Browsing by study line "Lärare i biologi"

There are no comprehensive research data on Finnish matriculation examinations in biology. This type of data is needed, because evaluation guides what and how students learn and what they consider important. Genetics is one the most challenging topics in biology, and in the opinion of teachers it will continue to be an important discipline in the future. The importance of studying genetics can also be justified with philosophical, social and health reasons. This is why the present study focused on the genetics component of the matriculation exam in biology. The aim of the study was to provide information on the challenges and contents of past matriculation examinations in biology and how they have aligned with high school curricula. The results of the study could be used to evaluate this alignment in relation to genetics questions in the biology exam, and could help in designing new matriculation examinations that align better with the existing high or new high school curricula and their aims. The research questions were: 1. What knowledge and cognitive dimensions are measured with the genetics-related questions in matriculation examinations in biology? 2. How do knowledge and cognitive dimensions in genetics-related questions in biology matriculation examinations relate to high school curriculum aims? The data comprised matriculation examination papers in biology from spring 2011 to autumn 2020 (20 exams) and the aims of the Finnish national High School Curriculum in 2003 and in 2015. Qualitative content analysis was performed on the knowledge dimensions (factual, conceptual or procedural knowledge) and the cognitive process dimensions (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating or creating). The basis of this qualitative content analysis was Bloom’s revised taxonomy. The analysis was conducted on genetics-related matriculation examination questions and on the aims of the high school curriculum. The test questions and the aims were compared to determine whether they aligned. Classified questions were divided into two subcategories depending on which high school curricula they corresponded to. Genetics-related questions from spring 2011 to autumn 2017 corresponded to the High School Curriculum in 2003 and questions from spring 2018 to autumn 2020 corresponded to the High School Curriculum in 2015. Questions from the previous period were divided into all knowledge dimensions. All questions, except one, incorporated lower cognitive dimensions (remembering, understanding and applying). The main combined class was understanding conceptual knowledge. Questions from the later time period were also divided into all knowledge dimensions. Mostly lower cognitive dimensions were incorporated into the questions, but a few subquestions addressed higher cognitive dimensions (analyzing, evaluating and creating). The main combined class was understanding conceptual knowledge. All the aims were classified into conceptual or procedural knowledge classes. The aims were also divided between all cognitive dimensions, except remembering. Using constructive alignment as the basis for matching aims with questions, two aims in the High School Curriculum of 2003 and six aims in the High School Curriculum of 2015 had no questions that matched them. These aims mostly measured the cognitive dimension of creating. Several aims appeared to incorporate higher cognitive dimensions, but the questions were less well aligned with the aims than with those incorporating lower cognitive dimensions. The results concerning knowledge and cognitive dimensions were mostly as expected. Lower cognitive dimensions were highlighted in genetics-related matriculation examination questions in biology. The challenge of interpretation brought ambiguity to the aims and cumulative levels of cognitive dimensions when aligning questions with aims, as some of the questions aligned with aims did not assess such high cognitive dimensions as would be expected based on the aims, but were nonetheless aligned with them. Furthermore, there may be several reasons behind the absence of the creating dimension in matriculation examination questions. The alignment of questions and aims would be important to consider in the future, because evaluation has a considerable impact on studying.

Education research has for decades acknowledged that prior knowledge is a strong predictor of academic success. This idea is largely based on constructivist theory of learning which postulates that all learning occurs by actively building on existing knowledge. When this prior knowledge conflicts with the normative scientific understanding, students are dealing with incompatible knowledge structures, or misconceptions. Misconceptions need to be revised and sometimes even replaced through a learning process called conceptual change. Research shows that the level of prior knowledge can determine students’ academic success and performance. Undergraduate biology students enrol to university with diverse levels of prior knowledge and concepts regarding topics such as photosynthesis, cellular respiration, primary production in ecosystems, and Darwinian evolution. These topics present challenges for learning because of their complexity. At the same time, a robust understanding of them is essential. These topics are at the heart of mitigating and resolving the climate crisis and other global natural threats. This study explored the level of prior knowledge and the nature of misconceptions held by undergraduate biology students at the beginning of their academic degree in fall of 2019, and further sought to describe how their conceptual understanding developed during the first academic year. Students (N = 41) completed a questionnaire consisting of eight open-ended questions that were designed to assess declarative knowledge of facts and meaning, and procedural integration and application of knowledge. This pre-test measurement was conducted in September 2019. In the post-test measurement, the same questionnaire was repeated a year later. The data were analysed with a mixed methods approach where the answers were quantitatively scored as well as qualitatively analysed for misconceptions. The qualitative content analysis of the answers relied both on existing literature and on the content of the answers themselves. Results showed that the students’ prior knowledge was relatively poor in the beginning of their studies. Most students performed well in tasks measuring knowledge of facts and meaning but struggled in tasks measuring integration and application of knowledge. During the first academic year, the students’ understanding generally improved as demonstrated by the improvement in mean scores of the tasks. Misconceptions were robust and pervasive. The most pervasive misconceptions reflected difficulties in understanding emergent properties and processes. Misconceptions related to the process of Darwinian evolution became more prominent in the post-test. Persistent misconceptions became integrated with the new conceptual frameworks that the students acquired during the first academic year. If students held no misconceptions in the post-test, they performed significantly better in both tests than those with misconceptions. During this first academic year learning seemed to be mainly additive as conceptual change turned out to be rare. The need for more encompassing biology teaching at least in the University of Helsinki became evident. Introductory courses should acknowledge the large degree of variation in students’ prior knowledge and assess the most common and serious misconceptions even over course theme disciplines to ensure more equal learning outcomes.

Even though bats have no specialized predators in the temperate zone, they are still predated on. In fact, 11% of their annual mortality is caused by avian predators, especially owls. Bats are particularly vulnerable at emergence from their roost because this behaviour is very predictable. Because a successful predation event is mortal, it would be expected that bats need antipredatory responses to avoid it. The time and focus for these responses need to be shared with foraging in a way that maximizes survival. I studied antipredatory responses of bats in two settings: 1. during roost emergence and 2. during foraging at tawny owl territories and at places where there have been no tawny owl sightings. I collected acoustic data from 24 roosts and 11 foraging grounds for 10-13 nights. The roost emergence data was collected with the help of citizen science. Two controlled predation threats, recorded tawny owl calls and nestling sounds, were used. Nestling sounds were only played during roost emergence. In both tests music and silence were used as controls. Owl calls, music or tawny owl territory have no effect on bat presence when they are foraging. However, bats alter their emergence time and leave over 20 minutes later when tawny owl calls are played outside the roost. There is no difference in exit time when music or nestling sounds are played. These results show that bats have antipredatory responses. They also suggest that bats may be able to recognize high-risk situations and allocate their behaviour accordingly or that they place higher importance on foraging than avoiding predation.