, and a step-by-step
procedure. The instructor monitored the progress of groups along the way and required
that students obtain “teacher initials” on their lab indicating approval before going on to
the next step.

Students collected and recorded data in a table of their own design, and graphed
the results. Most of the student groups seemed to be in a general rush to complete the lab,
and did not seem very engaged with their procedures and data collection. Students were
given the responsibility to select their own lab groups for this exercise. Each student
group also shared the results of their experiment orally with the class following the
completion of the lab, and students wrote a detailed conclusion based on their results. The
instructor explained the requirements for a lab conclusion using the critical thinking
rubric (Appendix E).

Other Activities

The other activities within the photosynthesis unit included primarily teacher-
centered lecture and discussions regarding the topics of ATP and cellular energy, plant
pigments, light-dependent & Calvin cycle reactions, and historical data from early
photosynthesis experiments. In addition, various reading assignments, worksheets,
concept maps, and warm-up questions were used during this instructional period (Table

1.1).

24

Explanation/Overview of Activities for Cellular Respiration Unit
Calorimetry Demonstration

A class discussion was started by asking students how much energy there is in a
single potato chip. The purpose of this activity was to elicit interest among students and
to determine what they already knew about the energy stored within food and how it
could be released. The calorimetry demonstration consisted of using student volunteers to
burn a large potato chip and measuring how much heat energy it released by raising the
temperature of a small amount of water in a soda can attached to a ring stand, as
referenced in Patro, 2008 (Table 1.2). A reconfigured paper clip was used to hold the
potato chip on the base of the ring stand. The temperature of 20 ml of water was
measured before and after burning of the potato chip.

Class discussion continued regarding energy containing molecules in a potato
chip, digestion, absorption, enzymatic oxidation via cellular respiration of those
carbohydrates and fats, energy transfer, and the production of ATP to be used for cellular
work. Students were also asked to reflect on the calorimetry demo in writing. The
connection of a real world event to the abstract nature of the chemical reactions of
cellular respiration was crucial for student comprehension in this case.

Molecular Modeling of Cellular Respiration

This activity involved students using molecular modeling kits (wooden balls and
sticks) to visualize the structures of glucose, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water and the
changes in atomic associations that occur during cellular respiration (modeled after Patro,
2008, Table 1.2). Students used the kits to build models of the molecules glucose and

oxygen gas which represented the inputs of cellular respiration. Building glucose and

25

oxygen was challenging for most students since they have limited knowledge of the
structure of biological molecules and covalent bonding patterns. Despite having access to
around twenty molecular modeling kits, there was not enough “carbon” atoms for every
student pair to build a glucose molecule. Therefore, some students were asked to build
diatomic oxygen gas instead. (In the future I would use an alternative modeling system in
which each student pair could build one glucose and six oxygen molecules). One glucose
molecule and six oxygen molecules were selected for deconstruction by the students and
rearranged into the outputs of cellular respiration, namely carbon dioxide and water.

The students were able to see that the inputs were rearranged during the reactions
of cellular respiration and formed six molecules of carbon dioxide and six molecules of
water as products. As the students worked, the instructor was able to answer questions
and offer support as needed. This activity allowed the students to explore the
rearrangement of atoms during cellular respiration, essential for understanding this
process. This activity concluded with a discussion about the energy stored within the
chemical bonds of the glucose molecule, which is released as it is oxidized into smaller
molecules; that released energy is utilized for the production of ATP within the
mitochondria.

Cellular Respiration Flowchart Activity (Appendix C)

This kinesthetic student-centered activity was a model of cellular respiration. This
activity allowed the instructor to interact one-on—one with each of the students and
ensured that they were individually responsible for their own learning. This was a useful
formative assessment since it allowed the instructor to determine where students were

experiencing shortfalls in their understanding of the chemical reactions and overall

26

results of cellular respiration. A major area of difficulty was the branch point between
aerobic respiration and fermentation, and the fact that the presence or absence of oxygen
controls how pyruvate will next be utilized in a facultative anaerobe.

Respiration and Exercise Lab (Appendix C)

This lab required students to test the effects of physical exertion on muscle
activity, compared to resting values, as indicated by breathing rate, heart rate, and carbon
dioxide production. Breathing rate was measured in breaths per minute, heart rate in beats
per minute, and carbon dioxide in the time it takes Bromothymol blue to change color.
This activity did not incorporate the use of inquiry based skills, but did require that
students use proper lab technique and care. Detailed data tables, calculations, and
questions following the results section were used to summatively evaluate student
comprehension of the effect of exercise on the metabolic process of energy production in
muscle cells.

During the execution of this lab, a daily participatory grade was assigned to each
student based on their performance. This evaluation was based on their level of
contribution to their group, their attentiveness and on-task behavior, and nature of their
questions to the instructor. Students asking questions of the instructor that could
reasonably have been answered by reading the lab procedure or concurring with their lab
group received a deduction of points. Students were told by the instructor that non-trivial
questions were encouraged and appreciated. The lab groups were assigned at random by
the instructor instead of being chosen by students.

Many students were enthusiastic about this lab activity and collected their data

with vigor and excitement; only a few students were apprehensive about using their own

27

body as a test subject and perhaps may have been embarrassed to exercise in front of their
peers. Following class discussion, the majority of students made the connection between
an increased amount of physical exertion and an increase in the amount of cellular
respiration occurring in muscle cells. This was evidenced by increased breathing rates,
heart rates, and decreased time for the BTB solution to change from blue to yellow.
Students realized that the more carbon dioxide you breathe into the BTB solution, the
faster it will change color to yellow. Some students struggled with the completion of the
data tables since breathing rate and heart rate were tested with multiple trials and average
values were calculated.

At the conclusion of the lab, students used Whiteboards to individually reflect on
their learning experiences during the exercise and respiration lab. Each student wrote
three ideas, trends, or concepts that they noticed during the completion of this lab that
related to exercise and its effect on breathing rate, heart rate, or production of carbon
dioxide. It was requested that their entries contain specific information about
relationships and internal body processes and not just superficial data observations.

Each student shared one of their reflections during a subsequent group discussion
in which no repeated information was allowed. Each student was required to contribute a
unique idea to this sharing activity. Most students were engaged and offered their
reflections eagerly to the class, although a minority of students experienced difficulty
coming up with a unique idea that had not already been mentioned. This activity held
each student accountable to the class as a whole for a contribution to the overall
knowledge gained during the lab, and allowed the instructor to forrnatively assess each

student’s comprehension level. The class discussion allowed the instructor to ask specific

28

guiding questions that helped students with a somewhat limited understanding of the
concepts to gain a more thorough level of comprehension.
Fermentation Inquiry Lab (Appendix C)

This guided inquiry lab allowed students to design and implement an experiment
to test the effect of a variable on the rate of fermentation in yeast. In this investigation the
fermentation rates of yeast, quantified by the release of carbon dioxide gas, were
compared under different environmental conditions chosen by the students. Students
were assigned a daily participatory grade based on their performance throughout this lab
just like for the Respiration and Exercise lab. This evaluation was based on their level of
contribution to their group, their attentiveness and on-task behavior, and nature of their
questions to the instructor. In addition, lab groups were assigned at random by the
instructor instead of being chosen by students.

This procedural design of this lab offered lots of possibilities and allowed students
the freedom to test variables that interested them. The lab commenced with observation,
followed by a discussion of the factors that influence aerobic respiration and fermentation.
Students were asked to investigate how changes in the environment of yeast cells could
affect their rate of fermentation. The format for the execution of this lab mirrored that of
the photosynthesis lab. Students conducted their experiments, collected and recorded data
in a table of their own design, and graphed the results.

Many students were excited about getting to do “whatever they wanted”, and even
incorporated additional techniques they had learned from the Exercise and Respiration
lab such as the use of Bromothymol blue as an indicator of carbon dioxide production. A

few lab groups were so interested in their experiment that they let it run past the normal

29

class period and came back at intervals during the day to check on its progress. Other
groups put forth minimal effort during the planning and execution of this lab activity.
Students were also asked for the first time during this lab to complete peer evaluations of
lab group members in which it was later found that they were open and honest about each
other’s attitudes, skills, and contributions (Appendix F).

Following the completion of the lab, each lab group made a poster and gave a
presentation of their results on a whiteboard (as explained in Erekson, 2004). The posters
contained a title, a short summary of the experimental procedure, a graphic representation
of the data collected, and a conclusion about the effects of the chosen variable on the rate
of fermentation. The presentations allowed for public communication of lab results
between groups that tested different variables and/or utilized alternative quantitative
methods for gathering data. The instructor could reflect on the depth of the knowledge
that the students had gained and adjust instruction for the next phase which was the
reflective process of conclusion writing, completed by each student, guided by the critical
thinking rubric used in the photosynthesis inquiry lab.

In addition, students were shown sample conclusions written by their peers for the
photosynthesis lab. These samples were discussed at length and analyzed for positive and
negative qualities to model for the students expectations for this component of the
cellular respiration lab assessment. Lab report conclusions were later evaluated using the

critical thinking rubric and included in the data analysis for this study.

30

RESULTS AND EVALUATION
Student Survey Results (Appendix G)

The results of the pre-unit survey showed a sampling of student interests, preferences,
and perceptions. Twenty five percent of students chose science as their favorite subject,
while only 10% chose science as their least favorite subject. Typical grades in science
classes were reported to be 33% “As” and 34% “Bs”, while math grades were 37% “As”
and 46% “Bs”. Students perceived the most helpful part of science class with regard to
learning to be labs (30%) and lecture/discussion (29%), and the least helpful part of
science class to be homework (47%). When asked what their favorite part of science class
was, a majority Of students, (69%) reported labs. When studying for science class, most
students listened to music (40%) or went to a quiet room in the house (39%). Students
tended to ask other students in class (45%) or referred to class notes (32%) when
experiencing difficulty in science class.

Although 72% of students agreed or strongly agreed that performing labs in science
class helped them learn, this is compared to only 30% that stated labs were the most
helpful component of science class, as previously stated. Fifty two percent of students
agreed that tests and quizzes required that they learn concepts studied in the lab, while
33% of students were neutral regarding that statement. If students knew something in
class or in the lab was going to be on a test or quiz, they would work harder to learn that
concept; 84% agreed or strongly agreed. Finally, 43% of students plan to take more life
science classes in high school, 95% of students plan to continue their education after
graduating from high school, and 29% plan to have a career that is related to science.

