Chapter 12

Vignette #1: Introducing Active Learning to Improve Student

Performance on Threshold Concepts in Biochemistry
Mary A. Kopecki-Fjetland*
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Department of Chemistry, St. Edward’s University, 3001 South Congress Avenue,

Austin, Texas 78704, United States
*E-mail: maryk@stedwards.edu.
Downloaded via COLUMBIA UNIV on December 6, 2019 at 08:17:49 (UTC).

Students entering a first semester biochemistry course are expected to possess

knowledge of certain foundational concepts such as hydrogen bonding and bond
energy from prerequisite coursework. These foundational concepts are essential
for gaining mastery of threshold concepts in biochemistry such as the physical
basis of interactions. Unfortunately, many students who enter a biochemistry
course possess misconceptions or an incomplete understanding of these
foundational concepts. This chapter describes an iterative process for introducing
interventions to improve student foundational concept knowledge. The process
includes pre-assessment of foundational concept knowledge, identification of
targeted interventions, introduction of the intervention into the classroom, and
re-assessment of student knowledge for potential learning gains. Utilization of
this iterative process to guide implementation of active learning strategies such as
problem based worksheets, tactile learning activities, and learning cycle activities
will be discussed.

Introduction
Biochemistry is an interdisciplinary upper division course built on the fundamental concepts
of biology and chemistry. Student success is dependent on utilization of previous knowledge as a
scaffold onto which to build new ideas. Most students encounter these foundational concepts in
previous courses such as general chemistry, general biology and organic chemistry. However, upon
entering a biochemistry course they often bring gaps in knowledge or misconceptions which hinder
their learning of big ideas or threshold concepts. This chapter discusses an iterative process to design
and implement active learning strategies in the classroom to improve student foundational concept
knowledge which may then better position students to master threshold concepts.

© 2019 American Chemical Society

Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
 Bridging Threshold Concepts and Foundational Concepts
In recent years a number of disciplines have made an effort to define and identify core concepts
considered essential for students to master (1–3). These big ideas provide the basis of curricular
design and assessment. In biochemistry these core concepts have been defined and identified with
some variation. Loertscher described a core concept as a “threshold concept which represents a
transformed understanding of a discipline, without which the learner cannot progress and therefore
is pivotal in learning in a discipline” (4). Threshold concepts identified include: steady state,
biochemical pathway dynamics and regulation, the physical basis of interactions, thermodynamics of
macromolecular structure formation, and free energy (5). Rowland identified slightly different core
concepts in biochemistry such as information transfer and storage (6) while Tansey identified core
concepts in biochemistry and molecular biology such as evolution and information flow (7).
Foundational concepts are concepts students encounter in pre-requisite courses and are
expected to have mastered upon entering a biochemistry course. These concepts are typically
encountered in courses such as general biology, general chemistry and organic chemistry. Similarly
to threshold concepts, there is some distinction amongst identified foundational concepts for
biochemistry. Foundational concepts from physics, chemistry and mathematics have been identified
and were described as “necessary to both increase the depth of conceptual understanding in the field
of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and foster interdisciplinary thinking” (8). A few examples
of these essential concepts include: Coulomb’s Law at work in the molecular life sciences, covalent
bonds and polarity, hydrogen bonds and other non-covalent interactions, and rate laws and
equilibria. Alternatively, a diverse community of biochemistry educators have identified seven
foundational concepts as important for learning biochemistry (9). These foundational concepts were
identified in conjunction with the development of a diagnostic instrument for foundational
knowledge and include: hydrogen bonding, bond energy, pH/pKa, free energy, London dispersion
forces, protein function and alpha helix structure. Xu later reported a slight variation of these seven
identified foundational concepts substituting chemical equilibrium for London dispersion forces
(10).
In the biochemistry classroom students are expected to utilize foundational concept knowledge
as a scaffold on which to build understanding of big ideas or threshold concepts. Relating existing
knowledge to new knowledge is the basis for the constructivist model of learning (11). A student will
utilize what they already know to create new meaning or new knowledge. According to Halpern, “the
best predictor of what is learned at the completion of any lesson, course, or program of study is what
the learner thinks and knows at the start of the experience” (12). Retention of content knowledge
and the ability to transfer content knowledge to new contexts are enhanced by practicing retrieval of
existing knowledge (13). Thus for a student in a biochemistry classroom the building of threshold
concepts from foundational concepts reinforces their existing understanding of these fundamental
ideas.
Creation of connections between foundational concepts and threshold concepts is essential for
student learning in biochemistry (4, 5). Knowledge of foundational concepts such as bond energy,
free energy, and equilibrium are essential for better positioning students to grasp threshold concepts
such as the thermodynamics of macromolecular structure formation and steady state. To instructors
it seems plausible to anticipate that a student will be able to master the threshold concept of the
physical basis of interactions as they already possess an understanding of hydrogen bonding and pH/
pKa and its relationship to charge. However, in reality many students fail to demonstrate retention

