共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Dennis W. C. Liu 《CBE life sciences education》2014,13(3):363-368
Plants are a huge and diverse group of organisms ranging from microscopic marine phytoplankton to enormous terrestrial trees. Stunning, and yet some of us take plants for granted. In this plant issue of LSE, WWW.Life Sciences Education focuses on a botanical topic that most people, even biologists, do not think about—plant behavior.Plants are a huge and diverse group of organisms (Figure 1), ranging from microscopic marine phytoplankton (see http://oceandatacenter.ucsc.edu/PhytoGallery/phytolist.html for beautiful images of many species) to enormous terrestrial trees epitomized by the giant sequoia: 300 feet tall, living 3000 years, and weighing as much as 3000 tons (visit the Arkive website, www.arkive.org/giant-sequoia/sequoiadendron-giganteum, for photos and basic information). Stunning, and yet some of us take plants for granted, like a side salad. We may see plants as a focal point during the blooming season or as a nice backdrop for all the interesting things animals do. For this plant issue of CBE—Life Sciences Education, I am going to focus on a botanical topic that most people, even biologists, do not think about—plant behavior.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Plants are very diverse, ranging in size from microscopic plankton (left, courtesy of University of California–Santa Cruz Ocean Data Center) to the biggest organisms on our planet (right, courtesy Arkive.org).Before digging into plant behavior, let us define what a plant is. All plants evolved from the eukaryotic cell that acquired a photosynthetic cyanobacterium as an endosymbiont ∼1.6 billion years ago. This event gave the lineage its defining trait of being a eukaryote that can directly harvest sunlight for energy. The cyanobacteria had been photosynthesizing on their own for a long time already, but this new “plant cell” gave rise to a huge and diverse line of unicellular and multicellular species. Genome sequences have shed light on the birth and evolution of plants, and John Bowman and colleagues published an excellent review titled “Green Genes” several years ago in Cell (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867407004618#;
Bowman et al., 2007 ). The article has concise information on the origin and evolution of plant groups, including helpful graphics (Figure 2). Of course, plants were classified and subdivided long before DNA analysis was possible. The Encyclopedia of Earth (EOE) is a good website for exploring biological diversity and has an article on plants (www.eoearth.org/view/article/155261) that lays out the major plant groups and their characteristics. It states that there are more than 400,000 described species, a fraction of the estimated total number.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Genomic analysis has illuminated the relationship among the many species of plants, as illustrated in this phylogeny of three major plant groups from Bowman et al. (2007 , p. 129).The venerable Kew Gardens has an excellent website (Figure 3) that includes extensive pages under the tab Science and Conservation (www.kew.org/science-conservation). It is a beautifully organized website for exploring plant diversity and burrowing into the science of plants, and includes an excellent blog. Ever wonder how many different kinds of flowers there are? You can find out by visiting their feature titled, “How Many Flowering Plants Are There in the World?” There is an interesting video feature on coffee, which describes how only two species out of more than a hundred have come to dominate coffee production for drinking. As the monoculture in Ireland led to the potato blight, a lack of genetic diversity in today''s coffee plants is threatening the world''s coffee supply with the onset of climate change. The possibility of life without coffee is a call to action if ever I have heard one.Open in a separate windowFigure 3.Kew Gardens has a large and informative website that should appeal to gardeners and flower lovers, as well as more serious botanists and ecologists.Classification of plants is challenging for students and teachers alike. Perhaps understandable, given that plants constitute an entire kingdom of life. For an overview, have students read the EOE article as well as the Bowman Cell article to appreciate the enormity and diversity of the organisms we call plants. The EOE article is reproduced on the Encyclopedia of Life website (http://eol.org/info/449), an excellent context for further exploration of diverse plant species. As we probe the topic of plant behavior, the examples will be drawn from the vascular plants that include the many familiar plants commonly called trees, shrubs, flowers, vegetables, and weeds.Plants do respond to changes in their environment, but is it fruitful or scientifically valid to say that they have behavior? They lack muscles and nerves, do not have mouths or digestive systems, and are often literally rooted in place. A growing number of plant biologists have embraced the term behavior, as demonstrated by the journal devoted to the subject, Plant Behavior. Their resources page (www.plantbehavior.org/resources.html) is a good place to get oriented to the field.As in so many things, Darwin anticipated important questions concerning the movement of plants, despite the difficulties in observing plant behavior, and in 1880 he published The Power of Movement in Plants. The Darwin Correspondence Project website has a good treatment of Darwin''s work on plants, with interesting anecdotes relating to how he collaborated with his son Francis on this work late in his career (www.darwinproject.ac.uk/power-of-movement-in-plants). You can download Chapter 9 of the book and some of the correspondence between Darwin and his son. The entire book is available at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1325&viewtype=text&pageseq=1, or in various e-reader formats at the Project Gutenberg website (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5605). The PBS NOVA website, has a feature covering several of Darwin''s “predictions,” including one in which he noted the importance of plant and animal interactions. He famously predicted that a Madagascar orchid (Angraecum sesquipedale), which has a long narrow passage to its nectar stash, must have a long-tongued pollinator. In 1903, biologists identified the giant hawkmoth, with a 12-inch-long proboscis, as the pollinator predicted by Darwin (www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-nf.html).Darwin recognized that plants mostly do things on a timescale that is hard for us to observe, so he devised clever ways to record their movements. Placing a plant behind a pane of glass, he marked the plant''s position on the glass over time using a stationary reference grid placed behind the plant. Darwin transferred the drawing to a sheet of paper before cleaning the glass for the next experiment (Figure 4). By varying the distance between the plant, the reference points, and the glass, he magnified apparent distances to detect even small plant movements over periods as short as minutes. High-definition time-lapse photography and other modern techniques have extended Darwin''s observations in some compelling directions.Open in a separate windowFigure 4.One of Darwin''s drawings that can be found on the Darwin Correspondence Project Web pages devoted to his book The Power of Movement in Plants. For this figure, the position of the cotyledons of a Brassica was marked on a glass plate about every 30 min over a period of more than 10 h.A recent episode of the PBS Nature series, “What Plants Talk About,” epitomizes the increased interest in plant behavior and, unfortunately, some of the hyperbole associated with the field. The time-lapse video sequences and associated science are fascinating, and the entire program can be viewed on the PBS website at http://video.pbs.org/video/2338524490. The home page for the program (Figure 5; www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/what-plants-talk-about/introduction/8228) has two short video clips that are