Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A proposal for evaluating laboratory instruction in a plant physiology course

  • Published:
Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of laboratory instruction for science students is widely recognized, although this is a question in tertiary education that remains largely unresolved. In this work a proposal for evaluating laboratory instruction in a plant physiology course is presented and examples of questions used for one of the topics covered in the course are shown. The proposal includes the use of specifically designed multiple choice questions (MCQ) in the exams to assess the cognitive domain. Different items used in the plant physiology exams during the 2000–2012 period to evaluate two of the topics were categorized using the blooming biology tool. The questions were classified as lower- (memorization) and higher- (critical thinking) order cognitive skills (LOCS and HOCS, respectively) plus an intermediate order, LOCS/HOCS (application). Though MCQ have been indicated to be prone to evaluate mainly rote memory, our results show that less than 25% of the questions used belonged to the LOCS category. Scores obtained by the students for these MCQ were similar for theory and laboratory instruction. The evaluation model presented is easily transferable to assess a great variety of practical laboratory activities of different scientific disciplines and helps to avoid the dichotomy theory/practice usually found among students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  • Anderson TR, Rogan JM (2010) Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap: tools for evaluating the quality of assessment instruments. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 38:51–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basey J, Sackett L, Robinson N (2008) Optimal science lab design on students’ attitudes toward lab. Int J Scholarsh Teach Learn 2:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell B, Rohlman C, Benore-Parson M (2004) A curriculum skills matrix for development and assessment of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology laboratory programs. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 32:11–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2008) Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. Cell Biol Educ 7:368–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway KR, Bretz SL (2015) Development an assessment tool to measure students’ meaningful learning in the undergraduate chemistry lab. J Chem Educ 92:1149–1158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghani IBA, Ibrahim NH, Yahaya SA, Surif J (2017) Enhancing students’ HOTS in laboratory educational activity by using concept maps as an alternative assessment tool. Chem Educ Res Pract 18:849–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC (2002) A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ 15:309–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper R (2003) Multiple-choice questions—a reprieve. Biosci Educ. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2003.02000007

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein A, Lunetta VN (2004) The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci Educ 88:28–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein A, Mamlok-Naaman R (2007) The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chem Educ Res Pract 8:105–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes I (2004) Coping strategies for staff involved in assessment of laboratory write-ups. Biosci Educ. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2004.03000005

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt L, Koenders A, Gynnild V (2012) Assessing practical laboratory skills in undergraduate molecular biology courses. Assess Eval High Educ 37:861–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal S, Lucey AD, Lindsay ED, Sarukkalige PR, Mocerino M, Treagust DF, Zadnik MG (2018) An alternative approach to student assessment for engineering—laboratory learning. Aust J Eng Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2018.1435202

    Google Scholar 

  • Llamas A, Vila F, Sanz A (2012) Mathematical skills in undergraduate students. A ten-year survey of a plant physiology course. Biosci Educ. https://doi.org/10.11120/beej.2012.19000006

    Google Scholar 

  • Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D (2010) Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. Cell Biol Educ 9:435–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moni RW, Hryciw DH, Poronnik Ph, Lluka LJ, Moni KB (2007) Assessing core manipulative skills in a large, first-year laboratory. Adv Physiol Educ 31:266–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM (2004) Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ 38:974–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour E, Hunter AB, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T (2003) Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a 3 year study. Sci Educ 88:493–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon PH, Douglas R (2013) The attitudes towards, and experiences of, laboratory teaching in year 1 chemistry and physics university courses. New Dir 9:49–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanger-Hall KF (2012) Multiple choice exams: an obstacle for higher level thinking in introductory science classes. Cell Biol Educ 11:294–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vila F, Sanz A (2013) Mathematical literacy in plant physiology undergraduates. Results of interventions aimed at improving students’ performance. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 44:893–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth DE, Wright K (2015) Online assessment and engagement in university laboratory practicals. Br J Educ Technol 46:1201–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood EJ (2003) What are extended matching sets questions? Biosci Educ. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2003.01010002

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung A, Pyke SM, Sharma MD, Barrie SC, Buntine MA, DaSilva KB, Kable SH, Lim KF (2011) The advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory (ASELL) project: the first Australian multidisciplinary workshop. Int J Innov Sci Math Educ 19:51–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng AY, Lawhorn JK, Lumley T, Freeman S (2008) Application of Bloom’s taxonomy debunks the “MCAT myth”. Science 319:414–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The assistance of Dr. del Amo and Dr. Picazo (Department of Plant Biology, University of Valencia) in categorizing the questions in the BBT scale is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Ms. Eunice Martin for correcting the English.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Biology, University of Valencia, c/Dr Moliner, 50, 46100, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain

    Francisca Vila & Amparo Sanz

Authors
  1. Francisca Vila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amparo Sanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amparo Sanz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vila, F., Sanz, A. A proposal for evaluating laboratory instruction in a plant physiology course. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 30, 1–8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-018-0101-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-018-0101-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation