Skip to PREreview

PREreview of Biology exams rarely use visual models to engage higher-order cognitive skills

by Reinier M. Navarro
Published
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.14579425
License
CC BY 4.0

Manuscript Summarized

Molecular biology instructors have different approaches to teaching its topics, such as visual aid reliance. However, practicing visual literacy is said to be uncommon for the typical biology course design. Science instructors (n = 66) who teach cell and molecular biology self-reported their course artifacts and their exams. The researchers confirmed challenges and other implications relevant to visual literacy, the conduct of exams, and the teaching of molecular biology.

Current Manuscript Recommendation: Revise & resubmit

Major Comments

  1. I commend the researchers for a well-written introduction. However, I note some observations that could seem confusing for a reader:

    • From lines 49 to 53 (see page 3), the researchers discussed the scope of visual literacy. If you are an American-based reader, mentioning the “Vision and Change framework” complements the contextualization in this write-up. If you are a reader not based in America, you could seem lost as to “what this framework is,” as mentioned by the researchers.

    • From lines 57 to 60 (see pages 3 to 4), the researchers claimed self-reported teaching practice and exam data “can” explain how visual aids are used in their courses. I argue that using a table of specifications (TOS, DiDonato-Barnes et al., 2013; Notar et al., 2004) is far better for understanding the pedagogy (or andragogy) employed for a course and how techniques (e.g., visual models) are used in courses (the use of the TOS applies in all disciplines) versus reliance to self-report.

      • You could argue that most college instructors are not trained in education and do not have the luxury of time to make a TOS.

      • Though I rebut, the claim this study made (as seen in line 59, page 4) should also recognize how self-reporting has its weaknesses. I consider this claim misleading.

  2. The methods section is satisfactory. I included further comments that the researchers could look up again:

    • Apart from the figures, I was unable to see the supporting information.

    • Lines 130 to 131 (see page 6) described the study sample. However, a detailed description of such is available instead as supporting information. There was no mention of which states were more represented. Also, no consideration for sex or gender demographics was made.

    • Although lines 139 to 140 (see page 7) detailed the use of an instrument, there was no reiteration of its purpose or applicable reliability or validity estimates (e.g., coefficient alpha or omega).

    • Lines 153 to 155 (see page 7) explained how to normalize item points. Such can be simplified further.

  3. The results section is also satisfactory. Please consider the following comments:

    • I do not see a stacked bar chart as the best style for Figure 2 to complement lines 235 to 236 (see page 10). The y-axis range per 500 made an unusual peak for Figure 2. This figure is also not helpful for those with color vision deficiency.

    • Figure 4 is an improvement of Figure 2. However, I think it is better to report the y-axis range of proportion expressed in percentage (%) rather than in decimals. Figure 4 is also not appropriate for those with color vision deficiency.

    • There are some issues in the statistical reporting (e.g., p-values or significant figures). Please double check Table 1 and lines 258 to 259, 269, and 286.

  4. My only concern for the discussion section is that the study findings are only applicable to U.S.-based cell and molecular biology courses taken by students also based in America. This is a major limitation that the researchers did not explicitly mention.

  5. The researchers were not cautious about using hedging at any point in the manuscript.

  6. I did not see any CRediT author statement or declaration of conflict of interest in this manuscript.

Minor Comments

  1. There are several grammatical errors in the manuscript.

  2. There are also several mentions of the pronoun “we” in the manuscript.

Recommendations for All Comments

  1. I hope the following suggestions on major comments can help improve this manuscript:

    • Please consider your potential audience may not fully understand your rationale if you fail to contextualize who and what you are interested in as researchers. For this case, the researchers must specify that they are concerned with American-based cell and molecular biology courses taken by students studying in the U.S. as undergraduates.

    • I am unsure how the researchers could include the consideration of the TOS in their study. However, please acknowledge such in your recommendations if you do not choose to make this part of your study.

    • I recommend that your project data and documents be available through OSF (if possible, I highly suggest having this study registered). Please report essential demographics in the manuscript (i.e., as text or in figures). Please also include the instrument’s purpose and applicable reliability and validity estimates. Instead of lines 153 to 155, I recommend the researchers place a formula instead of text.

    • Please use a clustered bar chart instead of a stacked style for figures 2 and 4. Please make the necessary changes in their y-axis. I also recommend changing the chart styles (e.g., dotted, stripped, grid) to be more distinct instead of being one flat color. Please also revise the reporting of your data.

    • I highly suggest the researchers properly position their findings and their inferences based on what they could conclude (i.e., the findings apply to an American sample).

    • I implore the researchers to remember hedging (as they revise the manuscript).

    • Please declare a CRediT author statement or declaration of conflict of interests in the manuscript.

  2. My only recommendation for minor comments is please proofread the manuscript. Please note certain journals may not allow first-person pronouns in article submissions.

Manuscript Significance

This study contributes to gaps in science education. The researchers were able to relay their subject of interest. Though context can be improved, I am sure students and scholars (within and beyond biology) will learn a lot from the implications of this study to the natural sciences and college education. I worked on a science anxiety and education project, hence my comments on this review.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.