interesting. The video titled “Dodder Vine Sniffs Out Its Prey” is nicely filmed and features some interesting experiments involving plant signaling. It might be instructive to ask students to respond to the vocabulary used in the narration, which unfortunately tries to impart intent and mindfulness to the plant''s activities, and to make sensible experimental results somehow seem shocking. The “Plant Self-Defense” video is a compelling “poison pill” story that needs no narrative embellishment. A plant responds to caterpillars feeding on it by producing a substance that tags them for increased attention from predators. Increased predation reduces the number of caterpillars feeding on the plants. The story offers a remarkable series of complex interactions and evolutionary adaptations. Another documentary, In the Mind of Plants (www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU859ziUoPc), was originally produced in French. Perhaps some experimental interpretations were mangled in translation, but the camera work is consistently excellent.Open in a separate windowFigure 5.The Nature pages of the PBS website have video clips and a short article, as well as the entire hour-long program “What Plants Talk About.” The program features fantastic camera work and solid science, but some questionable narration.Skepticism is part and parcel of scientific thinking, but particular caution may be warranted in the field of plant behavior because of the 1970s book and documentary called The Secret Life of Plants (www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGl4btrsiHk). The Secret Life of Plants was a sensation at the time and was largely responsible for the persistent myths that talking to your plants makes them healthier, that plants have auras, and that plants grow better when played classical music rather than rock. While the program woke people up to the notion that plants indeed do fascinating things, the conclusions based on bad science or no science at all were in the end more destructive than helpful to this aspect of plant science. Michael Pollan, author of The Botany of Desire and other excellent plant books, addresses some of the controversy that dogs the field of plant behavior in an interview on the public radio program Science Friday (http://sciencefriday.com/segment/01/03/2014/can-plants-think.html). His article “The Intelligent Plant” in the New Yorker (www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all), covers similar ground.The excellently understated Plants in Motion website (http://plantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/plantmotion) is a welcome antidote to some of the filmic excesses. The site features dozens of low-definition, time-lapse videos of plants moving, accompanied by straightforward explanations of the experimental conditions and some background on the plants. The lack of narration conveys a refreshing cinema verité quality, and you can choose your own music to play while you watch. Highlights include corn shoots growing toward a light bulb, the rapid response of a mimosa plant to a flame, vines twining, and pumpkins plumping at night. You may have driven past a field of sunflowers and heard the remark that the heads follow the sun, but that is a partial truth. The young buds of the early plants do track the sun, but once they bloom, the tall plants stiffen and every head in the field permanently faces … east! The creators of Plants in Motion curated an exhibit at the Chicago Botanic Gardens called sLowlife (Figure 6). The accompanying video and “essay” (http://plantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/usbg/toc.htm) are excellent, featuring many interesting aspects of plant biology.Open in a separate windowFigure 6.sLowlife is an evocative multimedia essay designed to accompany an exhibit installed at the Chicago Botanic Gardens. It features text and video that reveal interesting aspects of plant biology.High-definition time-lapse photography is far from the only tool available to reveal hard-to-observe activities of plants. Greg Asner and colleagues at the Carnegie Airborne Observatory are using informatics to study the dynamic lives of plants at the community ecology level. The Airborne Observatory uses several impressive computer- and laser-enabled techniques (http://cao.stanford.edu/?page=cao_systems) to scan the landscape at the resolution of single leaves on trees and in modalities that can yield information at the molecular level. These techniques can yield insights into how forests respond to heat or water stress or the introduction of a new species. The site has a gallery of projects that are best started at this page: http://cao.stanford.edu/?page=research&pag=5. Here, they are documenting the effect of the Amazon megadrought on the rain forest. The very simple navigation at the top right consists of 15 numbered squares for the different projects. Each project is worth paging through to understand how versatile these aerial-mapping techniques are. They also have six buttons of video pages (http://cao.stanford.edu/?page=videos) that give you a feel for what it might be like to be in the air while collecting the data (Figure 7).Open in a separate windowFigure 7.The Carnegie Airborne Observatory is a flying lab that can collect real-time aerial data on forests at resolutions smaller than a single leaf on a tree.If this Feature seems to have been too conservative about whether plants have behavior, visit the LINV blog (www.linv.org/blog/category/plant-behavior) of the International Laboratory for Plant Neurobiology. The term “plant neurobiology” may be going too far, but the website presents some interesting science. Another fascinating dimension of plant “behavior” is seed dispersal, from seeds that can burrow, to seeds that “fly,” to seeds that are shot like bullets. A couple of websites have some good information and photos of the myriad designs that have evolved to take advantage of air currents for seed dispersal; see http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb99.htm and http://theseedsite.co.uk/sdwind.html. The previously mentioned PBS Nature series also produced a program on seeds, “The Seedy Side of Plants,” which you can view at www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/the-seedy-side-of-plants/introduction/1268. ChloroFilms, a worldwide competition for plant videos, is now in its fourth season, with some really good videos (www.chlorofilms.org). If you love plants, work with plants, or have insights into plant biology, you should consider submitting a video! 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
Charlene D’Avanzo 《CBE life sciences education》2013,12(3):373-382
The scale and importance of Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action challenges us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology instruction. I propose that we have clarified the “vision” but lack research-based models and evidence needed to guide the “change.” To support this claim, I focus on several key topics, including evidence about effective use of active-teaching pedagogy by typical faculty and whether certain programs improve students’ understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts. Program evaluation is especially problematic. While current education research and theory should inform evaluation, several prominent biology faculty–development programs continue to rely on self-reporting by faculty and students. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty-development overviews can guide program design. Such studies highlight viewing faculty members as collaborators, embedding rewards faculty value, and characteristics of effective faculty-development learning communities. A recent National Research Council report on discipline-based STEM education research emphasizes the need for long-term faculty development and deep conceptual change in teaching and learning as the basis for genuine transformation of college instruction. Despite the progress evident in Vision and Change, forward momentum will likely be limited, because we lack evidence-based, reliable models for actually realizing the desired “change.”
