Investigating the use of term recall and recognition tools in learning terminology and concepts in a senior biology classroom

For each of the topics within Units 3 and 4 of the VCE Biology course that were investigated through the teaching procedures and students’ responses, data sets comprised those outlined in the research design (above). For reasons of space, graphical representations and students’ responses are purposely kept to a minimum in this section with exemplars being used to illustrate the nature of the data and the approach to analysis. Discussion of the data follows in each section following initial exemplars.

Teaching procedure 1: Term Recall - before & now

DNA Structure

A Unit 4 VCE Biology class (Year 2, 13 students) was asked questions regarding key terms they already knew about DNA structure and terms that they now knew, and strategies that helped their learning of the new biological language (e.g., Figure 3). The frequency of DNA structure terms mentioned by students was calculated and as only three terms scored above 33% familiarity, the ‘top ten terms’ were graphed (see Figure 4). It was interesting that while almost 80% of the students recalled double helix, the next most familiar terms trailed significantly behind and were the symbols ‘C-G’ and ‘A-T’ (38%). This suggested that the students were aware of the complementary base pairing of the nitrogenous bases in DNA. Although not mentioned by many students, some students (31%) recalled the names (adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine) of these bases.

Figure 3. Year 2 Student A2 example: DNA Structure term recall worksheet

Less than a quarter of the class (23%) mentioned the terms nucleotides and chromosomes. It is interesting to note that the next most frequent terms (all 15%) recalled were phosphate, nitrogenous base, double stranded and complementary base pairing and that only one student (8%) mentioned either nucleic acids or hydrogen bonds. What was surprising was the number of students who had mentioned terms that had little relevance to the structure of DNA. The most common term was RNA (23%), followed by amino acids and uracil (15%) and finally, single stranded (8%).

In regards to new terms learned, the highest scoring terms associated with DNA structure were sugar (31%) and the bonding of complementary nitrogenous bases, C-G (38%) and A-T (31%). Surprisingly, terms related to the specific types of bonds in DNA (‘hydrogen bonds between the bases’ and ‘covalent bonds between the phosphate and deoxyribose’) were only mentioned by two students.

Less than a quarter of the class (23%) mentioned the terms nucleotides, phosphate and deoxyribose as newly learned terms. Although no students mentioned nitrogenous bases, one student mentioned nucleotide base - did they have the idea, but not the correct term? So many student responses were relevant to protein synthesis rather than DNA structure. The most frequent irrelevant terms mentioned were mRNA (23%), RNA (23%) and transcription (15%).

Figure 4. Term Recall: Year 2 Class A’s ‘Top ten already known’ DNA Structure terms

Inheritance

Two Unit 4 VCE Biology classes (Year 2, 26 students) were asked to respond to the questions regarding what they knew about Inheritance before instruction, what they now knew and what helped them to link their learning. The frequency of inheritance terms mentioned by students was calculated and terms recalled by at least 33% of the students were identified and graphed (Figure 5). The two most frequently (62%) listed terms were dominant and recessive. At least half of the students across the classes, were also familiar with the terms Punnet squares, pedigrees, homozygous and heterozygous. Such a pattern was to be expected as all of these terms are included in the current Year 10 Science Genetics curriculum at the school.

What was surprising was that so few students recalled chromosomes (38%), DNA (27%), genotype (23%), phenotype (15%), and meiosis (12%), as these are also terms focused on in their earlier studies.

Figure 5. Term recall: Inheritance terms that as least 33% Year 2 Classes A/B students recalled

Teaching procedure 2: Term Recognition cards and worksheets

In this teaching procedure, students were provided with a list of key terms of which they ranked their familiarity, by initially circling the score on a worksheet and then sharing their response by using the appropriate coloured scoring card. Patterns in student familiarity responses could be viewed in various ways. For example, student familiarity response patterns could be used to identify which terms at least 33% of the students had never seen before, did not know the meaning of, knew the meaning of, or could explain the meaning of to others. Combinations of the student familiarity responses for groups of related terms within topics could also be used to look for patterns that provided information that could be used to plan and modify the teaching of these terms.