Overall, many students seemed to possess an favorable impression of science in general,

31

and most preferred hands on labs as compared to other forms of instruction. Students also
believed that completing labs aids their learning, and were motivated to learn if they
know that assessments would test lab-based concepts.

The results of the lab survey displayed preferences of the students with regard to their
learning experiences in the laboratory. Eighty four percent of students preferred to work
in a lab group of three or four students, while 79% of students believed that they learn
best in a group of three or four students. While working in the laboratory, 83% agreed or
strongly agreed that they preferred to perform a lab in which they just follow the written
procedure. Only 14% of students agreed that designing their own lab procedure was
preferred, while 32% were neutral, and 54% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Many
students (33%) were neutral when asked if designing their own lab procedure and
performing their own experiment helped them to better understand science concepts, as
compared to a traditional lab activity.

The results of the post survey that showed that the lab exercises helped them to learn.
Seventy three percent agreed or strongly agreed; this result was almost identical to the
previous surveys in which a total of 70% and 72% of students agreed or strongly agreed
that learning was aided by lab activities. In addition, 72% agreed or strongly agreed that
the lab exercises were enjoyable and stimulated their interest, while 68% agreed or
strongly agreed that they were stimulated to think and/or want to learn more during the
lab exercises. Many students also believed (agreed/strongly agreed) that their scientific
reasoning and technical skills were improved as a result of the lab exercises, shown as

73% and 78% respectively.

32

Ninety one percent of students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that they had
positive interactions with the instructor during the lab exercises. Only 57% of students
agreed or strongly agreed that they prefer to learn by doing hands-on activities, while
22% were only neutral on this topic. Students agreed or strongly agreed 72% of the time
that they were more focused and on task during the lab exercises if they knew they was
receiving a daily lab grade (participation points). Fifty eight percent of students agreed or
strongly agreed that using white boards for sharing group lab results and conclusions as a
class helped their understanding of lab concepts, while 35% were neutral on this topic.
Similarly, 59% of students thought that using individual Whiteboards for sharing ideas
about labs helped them learn.

The compilation of responses from the surveys showed that student’s attitudes
were generally positive when asked about laboratory experiences in Biology. Although
ambivalent about inquiry-based labs, many felt that lab exercises in general were
worthwhile and recognized the value of reflection and sharing of ideas following the
completion of lab procedures.

Photosynthesis Unit Results

This unit of instruction was presented to the students in a streamlined fashion
without any extra activities or formative assessments, as compared to previous years.
Information was presented primarily via teacher-centered lecture and notes format with
traditional and inquiry-based laboratory exercises interspersed throughout. The data
collected from this portion of the study included scores from identical pre and post
assessments containing open ended essay questions scored with a specific rubric

(Appendix E). Each of the nine identical questions on the pretest and posttest was scored

33

using a 0-3 scale, with 0 indicating an unanswered question, 1 characterized by an
inaccurate or vague answer, 2 showing some accuracy of detail, and 3 displaying a
complete and accurate answer. The photosynthesis pretest/posttest rubric contains
detailed expectations and examples of student responses awarded each score 1-3
(Appendix E).

Furthermore, an overall average score was calculated for each student on both the
pretest and the posttest (Appendix G). These averages were compared in Figure 1.1, and
show that 29 of 31 students improved their average score between administration of the
pretest and posttest. One student’s average score decreased between assessments (student
#10), and one student’s average score did not change (student #12). Both #10 and #12
were female students earning above average grades in my Biology class, so it is unclear
as to why their scores did not improve. The average differences in comprehension made
by students between the pretest and the posttest were compared using a paired student’s t-
test. The overall average score on the photosynthesis pretest was 1.5, while the average
on the posttest was 2.1 for the 31 students in the sample. The results of the t-test show
that there was a statistically significant difference between the means of the two samples

of scores (P= 3.65E-11, for a one-tailed t-test with 30 degrees of freedom).

34

 

Average Essay Question Score (Range 0-3)

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 5 7 91113151719212325272931
Student Number

 

IDAverage Pretest Score lAverage Posttest Score]

 

Figure 1.1. A comparison of average pretest and posttest scores for photosynthesis unit.
The average score was 1.5/3 on the pretest and 2.1/3 on the posttest, overall. The
difference between the means was statistically significant (P=3.65E-11, for a one-tailed t-
test with 30 degrees of freedom).

A closer examination Of the results revealed that students scored the lowest on
pretest questions numbered 2, 4, 5, and 7 (Table 1.3). Questions 2 and 4 asked for the
specific locations of photosynthesis and gas exchange within the plant. It is not surprising
that students would be lacking details such as these prior to the instruction of the unit.
Most students were able to ascertain that photosynthesis and gas exchange take place in
the leaves of plants, but were not able to give any further details regarding the chloroplast

or stomata structures or locations. Some students guessed that photosynthesis takes place

in plant roots, revealing inaccurate prior knowledge. Question 5 asked why leaves appear

35

green, while question 7 asked where the mass of a growing plant comes from. Many
students were able to gather that the chloroplast or the presence of chlorophyll causes the
plant to be green, but no students mentioned colors/wavelengths of light being absorbed
or reflected. Question 7 revealed student misconceptions, such as the mass of the plant
coming from nutrients and/or water from the soil and/or roots. A few students identified

mitosis as the source of new cells for a growing plant, but no students correctly identified
C02 as the major source of building materials for the organic molecules being produced

during photosynthesis.

Table 1.3. Photosynthesis Average Pretest and Posttest Scores. Essay questions
graded on a 0-3 scale.

 

 

 

 

Question # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Avg.
Pretest 1.9 1.2 2.6 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.5
Posttest 2.3 2.1 2.9 1.8 2.6 2.1 1.7 2.4 1.2 2.1
Improvement 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, student scores on the posttest exhibited the highest levels of
improvement on questions 2, 4, 5, and 8. Question 5 showed the highest level of
improvement overall, but considering the fact that an entire lab was dedicated to
photosynthetic pigments, this was not too surprising. One interesting result was that
student scores decreased slightly from pretest to posttest for question number 9. This
question asked that students design an experiment to test the rate of photosynthesis in a
plant. This skill was practiced during the photosynthesis inquiry lab with Elodea, so it
was unexpected that students would perform worse on the posttest. Other factors could

have been at play here including the vagueness of the question on both tests, student

36

motivation for a lengthy essay question, and lack of inquiry-based skills despite
performing the Elodea lab.

In addition, responses to question 7 showed that some students came to a proper
understanding of the origination of plant mass through photosynthesis, but many

responses revealed the same misconceptions as before. Approximately one half of
students correctly identified C02 as the source of atoms used for increases in plant mass.

It is clear that additional instructional activities and formative assessment techniques
need to be developed to aid student learning of this common photosynthesis
misconception.
Cellular Respiration Unit Results

This unit of instruction was presented to the students in an alternative manner
with various active learning activities and formative assessments. Some of the
information was presented via teacher-centered lecture and notes format, while other
portions incorporated student-centered exercises in which the instructor could interact
with students one-on-one or with small groups. Traditional and inquiry-based laboratory
exercises were conducted by students followed by oral and written reflection and group
presentations using Whiteboards. The data collected from this portion of the study were
scored in a manner identical to that from the photosynthesis unit. The cellular respiration
pretest/posttest rubric contains detailed expectations and examples of student responses
awarded each score 1-3 (Appendix E).

Moreover, an overall average score was calculated for each student on both the
pretest and the posttest (Appendix G). These averages were compared in Figure 1.2, and

show that 30 of 31 students improved their average score between administration of the

37

pretest and posttest. Only one student’s average score decreased between assessments
(#30) who was a male student often lacking motivation for tasks despite being very
capable intellectually. The average differences in comprehension made by students
between the pretest and the posttest were compared using a paired student’s t-test. The
overall average score on the cellular respiration pretest was 1.5, while the average on the
posttest was 2.3 for the 31 students in the sample. The average score on the cellular
respiration pretest was identical to the photosynthesis pretest, while the cellular
respiration posttest average score was slightly higher than the photosynthesis posttest, 2.3
vs. 2.1, respectively. The results of the t-test show that there was a statistically significant
difference between the means of the two samples of scores (P=1.64E-11, for a one-tailed

t-test with 30 degrees of freedom).

38

3.5

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.? lElAverage Pretest Score lAverage Posttest Scorel
o , , , ,fl ,
o 3 , * r 7 * ' , * *7
or
r:
(B
n:
V2.5? 7 ~ 777 7 we ~
2
o
8
c 2 7 e e 7 -
.2
1;; F
31.5 4 a 7
O
>
«I
III
on
m
g 0.5
>
<
0 r I r r r r T"'7 r r r r r r

13 5 7 91113151719212325272931
Student Number

Figure 1.2. A comparison of average pretest and posttest scores for cellular respiration
unit. The average score was 1.5/3 on the pretest and 2.3/3 on the posttest, overall. The
difference between the means was statistically significant (P=1.64E-11, for a one-tailed t-
test with 30 degrees of freedom).

Additionally, student scores on the cellular respiration pretest showed the lowest
scores for questions 1, 3, 5, and 6. (Table 1.4). Question I asked that students state the
purpose of cellular respiration, while question 3 asked for the specific location of this
process in organisms. It was evident that many students guessed on question 1 since their
answers contained the following inaccuracies regarding the purpose of cellular respiration:
producing oxygen/food, cooling, breathing, excretion of waste, circulation of water, etc.

A few students were able to state that cellular respiration is used to produce energy for

the organism to survive, but no specifics were given to further develop those ideas.

39

Question 3 revealed that most students’ prior knowledge about the location of cellular

respiration was limited to saying that it occurs within cells or the lungs, although a couple

of students did accurately identify the mitochondria as the appropriate organelle.

Table 1.4. Cellular Respiration Average Pretest and Posttest Scores. Essay questions

graded on a 0-3 scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Avg.
Pretest 1.1 2.2 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5
Posttest 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.7 2.2 1.8 2.3
Improvement 1.3 0.1 1.4 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.8

 

 

Questions 5 and 6 asked students to compare and contrast the processes of aerobic
respiration with anaerobic respiration, and internal cellular respiration with external
respiration, respectively. The wide range of responses showed that students were willing
to take risks in their guessing on these tests, which made it easier to assess their level of
understanding. For question 5, some students were able to state that aerobic respiration
requires oxygen and anaerobic does not require oxygen, but many students gave
inaccurate responses. Students responded that aerobic respiration happens in water, while
anaerobic occurs in air, or that one process takes in energy and the other releases it. For
question 6, most students stated that internal cellular respiration occurs within the body
and/or cells, while external respiration occurs outside the body and/or cells, but no
student was able to discuss that the processes occur within the mitochondria,
lungs/respiratory system, and circulatory system.

Student responses on the posttest exhibited the highest levels of improvement on
questions 1, 3, and 5. Most students were able to state that cellular respiration releases

energy for organisms in question 1, but many responses were more specific, saying that

40

food molecules are disassembled to produce energy in the form of ATP. A couple of
students mentioned oxygen being involved in the process, but were unable to make any
clear connections to its role in the process. For question 3, a majority of students
correctly identified the mitochondria as the organelle that carries out cellular respiration,
while only a small number of students incorrectly named the chloroplast, the lungs, or the
stomach as the location for this process.

Student responses for question 5 were much more detailed and specific on the
posttest comparing aerobic and anaerobic respiration; question 4 also showed a sizeable
improvement of 0.9 over the pretest (comparing photosynthesis and cellular respiration).
These improvements could be the result of orally reflecting on these questions in class
using Venn diagrams to compare and contrast these processes. Lastly, question 9
deserves discussion because it directly relates to a common misconception about cellular
respiration held by many students. This question was in some ways the inverse of
question 7 on the photosynthesis pre/posttest, since it asked where the mass of a human
goes when weight is lost. Students showed a small level of improvement on this question,
but only two or three students accurately identified the loss of mass occurring from the
breakdown of organic matter and release of C02 and H20 from the body. Most students
clung to misconceptions including mass turning into ATP or water that is excreted from
the body as sweat. These central ideas continue to pose a challenge as students struggle to

alter their knowledge bases away from misconceptions closer to accurate scientific

understanding.

41

Comparison between Photosynthesis and Cellular Respiration Units

Potential differences in student learning gains between the two units were
evaluated. The average improvement made between the pretest and the posttest was
calculated for each student by subtracting the latter from the former (Appendix G). This
calculation was performed for both the photosynthesis and cellular respiration sets of
assessments to determine if one pedagogical methodology was more effective by these
measures for increasing student comprehension.

The comparison of the average improvement for each student shows that 19 of 31
students made greater gains between the pretest and posttest for the cellular respiration
unit (Figure 1.3). This graph also shows that 9 of 31 students showed increased
improvement after the photosynthesis unit as opposed to the cellular respiration unit. In
addition, three students (# 7, 24, & 28) demonstrated identical levels of improvement
between units. The average improvements in comprehension made by students between
the photosynthesis and cellular respiration units were compared using a paired student’s
t-test. The overall average improvement between the pretest and posttest for the
photosynthesis unit was 0.62, while the average improvement on the cellular respiration
unit was 0.81 for the 31 students in the sample. The results of the t-test show that there
was a statistically significant difference between the means of the two samples of scores

(P=0.02, for a one-tailed t-test with 30 degrees of freedom).

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEI PS Avg Improvement I CR Avg Improvement
1.5
a i
o
5
1-
5
a.
E
8.
E 0.5-
o
>
<
0" I I.
13 5 7 91113151719212325272931
-o_5 --.__.i+m ._,., fl iAMf! . .._

Student Number

Figure 1.3. A comparison of average improvement between pretest and posttest for the
photosynthesis and cellular respiration units. The average improvement was 0.62 for the
photosynthesis unit and 0.81 for the cellular respiration unit. The difference between the
means was statistically significant (P=0.02, for a one-tailed t-test with 30 degrees of
freedom).

An additional measure of student learning gains was a comparison of lab report
conclusions written after both the photosynthesis and cellular respiration inquiry labs.
These conclusions were scored using the same rubric detailing the accurate use of critical
thinking skills and reflection. Students were evaluated on the basis Of four components:

claim, evidence, reasoning, and reflection, with each section scored on a 0-5 scale for a

total possible score of 20 (Appendix E). This rubric was designed to assess student

43

abilities with lower and higher level cognitive skills as described in Bloom’s taxonomy
(Crowe, Dirks, and Wenderoth, 2008).

The data collected for these assessments (Figure 1.4) show that 21 of 24 students
earned a higher score for the lab report conclusion written following the cellular
respiration inquiry lab. Two students (#14 and #21 received identical score for both
conclusions, and one student (#17) earned a higher score for the conclusion written for
the photosynthesis inquiry lab. The scores earned by students on the photosynthesis and
cellular respiration conclusions were compared using a paired student’s t-test. The overall
average score on the photosynthesis lab conclusion was 13/20, while the average on the
cellular respiration lab conclusion was 15.3/20 for the 24 students in this sample. The
results of the t-test show that there was a statistically significant difference between the
means of the two samples of scores (P=7.29E-06, for a one-tailed t-test with 22 degrees
of freedom). One possibility for this trend in the data could be that students were more
familiar with the reflective process of writing for the second lab report conclusion

(cellular respiration) and had gained understanding from the examples given in class.

44

T"’"' T." 7"7 T".T'I
‘3 LE] PS Conclusron ICR Conclusron ‘
or Liifli 7,,7 77L
:
3204777777777 ,,,, w L, 7 7‘
o
«,4 A
o
v _ _ _
o _
I-
31544 I,LL_L #77— V ie 7
a - . -
.2 7
3 a _ _ _ _
21m « » ~ 4 e ~ ~ a ~ ~
0
0
‘é‘.
o
m 5 ,— #~ 1 _ L _ A r ~ H ——< J J L
‘3.
.1
0 ' I I I I I l I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920212223
Student Number

Figure 1.4. A comparison of lab report conclusions written by students after completing
two inquiry-based laboratories. The average score was 13/20 for the photosynthesis unit
and 15.3/20 for the cellular respiration unit. The difference between the means was
statistically significant (P=7.29E-06, for a one-tailed t-test with 22 degrees of freedom).
A closer look at the conclusions written for the photosynthesis lab showed that
students on average students scored highest on the Claim portion (4.4/5), and the lowest
(2.1/5) on the Reasoning portion (Table 1.5). The first component, the Claim, was
designed for students to demonstrate the lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) of Bloom’s
taxonomy including comprehension and application, while the final three components,
the Evidence, Reasoning, and Reflection, tested higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS)

including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, respectively. Therefore, it is reasonable that

students scored well on the Claim since it only required a conclusive statement that

45

answered the original question or hypothesis. The fact that scores were lowest for the
reasoning section revealed lack of synthesis skills; students struggled to combine multiple
pieces of information into coherent arguments. Many students were not able to
effectively connect their claim with evidence by using appropriate subject-specific
principles (i.e connecting the details of the process of photosynthesis with the big picture
of the lab results).

Table 1.5 Lab Report Conclusion Average Scores. Components graded on a 0-5
scale.

 

 

 

 

Claim Evidence Reasoning Reflection
Photosynthesis 4.4 3 .2 2. 1 3 .3
Lab
Cellular 4.7 4.3 2.7 3.6
Respiration
Lab
Improvement 0.3 1 . 1 0.6 0.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of the cellular respiration conclusions showed that students also scored
the highest on the Claim portion, and made the highest level of improvement between the
photosynthesis and cellular respiration labs on the Evidence section. This suggested an
increased grasp in analysis skills; they were better able to support (or refute) their claim
based on specific data and trends from the lab. A smaller level of improvement was made
between the lab conclusions on the Reasoning portion displaying increased higher-order
cognitive skills, such as the ability to carefully consider and evaluate information and
data found in the lab. Overall, the data from the conclusions showed that gains were
made between the photosynthesis and cellular respiration labs, but much practice is still
necessary with regard to inquiry-based lab performance and the higher-order cognitive

skills assessed therein.

46

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The instructional methodology used in this research study involved increasing the
amount of continuous, formative assessment to gain a more thorough knowledge of
student understanding as they perform hands-on, student-centered classroom activities
and laboratory investigations. This form of assessment, rather than being used for
assigning of grades, provides students with the chance to revise and improve their
knowledge of course concepts and to witness their own progress. Teachers can then
identify problems and pitfalls for students that can then be addressed; these problems
may have not been visible without the assessments ((Bransford, Brown, and Cocking,
2000)

The goals of science education, as stated in the National Science Education
Standards, encourage teachers to play a thoughtful, progressive role while facilitating
inquiry-based instruction and assessing student understanding in a formative manner
(NRC, 1996, 2000, 2001). It has been shown that active learning strategies (e.g. Ueckert
and Gess-Newsome, 2008; Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000) and inquiry-related
labs (e. g. Wilke and Straits, 2005; Erekson, 2004), aid student learning in the science
classroom and allow students to take responsibility for the work involved.

Science educators need to be mindful of and reflective on student learning as it
progresses each day in the lab and classroom setting. The design, planning, and
implementation of lessons in which students play an active role while interacting with
content and have the opportunity to practice inquiry-based cognitive skills in small group
and large group setting is essential (Ueckert and Gess-Newsome, 2008; Wilke and Straits,

2005). The ability to formatively assess the aforementioned processes, offer constructive

47

feedback to students, and use these evaluations to inform and modify instruction is a
critical feature of the work performed by effective science teachers (Peters, 2008; Straits
and Wilke, 2002; Erekson, 2004; Carlson, Humphrey, and Reinhardt, 2003). Formative
assessments should be ongoing in the classroom, during which “students’ thinking [is]
visible to both teachers and students” and can “help both teachers and students monitor
progress” (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000).

The importance of assessment cannot be understated; its role is pivotal is
facilitating deep and meaningful learning of science content and laboratory process skills.
Encouraging students to “think like scientists” while investigating natural phenomena
fosters confidence and motivation for the task and helps to establish the discourse and
interplay of ideas among students, and between students and teacher. Formative
assessments herein can take the shape of feedback loops between teacher and student, as
well as students performing self evaluations and peer evaluations. Teachers are able to
actively engage with students regarding content, while also gaining a more thorough
understanding of their progress during the learning process. Therefore, this study focused
on the use of formative assessment during active learning to test its impact on student
comprehension of cellular respiration and photosynthesis.

The methodology of this study allowed for similar units of instruction,
photosynthesis and cellular respiration, to be evaluated on the basis of presence or
absence of formative assessment techniques and active learning activities.

The variety of formative assessment techniques, such as class discussions, molecular
modeling, use of Whiteboards, and lab presentations, utilized in the experimental design

did not themselves allow for quantitative results to be generated. Therefore, diagnostic

48

and summative assessments were used to test the effectiveness of active learning with
formative assessments as a pedagogical methodology.