All members of the biology academic community should be committed to creating, using, assessing, and disseminating effective practices in teaching and learning and in building a true community of scholars. (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 , p. 49)Realizing the “vision” in Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (Vision and Change; AAAS, 2011 ) is an enormous undertaking for the biology education community, and the scale and critical importance of this challenge prompts us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology teaching and learning. For example, Vision and Change reflects the consensus that active teaching enhances the learning of biology. However, what is known about widespread application of effective active-teaching pedagogy and how it may differ across institutional and classroom settings or with the depth of pedagogical understanding a biology faculty member may have? More broadly, what is the research base concerning higher education biology faculty–development programs, especially designs that lead to real change in classroom teaching? Has the develop-and-disseminate approach favored by the National Science Foundation''s (NSF) Division of Undergraduate Education (Dancy and Henderson, 2007 ) been generally effective? Can we directly apply outcomes from faculty-development programs in other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines or is teaching college biology unique in important ways? In other words, if we intend to use Vision and Change as the basis for widespread transformation of biology instruction, is there a good deal of scholarly literature about how to help faculty make the endorsed changes or is this research base lacking?In the context of Vision and Change, in this essay I focus on a few key topics relevant to broad-scale faculty development, highlighting the extent and quality of the research base for it. My intention is to reveal numerous issues that may well inhibit forward momentum toward real transformation of college-level biology teaching and learning. Some are quite fundamental, such as ongoing dependence on less reliable assessment approaches for professional-development programs and mixed success of active-learning pedagogy by broad populations of biology faculty. I also offer specific suggestions to improve and build on identified issues.At the center of my inquiry is the faculty member. Following the definition used by the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (www.podnetwork.org), I use “faculty development” to indicate programs that emphasize the individual faculty member as teacher (e.g., his or her skill in the classroom), scholar/professional (publishing, college/university service), and person (time constraints, self-confidence). Of course, faculty members work within particular departments and institutions, and these environments are clearly critical as well (Stark et al., 2002 ). Consequently, in addition to focusing on the individual, faculty-development programs may also consider organizational structure (such as administrators and criteria for reappointment and tenure) and instructional development (the overall curriculum, who teaches particular courses). In fact, Diamond (2002) emphasizes that the three areas of effort (individual, organizational, instructional) should complement one another in faculty-development programs. The scope of the numerous factors impacting higher education biology instruction is a realistic reminder about the complexity and challenge of the second half of the Vision and Change endeavor.This essay is organized around specific topics meant to be representative and to illustrate the state of the art of widespread (beyond a limited number of courses and institutions) professional development for biology faculty. The first two sections focus on active teaching and biology students’ conceptual understanding, respectively. The third section concerns important elements that have been identified as critical for effective STEM faculty-development programs. 相似文献
5.
6.
A standard genetic/bioinformatic activity in the genomics era is the identification within DNA sequences of an "open reading frame" (ORF) that encodes a polypeptide sequence. As an educational introduction to such a search, we provide a webapp that composes, displays for solution, and then solves short DNA exemplars with a single ORFTo the Editor: We wish to bring a new Web resource to the attention of CBE—Life Sciences Education readers.When being introduced to the central dogma of nucleic acid transactions, students are often required to identify the 5′→3′ DNA template strand in a double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) molecule; transcribe an antiparallel, complementary 5′→3′ mRNA; and then translate the mRNA codons 5′→3′ into an amino acid polypeptide by means of the genetic code table. Although this algorithm replicates the molecular genetic process of protein synthesis, experience shows that the series of left/right, antiparallel, and/or 5′→3′ reversals is confusing to many students when worked by hand. Students may also obtain the “right” answer for the “wrong” reasons, as when the “wrong” DNA strand is transcribed in the “wrong” 3′→5′ direction, so as to produce a string of letters that “translates correctly.”In genetics and bioinformatics education, we have found it more intuitively appealing to demonstrate and emphasize the equivalence of the mRNA to the DNA sense strand complement of the template strand. The sense strand is oriented in the same 5′→3′ direction and has a sequence identical to the mRNA, except for substitution of thymidine in the DNA for uracil in the mRNA. It is thus more computationally efficient to “read” the polypeptide sequence directly from this strand, with mental substitution of thymidine in the triplets of the genetic code table. (By definition, “codons” occur only in mRNA: the equivalent three-letter words in the DNA sense strand may be designated “triplets.”) This is the same logic used in DNA “translation” software programs.A further constraint often imposed on dsDNA teaching exemplars is that five of the six possible reading frames are “closed” by the occurrence of one or more “stop” triplets, and only one is an open reading frame (ORF) that encodes an uninterrupted polypeptide. We designate this the “5&1” condition. The task for the student is to identify the ORF and “translate” it correctly. Other considerations include correct labeling of the sense and template DNA strands, their 5′ and 3′ ends (and of the mRNA as required), and the amino (N) and carboxyl (C) termini of the polypeptide.Thus, instructors face the logistical challenge of creating dsDNA sequences that satisfy the “5&1” condition for homework and exam questions. Instructors must compose sequences with one or more “stops” in the three overlapping read frames of one strand, while simultaneously creating two “stopped” frames and one ORF in the other. We have explored these constraints as an algorithmic and computational challenge (Carr et al., 2014 ). There are no “5&1” exemplars of length L ≤ 10, and the proportion of exemplars of length L ≥ 11 is very small relative to the 4L possible sequences (e.g., 0.0023% for L = 11, 0.048% for L = 15, 0.89% for L = 25). This makes random exploration for such exemplars inefficient.We therefore developed a two-stage recursive search algorithm that samples 4L space randomly to generate “5&1” exemplars of any specified length L from 11 ≤ L ≤ 100. The algorithm has been implemented as a Web application (“RandomORF,” available at www.ucs.mun.ca/~donald/orf/randomorf). Figure 1 shows a screen capture of the successive stages of the presentation. The application requires JavaScript on the computer used to run the Web browser.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Successive screen captures of the webapp RandomORF. First panel: the Length parameter is the desired number of base pairs. Second panel: Clicking the “Generate dsDNA” button shows the dsDNA sequence to be solved, with labeled 5′ and 3′ ends. The button changes to “Show ORF.” Third panel: A second click shows the six reading frames, with the ORF highlighted. Here, the ORF is in the sixth reading frame on the bottom (sense) strand. The polypeptide sequence, read right to left, is N–EITHLRL–C, where N and C are the amino and carboxyl termini, respectively. The conventional IUPAC single-letter abbreviations for amino acids are centered over the middle base of the triplet; stop triplets are indicated by asterisks (*).The webapp provides a means for students to practice identifying ORFs by efficiently generating many examples with unique solutions (Supplemental Material); this can take the place of the more standard offering of a small number of set examples with an answer key. The two-stage display makes it possible for problems to be worked “cold,” with the correct ORF identified only afterward. For examinations, any exemplar may be presented in any of four ways, by transposing the top and bottom strands and/or reversing the direction of the strands left to right. Presentation of the 5′ end of the sense strand at the lower left or upper or lower right tests student recognition that sense strands are always read in the 5′→3′ direction, irrespective of the “natural” left-to-right and/or top-then-bottom order. We intend to modify the webapp to include other features of pedagogical value, including constraints on [G+C] composition and the type, number, and distribution of stop triplets. We welcome suggestions from readers. 相似文献
7.