Biomolecules

VCE Biology requires students to have a firm understanding of terms relating to carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids, as these are important to many of the topics studied. Figure 6 (Year 3 Class C) and Figure 7 (Year 4 Class C) show patterns of familiarity for carbohydrate-related terms. Disaccharide is the term shared by both classes as the least familiar with between 40-50% of the students having never seen it before. While many students in both Year 3 and Year 4 recognised the terms monosaccharide (95%; 80%) and polysaccharide (80%; 75%), more students in Year 3 (40% monosaccharide; 20% disaccharide) considered themselves to know their meaning than in Year 4 (15% for both terms). The carbohydrate term was the most familiar term across both years, with 90-95% of students either knowing what the term meant or could explain it to others.

Figure 6. Recognition of carbohydrate-related terms (Year 3: Class C)

Figure 7. Recognition of carbohydrate-related terms (Year 4: Class C)

Analysis of patterns of familiarity for protein-related terms showed that dipeptide was the term shared by both classes as the least familiar with 45% of Year 3 students and 85% of Year 4 students having never seen it before. Polypeptide was the next least familiar term for both classes. Although 65% of students in both years recognised this term, only 40% of Year 4 students knew what it meant. In Year 3, not a single student was able to either define, describe or explain it. While 50% Year 3 and 85% Year 4 Class C students knew the meaning of amino acid, 90% of both classes could define, describe or explain proteins.

Patterns of familiarity for nucleic acid-related terms illustrated that deoxyribose was the term shared by both classes as the least familiar with 35% of Year 3 students and 45% of Year 4 students having never seen it before. Ribose was the next least familiar term for both classes. Of all of these results, the most unexpected was that, in a class of twenty students in Years 3 and 4, five students responded that they had never seen the term deoxyribonucleic acid before and another five students responded that although they recognised the term, they could not define or describe it. Hence, at the start of this final secondary year biology class, 45% of the students could not define or describe deoxyribonucleic acid; a major term at the centre of their study.

Plasma membranes

VCE Biology requires students to have an understanding of both the structure and function of plasma membranes. Figures 8 - 11 summarise changes in student familiarity with molecular-related and process-related plasma membrane terminology at the beginning of instruction (e.g., Year 4 Class A1; Year 5 Class B1) and again approximately a week later (e.g., Year 4 Class A2; Year 5 Class B2). These figures indicate changes in student familiarity with plasma membrane molecular structure-related terminology. Changes in the patterns of familiarity colours within the graphs show movement of student familiarity responses towards increasing awareness and understanding of the specific terminology. In Year 4, Class A after a week of instruction, all students felt that they knew the meaning of lipids, phospholipids and phospholipid bilayer. Student familiarity of glycoprotein and glycolipids also improved, although there were students who still required support in understanding these terms.

Figure 8. Recognition of Plasma membrane molecular terms (Year 4: Class A1)

Figure 9. Recognition of Plasma membrane molecular terms (Year 4: Class A2)

In Year 4, Class B after a week of instruction (Figure 10), there was significantly more change (Figure 11) than observed in Class A. Not only did all students ‘know’ the meaning of lipids and phospholipids but all felt comfortable enough to explain the phospholipid bilayer to other students. As was the case with Class A, after a week of instruction, there were no terms on the worksheet that were not recognised.

Figure 10. Recognition of Plasma membrane molecular terms (Year 4: Class A2)

Figure 11. Recognition of Plasma membrane molecular terms (Year 4: Class B2)

Inclusion of term recall tools to probe students’ perceptions of how they learn new terminology

The Term recall worksheets provided an opportunity for students to list activities that helped them to link their previous knowledge of the vocabulary (and concepts) to new learning. Figures 12 - 14 provide a summary of the top ten student strategy responses for Inheritance, DNA structure and Plasma membranes.

