BioSTEPS: Biochemistry Problem Solving and Its Role in Undergraduate Success and Persistence

Abstract

Several concepts are critical to undergraduates' development of expertise in biochemistry, including (1) the physical basis of noncovalent interactions, (2) thermodynamics of macromolecular structure, and (3) biochemical pathway dynamics and regulation. Students who integrate knowledge about these concepts should be able to solve authentic biochemistry problems, such as predicting the impact of amino acid substitutions on protein folding or perturbations in a metabolic pathway on flux. The objective of this study is to investigate the following research questions related to these three biochemistry concepts: What are the difficulties encountered by beginning and advanced STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) undergraduates when solving biochemistry problems? To what extent do undergraduates' biochemistry problem‐solving skills predict their success in science and intentions to pursue a science career?To address these questions, we are conducting a longitudinal study of 700 STEM students who enrolled in introductory biology at a research‐intensive institution. Students completed the BioSTEPS problem‐solving assessment and the SAVI survey, which measures self‐efficacy, motivation, values, and interest in STEM careers. For both instruments, validity and reliability data were collected from biochemistry experts and students. A subset of participants (n=92) participated in think‐aloud interviews to obtain more detailed information about their problem‐solving approaches. As students progress, they will complete isomorphic versions of BioSTEPS and repeat the SAVI.The longitudinal study is still in progress. The data collected to date reveal several important findings. First, students fail to see that amino acid categorization provides the key to solving structure‐function problems, lack causal mechanistic reasoning about noncovalent interactions, and solve problems incorrectly because of their inability to maintain knowledge of their early problem‐solving steps during later phases of problem solving. Second, students do not accurately interpret visual representations of feedback inhibition in metabolic pathways and lack causal mechanistic reasoning about the reversibility of chemical reactions and the impact of one step in a pathway on flux through the remainder of the pathway. Third, SAVI data suggest that introductory biology participants show high science self‐efficacy and motivation, high interest in healthcare careers, and low interest in careers in education or non‐STEM. As the longitudinal study continues, we will determine the extent to which problem‐solving ability in introductory biology predicts overall success and persistence in STEM. We also will be able to determine the role of alternative predictors, like science self‐efficacy. We will apply our findings to the design of instructional materials in the hopes of increasing student learning of biochemistry and, perhaps, success and persistence in STEM.Support or Funding InformationThis material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DRL 1350345. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.