1887

Measuring and Advancing Experimental Design Ability in an Introductory Course without Altering Existing Lab Curriculum

    Authors: Ryan A. Shanks1,*, Chuck L. Robertson2, Christian S. Haygood1, Anna M. Herdliksa1, Heather R. Herdliska1, Steven A. Lloyd2
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biology, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA 30597; 2: Department of Psychological Science, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA 30597
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 20 June 2016 Accepted 14 December 2016 Published 21 April 2017
    • ©2017 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

    • Supplemental materials available at http://asmscience.org/jmbe
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of North Georgia, Department of Biology, 82 College Circle, Health & Natural Sciences, Dahlonega, GA 30597. Phone: 706-864-1368. Fax: 706-867-2703. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1194
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    68.13 Kb
  • HTML
    66.83 Kb
  • PDF
    454.80 Kb

    Abstract:

    Introductory biology courses provide an important opportunity to prepare students for future courses, yet existing cookbook labs, although important in their own way, fail to provide many of the advantages of semester-long research experiences. Engaging, authentic research experiences aid biology students in meeting many learning goals. Therefore, overlaying a research experience onto the existing lab structure allows faculty to overcome barriers involving curricular change. Here we propose a working model for this overlay design in an introductory biology course and detail a means to conduct this lab with minimal increases in student and faculty workloads. Furthermore, we conducted exploratory factor analysis of the Experimental Design Ability Test (EDAT) and uncovered two latent factors which provide valid means to assess this overlay model’s ability to increase advanced experimental design abilities. In a pre-test/post-test design, we demonstrate significant increases in both basic and advanced experimental design abilities in an experimental and comparison group. We measured significantly higher gains in advanced experimental design understanding in students in the experimental group. We believe this overlay model and EDAT factor analysis contribute a novel means to conduct and assess the effectiveness of authentic research experiences in an introductory course without major changes to the course curriculum and with minimal increases in faculty and student workloads.

Key Concept Ranking

Factor I
0.54924685
0.54924685

References & Citations

1. Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW 2014 Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory laboratories and barriers to their implementation CBE Life Sci Educ 13 102 110 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0169 24591509 3940451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0169
2. Wei CA, Woodin T 2011 Undergraduate research experiences in biology: alternatives to the apprenticeship model CBE Life Sci Educ 10 123 131 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028 21633057 3105915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028
3. Lopatto D 2004 Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings Cell Biol Educ 3 270 277 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045 15592600 533131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045
4. Lopatto D 2007 Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning CBE Life Sci Educ 6 297 306 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039 18056301 2104507 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
5. Carson S 2015 Targeting critical thinking skills in a first-year undergraduate research course J Microbiol Biol Educ 16 148 156 10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.935
6. Grisham W, Jones HB, Park SH 2003 Sex differences and organizational effects of androgen in spinal cord motor nuclei J Undergrad Neurosci Educ 2 A28 35 23494208 3597420
7. Kudish P, Schlag E, Kaplinsky NJ 2015 An inquiry-infused introductory biology laboratory that integrates Mendel’s pea phenotypes with molecular mechanisms Bioscene 41 10 15
8. Brownell SE, Kloser MJ, Fukami T, Shavelson RJ 2013 Context matters: volunteer bias, small sample size, and the value of comparison groups in the assessment of research-based undergraduate introductory biology lab courses J Microbiol Biol Educ 14 176 182 10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.609 24358380 3867754 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.609
9. Shanks RA, Southard EM, Tarnowski L, Bruster M, Wingate SW, Dalman N, Lloyd SA 2011 A vodcasted, cross-disciplinary, behavioral neuroscience laboratory exercise investigating the effects of methamphetamine on aggression Bioscene 37 9 16
10. Hatch DL, Zschau T, Hays A, McAllister K, Harrison M, Cate KL, Shanks RA, Lloyd SA 2014 Of mice and meth: a new media-based neuropsychopharmacology lab to teach research methods Teach Psychol 41 167 174 10.1177/0098628314530352 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628314530352
11. Brownell SE, Wenderoth MP, Theobald R, Okoroafor N, Koval M, Freeman S, Walcher-Chevillet CL, Crowe AJ 2013 How students think about experimental design: novel conceptions revealed by in-class activities Bioscience 64 125 137 10.1093/biosci/bit016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bit016
12. Clark LA, Watson D 1995 Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development Psychol Assessment 7 309 319 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
13. Gottesman AJ, Hoskins SG 2013 CREATE cornerstone: introduction to scientific thinking, a new course for STEM-interested freshman, demystifies scientific thinking through analysis of scientific literature CBE Life Sci Educ 12 59 72 10.1187/cbe.12-11-0201 23463229 3587857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-11-0201
14. Sieberg JL 2008 Measuring experimental design ability: a test to probe critical thinking M.S. thesis Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio
15. Sirum K, Humburg J 2011 The experimental design ability test (EDAT) Bioscene 37 8 16
16. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL 1979 Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability Psychol Bull 86 420 428 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 18839484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
17. Kaiser HF 1960 The application of electronic computers to factor analysis Educ Psychol Meas 20 141 151 10.1177/001316446002000116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
18. National Research Council (US) Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 2011 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edition The National Academies Press Washington, DC
19. Stevens JP 2009 Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences 5th edition Taylor and Francis Group New York, NY
20. Miller R 2009 Connecting beliefs with research on effective undergraduate education Peer Review 11 4 8
21. Miri B, Ben-Chaim D, Zoller U 2007 Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical thinking Res Sci Educ 37 353 369 10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2
22. Rissing SW, Cogan JG 2009 Can an inquiry approach improve college student learning in a teaching laboratory? CBE Life Sci Educ 8 55 61 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0023 19255136 2649651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0023
23. Lopatto D 2009 Science in solution: the impact of undergraduate research on student learning CUR Publications Washington, DC
24. Handelsman MM, Briggs WL, Sullivan N, Towler A 2005 A measure of college student course engagement J Educ Res 98 184 191 10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192 http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
25. Schreiner LA, Louis MC 2011 The engaged learning index: implications for faculty development J Excell Coll Teach 22 5 28
26. Pedaste M, Maeots M, Siiman LA, de Jong T, van Riesen SAN, Kamp ET, Manoli CC, Zacharia ZC, Tsourlidaki E 2015 Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle Educ Res Rev 14 47 61 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
27. Sundberg MD, Armstrong JE, Wischusen EW 2005 Reappraisal of the status of introductory biology laboratory education in US colleges and universities Am Biol Teach 55 144 146 10.2307/4449610 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4449610
28. Gasper BJ, Gardner SM 2013 Engaging students in authentic microbiology research in an introductory biology laboratory course is correlated with gains in student understanding of the nature of authentic research and critical thinking J Microbiol Biol Educ 14 25 34 10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.460 23858351 3706163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.460
29. Rybarczyk BJ, Walton KLW, Grillo WH 2014 The development and implementation of an instrument to assess students’ data analysis skills in molecular biology J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 259 267 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.703
30. Deane T, Nomme K, Jeffery E, Pollock C, Birol G 2014 Development of the biological experimental design concept inventory (BEDCI) CBE Life Sci Educ 13 540 551 10.1187/cbe.13-11-0218 25185236 4152214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-11-0218
31. Dasgupta AP, Anderson TR, Pelaez N 2014 Development and validation of a rubric for diagnosing students’ experimental design knowledge and difficulties CBE Life Sci Educ 13 265 284 10.1187/cbe.13-09-0192 4041504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-09-0192
32. Gehring KM, Eastman DA 2008 Information fluency for undergraduate biology majors: applications of inquiry-based learning in a developmental biology course CBE Life Sci Educ 7 54 63 10.1187/cbe.07-10-0091 18316808 2262132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-10-0091