262
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
of these learned foundational concepts. A number of studies report inefficiencies when students
were asked to demonstrate their prerequisite competency at the onset of a biochemistry course (9,
10, 14). Closer analysis of these results reveal that students often possess misconceptions or gaps
in knowledge (15). These incorrect ideas can hinder learning in a new context (16–18). When
identifying threshold concepts for biochemistry, Loertscher argues “we must develop methods that
simultaneously teach new biochemistry concepts, and also help students refine and strengthen their
understanding of foundational concepts” (5). As instructors it is well worth our time to reflect on
how strengthening student knowledge of foundational concepts can better position our students to
master threshold concepts thus transforming their understanding of biochemistry. One potential
mechanism for strengthening foundational concepts is the introduction of active learning strategies
in the classroom.

Introducing Active Learning to Overcome Foundational Concepts Deficiencies

Overview of Active Learning in Biochemistry

Active learning as a student-centered pedagogical approach to teaching and learning has become
increasingly popular in chemistry classrooms. This cooperative learning structure aims to develop
critical thinking, problem solving skills, teamwork and communication (19). In the biochemistry
classroom, a number of different active learning models have been reported. In process oriented
guided inquiry learning (POGIL) students initially explore a topic independently, work together
in groups to construct and refine knowledge and eventually apply their knowledge to high level
biochemical problems (17, 19). Other instructors have implemented the flipped classroom
approach, where the traditional teacher-centered lecture is communicated to students outside of class
via recorded lectures, leaving class time for activities that are normally assigned as homework (20).
In addition, the case based learning (directed or problem-based) model aims at teaching content
while actively engaging students in real-life case study scenarios, often borrowed from the literature
(21–24). Regardless of the model you choose to explore, introduction of active learning into the
biochemistry classroom creates a student centered environment for learning which allows students to
hone collaboration skills and gain an awareness of their learning style. Additional information about
this transition can be found in the chapter entitled “Making a Switch to In-Class Activities in the
Biochemistry Classroom” by Emily Ragan (25).

An Iterative Process for Introducing Active Learning

An iterative process which can assess the impact of an intervention on students’ biochemical
foundational concepts knowledge is an impactful mechanism any instructor can utilize to address
students’ misconceptions or gaps in knowledge. This process includes multiple stages: an initial
assessment of student foundational concept knowledge, review of the literature to identify an
intervention that targets a specific foundational concept, introduction of the intervention into the
classroom, assessment of learning gains, and revision and reintroduction of the intervention when
applicable. This process has been utilized to introduce and assess diverse interventions focused on
specific foundational concepts (10, 14). I will briefly describe how I utilized this iterative process to
guide implementation of active learning strategies to address misconceptions or gaps in foundational
concept knowledge.

263
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
 In the first stage of the iterative process an instructor must review the literature to gain a more
complete understanding of how a foundational concept is defined, identified and potentially assessed
(9). Next the instructor can utilize a validated instrument to assess students’ knowledge of
foundational concepts at the onset of the course. This allows the instructor to identify specific
misconceptions and/or gaps in knowledge as well as identifying lower performing foundational
concepts.
In the second stage, the instructor reviews the literature for a specific intervention that addresses
a deficient foundational concept as revealed by the initial assessment. These interventions may be
specific for the biochemistry classroom or can be adapted from general chemistry, general biology or
organic chemistry.
In the third stage, the instructor introduces an active learning strategy to address specified
deficiencies for an identified concept. This might include a published activity or one developed by
the instructor. Utilization of an existing intervention allows the instructor additional opportunity to
focus on implementation and adaptation of the activity into the classroom. Some instructors may
choose not to implement a specific intervention but instead assess how current teaching practices
impact learning gains.
In the fourth stage, the assessment instrument is re-administered. Results can potentially reveal
the overall effectiveness of the intervention as well as providing more specific feedback on which
gaps or misconceptions may persist. If the desired learning gain is not achieved, the activity may
be revised based on student feedback, instructor observations in the classroom and instructor self-
reflection. Alternatively the instructor may choose to augment the existing activity with an additional
activity. The revised activity or novel combination of activities can be implemented and assessed in a
subsequent semester.

Design and Implementation of Active Learning Strategies to Address Foundational

Concept Deficiencies
Utilizing this iterative process, various active learning strategies were introduced to target four
foundational concepts including: pH/pKa , hydrogen bonding, bond energy and chemical
equilibrium. What follows is an account of the development and implementation of these strategies.
Each strategy could be adapted to address any of the foundational concepts or any other biochemical
concept the instructor deems particularly challenging.