For the Inheritance worksheet, two Unit 4 VCE biology classes (26 students) responded, for the DNA structure worksheet, a single Unit 4 VCE biology class (13 students) and for the Plasma membrane worksheet, two Unit 3 VCE biology classes (30 students).

Figure 12. Inheritance recall: Student strategies used to link new knowledge to previous knowledge

Figure 13. DNA Structure recall: Student strategies used to link new knowledge to previous knowledge

Figure 14. Plasma membrane term recall: Top ten student strategies used to learn new biological language

What are the implications for class instruction?

Figures 12 - 14 provide an opportunity to consider (in practice) Shulman’s (2000) idea of ‘putting the inside out’ and enabling the teacher to look for patterns in it ‘while it is out’. These patterns can be used to inform planning of future instruction for both classes and the individuals within them. Feedback in this small sample, suggests that many students found traditional note taking and text reading to be useful in their learning of new scientific terminology. A point that highlights an interesting issue related to the tension between knowing information and learning for understanding.

A limitation of this part of the Term Recall sheet was that it involved recall, rather than recognition. A selection of teaching procedures that students could have scored and commented on may have provided more information. A strength of this worksheet was that the teacher did not have ‘control’ of that which was being recalled, thus giving students the ability to recall their own choices rather than being confined to someone else’s selection.

Throughout each year, variations of the ‘traditional’ strategies mentioned by the students were included in instruction, as were others that they may not have previously experienced. This further highlights that perhaps different activities (or teaching procedures) may be more effective when learning different types of content (e.g., structure compared to process), which appears to be the case in the views expressed through this data, and also supported in the literature (Carlson & Marshall, 2009; McTighe, 2005; Shulman, 1986). After experiencing these new ‘foreign’ ways of learning vocabulary and concepts, a number of students verbally mentioned that the new approaches were now their preferred ways of learning the new vocabulary. However, it must be noted that each class (even in the same subject, in the same year) appeared to develop its own preferred ‘learning procedure’ profile.

Finding out where students are ‘at’

The term recall and recognition activities provided considerable feedback on which terms students already knew and which were foreign to them. Although the term recall worksheets provided some feedback on terms that they had recalled on Biomolecules, Inheritance and DNA structure, the feedback from the Term recognition worksheets was extensive.

The Term recognition worksheet activity on Biomolecules and Plasma membranes provided a coloured snapshot of those terms which students knew as well as those terms they had not seen before. Also, unlike the Term recall activity, they provided student perceptions of how well they ‘knew’ the terms.

Using a similar colour coding in the graphs as for the term recognition cards (RED = Never seen the term before; ORANGE = Recognise the term; YELLOW = Recognise and can give definition or description of the term; GREEN = Recognise and could help others to understand the term) simply browsing through the Term Recognition figure pages (for the full data sets) provided immediate feedback on student familiarity of specific terms.

Mitchell (2002) referred to the messiness of research conducted while teaching full-time. While it can sometimes be difficult to collect data around teaching commitments, it is easier if the data has immediate benefits to the direction of the lessons in which it is being collected. Such embedded data collection can lead to immediate ‘informed’ change to practice which may result in enhanced student learning. Collection of the student Term recognition worksheets enabled opportunities for further processing of the information. Categories or groups of terms could be considered in relation to student familiarity. The examples noted earlier in this section (i.e., carbohydrate, proteins, and nucleic acid groupings for Biomolecules; molecular structures and processes for Plasma membranes; and, chloroplast structure and molecular terms for Photosynthesis) provided very valuable information for planning for each particular class.

Once there was a snapshot of where students ‘were at’ with the terms at a particular point in time in their learning, other teaching procedures and activities could be used to increase their familiarity and understanding of those terms. The Figures in this paper illustrate an effective colour-coded snapshot of the Term recognition data and change in student familiarity in molecular structure and process related to plasma membrane terminology and chloroplast structure and molecular terminology for Photosynthesis.