Diagnostic pretests were administered to students at the beginning of both the
photosynthesis and cellular respiration units. Summative posttests were also given to
students at the conclusion of each one. The first unit, photosynthesis, was taught using
non-revised techniques and served as the control data set, while the second unit, cellular
respiration, utilized an increased amount of formative assessment and active and/or
inquiry based learning activities, and comprised the experimental data set. Comparisons
were made of gains in student learning within units, and also between units.

Figure 1.1 shows that students made statistically significant learning gains during
the photosynthesis unit which contained some student-centered, inquiry-based activities,
but lacked formative assessments. Figure 1.2 shows data for the cellular respiration unit
in which an increased amount of active learning activities and formative assessment
opportunities were given to students. Student comprehension of subject specific content
also increased in a statistically significant manner for this unit of instruction. It is logical
that positive student progress was documented between pretest and posttest regardless of
instructional/assessment method, but the question of whether the revised method
provided an advantage over the usual one remained a valid question.

The results in Figure 1.3 compare the learning gains made between pretest and
posttest for both the photosynthesis unit and the cellular respiration unit. While data
analysis indicated that student learning increased under both sets of conditions (Figures
1.1 and 1.2; Tables 1.3 and 1.4), improvement was greater for the cellular respiration unit

which was taught using increased levels of active learning and formative assessment

49

(Figure 1.3). The revised method employed during the cellular respiration unit displayed
an increased level of improvement over the usual method utilized in the photosynthesis
unit. Like Patro (2008) the results of this study exhibit students’ increased mastery of the
subject specific content of cellular respiration and its significance in the biosphere.

The results show that students more thoroughly internalized science concepts
when exposed to activities and labs that required active, inquiry-based learning and
ongoing interaction with their instructor through formative assessment. Focusing on a
variety of formative assessments, while providing students with active and meaningful
classroom activities and inquiry driven lab investigations, has a positive effect on the
learning and comprehension of the biological concept of cellular respiration in the high
school classroom. I plan to extend this methodology to other topics, such as
photosynthesis, to better facilitate student learning.

When formative assessment becomes a daily practice in the classroom, its
perception changes from a negative one to that of a useful, positive influence in which
students recognize its value as a tool to increase their comprehension. Student-centered
activities, such as molecular modeling, flowcharts, use of Whiteboards, and student
presentations, used during the cellular respiration unit, encourage increased
communication in a public forum, and allow both students and teachers to be more
reflective while helping to create a community of learners. These open lines of
communication and discussion enable more transparency in the learning process and
therefore an increased amount of formative assessment to take place.

The use of multiple modalities of student-centered instruction during the cellular

respiration unit meant that students could directly interact with the material, manipulate

50

models and schematics, reflect on their learning in writing, take part in a presentation,

and contribute to a discussion about a demonstration, while interacting with and receiving
specific feedback from the teacher. This approach utilized the main concepts behind the
SE approach (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, evaluate) as referenced in Patro (2008),
but also relied heavily on formative assessment as a means of constantly evaluating
student understanding as it developed in the classroom. The value of using formative
assessment techniques to improve learning is well documented (Black and William, 1998;
Carlson, Humphrey, and Reinhardt, 2003; Straits and Wilke, 2002; Peters, 2008; and
Heady, 2000) and therefore should increasingly be utilized by science educators.

In addition, the methods used to assess student understanding were designed to
foster student reflection both orally, through the use of whiteboard presentations of lab
results, and in writing, using lab report conclusions. Erekson (2004) demonstrated the use
of group presentations to communicate lab data as a means of formatively assessing his
students’ lab skills and comprehension. Like Erekson, this technique was used in this
study, not as a grading tool, but an evaluative method to inform instruction and seemed to
increase student comprehension. MacDonald and Dominguez (2009) stressed the
importance of reflective thinking captured in student writing samples, while Berber-
Jimenez, et al. (2008) stated that lab report conclusions communicate whether or not
students have made connections between scientific concepts and empirical data. Instead
of using the modified sentence completion task referenced in Berber-Jimenez, et al.
(2008), this study required students to draft lab conclusions based on a critical thinking

rubric designed to facilitate the higher-order cognitive skills of Bloom’s taxonomy. The

51

results (Figure 1.4 and Table 1.5) showed an increased skill set for the cellular respiration
lab reports as compared to those written for the photosynthesis lab.

It is logical that more thoughtful instruction containing active, inquiry-based
activities with ample amounts of formative assessment, feedback, and reflection would
constitute better teaching and facilitate higher student achievement. However, this
approach also requires more time to complete each unit in the classroom. Also, the
comparison of the different conceptual topics of photosynthesis and cellular respiration
makes it difficult to conclude that the trends in the data were based solely on the revised
instructional and assessment techniques, and not on some other factors present.

The combinatorial effect on student learning of these revised strategies is
exemplified in the results of this study, showing that it is fairly impossible to completely
isolate variables while performing action research in education. It is likely that the effects
of active learning, formative assessment, increased instructional time, and knowledge
transfer from one subject to another were all playing a role. Overall, positive results were
found with the new methodology during the cellular respiration unit. Although
statistically significant results were found between both the photosynthesis pretest and
posttest, and the cellular respiration pretest and posttest, the gains made by students were
greater for the latter, as compared to the former.

Based on the trends in data found in this study, I plan to implement formative
assessment techniques more thoroughly throughout my biology curriculum as a means to
give continuous feedback to my students and to allow more thoughtful modification of
instruction. Since collective understanding is much greater than that of individuals or

single groups, I will also continue to utilize reflective laboratory activities such as

52

whiteboard discussions and lab presentations to mirror how science is performed in the
real world. These varied and diverse methods of instruction found in active, inquiry-
based activities and labs are essential for “hands-on, minds-on” science and will remain

at the forefront of education in the future.

53

APPENDIX A

Michigan Science Content Expectations (Curriculum Objectives)

Standard B1 INQUIRY, REFLECTION, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

0 Statement 81.] Scientific Inquiry
Bl.lB Evaluate the uncertainties or validity of scientific conclusions using an
understanding of sources Of measurement error, the challenges of controlling
variables, accuracy of data analysis, logic of argument, logic of experimental
design, and/or the dependence on underlying assumptions.
Bl.1C Conduct scientific investigations using appropriate tools and techniques
(e.g., selecting an instrument that measures the desired quantity—length, volume,

weight, time interval, temperature—with the appropriate level of precision).

Bl.1E Describe a reason for a given conclusion using evidence from an
investigation.

Bl.1f Predict what would happen if the variables, methods, or timing of an
investigation were changed.

B l . 1h Design and conduct a systematic scientific investigation that tests a
hypothesis. Draw conclusions from data presented in charts or tables.

0 Statement B1.2 Scientific Reflection and Social Implications

Bl.2h Describe the distinctions between scientific theories, laws, hypotheses, and
observations.

Standard BZ ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIVING SYSTEMS

0 Statement 82.3x Homeostasis
BZ.3d Identify the general functions of the major systems of the human body
(digestion, respiration, reproduction, circulation, excretion, protection from
disease, and movement, control, and coordination) and describe ways that these
systems interact with each other.
82.3f Explain how human organ systems help maintain human health.

0 Statement 82.5x Energy Transfer

B2.5e Explain the interrelated nature of photosynthesis and cellular respiration in
terms of ATP synthesis and degradation.

54

BZ.5f Relate plant structures and functions to the process of photosynthesis and
respiration.

Standard B3 INTERDEPENDENCE OF LIVING SYSTEMS AND THE
ENVIRONMENT

Statement B3.1 Photosynthesis and Respiration

B3.1A Describe how organisms acquire energy directly or indirectly from
sunlight.

B3.1B Illustrate and describe the energy conversions that occur during
photosynthesis and respiration.

B3.1C Recognize the equations for photosynthesis and respiration and identify the
reactants and products for both.

B3.1D Explain how living organisms gain and use mass through the processes of
photosynthesis and respiration.

B3.1e Write the chemical equation for photosynthesis and cellular respiration and
explain in words what they mean.

B3.1f Summarize the process of photosynthesis.

55

APPENDIX B

The Impact of Formative Assessment Techniques on the Instruction of the High
School Biology Units of Photosynthesis and Cellular Respiration
Parental Consent and Student Assent Form

Dear Parents/ Guardians and Students:

I am currently a graduate student in the Department of Science and Mathematics
Education (DSME) at Michigan State University. My master’s thesis research is focusing
on the enhancement of student learning in the laboratory setting and connecting the
knowledge and skills obtained therein to course concepts through authentic assessment
techniques. The unit to be researched will include cellular metabolism, specifically the
topics of energy capture and use within living organisms (photosynthesis and cellular
respiration).

Data for my thesis will be collected from standard student work generated during the
instruction of this unit and will include pre-tests, post-tests, quizzes, lab activities, lab
write-ups, and surveys. I am requesting your permission to include your child’s work as
data in my study. Your child’s confidentiality is a foremost concern and will be protected
to the maximum extent allowable under the law. All data generated will remain
confidential and in a secure location. Identities of students will not be presented with
results at conferences or in write-ups. Research data will be stored with Merle
Heidemann, my advisor at Michigan State University, for at least three years after the
collection of the data and completion of the study.

Participation in this study may contribute to a better understanding of how active
laboratory work and assessment of that work can enhance student comprehension of
abstract biological concepts, such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration within
organisms. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Also, students who do
participate will not be given any extra work to complete. Upon completion of instruction
of the unit and after all grades have been assigned, I will de-identify all student work by
removing names and then analyze this student work in my research. Students who do not
participate in this study will not be penalized in any way. Whether students choose to
participate or not will have no effect on their grades or evaluation. There are no known
risks associated with participating in this study. You may request that your child’s
information not be included in my research at any time and this request will be honored.

If you will allow your child’s data to be included in this study, please complete the
attached form and return it to Mr. Pumford, Dean of Students, in the main office by
February 28, 2010. All consent forms will be held in this secure location until the unit is
complete and all student grades have been assigned.

If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do
any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher(s): Responsible
Researcher - Dr. Merle Heidemann at DSME, 118 N. Kedzie, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824, by phone at (517) 432-2152, or by email at heidema2@msu.edu.
or the Secondary Researcher - Shanna Tury, shannatury@hartlandschoolsns or by phone
at (810) 626-2355.

56

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your role and rights as a research
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection
Program by phone at (517) 355-2180, by fax at (517) 432-4503, or by email at
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Sincerely,

Shanna Tury

Biology Teacher

Hartland High School
shannatury@hartlandschools.us
810.626.2355

 

57

The Impact of Formative Assessment Techniques on the Instruction of the High
School Biology Units of Photosynthesis and Cellular Respiration

Parental Consent and Student Assent Form
(For collection of master’s thesis data by Shanna Tury)

Please fill out the following consent and assent information and return it to Mr. Pumford,

Dean of Students, in the main office by February 28, 2010.

I voluntarily agree to allow to participate in
this research study. (print student name)

 

Data:

I give Ms. Tury permission to use data generated from my child’s work in biology
class for this thesis project. All data from my child shall remain confidential.

I do not wish to have my child’s work used in this thesis project. I acknowledge
that my child’s work will be graded in the same manner regardless of their participation.

Pictures:

I give Ms. Tury permission to use pictures of my child during her work on this
thesis project. My child will not be identified in these mediums.

I do not wish to have my child’s picture used at any time during this thesis project.

 

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

I voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

 

 

(Student Signature) (Date)

58

APPENDIX C
PAPER CHROMATOGRAPHY SEPARATES PLANT PIGMENTS

Objectives:

1) Apply the technique of paper chromatography as a method for separating individual
plant pigments from spinach.

2) Describe the application of this technique to the study of plant pigments and develop
related testable questions.

3) Generate ideas about ways to improve the technique to yield better results.

INTRODUCTION TO PLANT PIGMENTS

A "pigment" is simply a molecule that absorbs and reflects light. Recall that
white light actually consists of many colors — you may have learned “ROY G BIV” in
high school science as a way to remember the colors of light that make up the white light
of the “visible spectrum”. Different pigments appear different colors because they have
differing abilities to absorb and reflect various colors of light. The broad array of colors
found in plant tissues such as leaves, flowers, and fruits, can be accounted for by the
presence of literally thousands of different kinds of plant pigments.

Through plant breeding and horticultural practices, humans have manipulated
plants’ pigment producing capabilities to serve our own desires. News was made
recently when a true blue rose cultivar was successfully created in Japan. In nature, color
is an important attribute of plants that serves to attract pollinators to receptive flowers and
signal fruit ripeness to seed dispersers. In some instances, colors may also serve to warn
potential predators of poisonous or toxic substances contained in plant tissues.

Color-producing pigments have other important roles in plants beyond regulating
interactions with animals. Chlorophyll is a pigment that reflects green light, but absorbs
red and blue wavelengths and is critical for the light reactions of photosynthesis.
Flavonoids are an important class of plant pigments that block ultraviolet (UV) radiation
that can damage cell proteins and DNA. Many flavonoids, including anthocyanins (a
subcategory of flavonoids) have a role in the chemical defense of plants as they are toxic
to many herbivores and pathogens — especially insects and fungi.

As you may know from the popular media, there is currently a substantial
research effort in place to explore the potential health benefits of plant pigments to
humans. In popular literature, these plant-based compounds are often collectively
referred to as “phytochemicals”; most are also pigments. F lavonoids, anthocyanins, and
carotenoids are just some of the categories of plant pigments known to have antioxidant
properties. “Antioxidant” is a general term used to describe any substance that has the
ability to neutralize “free radicals” which cause cellular damage by removing electrons
from surrounding molecules. Many lines of research suggest that consuming a diet rich in
plant pigments may slow the process of cellular aging and reduce the risks of some types
of disease, such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Cosmetic companies are even
jumping on the “antioxidant bandwagon” by adding seductive blends of antioxidant-rich
“botanical extracts” to their shampoos, makeups, and lotions in the hopes of prolonging
our youthful glow!

59

A few categories of pigments are listed below along with their characteristic range of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

colors.

Pi ent T e golors
Anthocyanins (subclass of flavonoids) blue/purple/red
Anthoxanthins (subclass of flavonoids) Lellow — ivory
Betacyanins yellow - red/purple
Carotenoids yellow — red
Chlorophfls greens
Xanthophylls (a subclass of carotenoids) ivory — yellow

 

 

 

Some plant pigments you may be familiar with that are of current interest in nutritional
and pharmaceutical research are listed below, though there are many more!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pigment mn- Found in

anthocyanins blue/purple/red berries, grapes, red peppers, beets, eggplant,
plums

beta-carotene orange/yellow carrots, prunpkin, sweet potatoes, citrus, papaya,
melon, squash

curcumin yellow Turmeric

Lutein yellow/orange kale, broccoli, spinach

lycopene red Tomatoes, watermelon, red grapefruits

zeaxanthin yellow Corn

Procedure

1. Obtain one piece of chromatography paper and a beaker with chromatography
solvent (ether/acetone) in it.

2. Draw a line with a pencil about lcm up from the bottom edge of the paper and
another about lcm from the top edge.

3. Place a spinach leaf over the bottom line drawn on your filter paper.

4. Roll the edge of a quarter over the leaf following the line on your filter paper.
Repeat 4 times, using different parts of the leaf for each application. This should
leave a dark green line over your pencil line on the filter paper.

5. Place your chromatography strip into the beaker with solvent in it. Make sure that
the paper does not touch the sides of the beaker and that the solvent is not higher
than the pigment streak on your paper.

6. When the solvent reaches the top line of your paper (about 10 minutes), remove

the paper from the beaker and lay it on the lab station to dry.

60

 

Results

Tape your chromatograph to this paper. Label each of the visible color bands with the
appropriate pigment.
Chlorophyll — green
Carotenoids — yellow (carotene); pale yellow (xanthophylls)
Anthocyanins — red if cell is acidic, blue if basic (found in red cabbage, works as
a pH indicator)
Betacyanins — red (less common)

Analysis
1. Which pigments were you able to identify?

 

 

2. What colors of light will each band absorb? What colors will each band reflect?
(Remember that you see the color that is reflected.)

 

 

 

 

3. Judging from the darkness of the pigment bands on your chromatograph, which
pigment would you say is most abundant in spinach leaves?

 

4. Many leaves change color in the autumn. How is it possible for this color change
to occur? Base your answer on your knowledge of pigments present in leaves.
(HINT: Chlorophylls are broken down in the autumn when day length begins to
shorten and temperatures decrease.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

Name Date Hr

 

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN—PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN THE AQUATIC PLANT
ELODEA

Introduction
Photosynthesis is the metabolic process used by many autotrophic organisms to capture
light energy and convert it to chemical energy in the form of carbohydrate molecules.
The actual energy-capturing molecule is chlorophyll, and generally organisms possessing
this green pigment are called plants. Although numerous intermediary reactions are
involved, the overall photosynthetic reaction is simple. Carbon dioxide combines with the
hydrogen from water yielding a carbohydrate, glucose, and oxygen.

Before you conduct the experiment, you must have the first five steps approved by your
teacher. This sheet will help you design a quality experiment. CD You will write a formal
lab conclusion after conductng your experiment.

 

Step 1. Initial thoughts/Observations: Teacher
Approval/

What factors influence photosynthesis? Comments

How could the rate of photosynthesis be measured in an aquatic plant
such as Elodea?

List some possible variables that could be changed in the environment
of the aquatic plant Elodea that could have an effect on its rate of
photosynthesis.

 

Step 2. Determine the specific problem you wish to investigate.

How do changes in the environment of the aquatic plant Elodea affect
its rate of photosynthesis?

 

Step 3. Write down your hypothesis as a statement. Be specific and
use IF/T HEN format.

 

 

 

 

62

 

 

Step 4. Design the experiment—Write out a step-by-step plan for
your experiment. Detail each of the following:

Independent Variable:
Dependent Varia_bl§:

Experimental Group:
Control Gromg:

Number of Samples/Trials:

BLan for Dat_a Collection:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

Teacher
Approval/
Comments

 

 

Step 5. List the materials (with quantities) you need to conduct your
experiment.

Materials: Quantities
Needed:

 

Teacher
Approval]
Comments

 

63

 

 

 

 

 

Step 6. Conduct the experiment and collect data.

Organize your data in the form of a table below (be sure to include a
title):

Organize your data in the form of a graph below (be sure to include a
title):

 

 

64

 

 

Step 7. Write a detailed conclusion according to the instructions
given by Ms. Tury.

 

 

65

Cellular Respiration Flowchart Activity
Objective: To show cellular respiration visually.

Directions:

1. Pull the cellular respiration steps or molecule pieces out of the baggie.

2. With your partner arrange them into a flowchart that shows what happens in
cellular respiration.

3. Copy that flowchart onto your own paper.

4. Answer the questions in complete sentences.

5. Turn your paper in.

Questions:
1. What does cellular respiration do?
2. What 2 things go into cellular respiration?
3. What molecule is stored energy for the cell?
4. What are all of the products of cellular respiration?
5. What part of cellular respiration uses oxygen?

66

 

Glycolysis

 

 

 

 

(rueserd
(ueBAxo oN)

Kreb’s Cycle
And Electron
Transport Chain

(rueserd UGBAXQ)
uorrerrdsea orqorev

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fermentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   
 
 
 

  

Glucose
(C6H1206)
6 Water (H20)

 

Alcohol and C02
Or Lactic Acid

 
       
    
 
 

6 Carbon Dioxide
(CO2)

  
   

2 Pyruvate
(Pyruvic Acid)

38 ATP

6 Oxygen (02)

67

uorterueuueg

 

 

 

Name Date Hr

 

 

Effects of Exercise on Cellular Respiration

I. Purpose. To observe the effects of exercise on breathing rate, heart rate, and cellular
respiration.

II. Introduction. Cellular respiration (see chemical reaction below) is a chemical
reaction that occurs in your muscle cells to create energy needed to contract the muscles.
Cellular respiration requires oxygen (which is breathed in) and creates carbon dioxide
(which is breathed out).

C6H1206 + 6 Oz —’ 6 C02 + 6 H20 + ATP (energy)
This lab will address the question, “Does cellular respiration occur at a faster rate during
exercise?” You will measure 3 different indicators of muscle activity: breathing rate,
heart rate, carbon dioxide production. You will measure these indicators at rest (with no
exercise) and after 1 and 2 minutes of exercise. Breathing rate is measured in breaths per
minute, heart rate in beats per minute, and carbon dioxide in the time it takes
bromothymol blue to change color. Carbon dioxide production can be measured by
breathing through a straw into a solution of BTB. Bromothymol blue (BTB) is an acid
indicator; when it reacts with acid it turns from blue to yellow. When carbon dioxide
reacts with water, a weak acid (carbonic acid) is formed (see chemical reaction below).
The more carbon dioxide you breathe into the BTB solution, the faster it will change
color to yellow.