Literature Review and Pre-assessment of Foundational Concepts

As described in stage one of the iterative process, a thorough review of foundational concepts in
the literature was conducted. It was useful for the instructor to reflect on which foundational concepts
had been identified and how student knowledge of these concepts could potentially be assessed
using concept inventories. A number of different concept inventories are available for various subjects
such as biology, molecular life sciences and general chemistry (26–28). In order to assess student
knowledge of biochemistry foundational concepts, the Instrument of Foundational Concepts for
Biochemistry (IFCB) first described by Villafane (9, 29) and subsequently modified by Xu (10) was
utilized. The complete set of questions in this instrument has not been published thus it is suggested
that instructors contact the original authors to request a copy. IFCB is a multiple choice instrument
that measures knowledge of five concepts from general chemistry and two from general biology.
Concepts measured include hydrogen bonding, pH/pKa and charge, chemical equilibrium, bond
energy, free energy, alpha helix structure and protein function. Students answer three multiple choice

264
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
items for each of the seven concepts with the most common incorrect ideas serving as distractors. For
example the three common incorrect ideas on hydrogen bonding include “all hydrogens are capable
of hydrogen bonding”, “a covalent bond with a hydrogen in it is a hydrogen bond,” and “any polar
molecule can make a hydrogen bond. This instructor administers the IFCB on the first day of class in
each semester because student populations can vary, especially in courses offered in “off sequence”
semesters. In addition the number of students enrolled in the course can vary from semester to
semester which can potentially impact classroom dynamics. Students are not provided with advanced
notice of this assessment and are told that their responses will help guide instruction in the course.
In order to be consistent with the literature, student responses are scored based upon percent of
students answering all three questions correctly for a given concept. Pre-assessment scores do not
impact student grades in any fashion. Scores reveal students’ existing knowledge of foundational
concepts and specifically lowest performing concepts while student responses reveal the most
common misconceptions or gaps in student knowledge. Scores from the initial administration of the
IFCB ranged from 29% correct (equilibrium and alpha helix) to 6% correct (hydrogen bonding).
As indicated in Table 1, over the course of five semesters of administering the IFCB pre-assessment,
pH/pKa and hydrogen bonding were consistently the two lowest performing concepts with only
3% of students on average answering all three hydrogen bonding questions correctly and 5% on
average answering all three pH/pKa questions correctly. Bond energy was consistently one of the
four lowest performing concepts with only 18% of students on average answering all three questions
correctly. The two highest performing concepts included chemical equilibrium and alpha helix (30%
correct and 27% correct respectively). For reasons related to post-assessment scores discussed later
in this chapter, the instructor also decided to introduce activities to improve student knowledge
of equilibrium. All assessment plans were approved by the Institutional Review Board at this
instructor’s institution.

Identification of Potential Concept Interventions

Upon review of pre-assessment results, the instructor possesses a clearer understanding of what
student deficiencies exist and can search the literature for a potential intervention to implement in
the classroom. Diverse active learning strategies have been implemented in classrooms to address
deficiencies in foundational concept knowledge. The Foundations of Biochemistry workbook authored
by Jenny Loertscher, Vicky Minderhout, and Katherine Frato follows the process-oriented guided
inquiry learning (POGIL) model of teaching (19, 30). It contains activities that focus on all seven
foundational concepts assessed in the IFCB. Implementation of POGIL in the biochemistry
classroom improved student performance on exam questions requiring complex cognitive skills and
lowered the DFW percentage. An additional guided-inquiry activity developed by Werth explores
noncovalent interactions utilizing the model of a neurotransmitter binding to its receptor (31).
An extensive series of pre-class activities utilized in conjunction with in class reinforcement in
the form of clicker questions or discussion questions have been described by Taylor. Select activities
focus on pH/pKa, hydrogen bonding and bond energy. This type of intervention resulted in
statistically significant improvement in learning gains for foundational concepts (14). Xu describes
the implementation of a number of strategies including in class discussions, clicker questions, and an
in class worksheet to address concepts such as pH/pKa, hydrogen bonding, and bond energy. These
interventions resulted in improved learning gains when a pre and post-assessment of foundational
concept knowledge was administered (10). Johnson describes a series of classroom exercises where
students are asked to read a research article on HIV protease followed by in class small group
discussion. They focus on topics such as thermodynamics, protein structure, ligand binding and

265
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
enzymatic catalysis. These exercises create opportunities for students to improve reading of the
primary literature, data analysis, collaborative problem solving and scientific presentations (32).
A number of tactile learning activities have been reported for biochemistry and related
disciplines. Cooper describes the creation of 3D physical models to address student understanding of
electrostatics and noncovalent interactions and their relationship to macromolecular structure (33)
while a Foundations of Biochemistry activity has students build an alpha helix to illustrate structure
(30, 34). Moreover, in Mathematics TACTivities were developed to introduce and review Calculus
concepts (35, 36). Model based activities were shown to be more effective than non-model base
activities for student understanding of the central dogma of molecular biology. Students showed
higher learning gains on model-based questions when the Central Dogma Concept Inventory was
administered (37).

Introduction of the Intervention

In the first semester of this work, the instructor reviewed the literature and implemented the
Foundations of Biochemistry workbook. Because active learning was new to this instructor’s classroom,
the workbook was selected to allow ample opportunity for focused implementation of activities.
Because pre-assessment results indicated a sizable deficiency in student knowledge of pH/pKa and
hydrogen bonding, problem-based worksheets were designed and implemented in the first semester
as well. In an effort to further improve learning gains, a hydrogen bonding tactile activity and learning
cycle activity were introduced in subsequent semesters. Bond energy was consistently one of the
lowest scoring concepts as revealed by pre-assessment results, thus a learning cycle activity was
designed and implemented to augment the workbook activity. Although pre-assessment scores for
chemical equilibrium were consistently higher than other concepts, the normalized learning gain was
consistently among the lowest hence a chemical equilibrium learning cycle activity was introduced
in a subsequent semester. What follows is an account of the implementation of the workbook along
with a description of three types of active learning strategies that were developed by this instructor
and implemented in the classroom.

Workbook
For instructors wanting to strengthen student foundational concept knowledge and who possess
very little or no experience implementing active learning into their biochemistry classroom, the
Foundations of Biochemistry workbook is an excellent first step option (19, 30). Instructor support in
the form of facilitation plans and answer keys for activities are available on the instructor’s website.
This instructor had no prior experience with POGIL and found the activities could be adapted to
the instructor’s implementation style. The workbook is implemented with each course offering.
Prior to class, students were asked to read assigned textbook pages and answer all or part of the
workbook pre-activity questions for a given activity. These questions review prerequisite knowledge
and are based upon the reading. For example, when utilizing the activity related to pH/pKa, students
were asked to define terms such as buffering region and equivalence point. In class students were
provided with introductory information in the form of a short lecture and notes. Students then
worked in small groups on the in class activity composed of critical thinking questions where they
were asked to utilize pKa values to predict the predominant species of a weak acid at various pH
values. This concept was then extended to an amino acid and a peptide including calculation of the
isoelectric point. While students worked through these questions in small groups, the instructor
moved about the room answering questions and gaining a clearer sense of misconceptions and

266
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
uncertainty. These questions provided an opportunity for students to further explore and develop
the concepts. The class paused periodically to report out and discuss responses. Students consistently
reported they valued these classroom discussions which either reassured their thinking was on the
right track or revealed to them misconceptions or an incomplete understanding. This instructor
found it was possible to start the activity in one class period and have students finish it in the next
class period. Alternatively students were asked to complete the activity outside of class having the
subsequent class begin by having students briefly discuss responses within their groups followed
by a classroom discussion. Occasionally the post-activity questions were assigned as homework.
One of the challenges of utilizing this approach is its reliance on student pre-class preparation.
While lecture and notes help to minimize this expectation, it is beneficial in each class period to re-
emphasize to students the effectiveness of connecting with as much of the material as possible when
first encountered in class.

Problem-Based Worksheets
Problem-based worksheets designed by the instructor were introduced to augment workbook
activities. Initially these worksheets were designed to address extremely low scoring pre-assessment
scores for both pH/pKa and hydrogen bonding. Each worksheet was designed to meet specific
learning activity objectives associated with the most common misconceptions as revealed by pre-
assessment responses. For example, in the case of pH/pKa students commonly confuse whether
an ionizable group is protonated or deprotonated when pH is below pKa or when pH is above
pKa. Each worksheet typically consisted of 1-5 short, free response questions where students are
challenged to apply their knowledge to a new context. Answers are close-ended and prior knowledge
is provided in lecture. For example, a problem based worksheet focusing on pH/pKa asked students
to explore the titration curve of an amino acid, aspartic acid, and label the predominant species
at each equivalence point and at each point where pH is equal to pKa. Students were also asked
to calculate isoelectric point and provide the structure of the zwitterion. An additional worksheet
was designed utilizing this same format but now challenging students to extend their knowledge to
a tri- or tetra-peptide. These pH/pKa worksheets provide additional opportunities for students to
retrieve existing knowledge and apply it in a different context. Likewise a problem-based worksheet
for hydrogen bonding was also developed. Students were asked to predict whether a hydrogen bond
could form between various organic molecules commonly encountered in organic chemistry and
were provided with electronegativity values. The worksheet explored three different combinations
of molecules: a molecule that could act as both a hydrogen bond donor and acceptor paired with
another molecule that could also act as both a donor and acceptor (two alcohol molecules for
example); a molecule that could act as an acceptor paired with another molecule that could act as
an acceptor (two ketones for example); a molecule that could act as both a donor and acceptor
paired with a molecule that cannot act as a donor or acceptor (alcohol and alkane for example).
After the concept is introduced in lecture, student groups spend class time working through the
worksheet, followed by a classroom discussion. On occasion, students were asked to complete the
worksheet prior to class. This meant the next class began with group discussion of responses followed
by classroom discussion that reinforced the concept. When this instructor was utilizing the
traditional lecture-based format, a number of worksheet questions were originally assigned as
practice outside of class. However, because they were ungraded assignments and because there was
no in class discussion expectation, many students did not spend the time needed to master them or
did not attempt them at all. For lecture-based instructors who have encountered the same challenge,
setting aside in class time for these problems may be ideal.