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1194
2017-04-21
2019-06-27

Abstract:

Introductory biology courses provide an important opportunity to prepare students for future courses, yet existing cookbook labs, although important in their own way, fail to provide many of the advantages of semester-long research experiences. Engaging, authentic research experiences aid biology students in meeting many learning goals. Therefore, overlaying a research experience onto the existing lab structure allows faculty to overcome barriers involving curricular change. Here we propose a working model for this overlay design in an introductory biology course and detail a means to conduct this lab with minimal increases in student and faculty workloads. Furthermore, we conducted exploratory factor analysis of the Experimental Design Ability Test (EDAT) and uncovered two latent factors which provide valid means to assess this overlay model’s ability to increase advanced experimental design abilities. In a pre-test/post-test design, we demonstrate significant increases in both basic and advanced experimental design abilities in an experimental and comparison group. We measured significantly higher gains in advanced experimental design understanding in students in the experimental group. We believe this overlay model and EDAT factor analysis contribute a novel means to conduct and assess the effectiveness of authentic research experiences in an introductory course without major changes to the course curriculum and with minimal increases in faculty and student workloads.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/18/1/jmbe-18-2.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1194&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Timeline of the comparison group and experimental group with identified key components of inquiry-based learning. Both comparison and experimental groups completed a 15-week semester lab in an introductory biology course with pre-test and post-test EDAT evaluations. Labs that remained the same between the comparison and experimental groups are bolded. The comparison group did not hold lab (NL) on the first and last week and also one holiday-interrupted week (HD). The experimental group did not take comprehensive lab exams (LE). The experimental group conducted an overlaid experiment of their own design during the semester that maps onto the key features of inquiry-based learning (key features adapted from Pedaste et al. 2015) ( 16 ).

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1194
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Analysis of pre-test and post-test EDAT evaluation in experimental (black) and comparison (grey) groups. Significant pre-test to post-test differences were observed in the composite EDAT scores (A), basic understanding factor loadings (B), and advanced understanding factor loadings (C) (* < 0.05). Significant experimental to comparison group differences were observed in the composite EDAT scores (A) and advanced understanding factor loadings (C) (# < 0.05), but not in the basic understanding factor loadings (B) ( > 0.05). Error bars represent standard error of the mean; EDAT = experimental design ability test.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1194
Download as Powerpoint

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