Group Intelligence: An Active Learning Exploration ... - ACS Publications

May 3, 2017 - ABSTRACT: Group Intelligence is an active learning, inquiry-based activity that introduces prebiotic chemistry, emergent complexity ... ...
0 downloads 11 Views 450KB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Group Intelligence: An Active Learning Exploration of Diversity in Evolution Christopher J. Parsons,† Meisa K. Salaita,‡ Catherine H. Hughes,§ David G. Lynn,∥ Adam Fristoe,⊥ Ariel Fristoe,⊥ and Martha A. Grover*,# †

School of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, 901 Atlantic Drive NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, United States ‡ Atlanta Science Festival, 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3400, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, United States § Conner Prairie, 13400 Allisonville Road, Fishers, Indiana 46038, United States ∥ Department of Chemistry, Emory University, 1515 Pierce Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, United States ⊥ Out of Hand Theater, 675 Ponce de Leon Avenue, #8500, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, United States # Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 311 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Group Intelligence is an active learning, inquiry-based activity that introduces prebiotic chemistry, emergent complexity, and diversity’s importance to adaptability across scales. Students explore the molecular emergence of order and function through theatrical exercises and games. Through 20 min of audio instruction and a discussion of roughly the same length, Group Intelligence teaches students about emergent function kinesthetically by guiding them through a series of increasingly complex and cooperative exercises analogous to molecular behaviors and interactions. The program was assessed in six classrooms at two schools; students completed surveys either before or after participating in the Group Intelligence activity. Those who completed the survey afterward correctly answered questions about diversity in living systems, molecular characteristics, and molecular assembly 13−26% more frequently than those who completed the survey before the activity. Through novel presentation and active engagement, Group Intelligence communicates content in NGS standards, making abstract ideas in modern science accessible. KEYWORDS: Biochemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, First-Year Undergraduate/General, High School/Introductory Chemistry, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Nucleic Acids/DNA/RNA, Polymerization

■

to the interstellar.1 In all these systems, diversity underpins resilience and adaptability. Group Intelligence attempts to span these scales, creating analogies for the molecular emergence through theater and play, highlighting this adaptability, this intelligence, by illustrating the powerful potential to solve challenges through the diversity of a group.2

INTRODUCTION

Darwin’s powerful concept of natural selection is too often characterized as “survival of the fittest”, as this shorthand seriously underemphasizes the critical role of diversity in the evolutionary process. Biological changes in heritable traits over time emerge from within populations, and the diversity across our biosphere leads to remarkably complex structures and behaviors. Examples of emergent complexity are not limited to form and function in biology, but are manifest across scales from chemical systems to human societies, from the molecular © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: July 13, 2016 Revised: April 7, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00518 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

depend on their diversity, illustrating the expansive possibilities of molecular systems and the cascading consequences in an evolving system. Participants begin the exercise by playing the role of disordered energy in the cosmos; their first transition toward order is made by stopping and “condensing” into molecules and compounds. In an increasingly cooperative fashion, participants’ movements model the formation of macromolecules and, eventually, functional proto-biopolymers. While outcomes can be unexpected on the basis of the initial circumstances, they can be understood after they emerge naturally from the group. The directions are easy to follow and available in the Supporting Information transcript. During one portion of the exercise, for example, participants are simply asked to step forward or back, depending on some condition. Despite their simplicity, the actions, which may seem random individually, are an effective model for the emergent and increasingly complex behavior of molecules that may have led to the emergence of life.13 An example can be seen in the following selection from the Group Intelligence script wherein base-pairing is modeled: If you are not part of a paired strand, put your hands in the air until you hear the next instruction. Good. Molecules are beginning to develop competitiveness, as well as cooperation. Both are necessary to succeed. If you have successfully paired your strand, when you hear the sound, you will have five seconds to arrange your strands side by side and shake hands with the member of the opposite sex in your position in the other line. [sound] 5, 4, 3... [sound] Good. Are you cooperative and competitive enough to succeed? Participants go on from this paired strand organization to complete other tasks. While the activity itself requires only 20 min, it is followed by a 25 min discussion. During the discussion, the instructor guides the students through a series of questions, available in the Supporting Information teacher instructions, illustrating the connectivity of the activity with central scientific concepts relating cooperation, emergence, and evolution. The participants explore why their behaviors were relevant to the development of biological complexity. For example, the transition from a swirling cosmos to functional molecules can be used to discuss the variety of time-scales relevant to the emergence of life. More space is needed in the high velocity, chaotic beginning than in the organized structures that develop later. Complex ideas like emergence can be explored by asking students to consider how their own unique characteristics (i.e., eye color) led to the group behaviors that they observed. For example, they may be asked what other outcomes could be expected if these traits had been different. This kind of selfdirected, discussion-based learning has demonstrated efficacy in increasing student engagement.14 Additional class discussion instructions are provided in the Supporting Information transcript and teacher instructions. No significant hazards are associated with Group Intelligence; however, teachers should take care to plan the activity in a large enough space so that students have enough room to move around and form the patterns as instructed by the narrator on the audio file.

