The Development of an Instrument to Assess Visuo-Semiotic Reasoning in Biology

Abstract

Purpose: The significance of visuo-semiotic models in biology education has increased. Students have to develop visuo-semiotic skills, which could enable them to learn biology effectively. However, a lack of a universal theory of visual literacy has made it challenging to develop and assess visualization skills, including visuo-semiotic skills. The aim of the present research, therefore, was to develop an instrument for assessing visuo-semiotic reasoning in biology (VSR-b) in the context of amino acid structures. The research question guiding the research was “how could an instrument for assessing visuo-semiotic reasoning in biology be developed?”

Methods: Guided by a theoretical framework, the VSR-b Test was developed using a mixed-methods approach, by first identifying VSR-b Skills through a panel of nine experts after which items were designed and validated through the same panel of experts and pilot participants (n=18). The VSR-b Test was then tested on a group of molecular biology students (n=30).

Findings: Results showed satisfactory reliability and inter-item correlation. However, further research is required to corroborate findings of the present research in other contexts, with particular emphasis on assessment and development of visuo-semiotic reasoning among students.

Implications for research & practice: The current research has shown that VSR-b can be understood and assessed within the context of the theoretical cognitive process of visualization. It provides teachers and researchers a starting point in understanding how learning occurs through visuo-semiotic models. Instructional and curriculum designers, therefore, can use findings of this research as a guide to support student development in biology.

Keywords

• Molecular biology,Visual literacy

References

1. Aboraya, A., France, C., Young, J., Curci, K., & LePage, J. (2005). The Validity of Psychiatric Diagnosis Revisited: The Clinician’s Guide to Improve the Validity of Psychiatric Diagnosis. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 2(9), 48–55.
2. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49.
3. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., ... & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.
4. Arneson, J. B., & Offerdahl, E. G. (2018). Visual literacy in bloom: Using bloom’s taxonomy to support visual learning skills. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-08-0178.
5. Arsad, N. M., Osman, K., & Soh, T. M. T. (2011). Instrument development for 21st century skills in Biology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1470-1474.
6. Avgerinou, M. D., & Pettersson, R. (2011). Toward a Cohesive Theory of Visual Literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(2), 1-19. doi: 10.1080/23796529.2011.11674687.
7. Avgerinou, M. D., & Quinn Knight, E. (2005). Assessing the Visual Literacy Skills And Perceptions Of Pre-Service Math Teachers. International Visual Literacy Conference, Orlando, Florida. October 17-2. 2005. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313469975_Assessing_The_Visual_Literacy_Skills_And_Perceptions_Of_Pre-Service_Math_Teachers.
8. Avgerinou, M., & Ericson, J. (1997). A review of the concept of visual literacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 280-291.

9. Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: McKay.
10. Hyrkäs, K., Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, K., & Oksa, L. (2003). Validating an instrument for clinical supervision using an expert panel. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 40(6), 619-625.
11. Kawahara, J. I., & Yokosawa, K. (2001). Pre-attentive perception of multiple illusory line-motion: A formal model of parallel independent-detection in visual search. The Journal of General Psychology, 128(4), 357-383.
12. Khodor, J., Halme, D. G., & Walker, G. C. (2004). A hierarchical biology concept framework: a tool for course design. Cell Biology Education, 3(2), 111-121.
13. Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning-making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758–770.
14. Linenberger, K. J., & Holme, T. (2015). Biochemistry Instructors’ Views toward Developing and Assessing Visual Literacy in Their Courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 23-31. doi: 10.1021/ed500420r.
15. McKee, T., & McKee, J. R. (2017). Biochemistry: the molecular basis of life. International 6th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Mnguni, L. (2018). A description of visual literacy among third year biochemistry students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(3), 486-495
17. Mnguni, L. E. (2014). The theoretical cognitive process of visualization for science education. SpringerPlus, 3(1). doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-184.
18. Nitz, S., Ainsworth, S. E., Nerdel, C., & Prechtl, H. (2014). Do student perceptions of teaching predict the development of representational competence and biological knowledge? Learning and Instruction, 31, 13-22.
19. Offerdahl, E. G., Arneson, J. B., & Byrne, N. (2017). Lighten the load: Scaffolding visual literacy in biochemistry and molecular biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-06-0193.
20. Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2009). A Model of Factors Determining Students’ Ability to Interpret External Representations in Biochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 193–232.
21. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. New York: Routledge
22. Walsh, G. (2014). Proteins: Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 2nd Ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
23. Weliweriya, N., Sayre, E. C., & Zollman, D. (2018). Case Study: Coordinating Among Multiple Semiotic Resources to Solve Complex Physics Problems. European Journal of Physics, 40(2), 1-26.