Deborah Allen 《CBE life sciences education》2014,13(4):584-586
This feature is designed to point CBE---Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research.This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or full text of articles. For articles listed as “Abstract available,” full text may be accessible at the indicated URL for readers whose institutions subscribe to the corresponding journal.
- 1. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410–8415. [Abstract available at www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410.abstract]
- 2. Weiman CE (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Early Edition, published ahead of print 22 May 2014. [Available at www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/05/21/1407304111.full.pdf+html]
- 3. Yadav A, Shaver GM, Meckl P, Firebaugh S (2014). Case-based instruction: improving students’ conceptual understanding through cases in a mechanical engineering course. J Res Sci Teach 51, 659–677.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21149/full]
- 4. Heddy BC, Sinatra GM (2013). Transforming misconceptions: using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students’ learning about biological evolution. Sci Educ 97, 723–744.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21072/abstract]
8.
Deborah Allen 《CBE life sciences education》2013,12(3):332-335
This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research.This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or full text of articles. For articles listed as “Abstract available,” full text may be accessible at the indicated URL for readers whose institutions subscribe to the corresponding journal.1. Bush SD, Pelaez NJ, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Tanner KD, Williams KS (2013). Widespread distribution and unexpected variation among science faculty with education specialties (SFES) across the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 7170–7175.[Available at: www.pnas.org/content/110/18/7170.full.pdf+html?sid=f2823860-1fef-422c-b861-adfe8d82cef5]College and university basic science departments are taking an increasingly active role in innovating and improving science education and are hiring science faculty with education specialties (SFES) to reflect this emphasis. This paper describes a nationwide survey of these faculty at private and public degree-granting institutions. The authors assert that this is the first such analysis undertaken, despite the apparent importance of SFES at many, if not most, higher education institutions. It expands on earlier work summarizing survey results from SFES used in the California state university system (Bush et al., 2011 ).The methods incorporated a nationwide outreach that invited self-identified SFES to complete an anonymous, online survey. SFES are described as those “specifically hired in science departments to specialize in science education beyond typical faculty teaching duties” or “who have transitioned after their initial hire to a role as a faculty member focused on issues in science education beyond typical faculty teaching duties.” Two hundred eighty-nine individuals representing all major types of institutions of higher education completed the 95-question, face-validated instrument. Slightly more than half were female (52.9%), and 95.5% were white. There is extensive supporting information, including the survey instrument, appended to the article.Key findings are multiple. First, but not surprisingly, SFES are a national, widespread, and growing phenomenon. About half were hired since the year 2000 (the survey was completed in 2011). Interestingly, although 72.7% were in tenured or tenure-track positions, most did not have tenure before adopting SFES roles, suggesting that such roles are not, by themselves, an impediment to achieving tenure. A second key finding was that SFES differed significantly more between institutional types than between science disciplines. For example, SFES respondents at PhD-granting institutions were less likely to occupy tenure-track positions than those at MS-granting institutions and primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs). Also, SFES at PhD institutions reported spending more time on teaching and less on research than their non-SFES peers. This may be influenced, of course, by the probability that fewer faculty at MS and PUI institutions have research as a core responsibility. The pattern is complex, however, because all SFES at all types of institutions listed teaching, service, and research as professional activities. SFES did report that they were much more heavily engaged in service activities than their non-SFES peers across all three types of institutions. A significantly higher proportion of SFES respondents at MS-granting institutions had formal science education training (60.9%), as compared with those at PhD-granting institutions (39.3%) or PUIs (34.8%).A third finding dealt with success of SFES in obtaining funding for science education research, with funding success defined as cumulatively obtaining $100,000 or more in their current positions. Interestingly, the factors that most strongly correlated statistically with funding success were 1) occupying a tenure-track position, 2) employment at a PhD-granting institution, and 3) having also obtained funding for basic science research. Not correlated were disciplinary field and, surprisingly, formal science education training.Noting that MS-granting institutions show the highest proportions of SFES who are tenured or tenure-track, who are higher ranked, who are trained in science education, and who have professional expectations aligned with those of their non-SFES peers, the authors suggest that these institutions are in the vanguard of developing science education as an independent discipline, similar to ecology or organic chemistry. They also point out that SFES at PhD institutions appear to be a different subset, occupying primarily non–tenure track, teaching positions. To the extent that more science education research funding is being awarded to these latter SFES, who occupy less enfranchised roles within their departments, the authors suggest the possibility that such funding may not substantially improve science education at these institutions. However, the authors make it clear that the implications of their findings merit more careful examination and discussion.2. Opfer JE, Nehm RH, Ha M (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: knowing what students know about evolution. J Res Sci Teach 49, 744–777.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21028/abstract]The authors previously published an article (Nehm et al., 2012) documenting a new instrument (more specifically, a short-answer diagnostic test), Assessing Contextual Reasoning about Natural Selection (ACORNS). This article describes how cognitive principles were used in designing the theoretical framework of ACORNS. In particular, the authors attempted to follow up on the premise of a National Research Council (2001) report on educational assessment that use of research-based, cognitive models for student learning could improve the design of items used to measure students’ conceptual understandings.In applying this recommendation to design of the ACORNS, the authors were guided by four principles for assessing the progression from novice to expert in using core concepts of natural selection to explain and discuss the process of evolutionary change. The items in ACORNS are designed to assess whether, in moving toward expertise, individuals 1) use core concepts for facilitation of long-term recall; 2) continue to hold naïve ideas coexistent with more scientifically normative ones; 3) offer explanations centered around mechanistic rather than teleological causes; and 4) can use generalizations (abstract knowledge) to guide reasoning, rather than focusing on specifics or less-relevant surface features. Thus, these items prioritize recall over recognition, detect students’ use of causal features of natural selection, test for coexistence of normative and naïve conceptions, and assess students’ focus on surface features when offering explanations.The paper provides an illustrative set of four sample items, each of which describes an evolutionary change scenario with different surface features (familiar vs. unfamiliar taxa; plants vs. animals) and then prompts respondents to write explanations for how the change occurred. To evaluate the ability of items to detect gradations in expertise, the authors enlisted the participation of 320 students enrolled in an introductory biology sequence. Students’ written explanations for each of the four items were independently coded by two expert scorers for presence of core concepts and cognitive biases (deviations from scientifically normative ideas and causal reasoning). Indices were calculated to determine the frequency, diversity, and coherence of students’ concept usage. The authors also compared the students’ grades in a subsequent evolutionary biology course to determine whether the use of core concepts and cognitive biases in their ACORNS explanations could successfully predict future performance.Evidence from these qualitative and quantitative data analyses argued that the items were consistent with the cognitive model and four guiding principles used in their design, and that the assessment could successfully predict students’ level of academic achievement in subsequent study of evolutionary biology. The authors conclude by offering examples of student explanations to highlight the utility of this cognitive model for designing assessment items that document students’ progress toward expertise.3. Sampson V, Enderle P, Grooms J (2013). Development and initial validation of the Beliefs about Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) questionnaire. School Sci Math 113, 3–15.[Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2013.00175.x/full]The authors report on the development of a Beliefs about Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) instrument (questionnaire), designed to map teachers’ beliefs along a continuum from traditional to reform-minded. The authors define reformed views of science teaching and learning as being those that are consistent with constructivist philosophies. That is, as quoted from Driver et al. (1994 , p. 5), views that stem from the basic assumption that “knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by the learner” by adjusting current understandings (and associated rules and mental models) to accommodate and make sense of new information and experiences.The basic premise for the instrument development posed by the authors is that teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and of the teaching and learning of science serve as a filter for, and thus strongly influence how they enact, reform-based curricula in their classrooms. They cite a study from a high school physics setting (Feldman, 2002 ) to illustrate the impact that teachers’ differing beliefs can have on the ways in which they incorporate the same reform-based curriculum into their courses. They contend that, because educational reform efforts “privilege” constructivist views of teaching and learning, the BARSTL instrument could inform design of teacher education and professional development by monitoring the extent to which the experiences they offer are effective in shifting teachers’ beliefs toward the more constructivist end of the continuum.The BARTSL questionnaire described in the article has four subscales, with eight items per subscale. The four subscales are: a) how people learn about science; b) lesson design and implementation; c) characteristics of teachers and the learning environment; and d) the nature of the science curriculum. In each subscale, four of the items were designed to be aligned with reformed perspectives on science teaching and learning, and four to have a traditional perspective. Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with the item statements on a 4-point Likert scale. In scoring the responses, strong agreement with a reform-based item is assigned a score of 4 and strong disagreement a score of 1; scores for traditional items were assigned on a reverse scale (e.g., 1 for strong agreement). A more extensive characterization of the subscales is provided in the article, along with all of the instrument items (see Appendix).The article describes the seven-step process and associated analyses used to, in the words of the authors, “assess the degree to which the BARTSL instrument has accurately translated the construct, reformed beliefs about science teaching, into an operationalization.” The steps include: 1) defining the specific constructs (concepts that can be used to explain related phenomena) that the instrument would measure; 2) developing instrument items; 3) evaluating items for clarity and comprehensibility; 4) evaluating construct and content validity of the items and subscales; 5) a first round of evaluation of the instrument; 6) item and instrument revision; and 7) a second evaluation of validity and reliability (the extent to which the instrument yields the same results on repetition). Step 3 was accomplished by science education doctoral students who reviewed the items and provided feedback, and step 4 with assistance from a seven-person panel composed of science education faculty and doctoral students. Administration of the instrument to 104 elementary teacher education majors (ETEs) enrolled in a teaching method course was used to evaluate the first draft of the instrument and identify items for inclusion in the final instrument. The instrument was administered to a separate population of 146 ETEs in step 7.The authors used two estimates of internal consistency, a Spearman-Brown corrected correlation and coefficient alpha, to assess the reliability of the instrument; the resulting values were 0.80 and 0.77, respectively, interpreted as being indicative of satisfactory internal consistency. Content validity, defined by the authors as the degree to which the sample of items measures what the instrument was designed to measure, was assessed by a panel of experts who reviewed the items within each of the four subscales. The experts concluded that items that were designed to be consistent with reformed and traditional perspectives were in fact consistent and were evenly distributed throughout the instrument. To evaluate construct validity (which was defined as the