In a process called chemical evolution, small molecules on the early Earth may have self-assembled through a bottom-up process, forming structures of increasing size and complexity through mutualistic associations of diverse polymers.3 Simulations support associations among diverse molecules as an approach for the selection of adaptable functions.4 Differences between molecules and their resultant interactions drive the emergence of function, and a kind of intelligence for which this activity is named. Much like molecules, the traits of people vary. We have different skills, strengths, and weaknesses; for solutions to challenges to emerge, teamwork is critical. Group Intelligence employs a modern theater approach and engages students kinesthetically to allow them to analogously experience molecular behaviors, with the participant group’s own diversity serving as a model for that of prebiotic molecular systems. Theater techniques allow practitioners to approach content areas from unexpected avenues and may help students see challenging content from new perspectives.5 Further, using drama to teach science has been shown to create empowering learning environments6 by avoiding the traditional chemistry lecture pedagogy which can intimidate less experienced students.7 As an inquiry-based, active learning exercise, Group Intelligence has advantages over traditional means of science education. There are decades of advocacy behind inquiry-based lessons,8 which have been shown to facilitate learning through their relatable applications to scientific concepts.9 When compared to lectures and other passive learning techniques, active learning programs have demonstrated better efficacy in learning and content retention.10 Further, cognitive psychology suggests that people process only fragments of conceptual information (i.e, as might occur in passive learning) at any one time.11 Responding to the shortfalls of lecture-based learning, numerous educators advocate for active learning through hands-on, interdisciplinary, and artistic experiences where students “do” rather than “watch.”12 This study explores how well one such activity uses these pedagogies to communicate complex conceptual content.

■

ACTIVITY Here we describe a hands-on, cooperative activity where participants walk, run, form patterns, and solve spatial problems together. We explicitly draw attention to the power of group diversity with their behaviors being analogous to the emergent potential of self-assembling, dynamic chemical systems. Throughout the 20 min activity, participants follow recorded audio instructions and, through their (directed) self-assembly, personally engage with scientific concepts that are intended to improve conceptual understanding across chemistry and biology. Group Intelligence is designed to use a full high school chemistry or biology class period while engaging Next Generation Science (NGS) Standards. However, it has been successfully implemented with a variety of age groups and scientific experience levels, ranging from elementary to graduate school. Participants are directed to interact and assemble in response to recorded instructions delivered over speakers. While the instructions are always the same, the specific responses of any participating group will be different. Order uniquely manifests in the group as they respond to the instructions, showing the problem-solving potential of a diverse group. At the same time, the audio builds analogies to the unseen molecular events and how their coherent behaviors

■

ASSESSMENT In order to understand whether or not the Group Intelligence program communicates the chemistry it is intended to, a content-based assessment was carried out at two high schools B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00518 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 1. Comparison of Content Question Responses for Activity First and Survey First Groups Proportion Checkedb Prompt/Response

AF (n = 73)

SF (n = 74)

Category A: What Is the Role of Diversity in Living Systems? 1. Different kinds of molecules are needed to perform complex functions.a 0.97 2. Multiple options allow the best one to be selected.a 0.90 3. Molecular diversity was needed in the evolution of early life forms, but is not needed today. 0.04 4. Molecular diversity is needed in DNA to store information.a 0.82 5. Diversity is important for groups of organisms, but is not needed at the molecular scale. 0.08 Category B: Molecules Are... 6. Either proteins or sugars. 0.39 7. Able to play music. 0.11 8. Able to carry out complex functions.a 0.99 9. Able to self-assemble.a 1.00 Category C: Molecules Assemble... 10. In DNA to store information.a 0.92 11. Because like charges attract each other. 0.45 12. Only with other molecules of the same type. 0.08 13. Only in the most complex types of living systems. 0.07

