Using assessment to improve learning in the biochemistry classroom

In recent years, major drivers of undergraduate science education reform including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) have called on college and university instructors to take a more scientific approach to their teaching. Scientific teaching, eloquently described by Handelsman, Miller, and Pfund in their book of the same title, suggests that scientists approach their classrooms as they would their experiments, focusing on outcomes and basing conclusions and subsequent actions on evidence [1]. Although many biochemistry instructors are gaining confidence in using small-scale formative assessment projects, few have the expertise to conduct more formalized, quantitative studies. And yet this type of assessment project, often associated with the growing field of chemical education research [2], can be very helpful in gaining greater understanding of student learning and in communicating to peers about new teaching practices and their effect on student learning. In 2007, a colleague and I were fortunate to obtain NSF funding for a project to improve and disseminate process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) materials for the biochemistry classroom [3–5]. To fulfill assessment expectations we have worked closely with chemical education researchers involved in the POGIL project [6, 7]. Specifically we have developed an assessment instrument to identify incorrect ideas students bring from general chemistry and biology to biochemistry courses and to measure changes in student understanding after completing biochemistry. After two years of designing, piloting with over 1000 students, and revising the instrument, it is finally generating valid and reliable results. The current instrument is a 21-question multiple choice test focusing on major concepts identified by experts as being problematic for students in general chemistry and general biology. The concepts relate to bond energy, spontaneity of processes, pKa, intermolecular forces, peptide primary and secondary structure, and the consequence of mutations on protein function. Fifteen biochemistry instructors at a variety of institutions including two large research universities have piloted the instrument as a pretest. Responses from colleagues who have viewed their student performance on the test have been dramatic. While most faculty members suspected that students would need to review some concepts from previous courses upon entering biochemistry, the widespread poor performance on relatively simple questions was surprising. However, after some initial disappointment, our colleagues used the insights gained from test results to make targeted changes to their biochemistry courses. Some expressed feeling empowered to make such changes because they had evidence that students needed additional support in specific concept areas. Over the next year, faculty members participating in the project are looking forward to using pre/post data to determine whether their efforts to improve their biochemistry courses are leading to correct understanding of basic ideas and to good understanding of biochemical concepts. To assess student understanding of important biochemical concepts, we are currently in the process of collecting and analyzing responses to test questions that participating faculty have agreed to embed on exams given at the end of their courses. These questions, which require a short written answer, are designed to assess students’ ability to transfer their understanding of a key biochemical concept, enzyme kinetics, to a new setting. Although the process of creating these instruments has been challenging, working with colleagues in biochemistry and chemical education research has been informative and rewarding. As biochemists with no formal training in education research, my biochemistry colleagues and I have learned much about instrument design and analysis. My chemical education research colleagues found it helpful to receive real time feedback from biochemistry instructors who were in the classroom with students. Even more importantly, this fruitful collaboration with chemical educator researchers has established new professional relationships and has expanded possibilities for projects in the future. ‡ To whom correspondence should be addressed. 901 12th Ave, Seattle, WA 98122 E-mail: loertscher@seattleu.edu.