instrument''s “theoretical integrity”), the authors performed a correlation analysis on the four subscales to examine the extent to which each could predict the final overall score on the instrument and thus be viewed as a single construct of reformed beliefs. They found that each of the subscales was a good predictor of overall score. Finally, they performed an exploratory factor analysis and additional follow-up analyses to determine whether the four subscales measure four dimensions of reformed beliefs and to ensure that items were appropriately distributed among the subscales. In general, the authors contend that the results of these analyses indicated good content and construct validity.The authors conclude by pointing out that BARTSL scores could be used for quantitative comparisons of teachers’ beliefs and stances about reform-minded science teaching and learning and for following changes over time. However, they recommend BARTSL scores not be used to infer a given level of reform-mindedness and are best used in combination with other data-collection techniques, such as observations and interviews.4. Meredith DC, Bolker JA (2012). Rounding off the cow: challenges and successes in an interdisciplinary physics course for life sciences students. Am J Phys 80, 913–922.[Abstract available at: http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v80/i10/p913_s1?isAuthorized=no]There is a well-recognized need to rethink and reform the way physics is taught to students in the life sciences, to evaluate those efforts, and to communicate the results to the education community. This paper describes a multiyear effort at the University of New Hampshire by faculties in physics and biological sciences to transform an introductory physics course populated mainly by biology students into an explicitly interdisciplinary course designed to meet students’ needs.The context was that of a large-enrollment (250–320 students), two-semester Introductory Physics for Life Science Students (IPLS) course; students attend one of two lecture sections that meet three times per week and one laboratory session per week. The IPLS course was developed and cotaught by the authors, with a goal of having “students understand how and why physics is important to biology at levels from ecology and evolution through organismal form and function, to instrumentation.” The selection of topics was drastically modified from that of a traditional physics course, with some time-honored topics omitted or de-emphasized (e.g., projectile motion, relativity), and others thought to be more relevant to biology introduced or emphasized (e.g., fluids, dynamics). In addition, several themes not always emphasized in a traditional physics course but important in understanding life processes were woven through the IPLS course: scaling, estimation, and gradient-driven flows.It is well recognized that life sciences students need to strengthen their quantitative reasoning skills. To address their students’ needs in this area, the instructors ensured that online tutorials were available to students, mathematical proofs that the students are not expected use were de-emphasized, and Modeling Instruction labs were incorporated that require students to model their own data with an equation and compose a verbal link between their equations and the physical world.Student learning outcomes were assessed through the use of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS), which measures students’ personal epistemologies of science by their responses on a Likert-scale survey. These data were supplemented by locally developed, open-ended surveys and Likert-scale surveys to gauge students’ appreciation for the role of physics in biology. Students’ conceptual understanding was evaluated using the Force and Motion Concept Evaluation (FCME) and Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics (TUG-K), as well as locally developed, open-ended physics problems that probed students’ understanding in the context of biology-relevant applications and whether their understanding of physics was evident in their use of mathematics.The results broadly supported the efficacy of the authors’ approaches in many respects. More than 80% of the students very strongly or strongly agreed with the statement “I found the biological applications interesting,” and almost 60% of the students very strongly or strongly agreed with the statements “I found the biological applications relevant to my other courses and/or my planned career” and “I found the biological applications helped me understand the physics.” Students were also broadly able to integrate physics into their understanding of living systems. Examples of questions that students addressed include one that asked students to evaluate the forces on animals living in water versus those on land. Ninety-one percent of the students were able to describe at least one key difference between motion in air and water. Gains in the TUG-K score averaged 33.5% across the 4 yr of the course offering and were consistent across items. However, the positive attitudes about biology applications in physics were not associated with gains in areas of conceptual understanding measured by the FCME instrument. These gains were more mixed than those from the TUG-K and dependent on the concept being evaluated, with values as low as 15% for some concepts and an average gain on all items of 24%. Overall, the gains on the two instruments designed to measure physics understanding were described by the authors as being “modest at best,” particularly in the case of the FCME, given that reported national averages for reformed courses for this instrument range from 33 to 93%.The authors summarize by identifying considerations they think are essential to design and implementation of a IPLS-like course: 1) the need to streamline the coverage of course topics to emphasize those that are truly aligned with the needs of life sciences majors; 2) the importance of drawing from the research literature for evidence-based strategies to motivate students and aid in their development of problem-solving skills; 3) taking the time to foster collaborations with biologists who will reinforce the physics principles in their teaching of biology courses; and 4) considering the potential constraints and limitations to teaching across disciplinary boundaries and beginning to strategize ways around them and build models for sustainability. The irony of this last recommendation is that the authors report having suspended the teaching of IPLS at their institution due to resource constraints. They recommend that institutions claiming to value interdisciplinary collaboration need to find innovative ways to reward and acknowledge such collaborations, because “external calls for change resonate with our own conviction that we can do better than the traditional introductory course to help life science students learn and appreciate physics.”I invite readers to suggest current themes or articles of interest in life science education, as well as influential papers published in the more distant past or in the broader field of education research, to be featured in Current Insights. Please send any suggestions to Deborah Allen (ude.ledu@nellaed). 相似文献
9.
10.
《CBE life sciences education》2005,4(2):123-137
Note from the EditorsPoints of View (POV) addresses issues faced by many people within the life science education community. Cell Biology Education (CBE) publishes the POV Feature to present two or more opinions published in tandem on a common topic. We consider POVs to be “Op-Ed” pieces designed to stimulate thought and dialogue on significant educational issues. Each author had the opportunity to revise or add to his/her POV after reading drafts of the other''s POV.In this issue, we ask the question, “Are survey courses still viable for introductory biology?” The POV question is related to the ones asked by the National Research Council in the recent feature by Jay Labov (www.cellbioed.org/articles/vol3no4/article.cfm?articleID=132) and continues to be a subject of debate by many science departments, not just biology. Often the discussion is split not only by perceived value of the survey course, but also by the size of the institution. Therefore, we present four POVs, plus a framing POV to set the tone. The overview was written by Arri Eisen, who is a senior lecturer in Emory University''s Biology Department and the director of the Program in Science & Society. Representing the Anti-Survey, Large University is Janet M. Batzli, Associate Director of the nontraditional Biology Core Curriculum at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. The Anti-Survey, Small College perspective is presented by David Becker, who is an Associate Professor and Magdalena R. and John P. Dexter Professor of Botany in the Department of Biology at Pomona College. Presenting the Pro-Survey, Large University perspective is Douglas M. Fambrough, Professor of Biology at The Johns Hopkins Department of Biology and Scientific Director of the Searle Scholars Program. Finally, the Pro-Survey, Small College POV was coauthored by Mary Lee Ledbetter and A. Malcolm Campbell. Ledbetter is a Professor of Biology at College of the Holy Cross and a 2003 NSF Director''s Award recipient. Campbell is an Associate Professor of Biology at Davidson College and a co-Editor-in-Chief of CBE. Readers are encouraged to compare the authors'' perspectives and share their thoughts and reactions using the online discussion forum hosted by CBE at http://www.cellbioed.org/discussion/public/main.cfm.Cell Biol Educ. 2005 Summer; 4(2): 123–124. doi: 10.1187/cbe.05-01-0055
Running out of Hands: Designing a Modern Biology Curriculum
Arri EisenProgram in Science & Society Department of Biology Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322Author information ? Copyright and License information ?Copyright The American Society for Cell BiologyWhat makes a good teacher? What makes a good curriculum? While these two questions are intimately related, they are different. And when I think about them, I find myself feeling like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof dealing with a perplexing problem—that is, I quickly run out of hands. On the one hand, when I reflect on my best teachers, I can''t separate the person from what the person taught me. On the other hand, when designing a curriculum, we want to figure out what to teach and how, and leave out the person, because 1) personnel changes, 2) teachers have different styles, and 3) a good curriculum allows for these different styles. On the other hand, while personal style overlaps with pedagogy—the “how” of teaching—they are different. On the other hand… I have run out of hands.Let''s simplify a little and just discuss key questions and issues that should be addressed in designing a rigorous biology curriculum. Since introductory courses set the tone, standards, and expectations for the curriculum, we''ll focus our discussion on introductory courses as a model for thinking about the entire curriculum. Because this is an “overview” for a series of Points of View articles (POVs), I can cheat some and not give you any answers (see the four POVs that follow for some possible answers). Instead, I''ll sneak into a discussion of these key questions and issues, which I''ll call The Big 5. These five key points are important to consider, especially because we tend to lose sight of them since we''re often too close to our own blackboards to have a broader perspective. Some of my comments may sound like common sense, but keep in mind that most everything those bestseller self-help books say is common sense, yet they''re still bestsellers. 相似文献11.
Review of: National Institutes of Health Curriculum Supplements: Human Genetic Variation and Cell Biology and Cancer,by Biological Sciences Curriculum Study and Videodiscovery; 1999; http://science.education.nih.gov/customers.nsf/highschool.htm 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 The National Institutes of Health publishes a series of science curriculum supplements for K–12 education that are available from their Web site free of charge (http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements). In this feature, we review two of the high school supplements, Human Genetic Variation and Cell Biology and Cancer. Overall, we find that they are both excellent resources that engage students in learning science content while emphasizing the impact of scientific breakthroughs on personal and public health. In this review, we highlight the many strong features of the curricula and point out instances in which teachers may wish to seek out supplemental, updated information. 相似文献
12.
13.
Jenny Poskitt 《Curriculum Journal》2014,25(4):542-566
Assessing student learning is a complex process requiring teachers to have deep knowledge of the curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy. Changing political climates mean that teachers are expected to respond to new approaches or systems and adjust their classroom practice accordingly. Teachers often engage in professional learning (PL) to assist their knowledge and classroom practice, but what impact does PL have on their assessment practice as well as student learning and achievement?This paper examines optimal PL principles, the New Zealand assessment policy context, and application of assessment for learning principles in a nation-wide PL programme. Empirical data presented in relation to the five levels of Guskey's (2002) model evaluating PL indicate successful outcomes at the classroom level. However, application of Carless’ (2005) theoretical framework on embedding PL changes in schools reveals an area of neglect: attending to system (macro) level needs. Collaborative partnerships between schools and the wider community are posited as essential determinants of assessment literacies and transformational PL in times of political change. 相似文献
14.
15.
16.
William Grisham Natalie A. Schottler Joanne Valli-Marill Lisa Beck Jackson Beatty 《CBE life sciences education》2010,9(2):98-107
This completely computer-based module''s purpose is to introduce students to bioinformatics resources. We present an easy-to-adopt module that weaves together several important bioinformatic tools so students can grasp how these tools are used in answering research questions. Students integrate information gathered from websites dealing with anatomy (Mouse Brain Library), quantitative trait locus analysis (WebQTL from GeneNetwork), bioinformatics and gene expression analyses (University of California, Santa Cruz Genome Browser, National Center for Biotechnology Information''s Entrez Gene, and the Allen Brain Atlas), and information resources (PubMed). Instructors can use these various websites in concert to teach genetics from the phenotypic level to the molecular level, aspects of neuroanatomy and histology, statistics, quantitative trait locus analysis, and molecular biology (including in situ hybridization and microarray analysis), and to introduce bioinformatic resources. Students use these resources to discover 1) the region(s) of chromosome(s) influencing the phenotypic trait, 2) a list of candidate genes—narrowed by expression data, 3) the in situ pattern of a given gene in the region of interest, 4) the nucleotide sequence of the candidate gene, and 5) articles describing the gene. Teaching materials such as a detailed student/instructor''s manual, PowerPoints, sample exams, and links to free Web resources can be found at http://mdcune.psych.ucla.edu/modules/bioinformatics. 相似文献
17.
Maria LaRusso Ha Yeon Kim Robert Selman Paola Uccelli Theo Dawson Stephanie Jones 《Journal of research on educational effectiveness》2016,9(2):201-222
ABSTRACTDeep reading comprehension refers to the process required to succeed at tasks defined by the Common Core State Literacy Standards, as well as to achieve proficiency on the more challenging reading tasks in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) framework. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that three skill domains not frequently attended to in instruction or in theories of reading comprehension—academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning—predict outcomes on an assessment of deep reading comprehension. The Global Integrated Scenario-based Assessment (GISA; O'Reilly, Weeks, Sabatini, Halderman, & Steinberg, 2014) is designed to reflect students' abilities to evaluate texts, integrate information from an array of texts, and use textual evidence to formulate a position, all features of deep reading comprehension. We tested the role of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning in explaining variance in end-of-year GISA scores, controlling for beginning-of-year scores and student demographics. All three predictors explained small, but significant, amounts of additional variance. We suggest that these three skill domains deserve greater attention in theories of reading comprehension and in instruction. 相似文献
18.