Different types of teaching procedures and activities were seen to be more effective for teaching and learning different topics. Such a varied approach has the potential to increase the neural pathways (Gregory & Parry, 2008; Willis, 2009) in which links of the terms were incorporated and enhanced in long term memory and increase ease of retrieval as more cues may be available. Exposure of the terms to students in different ways and at different times increased their familiarity with them. This (as Spencer & Guillaume (2006) suggested), increases the likelihood of these terms moving into long-term memory.

Empowered with new awareness on student familiarity and learning from the Term recall and recognition worksheet feedback, new teaching procedures were developed to further increase student familiarity with the new terminology. (These included patterning using pre-fix and suffix cards, storytelling and predictive ‘Who am I?’; however, it is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the details of these procedures.)

Personal learning about recall and recognition teaching procedures

Teaching procedure 1: Term recall

By providing students with the time, opportunity and expectation to reflect on both previously known and new terminology and knowledge, the importance of the new language can become an explicit focus. As this study illustrates, such a focus encourages students to be more aware of connecting old and new terminology. The use of this procedure also provides students with the opportunity to focus on the specific language and to mentally link terms that they knew with new terminology.

By responding to the section of the worksheet about strategies that helped them to learn the new biological terminology, the students in this study were also reflecting on their own personal learning and that which was working for them. Such reflection, it can be argued, may increase the likelihood that they might continue to use these strategies. By allowing students to share their responses with each other, other students may become aware of, and even try out, new strategies to see how they work personally.

From a teaching perspective, analysis of these worksheets proved to be both difficult and very time consuming. At a quick glance (as is often required by teachers requiring quick feedback to inform and modify future class instruction), it was very difficult to see ‘where students were’ with the terminology. Some of this may be related to the design of the worksheet, the ‘breadth’ of the term used, the questions asked and the timing of when it was presented to the students.

In the second version of the worksheet, the wording was changed so that the students focused more on the biological terminology than their knowledge. The question at the top of the sheet changed from: “What did you know before and what do you know now about inheritance?” to “Which key words did you know before and which do you know now about DNA structure?” The first circle also changed to: “Which keywords did you already know about DNA structure?” and the second circle to “Which keywords do you now know about DNA structure?” The question between the circles also changed from “Which strategies linked your learning together?” to “Which strategies helped you to learn the new biological language?”

The design of the worksheet was also modified. ‘Blank’ circles were replaced with ‘lined’ circles. A total of eight segments were formed within the first circle by these lines and sixteen in the second circle. While this may seem a little ‘slanted’ in the direction of recalling more terms in the second circle, the intention was for the first circle to not be too threatening to the students and anticipated that they would know more terms after instruction. Also, while some students wrote a single term in each segment, others wrote numerous terms. This suggests that the format did not limit the number of terms that students included.

In terms of students’ inclusion of strategies that helped them to learn, the rectangle was replaced with three ‘arrowed’ smaller rectangular shapes. Such a modification again made interpretation of the worksheets easier and also indicated to the student that a less threatening three strategies were expected. As these worksheets were given to the students towards the end of the study period on the topic, it is not clear if the students really did recall the terms that they had listed as already known. Unfortunately, it also does not provide an indication as to how well they knew the term.

While this was a useful reflection activity and provided feedback on student learning in terms of which activities helped them to learn the new language, it did not assist them in focusing on the key terms at the beginning of the topic. Such awareness, could help the students to focus on specific new terms when they were introduced or mentioned as they may then more explicitly recognise them. From this idea, came the development of the term recognition activity (Teaching procedure 2).

Teaching procedure 2: Term recognition

Students took the term recognition worksheets very seriously and used these to communicate areas that they wanted reviewed in class. On some occasions students even stayed back after the lesson to clarify their perceived ‘terminology gaps’. Occasionally, students who had scored the terms highly (‘can explain the term to others’) were asked to help others to understand them.

The recognition worksheet activity proved to be very informative as it provided very quick feedback as to where the students ‘were at’ in the beginning of the unit. It also provided the students with the opportunity to become aware of the key biological terms that they would encounter. The students took the activity seriously and appeared to be honest in their ‘recognition scoring’.