Genetics Misconceptions in Elementary Aged Children Clarified Through Collaborative Illustrations

Primary Faculty Mentor’s Name

Maggie Renken

Proposal Track

Student

Session Format

Poster

Abstract

Activities found in early childhood classrooms rarely explore the processes of science inquiry, or are long-term, which aids students in critical thinking (Worth 2010). By teaching the nature of science earlier, teachers allow room for more cognitive growth in their students (Worth 2010), and could help combat the dramatic deficiencies that are found in genetics content knowledge in K-12 students (Shaw et. Al 2008). This study focuses on genetics misconceptions found in elementary aged students, with the purpose that greater understanding of the misconceptions will correlate to students ability to successfully construct evidence-based adaptations in group illustrations, with notecard explanations. When using evidence to properly adapt the illustrations to prompted information such as, your markle lives in the desert, students are learning and participating in various steps of the science process. Expected learning outcomes, and performance for scientific knowledge are compiled by kindergarten- to first grade and third- to fifth grade (NGSS, 2013), but have not necessarily been tested in a collaborative setting. For this study 78 elementary students ranging from first- to fifth-grade at an elementary school located in the suburbs of a large southeastern city were grouped randomly by grade, with each grade present in each group, and given the task to complete a group illustration on evidence-based adaptations called markles. Preceding the grouping, students were given a pre-test to allow researchers to examine the genetics misconceptions the students had prior to a six-week genetics enrichment program. Over the six weeks students participated in PBL (problem-based learning) units within their groups, each group (consented N=13) receiving a fact about genetics after the lesson. At the end of the study, students were then given a post-test on the same open-ended genetics questions as the pre-test assessment, and presented their markles. Scores of the pre- and post-test were scored on a “0 to 4” scale; a “0” meaning no response, illegible, or un-intelligible, or “I don’t know”, and a”4” explicitly mentioning genes, genetics, and inheritance. The illustrations, and notecards that students wrote explanations for adaptations on were collected to grade the markles. For grading purposes Direct Evidence is defined by the information provided on the groups notecards, while Non-Direct Evidence is defined by assumptions made based on the illustration alone. For analysis the variables were the number of direct-evidence used by each group, and its correlation to the gains achieved from the pre- to post-test assessments. A successful group is indicated by whether they had a positive gain over the assessments, and had used a higher amount of direct-evidence (N>2). Qualitative analyses using Pearson correlation reveal that there is a moderate correlation between post-test group averages and number of direct-evidence used per group. While the correlation was moderate, it is significant that there was a positive correlation between all questions, meaning the collaborative setting of mixed age groups was not detrimental to individual student learning and may have aided the younger aged children in earlier introduction to scientific processes.

Keywords

Problem based learning, genetics, science inquiry, collaboration, adaptations

Location

Concourse and Atrium

Presentation Year

2015

Start Date

11-7-2015 10:10 AM

End Date

11-7-2015 11:20 AM

Publication Type and Release Option

Presentation (Open Access)

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Nov 7th, 10:10 AM Nov 7th, 11:20 AM

Genetics Misconceptions in Elementary Aged Children Clarified Through Collaborative Illustrations

Concourse and Atrium

Activities found in early childhood classrooms rarely explore the processes of science inquiry, or are long-term, which aids students in critical thinking (Worth 2010). By teaching the nature of science earlier, teachers allow room for more cognitive growth in their students (Worth 2010), and could help combat the dramatic deficiencies that are found in genetics content knowledge in K-12 students (Shaw et. Al 2008). This study focuses on genetics misconceptions found in elementary aged students, with the purpose that greater understanding of the misconceptions will correlate to students ability to successfully construct evidence-based adaptations in group illustrations, with notecard explanations. When using evidence to properly adapt the illustrations to prompted information such as, your markle lives in the desert, students are learning and participating in various steps of the science process. Expected learning outcomes, and performance for scientific knowledge are compiled by kindergarten- to first grade and third- to fifth grade (NGSS, 2013), but have not necessarily been tested in a collaborative setting. For this study 78 elementary students ranging from first- to fifth-grade at an elementary school located in the suburbs of a large southeastern city were grouped randomly by grade, with each grade present in each group, and given the task to complete a group illustration on evidence-based adaptations called markles. Preceding the grouping, students were given a pre-test to allow researchers to examine the genetics misconceptions the students had prior to a six-week genetics enrichment program. Over the six weeks students participated in PBL (problem-based learning) units within their groups, each group (consented N=13) receiving a fact about genetics after the lesson. At the end of the study, students were then given a post-test on the same open-ended genetics questions as the pre-test assessment, and presented their markles. Scores of the pre- and post-test were scored on a “0 to 4” scale; a “0” meaning no response, illegible, or un-intelligible, or “I don’t know”, and a”4” explicitly mentioning genes, genetics, and inheritance. The illustrations, and notecards that students wrote explanations for adaptations on were collected to grade the markles. For grading purposes Direct Evidence is defined by the information provided on the groups notecards, while Non-Direct Evidence is defined by assumptions made based on the illustration alone. For analysis the variables were the number of direct-evidence used by each group, and its correlation to the gains achieved from the pre- to post-test assessments. A successful group is indicated by whether they had a positive gain over the assessments, and had used a higher amount of direct-evidence (N>2). Qualitative analyses using Pearson correlation reveal that there is a moderate correlation between post-test group averages and number of direct-evidence used per group. While the correlation was moderate, it is significant that there was a positive correlation between all questions, meaning the collaborative setting of mixed age groups was not detrimental to individual student learning and may have aided the younger aged children in earlier introduction to scientific processes.