267
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Tactile Learning Activities
Tactile learning activities are another active learning model that can be implemented to review
and apply foundational concepts in the biochemistry classroom. They can focus on simple knowledge
retrieval or more advanced application of concepts. For this activity the instructor poses a question
and challenges students to make predictions using cards exhibiting specified information. Instructors
can utilize this model to introduce a concept, review a concept or apply a concept already
encountered in lecture. In an effort to address ongoing low scoring post-assessment results for
hydrogen bonding, a tactile activity involving amino acids was developed. After briefly reviewing
noncovalent interactions in lecture, each group of students was handed a series of cards each
displaying an amino acid R group at a pH of 7.0. One amino acid per card. Students were asked to
predict which amino acid R groups could potentially form a hydrogen bond and arrange these two
cards side by side accordingly. Afterwards a classroom discussion ensued wherein each student group
shared a prediction along with their justification. In addition to introducing students to amino acid
R group structures, this activity contextualizes noncovalent interactions in a biological environment
which for many students lends relevance to the concept. After discussing pH/pKa and its effect on
charge in lecture, the instructor can once again pose these same two questions under varying pH
conditions thus challenging students to connect two foundational concepts: hydrogen bonding and
pH/pKa within the context of amino acids. This same format can be utilized to challenge students
to predict which amino acid R groups could form a salt bridge under various pH conditions. Based
on observations, tactile activities by far elicit the highest level of student interaction in my classroom
and potentially could be developed to enhance any foundational concept. It is an excellent option to
break up a lecture heavy class period.

Learning Cycle Activity

Activities following the learning cycle were developed as additional interventions in the
classroom. Each learning cycle activity re-examines a foundational concept and demonstrates how
it is applied in a biochemical system. Students often fail to recognize the relevance of a foundational
concept until they observe its application within a biochemical context. The learning cycle is the basis
for writing these POGIL-like activities and is rooted in three stages: exploration, concept invention
and application (19). This activity was inspired by limited experience implementing POGIL activities
in the Foundations of Biochemistry workbook. Much insight on writing a POGIL activity was gained by
attending a regional POGIL workshop and is highly recommended if interested in crafting this type
of activity (38). The learning cycle activity begins with an overarching biochemical question which
piques student interest and can subsequently be answered upon mastering the activity. For example
“What intermolecular force holds a DNA double helix together?” The question is followed by 2-
3 specific learning objectives, some of which address common misconceptions revealed by pre and
post- assessment responses. For example, the most common incorrect idea among my students was
that all hydrogen atoms are capable of hydrogen bonding. Henceforth one of the learning objectives
developed was for students to be able to identify a hydrogen bond as a special type of charge-charge
interaction. As students work through the activity they explore, invent and apply the concepts of
electronegativity and bond polarity which lay the foundation for hydrogen bonding. For instance,
students explore a model depicting hydrogen bonding between DNA nitrogenous base pairs.
Information including the definition of electronegativity, bond polarity and electronegativity values
is shared. Students are then asked a series of questions wherein they predict whether a series of bonds
are polar or nonpolar, labeling the polar bonds with appropriate partial charges. Armed with these

268
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
symbols they are asked to return to the nitrogenous base pair model and assign partial charges to
the interactions between the base pairs. Information follows revealing this interaction is a hydrogen
bond. Students then apply their knowledge of a hydrogen bond within a familiar context such as
general or organic chemistry. Provided with a series of organic molecule pairs, students are asked to
predict if a hydrogen bond can form and to label the atoms involved in forming the hydrogen bond
with partial charges. If a hydrogen bond cannot form, they are asked to supply the rationale. Finally
students extend their knowledge into a biochemical context using amino acids. Specifically, students
are asked to predict whether a hydrogen bond can form between two amino acid side chains, again
labeling atoms involved in forming this bond with partial charges.
In an effort to minimize class time spent on review, each activity is completed as an ungraded
pre-class activity. In the subsequent class meeting, students briefly discuss responses within their
groups followed by a classroom discussion of key conceptual questions. Alternatively this type of
activity can be performed in class followed by a group discussion thus more closely mirroring
implementation of a traditional POGIL activity. Thus far, review activities focusing on hydrogen
bonds, bond energy and chemical equilibrium have been implemented in my classroom.

Re-assessment and Revision

At the close of the course, the IFCB is re-administered to students. This post-assessment should
be conducted for each class as student populations and course enrollment can vary. This instructor
administers the assessment as part of the final examination so it does impact a student’s final exam
grade. Students are not made aware that they will be retaking the exact assessment they encountered
on day one of class. They are only told that the final examination format will consist of multiple
choice and free response questions. Only scores from students completing both the pre and post-
assessment are examined. Student responses can reveal misconceptions which may persist even
after an intervention is introduced. An instructor can utilize post-assessment scores to determine
effectiveness of a particular intervention or combination of interventions for a particular foundational
concept. Based on post-assessment gains, the instructor may choose to continue implementing
the same intervention, introduce an alternate or additional intervention or revise an existing
intervention. After the semester is completed, this instructor reflects on activities implemented and
their impact on learning gains.
Table 1 summarizes average pretest and posttest scores for the four foundational concepts
discussed in this chapter: pH/pKa and charge, hydrogen bonds, bond energy and chemical
equilibrium. This compilation reflects scores gathered over a five semester period and is reflective of
overall trends in learning gains and normalized learning gains.
In the first semester of this project, the Foundations of Biochemistry workbook along with multiple
worksheets honing pH/pKa and one worksheet honing hydrogen bonding were implemented. This
instruction resulted in improvements for all seven foundational concepts with learning gains ranging
from 15% (chemical equilibrium) to 73% (pH/pKa). Because the pH/pKa learning gain was
extremely encouraging to the instructor, no revision of activities occurred in subsequent semesters
resulting in a normalized learning gain of 82% over a five semester period. The instructor attributes
the higher scoring pH/pKa learning gain in part to the number of interventions introduced
(workbook and multiple worksheets).

269
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Table 1. Average Percentage of Students Providing the Correct Answer for Each Foundational
Concept over a Five Semester Perioda
Foundational Concept Pretest (%) Posttest (%) Learning Normalized Learning Gain (%)
Gain (%)
pH/pKa 5 83 78 82
Hydrogen bonding 3 46 43 45
Bond energy 18 66 48 59
Chemical equilibrium 30 51 21 31
a Pretest and posttest percentages represent students who answered all three questions for each concept
correctly (N=121).

Although the learning gain for hydrogen bonding in the first semester was fairly high (35%),
only 41% of students answered all three questions correctly. Because utilization of multiple pH/
pKa activities the first semester resulted in a high learning gain, the instructor wanted to ascertain
if adding a hydrogen bonding activity could improve post-assessment scores. Thus a tactile learning
activity was introduced in a subsequent semester resulting in a learning gain of 56% which was an
improvement over previous semesters. A closer examination of student post-assessment responses
indicated a misconception persisted thus although the tactile activity may have provided another
opportunity to apply their knowledge within a biochemical context, it did not directly address this
misconception. To address this persistent misconception, the hydrogen bonding worksheet was
transformed into a learning cycle activity and introduced in addition to the workbook/tactile activity
combination. This combination resulted in a lowered learning gain (42%) compared to the
workbook/worksheet/tactile activity combination (56%) indicating the learning cycle activity may
have detracted from student learning or the decline simply occurred due to variations in student
population. Further reflection on this activity is required prior to revision and re-assessment. Overall,
introduction of targeted interventions have resulted in an average normalized learning gain of 45%
for hydrogen bonding thus indicating the impact of these activities on student learning.
In an effort to improve the bond energy student learning gain, a learning cycle activity was
introduced in addition to the workbook. This combination resulted in an improved learning gain of
53% on average compared to semesters where the workbook alone was implemented (42% average
learning gain). The normalized learning gain for bond energy was 59% over the course of five
semesters of intervention implementation. In a similar fashion, a chemical equilibrium learning
cycle activity was introduced which resulted in an improved average learning gain of 33% compared
to semesters wherein only the workbook was implemented (14% average learning gain). The
normalized learning gain for chemical equilibrium over the course of five semesters was 31%
indicating the current interventions are improving student learning.
Overall the improvement in learning gains observed in this work correlates with trends described
by Xu. Some variation exists as hydrogen bonding gains from this study were lower in comparison
while bond energy and pH/pKa gains were slightly higher in comparison (10). When comparing
learning gains reported by Taylor at a similarly sized private liberal arts college, learning gains for
bond energy were strikingly similar, while both hydrogen bonding and pH/pKa learning gains from
this study were both comparatively higher (14).