Laura L. Mays Hoopes 《CBE life sciences education》2009,8(3):165-166
Note from the Editor
Educator Highlights for CBE-LSE show how professors at different kinds of institutions educate students in life sciences with inspiration and panache. If you have a particularly creative teaching portfolio yourself, or if you wish to nominate an inspiring colleague to be profiled, please e-mail Laura Hoopes at lhoopes@pomona.edu.LH: You are deeply involved with the HHMI Teaching Fellows Program at Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching (Pfund et al., 2009 ), and you''ve coauthored a book about scientific teaching (Handelsman et al., 2006 ). How do you teach people to teach in your summer institutes?Handelsman: The HHMI Graduate Teaching Fellows Program teaches graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to apply theories of learning to classroom practice. The fellows set learning goals and assess whether they''re achieved. It''s theory, then practice.LH: Can you explain a little more about how it works?Handelsman: The program starts with eight weeks of a course, “Teaching Biology” in which the fellows learn about education principles and then practice on each other applying those principles. Then they go on to design their own materials, and finally, in the second semester, use that material in teaching students. In our qualitative and quantitative analysis of their teaching philosophy, we see little change after the first semester. But there is radical improvement after they put their ideas into practice in the second part. People learn by doing.LH: How about a specific example of how the fellows develop materials.Handelsman: There''s a choice of venues, but let''s say one picks the honors biology course. They identify a technical problem, such as explaining Southern, Northern, and Western blotting. Our fellows then develop active-learning materials to address a challenging concept and test them in the classroom, often in multiple sections of a class. They refine and retest them. Another fellow might choose “Microbes Rule,” a course developed by fellows, which teaches about bacteria, viruses, and fungi. That fellow develops learning goals about antibiotic resistance, flu, or contaminated peanut butter, and designs classroom materials to achieve these goals.Open in a separate windowJo Handelsman, HHMI Professor, Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.LH: Do the teaching fellows find the work difficult?Handelsman: It''s a challenge for them to narrow down to a workable subtopic. We work with them to focus on the learning goals, asking “The students will know and be able to do what at the end of this unit?”LH: Did you learn this method of focusing on goals when you were being trained?Handelsman: No, most of us were never taught to consider goals for learning. So in training our fellows, we direct them to focus on that over and over, and ask how their plans relate to the goals. It''s backward design—think about what you want to achieve, then think about how to get there.LH: Assessment is becoming more important at universities and colleges all over the country. How do you teach the fellows to use it?Handelsman: Students design their own instruments. They develop skills to determine whether their goals are being met. We go over the tools with them repeatedly, identify potential downfalls, let them implement, and then review the results to see if they obtained the information needed to determine whether their teaching worked.LH: What kind of questions do they tend to use for assessment?Handelsman: Exam-type questions are important, whether taken as an examination or in a questionnaire. Videos of student presentations with reviewers who score on effectiveness are also useful. We ask how the fellows know if the students understood the material, and how the evidence relates to each of their learning goals.LH: How do they evaluate and incorporate input from past assessment?Handelsman: Before using an instrument for assessment, the fellows develop a rubric to score the quality of the answers. Often they decide to share this rubric with the students. They want to show the students what goal the assessment is addressing, what is an adequate answer, what is an outstanding answer. Then they discuss with their peers how to use this feedback to improve their teaching.LH: I''ve heard faculty members at other places saying that they do lots of assessment but don''t know what to do with it after they are forced to collect the information.Handelsman: I''d suggest that they do less and use it more! Not using assessment results is like designing a new experiment but ignoring your earlier results. If we have the information to improve our teaching, we should use it.LH: A lot of interviews for faculty positions ask for a teaching philosophy. It sounds like your fellows are well-positioned to answer these questions.Handelsman: Yes, they have to write their teaching philosophy several times, discuss it with the other fellows, and rewrite. The fellows have been very successful in obtaining positions.LH: Have you had undergraduate research students?Handelsman: Yes, it''s one of the most important academic activities in which students take part—anything hands-on is good, but undergraduate research is the best because it incorporates inquiry, discovery, real scientific processes. It plays into curiosity. It''s such a rewarding process to watch a student in the research lab! It''s a powerful thing to see them learn and grow into scientists over the course of a semester or two.LH: What motivated you to take on undergraduate research students at the start?Handelsman: I started undergraduate research myself in my first year of college—I walked into a lab and asked to do experiments. The difference between doing research and reading about it is so dramatic. I''ve always assumed that part of the structure of an academic lab is undergraduate involvement. Interestingly, I sometimes give the undergraduates riskier projects than the graduate students, who have more to lose if their projects fail.LH: Thanks for sharing your insights into teaching with CBE-LSE. 相似文献19.
20.
Thomas Kourtessis Nikolaos Tsigilis Maria Maheridou Theodoros Ellinoudis Michael Kiparissis Efthimis Kioumourtzoglou 《Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education》2013,34(4):276-286
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a short intervention program designed to enhance the educators' ability to identify children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Twenty early childhood and 20 physical education teachers (n = 40) participated in the study. Participants were randomly assigned into an experimental group (n = 20) and a control group (n = 20). A 3-week intervention program implemented, which comprised of four 2-hour lectures and two practice sections of the same duration and focused on the issue of DCD within the educational setting. After the completion of the program, each educator evaluated four children's motor performance using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children Checklist (Sugden & Sugden, 1991). Subsequently, another assessment took place using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children. The total number of evaluated children was 160. Results showed that the educators who attended the educational program showed higher identification ability. No significant differences were found between physical education and early childhood teachers of the experimental group. On the contrary, in the control group, early childhood teachers exhibited higher identification ability than the physical education teachers. The intervention program significantly enhanced the educators' ability to identify children with DCD. The implication of this study is that the education of school professionals should be a continuous process. 相似文献