Construct Validity of Computer Scored Constructed Response Items in Undergraduate Introductory Biology Courses

2020 ◽  
pp. 223-240
Author(s):  
Hye Sun You ◽  
Kevin Haudek ◽  
John Merrill ◽  
Mark Urban-Lurain
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. ar23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian D. Wright ◽  
Sarah L. Eddy ◽  
Mary Pat Wenderoth ◽  
Elizabeth Abshire ◽  
Margaret Blankenbiller ◽  
...  

Recent reform efforts in undergraduate biology have recommended transforming course exams to test at more cognitively challenging levels, which may mean including more cognitively challenging and more constructed-response questions on assessments. However, changing the characteristics of exams could result in bias against historically underserved groups. In this study, we examined whether and to what extent the characteristics of instructor-generated tests impact the exam performance of male and female and middle/high- and low-socioeconomic status (SES) students enrolled in introductory biology courses. We collected exam scores for 4810 students from 87 unique exams taken across 3 yr of the introductory biology series at a large research university. We determined the median Bloom’s level and the percentage of constructed-response questions for each exam. Despite controlling for prior academic ability in our models, we found that males and middle/high-SES students were disproportionately favored as the Bloom’s level of exams increased. Additionally, middle/high-SES students were favored as the proportion of constructed-response questions on exams increased. Given that we controlled for prior academic ability, our findings do not likely reflect differences in academic ability level. We discuss possible explanations for our findings and how they might impact how we assess our students.


2014 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrin F. Stanger-Hall ◽  
Julianne A. Wenner

We assessed the performance of students with a self-reported conflict between their religious belief and the theory of evolution in two sections of a large introductory biology course (N = 373 students). Student performance was measured through pretest and posttest evolution essays and multiple-choice (MC) questions (evolution-related and non-evolution-related questions) on the final exam and posttest. The two class sections differed only in exam format: MC with or without constructed-response (CR) questions. Although students with a reported conflict scored significantly lower on the final exam in the MC-only section, they scored equally well in the MC+CR section, and all students in the MC+CR section performed significantly better overall. As a result, (1) a religious conflict with evolution can be negatively associated with student achievement in introductory biology, but (2) assessment with constructed response was associated with a closed performance gap between students with and without a conflict. We suggest that differences in exam format and focus on student acceptance of evolution (either evidence-based or opinion), rather than reported conflict, may contribute to the inconsistencies in student learning of evolution across research studies, and that CR questions may help students overcome other obstacles to learning evolution.


BioScience ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin W. Tyser ◽  
William J. Cerbin

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 742-742
Author(s):  
Elena Bray Speth ◽  
Tammy M. Long ◽  
Robert T. Pennock ◽  
Diane Ebert-May

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Michelle E. Maxson ◽  
Sabrina A. Volpi ◽  
Sandeep N. Wontakal

Within the Department of Cell Biology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, each student is required to present a research article of his or her choosing for the department journal club. As new students entering the Department, it was unclear to us (Sabrina Volpi and Sandeep Wontakal) whether there were any rules for choosing the papers we would pres- ent. Should the paper relate to work performed within the Department? Did the paper have to be published within the last year, or five years, or could we select a “classic” paper from the early 1900s? While pondering these questions, we realized we shared a great interest in reading the original “landmark” papers we had once learned about in our introductory biology courses, the papers that laid the foundation of what we know as biology today.


2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Michelle E. Maxson ◽  
Sabrina A Volpi ◽  
Sandeep N. Wontakal

Within the Department of Cell Biology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, each student is required to present a research article of his or her choosing for the department journal club. As new students entering the Department, it was unclear to us (Sabrina Volpi and Sandeep Wontakal) whether there were any rules for choosing the papers we would present. Should the paper relate to work performed within the Department? Did the paper have to be published within the last year, or five years, or could we select a “classic” paper from the early 1900s? While pondering these questions, we realized we shared a great interest in reading the original “landmark” papers we had once learned about in our introductory biology courses, the papers that laid the foundation of what we know as biology today.


2016 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 482-491
Author(s):  
Peter J. T. White

Students often struggle to understand the complex molecular systems and processes presented in introductory biology courses. These include the Calvin cycle, the Krebs cycle, transcription and translation, and DNA replication, among others. Traditionally, these systems and processes are taught using textbook readings and PowerPoint slides as lecture aids; video animations have also become popular in recent years. Students tend to be passive observers in many of these methods of instruction, relying heavily on “memorization” learning techniques. To address this, I developed an active-learning intervention called “molecular sculpting” in which students construct two-dimensional or three-dimensional versions of an assigned molecular system or process, complete with representations of proteins, chromosomes, electrons, protons, and other molecules (depending on the system). The value of this learning activity was measured in five class sessions in an introductory biology course during the 2014–2015 academic year. Pre- and post-class written assignments showed that students were often able to describe course concepts more completely after sessions in which sculpting was used, compared with sessions without sculpting. Molecular sculpting is a unique, hands-on activity that appears to have significant learning gains associated with it; it can be adapted for use in a variety of K–14 biology courses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document