270
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Challenges of Design and Implementation
While introduction of active learning targeting foundational concepts may better position
students to master threshold concepts, some challenges accompany its design and implementation.
One challenge is the utilization of classroom time for review of concepts, detracting from time spent
teaching advanced concepts. This instructor has reduced content covered in the course, recognizing
that no instructor can cover everything but instead focusing on enriching student learning of
threshold concepts. In addition, classroom time originally dedicated to discussion of certain
concepts has been minimized and instead students are expected to conduct some review of these
concepts outside of class. In order to accomplish this expectation, students are armed with additional
resources such as lecture notes, study guides, textbook, and practice problems to aid in learning
outside of the classroom. The instructor emphasizes that assessment will include content covered
inside and outside of the classroom. Another challenge instructors may encounter is maintaining an
engaging and stimulating environment for students who enter the course already having mastered
foundational concepts. One potential strategy is to have students work through the activities in
groups, creating an opportunity for those who have mastered the concepts to lead their peers in
learning. This environment creates an opportunity to hone leadership skills and provides a sense
of self-accomplishment. Another challenge faced by instructors may be maintaining student
accountability for pre-class assignments. To combat this, an instructor may incorporate completion
of each assignment as a component of the course grade or administer a brief online or in class
quiz. Because students are working in groups, there is an expectation of peer preparedness which
will motivate most students. This instructor repeatedly emphasizes the immense potential gain in
classroom learning a student experiences due to pre-class vigilance.

Conclusion
An iterative process which identifies students’ needs, introduces active learning interventions
and assesses the impact of these interventions can be implemented into any instructor’s biochemistry
classroom. This process can be utilized to model application of active learning strategies such as
problem-based worksheets, tactile learning activities and learning cycle activities. Improvements in
foundational concept knowledge may better position students to master threshold concepts thus
transforming their understanding of biochemistry.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Sachel Villafane, Jennifer Loertscher, Vicky Minderhout, and
Jennifer Lewis for the generous use of the pre/post assessment instrument.

References
1. Ross, P. M.; Taylor, C. E.; Hughes, C.; Kofod, M.; Withaker, N.; Lutze-Mann, L.; Tzioumis,
V. Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning, 1st ed.; Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., Baillie,
C. , Eds.; Educational Futures: Rethinking Theory and Practice; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 2010; Vol. 42, pp 165−178.
2. Cooper, M.; Posey, L.; Underwood, S. Core Ideas and Topics: Building Up or Drilling Down?
J. Chem Educ. 2017, 94, 541–548.

271
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
3. Davies, P.; Managan, J. Threshold Concepts and the Integration of Understanding in
Economics. Stud. High. Educ. 2007, 32, 711–726.
4. Loertscher, J. Student Centered Education: Threshold Concepts in Biochemistry. Biochem.
Mol. Biol. Educ. 2011, 39, 56–57.
5. Loertscher, J.; Green, D.; Lewis, J.; Lin, S.; Minderhout, V. Identification of Threshold
Concepts for Biochemistry. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 516–528.
6. Rowland, S.; Smith, C.; Gillam, E.; Wright, T. The Concept Lens Diagram: A New Mechanism
for Presenting Biochemistry Content in Terms of “Big Ideas”. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2011,
39, 267–279.
7. Tansey, J.; Baird, T.; Cox, M.; Fox, K.; Knight, J.; Sears, D.; Bell, E. Foundational Concepts
and Underlying Theories for Majors in “Biochemistry and Molecular Biology”. Biochem. Mol.
Biol. Educ. 2013, 41, 289–296.
8. Wright, A.; Provost, J.; Roecklein-Canfield, J.; Bell, E. Essential Concepts and Underlying
Theories from Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics for “Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology” Majors. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2013, 41, 302–308.
9. Villafane, S.; Loertscher, J.; Minderhout, V.; Lewis, J. Uncovering Students’ Incorrect Ideas
about Foundational Concepts for Biochemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12, 210–218.
10. Xu, X.; Lewis, J.; Loertscher, J.; Minderhout, V.; Tienson, H. Small Changes: Using
Assessment to Direct Instructional Practices in Large-Enrollment Biochemistry Courses. CBE-
Life Sci. Educ. 2017, 16, 1–13.
11. Bodner, G. Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873–878.
12. Halpern, D.; Hakel, M. Applying the Science of Learning to the University and Beyond:
Teaching for Long-Term Retention and Transfer. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning
2003, 35, 36–41.
13. Karpicke, J.; Roediger, H. The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Science 2008, 319,
966–968.
14. Taylor, A.; Olofson, E.; Novak, W. Enhancing Student Retention of Prerequisite Knowledge
Through Pre-Class Activities and In-Class Reinforcement. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2017, 45,
97–104.
15. Anderson, T.; Schӧnborn, K. Bridging the Gap: Bridging the Educational Research-Teaching
Practice Gap. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2008, 36, 309–315.
16. Tanner, K.; Allen, D. Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: Understanding the Wrong
Answers-Teaching toward Conceptual Change. Cell Biol. Educ. 2005, 4, 112–117.
17. Minderhout, V.; Loertscher, J. Lecture-free Biochemistry: A process oriented guided inquiry
approach. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2007, 35, 172–180.
18. Mayer, R. E. Information processing variables in learning to solve problems. Rev. Educ. Res.
1975, 45, 525–541.
19. Loertscher, J.; Minderhout, V. Implementing Guided Inquiry in Biochemistry: Challenges
and Opportunities. Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice; ACS Symposium Series;
American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019; Vol. 1337, Chapter 5.
20. Ojennus, D. Assessment of Learning Gains in a Flipped Biochemistry Classroom. Biochem.
Mol. Biol. Educ. 2016, 44, 20–27.