6C02+6H20—*6HCO3+6H+

III. Materials. Read through the procedure and make a list of materials that you will
need for this lab below.

IV. Procedure.

1. Use a graduated cylinder to measure out 20ml of distilled water and pour it into a
small beaker. Use a dropper to add 4 drops of bromothymol blue to make a BTB
solution. Using a straw, exhale into the BTB solution. (CAUTION: Do not inhale
the solution!) Time how long it takes for the blue solution to turn yellow. Record
the time in Table 1. Wash out the beaker and refill it with 20 ml distilled water
and 4 drops of BTB.

2. Measure your breathing rate and heart rate. Count the number of breaths (1 breath
= inhale & exhale) you take in one minute. Record this number in Table 2.
Repeat this 2 more times. Average the 3 trials to get your average breathing rate.
Record this in Table 2.

3. While you calculate your breathing rate, have your partner take your pulse. Count
the number of beats in 30 seconds and multiply that number by 2. Record your
heart beat in Table 3. Repeat this 2 more times. Average the 3 trials to get your
average heart rate. Record this in Table 3.

68

4. Calculate your breathing rate, heart rate, and carbon dioxide production after 1

.V‘

7.

minute of exercise.

Exercise for exactly 1 minute by doing “step aerobics” on your chair. Please be
careful! Immediately afier 1 minute of exercise, exhale through the straw into the
BTB solution and time how long it takes for the BTB to turn yellow. Record this
in Table 1. Then quickly calculate your breathing and heart rates as you did
before. You only need to do this once. Record these values in Tables 2 & 3.
Remake your ET B solution.

Exercise as you did before, but for 2 continuous minutes. Immediately exhale
through the straw into the BTB solution and time how long it takes for the BTB to
turn yellow. Record this in Table 1. Then quickly calculate your breathing and
heart rates as you did before. You only need to do this once. Record these values
in Tables 2 & 3.

Next, repeat the entire procedure for your lab partner. Record data from 2 other
subjects and calculate averages where indicated in the data tables.

V. Data & Results.

Table 1. Carbon Dioxide Production (time it takes BTB to change color

 

Exercise 1 2 3 4 Average

 

No exercise

 

1 minute

 

 

2 minutes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. BreathingRate (breaths/minute)

 

Exercise 1 2 3 4 Average;

 

Resting
lTrial 1)

 

Resting
(Trial 2)

 

Resting
(Trial 3)

 

Exercise
(1 minute)

 

 

Exercise
2 minutes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

 

Table 3. Heart Ratflbeats/minute)

 

Exercise 1

2

Average

 

Resting
(Trial 1)

 

Resting
(Trial 2)

 

Resting
(Trial 3)

 

Exercise
(1 minute)

 

Exercise
(2 minutes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Make a line graph of your breathing rate in relation to exercise. On the X-axis, plot the
amount of exercise (0, 1, 2 minutes). On the Y-axis, plot the breathing rate (breaths/min).
Plot the data for each of the 4 subjects AND the averages. Use a different color for each

subject and the average. (You should have 5 lines on your graph.)

2. Make a similar graph for heart rate. (You should have 5 lines on your graph.)

70

1'

VI. Analysis & Conclusions. Answer the following questions in complete sentences.

1. What can you conclude about the effect of exercise on heart rate? Why is this so?
What do your muscles need during exercise that the blood brings?

2. What can you conclude about the effect of exercise on breathing rate? Why is this
so? What cellular process is involved? Explain.

3. What can you conclude about the effect of exercise on the amount of carbon
dioxide that is present in your exhaled breath? Why is this so? What cellular
process is involved? Explain.

4. The lines on your graphs probably varied from one subject to another. Discuss 3
reasons that may have caused differences in the data.

71

Name Date Hr

 

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN—FERMENTATION

INVESTIGATION OF YEAST CELL RESPIRATION
Introduction
All living things require energy, and therefore respire. During respiration, food, usually
in the form of glucose, is “burned” or oxidized. Yeast cells (single-celled fungi) obtain
their energy through fermentation. During fermentation, carbohydrates are broken down
into carbon dioxide and ethyl alcohol and some energy in the form of ATP is produced.
The rate at which carbon dioxide is released during respiration indicates the rate at which
ATP is being synthesized. In this investigation, you will compare the fermentation rates
of yeast in an experiment of your own design.

Before you conduct the experiment, you must have the first five steps approved by your
teacher. This sheet will help you design a quality experiment. © You will write a formal
lab conclusion after conducting your experiment.

 

Step 1. Initial thoughts/Observations: Teacher
Approval/

What factors influence aerobic respiration? What factors influence comments

anaerobic respiration (fermentation)?

How could the rate of fermentation be measured in a fungus such as
yeast?

List some possible variables that could be changed in the environment
of the yeast cells that could have an effect on their rate of fermentation.

 

Step 2. Determine the specific problem you wish to investigate.

How do changes in the environment of yeast cells affect their rate of
fermentation?

 

Step 3. Write down your hypothesis as a statement. Be specific and
use IF/T HEN format.

 

 

 

 

72

 

Step 4. Design the experiment—Write out a step-by-step plan for
your experiment. Detail each of the following:

Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Experimental Group:
Control Group:

Number Of Samples/Trials:

P_lan for Data Collection:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

Teacher
Approval/
Comments

 

 

Step 5. List the materials (with quantities) you need to conduct your
experiment.

Materials: Quantities
Needed:

 

Teacher
Approval/
Comments

 

73

 

 

 

Step 6. Conduct the experiment and collect data.

Organize your data in the form of a table below (be sure to include a
title):

Organize your data in the form of a graph below (be sure to include a
title):

 

74

 

 

 

Step 7. Write a detailed conclusion according to the instructions
given by Ms. Tury.

 

75

 

APPENDIX D

BIOLOGY A Name Hr
Photosynthesis Pretest

 

Please answer the following questions in complete sentences to the best of your ability.

1. What is the purpose of photosynthesis in plants? Be specific.

2. Where in a plant does photosynthesis take place? Explain.

3. Which gases does a plant exchange with the atmosphere during photosynthesis?
Which ones are taken up, and which are given Off?

4. Where in/on a plant does this gas exchange occur?

5. Why does a leaf on a plant appear green?

76

6. Explain why animals, such as humans, need photosynthesis.

7. When a plant grows larger in size, where does the mass of the plant come from?
Explain.

8. Name some environmental factors that could affect the rate of photosynthesis in a

plant. Predict the effect of each one.

9. Design a sample experiment to test the rate of photosynthesis in a plant.

77

BIOLOGY A Name Hr_
Cellular Respiration Pretest

Please answer the following questions in complete sentences to the best of your ability.

1. What is the purpose of cellular respiration in living things?

2. What types of organisms perform cellular respiration?

3. Where in an organism does cellular respiration take place? Be specific.

4. Compare and contrast the processes of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. (list
similarities and differences)

5. Compare and contrast the processes of aerobic respiration and anaerobic respiration.
(list similarities and differences)

78

6. Compare and contrast internal cellular respiration with external respiration (i.e.
breathing). (list similarities and differences)

7. A student conducted an experiment by placing a fish in a bowl of water and observing.
After several days, the fish died. Next, the student placed a fish and a plant in a bowl
of water and put it near a window. After several days, both the fish and the plant were
healthy. Explain these observations.

8. Plants perform photosynthesis in the presence of light. Do they also perform cellular
respiration? Explain your reasoning.

9. Suppose you have a friend who lost weight. The kilograms of material, which had
previously been part of his or her body, must have gone somewhere. Where did they
go?

79

APPENDIX E

Table 1.6 Photosynthesis Pretest and Posttest Rubric (3 point scale)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3

1. What is the Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
purpose of (makes sugar, with examples
photosynthesis in useable energy, (energy from sunlight
plants? Be food for plant) converted to carbs,
specific. sugar, glucose used

for energy or building
materials)

2. Where in a plant Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
does (leaves, stem, (chloroplast, (inside chloroplast
photosynthesis chlorophyll, plant leaves with within leaves, light
take place? cells, roots) explanation) reactions—thylakoid
Explain. membranes, Calvin

Cycle—stroma)

3. Which gases does Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
a plant exchange (C02 or 02 no (one correct: C02 (both correct: C02 in
“nth the direction; in OR 02 out) AND 02 out)
atmosphere neither correct:
dunng , C02 out OR 02
photosynthesrs? . . N C H 0)

Which ones are m, 2’ 2’ 2
taken up, and

which are given

off?

4. Where in/on a Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
plant does this (cells, roots, (stomata, pores) (stomata on underside
gas exchange leaves) of leaves)
occur?

5. Why does a leaf Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
on a plant appear (pigment, (leaves reflect (chlorophyll,
green? chloroplast, green light) chloroplast pigment

chlorophyll) reflects green light,
absorbs all other
colors)

6. Explain why Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
animals, such as (answered “no”; (food for energy (both correct or one
humans, need no details) OR 02 to breathe with detailed
photosynthesis. with explanation) explanation: source

of 02 to breathe,

provides food used
for energy in animals

 

80

 

Table 1.6 Continued

 

7. When a plant

Vague, inaccurate

Some detail

Accurate description

 

 

 

 

 

 

grows larger in (water, ground, (cell division, ((302 from

size, where does stem, leaves, mitosis; products atmosphere is used to
the mass of the nutrients) of photosynthesis, build carbs)

plant come from? sugar made)

Explain.

8. Name some Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
environmental (1, 2, or 3 factors (2 factors with (3 factors with
factors that could but lacking effects) effects)
affect the rate of explanation; I
photosynthesis in factor with effect)

a plant. Predict
the effect of each
one.

9. Design a sample Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
experiment to test (contains 1 of the (contains 2 of the (contains 3 of the
the rate of following: following: following:
photosynthesis in hypothesis, hypothesis, hypothesis, procedure
a plant. procedure procedure summary,

summary, summary, independent/depende
independent/ independent/ nt variable,
dependent dependent control/experimental
variable, variable, group)
control/experi- control/experi-

mental group) mental group)

 

81

 

Table 1.7 Cellular Res

)iration Pretest an

d Posttest Rubric (3

oint scale)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3

1. What is the Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
purpose of (breathing, gas (make ATP, (breaks down food,
cellular exchanges, i.e. energy) fuel, glucose to
respiration in (:02, ()2) supply energy, ATP
living things? to cells for life

processes)

2. What types of Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
organisms (plants do not; (only some (all organisms, i.e.
perform cellular only animals; organisms; only plants, animals,
respiration? only multicellular, humans etc.)

heterotrophs) only eukaryotic,
only humans,
animals)

3. Where in an Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
organism does (lungs, bronchi, (cells, (within the
cellular trachea) mitochondria mitochondria inside
respiration take AND choroplasts, cells)
place? Be mitochondria
specific. AND respiratory

system)

4. Compare and Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
contrast the (1 of the (2 of the (3 of the following
processes of following following with with explanations:
photosynthesis with/without explanations: C.R.—all living
and cellular explanations: C.R.—all living things, burns glucose,
respiration. (list CUR—all living things, burns releases energy, 02
similarities and things, burns glucose, releases in/COZ out, no
differences) glucose, releases energy, 02 in/COz sunlight. PS—only

energy, 02 in/C02 out, no sunlight. plants, algae,

OUI, ITO sunlight. PS—Only plants, autotrophs, makes
PS—Only plants, algae, autotrophs, glucose, stores
algae, autotrophs, makes glucose, energy, 02 out/C02
makes glucose, stores energy, 02 in, requires sunlight)
stores energy, 02 out/C02 in,

out/C02 in, requires sunlight)

requires sunlight)

 

 

82

 

 

 

Table 1.7 Continued

 

5. Compare and
contrast the
processes of
aerobic
respiration and
anaerobic
respiration. (list
similarities and
differences)

Vague, inaccurate
(0-1 of the
following without
explanation: both
make energy for
cells, both break
down food.
Aerobic—
requires 02,
produces more
ATP (38), details
about particular
stages.
Anaerobic——
absence of 02,
produces less

Some detail

(1 of the
following with
explanation: both
make energy for
cells, both break
down food.
Aerobic—
requires 02,
produces more
ATP (38), details
about particular
stages.
Anaerobic—
absence of 0;,
produces less

Accurate description
(2 of the following
with explanation:
both make energy for
cells, both break
down food.
Aerobic—requires
02, produces more
ATP (38), details
about particular
stages. Anaerobic—
absence of 02,
produces less ATP
(2), only certain
organisms/cell types.

 

 

 

 

 

ATP (2), only ATP (2), only
certain certain
organisms/cell organisms/cell
types. types.

6. Compare and Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
contrast internal (internal—inside (1 of the (2 of the following
cellular body, extemal— following with with explanation: 02
respiration with outside body) explanation: 02 in/C02 out; cellular
external . in/C02 out; respiration within
respiration (133' cellular mitochondria (food
bfeéthlf‘g} (“St respiration within —> ATP), external
srmrlarrtres and mitochondria respiration involves
differences) (food —-> ATP), lungs (gas exchange))

external
respiration
involves lungs
(gas exchange))

 

83

 

Table 1.7 Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. A student Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
conducted an (fish uses (302, (1 Of the (Sunlight provides
experiment by etc.) following energy for
placing a fish in a with/without photosynthesis in the
bowl of water and explanation: plant plant which produces
Observing. After is food for fish, glucose and ()2 that
several days, the fish receives 02 the fish utilizes
fiSh died. Next, from plant, plant during cellular
the student placed receives €02 respiration to produce
fish and 3 Plant from fish, plant ATP and C02, and
m a bowl Of water needs energy the cycle continues)
and put rt near a from sunlight,
window. After etc.)
several days, both
the fish and the
plant were
healthy. Explain
these
observations.

8. Plants perform Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
photosynthesis in (No; No with (Yes; Yes with (Yes with correct
the presence of incorrect wrong/vague explanation: plants
light. Do they explanation) explanation, i.e. create sugar during
also perform C.R. requires PS and use it/break it
cellular sunlight, GR. is down during C.R. to
respiration? part of PS, etc.) create energy for
Explain your plant processes; ATP
reasoning. is necessary for plant

processes)

9. Suppose you have Vague, inaccurate Some detail Accurate description
a fiiend who lost (lost in sweat, (burned/broken (sugars and fats are
weight. The burned off/up, down body broken down through
kilograms of flushed out, fat weight to make cellular respiration
material, which converted to energy during and released as (302
had previously muscle, lost in CR.) (waste) which is
been part of his or urine, died off, breathed out in the
her body, must dissolved) air)
have gone
somewhere.

Where did they
go?

 

84

 

Table 1.8 Critical Thinking Lab Report Conclusion Rubric

 

 

 

Component Level
0 l 1 2 | 3 4 | 5
Claim Makes an Makes an accurate Makes an
A conclusion that inaccurate claim but incomplete accurate and

answers the original

or does not make

claim.

complete claim.

 

 

question a claim.
Evidence Provides no Provides Provides
Information that evidence or only appropriate, but appropriate and
supports the claim. The provides insufficient sufficient
information needs to be inappropriate evidence to support evidence to
appropriate and evidence (i.e. the claim. May support claim.
sufficient to support the evidence that include some
claim does not support inappropriate

the claim). evidence.
Reasoning Provides no Provides reasoning Provides
A justification that reasoning or only that connects the reasoning that

connects the claim and
evidence. It shows
why the information
counts as evidence by
using appropriate and
sufficient subj ect-
specific principles.

provides
reasoning that
does not link
evidence to claim.

claim and the
evidence. Repeats
the evidence and/or
includes some
subject-specific
principles, but not
sufficient.

connects evidence
to claim. Includes
appropriate and
sufficient subject
specific
principles.

 

 

Reflection

 

Demonstrates no

 

Demonstrates some

 

Demonstrates the

Involves careful careful evaluation level of careful ability to
evaluation and and consideration evaluation and carefully evaluate
consideration of at least or reflections are consideration, but and consider
one or more of the inconsequential. reflections are information.
following: superficial and/or Reflections are
- alternative limited. well articulated
arguments and varied.
- quality of evidence
- assumptions
- interpretations
- assessments of
importance

 

85

 

 

APPENDIX F

BIOLOGY A Name Hr

 

Photosynthesis & Respiration Pro-Unit Survey
Circle the answer that describes you best.

1.

My favorite class/subject is:

Math English Science History/Social Studies
Foreign Language Other (please list)

 

My least favorite class/subject is:

Math English Science History/Social Studies
Foreign Language Other (please list)

 

. My typical grade in math classes is:

A B C D E

My typical grade in science classes is:

 

 

A B C D E

What do you feel is the most helpful part of science class with regard to learning?
Lecture/class discussion In-class work

Labs Homework

Quizzes/Tests Other (please describe)

What do you feel is the least helpful part of science class with regard to learning?
Lecture/class discussion In-class work

Labs Homework

Quizzes/Tests Other (please describe)

What is your favorite part of science class?

Lecture/class discussion In-class work

Labs Homework

Quizzes/Tests Other (please describe)

 

When you have trouble in science class, which of the following do you do?
(Please number the choices 1-6, with 1 as the activity you are most likely to do,
and 6 as the activity you are least likely to do.)

_ read the textbook _ talk to the teacher
__ ask other students in class __ talk to a friend who had the class
__ look at class notes _ other (please describe)

 

86

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

When you study for science class, which of the following do you do? (Please
number the choices 1-6, with l as the activity you are most likely to do, and 6 as
the activity you are least likely to do.)

 

__ listen to music _ turn on the TV for background noise
_ go to a quiet room in the house __ go to the school library or public library
_ go to a friend’s house _ other (please describe)

Performing labs in science class helps me learn. (circle one)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree

Tests and quizzes require that I learn concepts studied in the lab. (circle one)
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree

If I knew something in class or in the lab was going to be on a test or quiz I would
work harder to learn that concept.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree

Do you plan to take any more life science classes in high school

(Anatomy/Physiology, AP Biology)?

Yes NO Not Sure
Do you plan to continue your education after graduating from Hartland High
School?

Yes No Not Sure
If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate where you might
like to continue your education:
Do you plan to have a career that is related to science?

Yes No Not Sure

If you answered yes to the previous question, please list which careers you are
considering:

87

BIOLOGY A Name Hr_
Lab Survey

 

Circle the answer that describes you best.

1.

When I work in the lab, I prefer to work in a group Of students.

2 3 4 5 6

When I work in the lab, I believe I learn best in a group Of students.
2 3 4 5 6

1 think that doing labs in Biology class helps me to learn science concepts.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

When I work in the lab, I prefer to perform a lab in which I just follow the written
procedure.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

When I work in the lab, I prefer to perform a lab in which I design my own
procedure.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

I think that designing my own lab procedure and performing my own experiment
helps me to better understand science concepts, as compared to a traditional lab.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

88

BIOLOGY Post-Survey Name Hr

Circle the ONE answer that describes you best.

1.

The lab exercises helped me to learn.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
The lab exercises were enjoyable and stimulated my interest.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

I was stimulated to think and/or want to learn more during the lab exercises.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

The lab exercises improved my technical skills as a scientist (technique, use of
equipment, etc.).

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
The lab exercises improved my scientific reasoning (thinking) skills.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Tests and quizzes required that I learn concepts studied in the lab.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

If I knew something in class or in the lab was going to be on a test or quiz I would
work harder to learn that concept.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
I had positive interactions with Ms. Tury during the lab exercises.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

I prefer to learn by doing hands-on activities (labs, building molecules, group
work, simulations) instead of lecture and notes format.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

89

10. I was more focused and on task during the lab exercises if I knew I was receiving
a daily lab grade (participation points).

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

11. Using white boards for sharing group lab results and conclusions as a class helped
my understanding of lab concepts.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
12. Using Whiteboards individually for sharing ideas about labs helped me learn.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

9O

Peer Lab Group Evaluation Forms

Directions: In the space below, honestly evaluate the work of other students in your
group by answering yes or no and by using a scale from 1 to 3, 1 being poor, 2 being
average, 3 being above average.

Evaluator’s Name: Date:

 

 

Group Member 1:

 

1. Did this group member complete his/her assigned tasks for the group? Yes No

 

2. How would you rate the quality of this person’s work? 1 2 3

3. How would you rate the timeliness of the completion of the work? 1 2 3

4. How would you rate the accuracy Of the work? 1 2 3

5. Overall, how would you rank this group member’s performance in the group?1 2 3

6. Would you want to work with this person again? Yes No
Explain why in the space below.

Group Member 2:

1. Did this group member complete his/her assigned tasks for the group? Yes No

2. How would you rate the quality of this person’s work? 1 2 3

3. How would you rate the timeliness of the completion of the work? 1 2 3

4. How would you rate the accuracy of the work? 1 2 3

5. Overall, how would you rank this group member’s performance in the group?l 2 3

6. Would you want to work with this person again? Yes No

Explain why in the space below.

 

Group Member 3:

1. Did this group member complete his/her assigned tasks for the group? Yes No
2. How would you rate the quality of this person’s work? 1 2 3

3. How would you rate the timeliness of the completion of the work? 1 2 3

4. How would you rate the accuracy of the work? 1 2 3

5. Overall, how would you rank this group member’s performance in the group?1 2 3
6. Would you want to work with this person again? Yes No

Explain why in the space below.

 

Group Member 4:

1. Did this group member complete his/her assigned tasks for the group? Yes No
2. How would you rate the quality of this person’s work? 1 2 3

3. How would you rate the timeliness of the completion of the work? 1 2 3

4. How would you rate the accuracy of the work? 1 2 3

5. Overall, how would you rank this group member’s performance in the group?l 2 3
6. Would you want to work with this person again? Yes NO

Explain why in the space below.

91

APPENDIX G

BIOLOGY A Photosynthesis & Respiration Pre-Unit Survey RESULTS

1. My favorite class/subject is:
Math—21%
English—13%
Science—25%
History/Social Studies—15%
Foreign Language—9%
Other—17%

2. My least favorite class/subject is:
Math—27%
English—17%
Science—10%
History/Social Studies—26%
Foreign Language—16%
Other—4%

3. My typical grade in math classes is:
A—37%
B—46%
C—15%
D—2%
E—0%

4. My typical grade in science classes is:
A—33%
B—34%
C—25%
D—7%
E—-1%

5. What do you feel is the most helpful part of science class with regard to learning?
Lecture/class discussion—29%
In-class work—22%
Labs—30%
Homework—2%
Quizzes/Tests—l %
Other—16%

92

6. What do you feel is the least helpful part of science class with regard to learning?
Lecture/class discussion—15%
In-class work—7%

Labs—1 1%
Homework—47%
Quizzes/Tests—l 9%
Other—1%

7. What is your favorite part of science class?
Lecture/class discussion—19%
In-class work—9%

Labs—69%
Homework—0%
Quizzes/Tests—l %
Other—2%

8. When you have trouble in science class, which of the following do you do?
Read the textbook—9%
Talk to the teacher—8%
Ask other students in class—45%
Talk to a friend who had the class—1%
Look at class notes—32%
Other—5%

9. When you study for science class, which of the following do you do?
Listen to music—40%
Turn on the TV for background noise—7%
Go to a quiet room in the house—39%
Go to the school library or public library—1%
Go to a friend’s house—4%
Other—9%

10. Performing labs in science class helps me learn. (circle one)
Strongly Agree—30%
Agree—42%
Neutral—1 8%
Disagree—5%
Strongly Disagree—5%

11. Tests and quizzes require that I learn concepts studied in the lab. (circle one)

Strongly Agree—6%
Agree—52%
Neutral—33%
Disagree—9%

Strongly Disagree—0%

93

12.

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

If I knew something in class or in the lab was going to be on a test or quiz I would
work harder to learn that concept.

Strongly Agree—37%

Agree—47%

Neutral—10%

Disagree—6%

Strongly Disagree—0%
Do you plan to take any more life science classes in high school
(Anatomy/Physiology, AP Biology)?

Yes—43%
No—l 9%
Not Sure—3 8%

Do you plan to continue your education after graduating from Hartland High
School?

Yes—95%

NO—1%

Not Sure——4%

If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate where you might
like to continue your education:
Most popular answers:
Central Michigan University
Grand Valley State University
Eastern Michigan University
Michigan Technological University
University of Michigan
Michigan State University

Do you plan to have a career that is related to science?

Yes—29%
No—38%
Not Sure—33%

If you answered yes to the previous question, please list which careers you are
considering:
Most popular answers:

Nursing

Medical Doctor

Neuroscientist

Meteorologist

Marine Biologist

Sports Medicine

Engineer

94

BIOLOGY A Lab Survey RESULTS

1.

When I work in the lab, I prefer to work in a group of __ students.
2 students—l 1%
3 students—3 4%
4 students—50%
5 students—4%
6 students—l %

When I work in the lab, I believe I learn best in a group of _ students.
2 students—16%
3 students—3 6%
4 students—43%
5 students—4%
6 students—1%

I think that doing labs in Biology class helps me to learn science concepts.
Strongly Agree—26%
Agree—44%
Neutral—20%
Disagree—7%
Strongly Disagree—3%

When I work in the lab, I prefer to perform a lab in which I just follow the written
procedure.

Strongly Agree—3 1%

Agree—52%

Neutral—14%

Disagree—2%

Strongly Disagree—1%

When I work in the lab, I prefer to perform a lab in which I design my own
procedure.

Strongly Agree——0%

Agree—14%

Neutral—32%

Disagree—32%

Strongly Disagree—22%

I think that designing my own lab procedure and performing my own experiment
helps me to better understand science concepts, as compared to a traditional lab.
Strongly Agree—1%
Agree—24%
Neutral—33%
Disagree—23%
Strongly Disagree—19%

95

 

BIOLOGY Post-Survey RESULTS

1. The lab exercises helped me to learn.
Strongly Agree—21%
Agree—52%

Neutral—21%
Disagree—6%
Strongly Disagree—0%

2. The lab exercises were enjoyable and stimulated my interest.
Strongly Agree—28%
Agree—44%
Neutral—24%
Disagree—4%
Strongly Disagree—0%

 

3. I was stimulated to think and/or want to learn more during the lab exercises.

Strongly Agree—9%
Agree—59%
Neutral—22%
Disagree—1 0%
Strongly Disagree—0%

4. The lab exercises improved my technical skills as a scientist (technique, use of

equipment, etc.).
Strongly Agree—28%
Agree—50%
Neutral—16%
Disagree—6%
Strongly Disagree—0%

5. The lab exercises improved my scientific reasoning (thinking) skills.

Strongly Agree—l 1%
Agree—62%
Neutral—22%
Disagree—5%

Strongly Disagree—0%

6. Tests and quizzes required that I learn concepts studied in the lab.

Strongly Agree—15%
Agree—48%
Neutral—28%
Disagree—8%

Strongly Disagree—1%

96

10.

ll.

12.

If I knew something in class or in the lab was going to be on a test or quiz I would
work harder to learn that concept.

Strongly Agree—34%

Agree—47%

Neutral—13%

Disagree—5%

Strongly Disagree—1%

I had positive interactions with Ms. Tury during the lab exercises.
Strongly Agree—41%
Agree—50%
Neutral—6%
Disagree—3%
Strongly Disagree—0%

I prefer to learn by doing hands-on activities (labs, building molecules, group
work, simulations) instead of lecture and notes format.

Strongly Agree—36%

Agree—2 1 %

Neutral—22%

Disagree—6%

Strongly Disagree—15%

I was more focused and on task during the lab exercises if I knew I was receiving
a daily lab grade (participation points).

Strongly Agree—20%

Agree—52%

Neutral—16%

Disagree—1 2%

Strongly Disagree—0%

Using white boards for sharing group lab results and conclusions as a class helped
my understanding of lab concepts.

Strongly Agree—20%

Agree—38%

Neutral—3 5%

Disagree—5%

Strongly Disagree—2%

Using Whiteboards individually for sharing ideas about labs helped me learn.
Strongly Agree—13%
Agree—46%
Neutral—28%
Disagree—8%
Strongly Disagree—5%

97

 

LITERATURE CITED

Berber-Jimenez, L., J. Montelongo, A.C. Hernandez, R. Herter, and D. Hosking. (2008).
Helping students write better conclusions. The Science Teacher, 75(3): 56-61.

Black, P. and D. William. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2): 139-148.

Bransford, J .D., A.L. Brown, and RR. Cocking, eds. (2000). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Carlson, M.O., G.E. Humphrey, and KS. Reinhardt. (2003). Weaving Science Inquiry
and Continuous Assessment: Using Formative Assessment to Improve Learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Crowe, A., C. Dirks, and MP. Wenderoth. (2008). Biology in bloom: implementing
bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences
Education. 7: 368-380.

Erekson, T. (2004). Assessing student understanding. The Science Teacher, 71(3): 36-38.

Hackett, J. (1998). Inquiry: both means and ends: using the standards to define inquiry
methods and outcome. The Science Teacher, 65(6): 34-37.

Hartland Consolidated Schools. 2009 August. Hartland High North Central
Association/Outcomes Accreditation School Profile.
<http://www.hartlandhighschool.us/hs_documents/NCARpt/NCARpt3.pdf>. Accessed
2010 June 10.

Hartland Consolidated Schools. 2009. Hartland High School Annual Report.
<http://www.hartlandhighschool.us/hs_documents/AnnualRpt/AnnualReport.pdf‘>.
Accessed 2010 June 10.

Heady, J. (2000). Assessment—a way of thinking about learning—now and in the future:
the dynamic and ongoing nature of measuring and improving student learning. Journal of
College Science Teaching. 29(6): 415-421.

Keeley, P., F. Eberle, and J. Tugel. (2007). Uncovering student ideas in science: 25 more
formative assessment probes. Vol. 2. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

McDonald, J. and Dominguez, L. (2009). Reflective writing: developing patterns for
thinking about learning in science. The Science Teacher, 76(3): 46-49.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

98

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Classroom Assessment and the National
Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Patro, E. (2008). Teaching aerobic cell respiration using the 5 Es. The American Biology
Teacher, 70(2): 85-87.

Peters, E. (2008). Assessing scientific inquiry. Science Scope, 31(5): 27-33.

Salter, I., R. Smith, and K. Nielson. (2008). Injecting inquiry into photosynthesis
investigations. Science Scope, 32(1): 34-39.

 

Straits, W.J. and RR. Wilke. (2002). Practical considerations for assessing inquiry-based
instruction: some guidelines for improving student assessment. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 31(7): 432-435.

Wilke, RR. and W.J. Straits. (2005). Practical advice for teaching inquiry-based science
process skills in the biological sciences. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9): 534-540.

Ueckert, CW. and J. Gess-Newsome. (2008). Active learning strategies: three activities
to increase student involvement in learning. The Science Teacher, 75(9): 47-52.

 

99

      
 
 

      
      

ATE U

llllllllll

1293 0

TV LIB

will?

0

      

mlmllllll llllllll
3 3063