p Valuec α = 0.05

Statistical Significanced

0.97 0.74 0.05 0.70 0.12

0.49 0.0052 0.36 0.045 0.22

No Yes, positive difference No Yes, positive difference No

0.53 0.12 0.86 0.80

0.058 0.41 0.0025 1.7 × 10−5

No No Yes, positive difference Yes, positive difference

0.80 0.38 0.09 0.11

0.019 0.18 0.40 0.20

Yes, positive difference No No No

Considered directly relevant to the content of the activity and discussion. bContent question responses of the AF (activity first) and SF (survey first) groups are compared. Participants were directed to check each response that they found applicable in a given category. cOne-tailed t-tests (α = 0.05) were used to determine whether or not differences between the AF and SF groups were statistically significant. dIndicates whether or not a significant difference was observed. Significant differences were observed for five of the six prompts that were considered directly relevant to the content of the activity and discussion (2, 4, 8, 9, 10). a

classes. While this design does not allow for a determination of causality, it allows us to examine whether or not the participating classes’ knowledge of content relevant to what Group Intelligence is meant to teach is different among students that have completed the activity and those who have not. Specifically, the authors mean to interrogate differences in students’ understandings of chemical self-assembly, the functionality that emerges with increasing complexity, and their relevance to prebiotic environments and extant biological and social systems.

in the southeastern United States. Composed of two surveys, presented either before or after the activity and discussion, the evaluation explored how well Group Intelligence introduced students to concepts central to chemical evolution, including the following: the necessity of diversity for adaptive change, the necessity of diversity in the function of extant biology, and the ability of molecules to self-assemble and carry out complex functions. Both of these surveys are available in the Supporting Information for this article.

■

■

METHODOLOGY Six high school chemistry classrooms participated in the study. Four were honors classes; two were on-level classes. The honors classes and on-level classes were at different high schools in the same southeastern metropolitan region. These classes were divided evenly into two groups, hereafter referred to as “survey first”, or SF, and “activity first”, or AF. Both the SF and AF groups completed short surveys. The AF group participated in the Group Intelligence activity and the ensuing discussion before completing the survey; the SF group completed surveys before taking part in the activity. The surveys had three categories of content questions, with four or five possible responses for each. Students were asked to indicate whether or not each response was applicable to its accompanying question by checking a blank next to the prompt if it were true. In total, there were 13 possible responses to the questions (see Table 1). The AF and SF surveys differed in the open-ended questions that they asked. The AF group was asked, “What was your favorite part of Group Intelligence?” and “Why?” The SF group was asked, “What is the most challenging aspect of learning science?” The surveys also included questions about attitudes toward science and chemistry, but those results are not presented here. This methodology was used instead of a paired-test model to limit the intrusiveness of the assessment into the experience of the activity, as well as its total time requirement; the activities and assessments were carried out during normally scheduled

RESULTS

Content Questions

The survey questions that were used to assess the Group Intelligence activity were developed on the basis of the student audio instructions and discussion. For example, the content investigated by prompt four is covered in the activity by the gendered DNA base-pairing. Six of the 13 prompts between the SF and AF groups interrogated content directly relevant to the Group Intelligence activity and discussion. These were prompts 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10. Among these six prompts, a statistically significant difference (α = 0.05) was observed for five. In each case, the difference was positive, with the AF group responding correctly 13−26% more often than the control group. These results are summarized in Table 1. Three differences were observed in category A: “What is the role of diversity in living systems?” For response 1, where a difference was not observed, both the AF and SF groups responded correctly 97% of the time. This suggests that students, both who have or have not participated in Group Intelligence, have awareness that chemical diversity is needed to perform complex molecular functions. The knowledge of the AF and SF groups is equivalent. However, significant differences were observed for responses 2 (0.90 vs 0.74) and 4 (0.82 vs 0.70). Respectively, these differences suggest that students who participated in Group Intelligence have a better C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00518 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

