IBP+Catalytic+Mini-grant+Proposal

** Do you see what I see? How standard representations used in introductory biology instruction communicate biological information. **
Dr. Tammy M. Long, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Dr. Jennifer Momsen, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. Dr. Teri Balser, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Dr. Laurel Hartley, University of Colorado, Denver CO. Dr. J. Zane Barlow Coleman, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Bina Vanmali, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

Visual representations (i.e., models) of biological concepts and phenomena are essential components of teaching and learning in college-level introductory biology. However, many “standard representations” commonly used in introductory textbooks and widely available online, visually represent information in ways that may confuse or mislead novice learners. For example, human karyotypes are a common form of visual representation in the genetics sections of most introductory textbooks. Representations that depict members of a homologous pair of chromosomes in the same color may suggest to students that the genetic material is the same between members of the pair, particularly in cases where different pairs are represented in different colors. Similarly, carbon cycle models used in the ecology sections of introductory biology texts often depict the process of “decomposition” near, or linked to, the roots of plants, which may tempt students with the commonly-held misconception that carbon is taken up from the soil through plant roots. Images widely available online, and from credible sources, also pose potential for confusion. A quick peruse of the top hits following a Google search on the term “carbon cycle”, yields several images in which there is no mention of decomposition or microbial respiration whatsoever, despite its critical role in returning organic carbon back to the inorganic pool of atmospheric CO2. In Fall 2007, the top hit for a Google Images search on the term “chromosome” was an image that depicts a duplicated chromosome in which there is no similarity in the position or identity of alleles between sister chromatids. Further, the image is constructed such that it appears as 4 units of genetic material attached to a separate, square block intended to represent a centromere. Following instruction on genetics and inheritance, students in an introductory course at Michigan State University were asked to critique the image on a midterm exam. Students’ responses indicated that although many were able to identify multiple inaccuracies in the representation, many viewed and critiqued the image in very superficial ways. For example, “the chromosome model is a poor representation because it shows the genetic material as blue, and we know chromosomes aren’t really blue in nature.” Our collaborative project will rigorously examine a subset of standard representations commonly used in introductory biology courses. We aim to: 1) categorize and quantify characteristics in the representation of biological information that could be problematic or misleading for novice learners, and 2) survey students in our courses and/or colleagues in our departments to elicit their thinking about the biological information represented in 1 or more of these representations. Our project will provide quantitative data about the way information is portrayed in standard representations commonly used in introductory biology instruction and shed insight into the way students view and interact with these representations. Our findings will provide pilot data for further research that can better inform introductory biology instructors about how students use visual models to think about and learn biological concepts. A coherent understanding of how students think and learn from visual models will inform instructors about the most productive means for integrating biological models into effective pedagogies and classroom practices.
 * Project Focus, Impacts and Justification: **

· Strategize plan for subsequent meetings. · Secure a method for documenting our progress (e.g., wiki site). · Organize into smaller teams (if necessary) based on content/teaching expertise and interest. || · Team members will begin searching relevant literature and build an annotated bibliography at the wiki. Focal literature will address the role of models and visual representations in learning //and// documented misconceptions in biology. · Small teams will identify candidate models/representations for their field of expertise and begin quantifying patterns. || · Begin discussion of a common method for quantifying and characterizing candidate models (i.e., develop a coding scheme). || · Small teams will work together to apply the coding scheme to their models, aggregate and organize their data for presentation to the whole group at the subsequent meeting. || · Begin discussion of survey/assessment questions that will be administered to students/colleagues about interpretation of information portrayed in models. || · Small teams work together to: 1) finalize their model coding scheme, 2) write the procedure (methods) that describes the coding scheme, 3) write a final version of the results for their model coding, 4) post their writing to the project wiki. · Where appropriate, team members pilot survey questions to students and/or colleagues. || · Revisit project goals and progress. · Strategize a meeting plan for Spring semester, including a submission of a TUES, Phase I proposal (May deadline). || · Teams finalize revisions to their methods and results sections describing their model coding. || · Submit TUES proposal (Type I, May deadline) to continue and expand project focus. || We will use the entire $2000 requested in our budget to offset travel-related costs for team members to attend a common professional conference. At the conference, we will convene an in-person meeting of our collaborative team to discuss our findings, plan for submission of a TUES proposal, and prepare our results for presentation at the 2011 Biology Education Synthesis Meeting.
 * Proposed Activities and Timeline: **
 * ** Mtg ** || ** Date ** || ** Meeting Objectives ** || ** Outcomes and Intervening Work ** ||
 * 1 || 9/2010 || · Clarify project goals.
 * 2 || 10/2010 || · Small teams will propose candidate models for the focus of their research and report out on findings from literature.
 * 3 || 11/2010 || · Small teams report out on the results of their model coding and discuss revisions to the coding scheme.
 * 4 || 12/2010 || · Provide feedback to small teams about their posted products, including any student data derived from surveys/assessments.
 * 5-9? || 1/2011-5/2011 || · Spring semester meetings will serve to provide continuing feedback on data collection and analysis.  ||  · Submit paper (CBE?) describing our collective findings.
 * Budget: **