The Genetic Drift Inventory: A Tool for Measuring What Advanced Undergraduates Have Mastered about Genetic Drift

Understanding genetic drift is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of biology, yet it is difficult to learn because it combines the conceptual challenges of both evolution and randomness. To help assess strategies for teaching genetic drift, we have developed and evaluated the Genetic Drift Inventory (GeDI), a concept inventory that measures upper-division students’ understanding of this concept. We used an iterative approach that included extensive interviews and field tests involving 1723 students across five different undergraduate campuses. The GeDI consists of 22 agree–disagree statements that assess four key concepts and six misconceptions. Student scores ranged from 4/22 to 22/22. Statements ranged in mean difficulty from 0.29 to 0.80 and in discrimination from 0.09 to 0.46. The internal consistency, as measured with Cronbach\u27s alpha, ranged from 0.58 to 0.88 across five iterations. Test–retest analysis resulted in a coefficient of stability of 0.82. The true–false format means that the GeDI can test how well students grasp key concepts central to understanding genetic drift, while simultaneously testing for the presence of misconceptions that indicate an incomplete understanding of genetic drift. The insights gained from this testing will, over time, allow us to improve instruction about this key component of evolution

Systematics Agenda 2020: The Mission Evolves

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licens

“It’s just a theory”: trainee science teachers’ misunderstandings of key scientific terminology

Background: This article presents the findings from a survey of 189 pre-service science teachers who were asked to provide definitions of key scientific terms ('theory'; 'fact'; 'law'; 'hypothesis'). The survey was a scoping and mapping exercise to establish the range and variety of definitions. Methods: Graduates on a pre-service science teacher training course were asked to complete a short, free response survey and define key science terminology a >95% response rate was achieved and respondents definitions were categorised according to a best fit model. Results: In some cases, definitions contrary to accepted scientific meanings were given. In other cases, terminology was defined in a wholly non-scientific way, e.g., one-fifth of the respondents defined a ‘law’ in the context of rules that govern society rather than in a scientific context. Science graduates’ definitions and their understanding of key terminology is poor despite their study of science in formal university settings (with many respondents being recent science graduates). Conclusions: Key terminology in science, such as 'theory', 'law', 'fact', 'hypothesis', tends not to be taught and defined with consideration for the differences in meaning that different audiences/users give to them. This article calls for better instruction for pre-service science teachers’ in the importance of accurate and precise definitions of key science terminology in order to better differentiate between the scientific and colloquial usage of key terms

Improving Tree-Thinking One Learnable Skill at a Time

Introducerande artikel inom Läslyftsmodulen Från Vardagsspråk till ÄmnesspråkIntroduction to language sensitive teaching a s part of a Skolverket professional development module in the program Reading Boost