and knowledge of other participants, which is analogous to the environmental determination of fitness. During the discussion, students must interpret the diverse behaviors of myriad individuals and consider how they relate to how chemicals interact, how genetic material combines, and how an organism’s behaviors may be understood as adaptations to its environment. Further, the activity shows how individual behavior can develop into group behavior and thus highlights the difference. Students are encouraged to analyze outcomes of group behavior and provide supporting evidence for how it might benefit life. Beyond the Next Generation Science Standards, the classroom assessment of Group Intelligence suggests its efficacy in communicating critical content. The significant difference observed between the AF and SF groups for response 2 on the content assessment shows the program’s potential to relate the importance of diversity for adaptive change. Differences observed for responses 4 and 10 convey its effectiveness in relating the significance of diversity in extant biology. Differences for responses 8 and 9 suggest the same for revealing the abilities of molecules to self-assemble and perform complex functions. By having students get up from their desks and act out molecular behaviors, Group Intelligence is able to better engage students with kinesthetic learning preferences.16 A movementbased approach is unusual to find in chemistry education, but is effective in generating interest and promoting content retention.17 By learning together in this way, Group Intelligence empowers students to see that science is more than memorizing formulas or learning theories; it is a social and collaborative process wherein many individuals must work together cooperatively to solve complex problems. Through these techniques borrowed from theater, the program manages to capture essential elements of science in a social context. The collaborative process is continued in the class discussion where students answer questions together. Many of the concepts presented in Group Intelligence are cemented here. Students are able to think out loud in a supportive atmosphere about the material and behavior they just acted out. Cooperative exercises like the discussion section have been shown to improve retention and enjoyment of chemistry.18 Through consensus building, students develop higher level thinking skills as well as a sense of personal responsibility for their learning.14

understanding of the importance of diversity for selection, and the importance of diversity in extant biology (i.e., DNA). Two statistically significant differences were observed in category B. Here, participants were asked to indicate whether or not certain responses were applicable to the nature of molecules. For response 8, almost all (99%) AF participants indicated that molecules are able to carry out complex functions; 86% of SF participants indicated the same. The most dramatic difference was observed for response 9, where every single AF participant indicated that molecules are able to self-assemble. Only 80% of SF participants did the same. Category C was designed to assess students’ understandings of molecular self-assembly. A statistically significant difference was observed for response 10 in this category. Among AF participants, 92% correctly indicated that molecules assemble in DNA to store information. The correct response rate among SF participants was 80%. Open-Ended Questions

The employed open-ended questions are inherently limited for analysis, as the impression of those who do not respond cannot be measured. Still, some clear themes emerged. The most commonly cited “best parts” were the connections Group Intelligence made between chemistry and common experience, the program’s active learning and kinesthetic engagement, the opportunity to work as a team and collaborate to understand difficult concepts, and the inclusive way that Group Intelligence made the classes’ diversity visible.

■

DISCUSSION

Despite their importance to biology and chemistry, concepts from prebiotic and evolutionary chemistry are rarely presented in introductory classrooms beyond some exploration of the Miller−Urey experiments.15 With its central theme of complex, intelligent behaviors emerging from the interactions of diverse chemical species, Group Intelligence offers a path to change this by engaging students with contemporary chemistry research in a way that is not only relatable personally but also relevant to a variety of fields critical to Next Generation Science Standards. Group Intelligence connects with physical science standard HS-PS2-6 in that participant behavior depends in particular on how individuals respond to particular instructions, just as molecular behaviors like self-assembly are dependent on natural laws. While numerous, only finite ranges of actions are possible on the basis of any given instruction, which is most clearly applicable to the sections of the activity where participants must form patterns with one-another. A full description of HS-PS2-6, as well as other relevant Next Generation Standards, is available in the teacher instructions, in the Supporting Information. The life sciences Next Generation Standards, HS-LS4-2 and HS-LS2-8, also have direct relevance to Group Intelligence. There is a portion of the activity in which participants are asked to begin singing and to continue doing so until everyone is singing the same song in unison. At first, many songs are heard, but only one remains by the end of the exercise. In the discussion section, students are asked to draw parallels between the song’s propagation and evolutionary selection. What is it that enables the one song to outlast the others? The song portion goes beyond the activity’s chemical context in that it is also a powerful illustration of the impact of group behavior on an individual’s and species’ chances for survival; it is comparable to schooling or swarming. Whether or not a given song makes it to the end is determined by the behavior

■

CONCLUSIONS Group Intelligence provides a novel and fun methodology to introduce students to molecular behaviors and evolution. Through guided self-organization, it illustrates the importance of diversity and cooperation as well as the resultant emergent intelligence present across many scales of existence. The participatory program has the potential to engage students with STEM concepts through kinesthetic learning and class discussion, and broadens the topic of evolution to a focus on the importance of diversity and emergence. Through an amicable narrative based on self-organization and the emergent behaviors of complex structures and behaviors, Group Intelligence offers an opportunity to present broad STEM concepts as an active and cooperative learning exercise for introductory chemistry and biology classrooms. Group Intelligence engages core ideas in modern science directly with the student’s social experiences. D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00518 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

