1887

A Call for a Community of Practice to Assess the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Undergraduate Biology Education

    Authors: Jamie L. Jensen1,*, Juville Dario-Becker2, Lee E. Hughes3, D. Sue Katz Amburn4, Joyce A. Shaw5
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602; 2: Central Virginia Community College, Lynchburg, VA 24502; 3: Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203; 4: Department of Biology, Rogers State University, Claremore, OK 74017; 5: School of Arts and Sciences, Endicott College, Beverly, MA 01915
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 03 May 2012
    • Supplementary materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biology, 699 WIDB, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602. Phone: 801-422-6896. Fax: 801-422-0090. E-mail: Jamie.Jensen@byu.edu.
    • Copyright © 2012 American Society for Microbiology
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2012 vol. 13 no. 1 21-27. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.347
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
  • PDF
    169.95 Kb
  • HTML
    54.80 Kb

    Abstract:

    Recent recommendations for educational research encourage empirically tested, theory-based, completely transparent, and broadly applicable studies. In light of these recommendations, we call for a research standard and community of practice in the evaluation of technology use in the undergraduate life science classroom. We outline appropriate research methodology, review and critique the past research on technology usage and, lastly, suggest a new and improved focus for research on emerging technologies.

Key Concept Ranking

Lead
0.932653
Respiration
0.64285713
Translation
0.5347343
Meiosis
0.49237382
Roots
0.44467512
0.932653

References & Citations

1. Akpan J, Strayer J2010Which comes first: the use of computer simulation of frog dissection or conventional dissection as academic exercise?J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach.29113138
2. Alberts B2009Redefining science education [editorial]Science32343710.1126/science.117093319164710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1170933
3. Barbe WB, Milone MNJr1980ModalityInstructor894447
4. Barber M, Njus D2007Clicker evolution: seeking intelligent designCBE–Life Sci. Educ.618225617653056836
5. Berliner DC2002Educational research: the hardest science of allEduc. Res.31182010.3102/0013189X031008018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008018
6. Bradley LK, Stutz JC, Towill LR2009Plant biology: from the classroom to the internetJ. Nat. Resourc. Life Sci. Educ.388286
7. Brickman P2006The case of the Druid Dracula: a directed “clicker” case study on DNA fingerprintingJ. Coll. Sci. Teach.364853
8. Carle AC, Jaffee D, Miller D2009Engaging college science students and changing academic achievement with technology: a quasi-experimental preliminary investigationComput. Educ.5237638010.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.005
9. Clark RE1983Reconsidering research on learning from mediaRev. Educ. Res.53445459
10. Clark RE1985Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: analyzing the meta-analysesEduc. Technol. Res. Dev.33249262
11. Clark RE1994Media will never influence learningEduc. Technol. Res. Dev.42212910.1007/BF02299088 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
12. Cooper S2005The use of MERLOT in biochemistry and molecular biology educationBiochem. Molec. Biol. Educ.3332332410.1002/bmb.2005.49403305323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403305323
13. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP2008Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biologyCBE–Life Sci. Educ.7368381225617653056836
14. De Souza-Hart JA2010Biology blogs: an online journal club and assessment toolAm. Biol. Teach.7214910.1525/abt.2010.72.3.4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.4
15. Deniz H, Cakir H2006Design principles for computer-assisted instruction in histology education: an exploratory studyJ. Sci. Educ. Technol.1539940810.1007/s10956-006-9031-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9031-5
16. Dolan EL2007Grappling with the literature of education research and practiceCBE–Life Sci. Educ.6289296225617653056836
17. Erickson F, Gutierrez K2002Culture, rigor, and science in educational researchEduc. Res.31212410.3102/0013189X031008021 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008021
18. Fancovicova J, Prokop P, Usak M2010Web-site as an educational tool in biology education: a case of nutrition issueEduc. Sci.10907921
19. Feuer MJ, Towne L, Shavelson RJ2002Scientific culture and educational researchEduc. Res.3141410.3102/0013189X031008004 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008004
20. Fisher CM2006Automated classroom response systems: implications for sexuality education and researchAm. J. Sex. Educ.1233110.1300/J455v01n04_03 http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J455v01n04_03
21. Kass DH, LaRoe R2007Web-based analysis for student-generated complex genetic profilesBiochem. Molec. Biol. Educ.3540440910.1002/bmb.127 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.127
22. Kiboss JK, Ndirangu M, Wekesa EW2004Effectiveness of a computer-mediated simulations program in school biology on pupils’ learning outcomes in cell theoryJ. Sci. Educ. Technol.1320721310.1023/B:JOST.0000031259.76872.f1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000031259.76872.f1
23. Klymkowsky MW2007Teaching without a textbook: strategies to focus learning on fundamental concepts and scientific processCBE-Life Sci. Educ.619019310.1187/cbe.07-06-0038177854001964522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0038
24. Kohorst K, Cox JR2007Virutal office hours using a tablet PC: e-illuminating biochemistry in an online environmentBiochem. Molec. Biol. Educ.3519319710.1002/bmb.50 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.50
25. Kozma RB1994Will media influence learning? Reframing the debateEduc. Technol. Res. Dev.4271910.1007/BF02299087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
26. Latham LGII, Scully EP2008Critters! A realistic simulation for teaching evolutionary biologyAm. Biol. Teach.70303310.1662/0002-7685(2008)70[30:CARSFT]2.0.CO;2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2008)70[30:CARSFT]2.0.CO;2
27. Lord T, Baviskar S2007Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: exploiting Bloom’s taxonomy in creating science questionsJ. Coll. Sci. Teach.364044
28. Lyles H, Robertson B, Mangino M, Cox JR2007Audio podcasting in a tablet PC-enhanced biochemistry courseBiochem. Molec. Biol. Educ.3545646110.1002/bmb.115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.115
29. Mickle JE, Aune PM2008Development of a laboratory course in nonmajors General Biology for distance educationJ. Coll. Sci. Teach.373539
30. Modell HW, Michael J, Wenderoth MP2005Helping the learner to learn: the role of uncovering misconceptionsAm. Biol. Teach.67202610.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0020:HTLTLT]2.0.CO;2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0020:HTLTLT]2.0.CO;2
31. Murray L, Gibson D, Ward A2008Real-time ocean data in the classroomSci. Teach.754448
32. Novak JD2003The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learningCell Biol. Educ.212213210.1187/cbe.02-11-005912888848162189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059
33. Pellegrino JW, Goldman SR2002Be careful what you wish for—You may get it: educational research in the spotlightEduc. Res.31151710.3102/0013189X031008015 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008015
34. Preszler RW, Dawe A, Shuster CB, Shuster M2007Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology coursesCBE–Life Sci. Educ.62941225617653056836
35. Reiff JC1992Learning stylesNational Education AssociationWashington, DC
36. Ringstaff C, Kelley L2002The learning return on our educational technology investment: a review of findings from researchWestEd RTECSan Francisco, CAhttp://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/619
37. Roblyer MD, Knezek GA2003New millennium research for educational technology: a call for a national research agendaJ. Res. Technol. Educ.366071
38. Shavelson RJ, Towne L2002Scientific research in educationCommittee on Scientific Principles for Educational ResearchNational Academy PressWashington, DC
39. Strudler N2003Answering the call: a response to Roblyer and KnezekJ. Res. Technol. Educ.367276
40. Surry DW, Ensminger D2001What’s wrong with media comparison studies?Educ. Technol.413235
41. Traver HA, Kalshery MJ, Diwan JJ, Warden J2001Student reactions and learning: evaluation of a biochemistry course that uses web technology and student collaborationBiochem. Molec. Biol. Educ.295053
42. Wenger E1998Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identityCambridge University PressCambridge, UK
43. Zumbach J, Schmitt S, Reimann P, Starkloff P2006Learning life sciences: design and development of a virtual molecular biology learning labJ. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach.25281300
jmbe.v13i1.347.citations
jmbe/13/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.347
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.347
2012-05-03
2017-11-22

Abstract:

Recent recommendations for educational research encourage empirically tested, theory-based, completely transparent, and broadly applicable studies. In light of these recommendations, we call for a research standard and community of practice in the evaluation of technology use in the undergraduate life science classroom. We outline appropriate research methodology, review and critique the past research on technology usage and, lastly, suggest a new and improved focus for research on emerging technologies.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/13/1/jmbe-13-1-021.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.347&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error