272
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
21. Kulak, V.; Newton, G. A Guide to Using Case-Based Learning in Biochemistry Education.
Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2014, 42, 457–473.
22. Peters, A. Teaching Biochemistry at a Minority-Serving Institution: An Evaluation of the Role
of Collaborative Learning as a Tool for Science Mastery. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 571–574.
23. Anderson, W.; Mitchell, S.; Osgood, M. Comparison of Student Performance in Cooperative
Learning and Traditional Lecture-based Biochemistry Classes. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2005,
33, 387–393.
24. Cornely, K. ConfChem Conference on Case-Based Studies in Chemical Education: The Use of
Case Studies in an Introductory Biochemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 90, 258–259.
25. Ragan, E. Vignette #2: Making a Switch to In-Class Activities in the Biochemistry Classroom.
Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical
Society: Washington, DC, 2019; Vol. 1337, Chapter 13.
26. Garvin-Doxas, K.; Klymkowski, M. W. Understanding randomness and its impact on student
learning: Lessons learned from building the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI). CBE-Life Sci.
Educ. 2008, 7, 227–233.
27. Howitt, S.; Anderson, T. R.; Costa, M.; Hamilton, S.; Wright, T. A concept inventory for
molecular life sciences: How will it help your teaching practice? Australian Biochemist. 2008, 39,
14–17.
28. Mulford, D. R.; Robinson, W. R. An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester
general chemistry students. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 739–743.
29. Villafane, S.; Bailey, C.; Loertscher, J.; Minderhout, V.; Lewis, J. Development and Analysis
of an Instrument to Assess Student Understanding of Foundational Concepts Before
Biochemistry Coursework. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2011, 39, 102–109.
30. Loertscher, J.; Minderhout, V.; Frato, K. Foundations of Biochemistry, 4th ed.; Pacific Crest:
Hamptom, NH, 2015.
31. Werth, M. T. Serotonin in the Pocket: Non-covalent Interactions and Neurotransmitter Binding.
CourseSource, 2017. https://doi.org/10.24918/cs.2017.14 (accessed March 10, 2019).
32. Johnson, R. J. Teaching Foundational Topics and Scientific Skills in Biochemistry Within the
Conceptual Framework of HIV Protease. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2014, 42, 299–304.
33. Cooper, A. K.; Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. Creating 3D Physical Models to Probe Student
Understanding of Macromolecular Structure. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2017, 45, 491–500.
34. Loertscher, J.; Villafane, S.; Lewis, J.; Minderhout, V. Probing and Improving Student’s
Understanding of Protein α-Helix Structure Using Targeted Assessment and Classroom
Interventions in Collaboration with a Faculty Community of Practice. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ.
2014, 42, 213–223.
35. Ernst, D.; Hodge, A.; Yoshinobu, S. What is Inquiry-Based Learning? Notices of the American
Mathematical Society 2017, 64, 570–574.
36. Webb, D. In Actively Learning Mathematics (ALM); Proceedings of the Fifth Annual
Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 26−28, 2016;
Lawler, B. R., Ronau, R. N., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J. Eds.; Association of Public Land-Grant
Universities: Washington, DC, 2016; pp 61−67.

273
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
37. Newman, D.; Stefkovich, M.; Clasen, C.; Franzen, M.; Wright, L. K. Physical Models Can
Provide Superior Learning Opportunities Beyond the Benefits of Active Engagements.
Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2018, 46, 435–444.
38. POGIL Home Page. www.pogil.org (accessed March 10, 2019).

274
Bussey et al.; Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.