■

Article

(11) Allen, G.; Allen, I.; Dalrymple, L. Ideology, practice and evaluation: Developing the effectiveness of Theatre in Education. Research in Drama Education 1999, 4 (1), 21−26. (12) (a) Duncan, K. A.; Johnson, C.; McElhinny, K.; Ng, S.; Cadwell, K. D.; Zenner Petersen, G. M.; Johnson, A.; Horoszewski, D.; Gentry, K.; Lisensky, G.; Crone, W. C. Art as an avenue to science literacy: Teaching nanotechnology through stained glass. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (10), 1031−1038. (b) Wood, W. B. Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2009, 25, 93−112. (13) Szathmáry, E.; Smith, J. M. The major evolutionary transitions. Nature 1995, 374 (6519), 227−232. (14) King, J. R.; Hunter, W. J.; Szczepura, L. F. Design, implementation, and evaluation of novel discussion exercises for first-year chemistry students. Chem. Educ. 2002, 7 (6), 329−333. (15) (a) Miller, S. L. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 1953, 117 (3046), 528−529. (b) Lazcano, A.; Bada, J. L. The 1953 Stanley L. Miller experiment: fifty years of prebiotic organic chemistry. Origins Life Evol. Biospheres 2003, 33 (3), 235−242. (c) Peretó, J.; Bada, J. L.; Lazcano, A. Charles Darwin and the origin of life. Origins Life Evol. Biospheres 2009, 39 (5), 395−406. (16) Kuksa, I.; Scriven, N.; Rumney, P. The cosmos project: A journey to the stars. Youth Theatre Journal 2011, 25 (1), 87−100. (17) Bridgeman, A. J.; Schmidt, T. W.; Young, N. A. Using atomic orbitals and kinesthetic learning to authentically derive molecular stretching vibrations. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (7), 889−893. (18) (a) Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom; ERIC, 1998. (b) Shibley, I. A., Jr; Zimmaro, D. M. The influence of collaborative learning on student attitudes and performance in an introductory chemistry laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (6), 745.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00518. Script of the Group Intelligence audio file and a sampling of discussion questions to follow the activity (PDF) Survey given to the SF group (PDF) Survey given to the AF group (PDF) Instructor details (PDF) (DOCX)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Christopher J. Parsons: 0000-0001-5741-6937 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest. The Group Intelligence audio file is available for download at http://hdl.handle.net/1853/56661.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ideas for and the development of Group Intelligence was supported by Emory Science and Society funding to David G. Lynn and Arri Eisen in collaboration with the entire Out of Hand Theater Company. This implementation was jointly supported by the NSF and the NASA astrobiology program, under the NSF/NASA Center for Chemical Evolution, CHE1004570 and CHE-1504217. We thank the instructors who facilitated the assessment presented here in their classrooms.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Pennock, R. T. On teaching evolution and the nature of science. Evolutionary science and society: Educating a new generation 2005, 7−12. (2) Kerby, H. W.; Cantor, J.; Weiland, M.; Babiarz, C.; Kerby, A. W. Fusion science theater presents the amazing chemical circus: A new model of outreach that uses theater to engage children in learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (10), 1024−1030. (3) (a) Goodwin, J. T.; Mehta, A. K.; Lynn, D. G. Digital and analog chemical evolution. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45 (12), 2189−2199. (b) Goodwin, J. T.; Lynn, D. G.; Burrows, C.; Walker, S.; Amin, S.; Ambrust, V. Alternative Chemistries of LifeEmpirical Approaches; Emory University: Atlanta, GA, 2014. (4) Walker, S. I.; Grover, M. A.; Hud, N. V. Universal sequence replication, reversible polymerization and early functional biopolymers: a model for the initiation of prebiotic sequence evolution. PLoS One 2012, 7 (4), e34166. (5) Pantidos, P.; Spathi, K.; Vitoratos, E. The use of drama in science education: The case of “Blegdamsvej Faust. Science & Education 2001, 10 (1−2), 107−117. (6) Ødegaard, M. Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education. Studies in Science Education 2003, 39 (1), 75−101. (7) Carter, C. S.; Brickhouse, N. W. What makes chemistry difficult? Alternate perceptions. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66 (3), 223. (8) Welch, W. W.; Klopfer, L. E.; Aikenhead, G. S.; Robinson, J. T. The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Sci. Educ. 1981, 65 (1), 33−50. (9) Edelson, D. C.; Gordin, D. N.; Pea, R. D. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the learning sciences 1999, 8 (3−4), 391−450. (10) Bobich, J. A. Active learning of biochemistry made easy (for the teacher). J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (2), 234. E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00518 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX