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: [email protected].
    • 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 J 2010 Which comes first: the use of computer simulation of frog dissection or conventional dissection as academic exercise? J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 29 113 138
2. Alberts B 2009 Redefining science education [editorial] Science 323 437 10.1126/science.1170933 19164710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1170933
3. Barbe WB, Milone MN Jr 1980 Modality Instructor 89 44 47
4. Barber M, Njus D 2007 Clicker evolution: seeking intelligent design CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 6 1 8 22561765 3056836
5. Berliner DC 2002 Educational research: the hardest science of all Educ. Res. 31 18 20 10.3102/0013189X031008018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008018
6. Bradley LK, Stutz JC, Towill LR 2009 Plant biology: from the classroom to the internet J. Nat. Resourc. Life Sci. Educ. 38 82 86
7. Brickman P 2006 The case of the Druid Dracula: a directed “clicker” case study on DNA fingerprinting J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 36 48 53
8. Carle AC, Jaffee D, Miller D 2009 Engaging college science students and changing academic achievement with technology: a quasi-experimental preliminary investigation Comput. Educ. 52 376 380 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.005
9. Clark RE 1983 Reconsidering research on learning from media Rev. Educ. Res. 53 445 459
10. Clark RE 1985 Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: analyzing the meta-analyses Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 33 249 262
11. Clark RE 1994 Media will never influence learning Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 42 21 29 10.1007/BF02299088 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
12. Cooper S 2005 The use of MERLOT in biochemistry and molecular biology education Biochem. Molec. Biol. Educ. 33 323 324 10.1002/bmb.2005.49403305323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403305323
13. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP 2008 Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 7 368 381 22561765 3056836
14. De Souza-Hart JA 2010 Biology blogs: an online journal club and assessment tool Am. Biol. Teach. 72 149 10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.4
15. Deniz H, Cakir H 2006 Design principles for computer-assisted instruction in histology education: an exploratory study J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 15 399 408 10.1007/s10956-006-9031-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9031-5
16. Dolan EL 2007 Grappling with the literature of education research and practice CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 6 289 296 22561765 3056836
17. Erickson F, Gutierrez K 2002 Culture, rigor, and science in educational research Educ. Res. 31 21 24 10.3102/0013189X031008021 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008021
18. Fancovicova J, Prokop P, Usak M 2010 Web-site as an educational tool in biology education: a case of nutrition issue Educ. Sci. 10 907 921
19. Feuer MJ, Towne L, Shavelson RJ 2002 Scientific culture and educational research Educ. Res. 31 4 14 10.3102/0013189X031008004 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008004
20. Fisher CM 2006 Automated classroom response systems: implications for sexuality education and research Am. J. Sex. Educ. 1 23 31 10.1300/J455v01n04_03 http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J455v01n04_03
21. Kass DH, LaRoe R 2007 Web-based analysis for student-generated complex genetic profiles Biochem. Molec. Biol. Educ. 35 404 409 10.1002/bmb.127 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.127
22. Kiboss JK, Ndirangu M, Wekesa EW 2004 Effectiveness of a computer-mediated simulations program in school biology on pupils’ learning outcomes in cell theory J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13 207 213 10.1023/B:JOST.0000031259.76872.f1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000031259.76872.f1
23. Klymkowsky MW 2007 Teaching without a textbook: strategies to focus learning on fundamental concepts and scientific process CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 6 190 193 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0038 17785400 1964522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0038
24. Kohorst K, Cox JR 2007 Virutal office hours using a tablet PC: e-illuminating biochemistry in an online environment Biochem. Molec. Biol. Educ. 35 193 197 10.1002/bmb.50 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.50
25. Kozma RB 1994 Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 42 7 19 10.1007/BF02299087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
26. Latham LG II, Scully EP 2008 Critters! A realistic simulation for teaching evolutionary biology Am. Biol. Teach. 70 30 33 10.1662/0002-7685(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 S 2007 Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: exploiting Bloom’s taxonomy in creating science questions J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 36 40 44
28. Lyles H, Robertson B, Mangino M, Cox JR 2007 Audio podcasting in a tablet PC-enhanced biochemistry course Biochem. Molec. Biol. Educ. 35 456 461 10.1002/bmb.115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.115
29. Mickle JE, Aune PM 2008 Development of a laboratory course in nonmajors General Biology for distance education J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 37 35 39
30. Modell HW, Michael J, Wenderoth MP 2005 Helping the learner to learn: the role of uncovering misconceptions Am. Biol. Teach. 67 20 26 10.1662/0002-7685(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 A 2008 Real-time ocean data in the classroom Sci. Teach. 75 44 48
32. Novak JD 2003 The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning Cell Biol. Educ. 2 122 132 10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059 12888848 162189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059
33. Pellegrino JW, Goldman SR 2002 Be careful what you wish for—You may get it: educational research in the spotlight Educ. Res. 31 15 17 10.3102/0013189X031008015 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008015
34. Preszler RW, Dawe A, Shuster CB, Shuster M 2007 Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 6 29 41 22561765 3056836
35. Reiff JC 1992 Learning styles National Education Association Washington, DC
36. Ringstaff C, Kelley L 2002 The learning return on our educational technology investment: a review of findings from research WestEd RTEC San Francisco, CA http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/619
37. Roblyer MD, Knezek GA 2003 New millennium research for educational technology: a call for a national research agenda J. Res. Technol. Educ. 36 60 71
38. Shavelson RJ, Towne L 2002 Scientific research in education Committee on Scientific Principles for Educational Research National Academy Press Washington, DC
39. Strudler N 2003 Answering the call: a response to Roblyer and Knezek J. Res. Technol. Educ. 36 72 76
40. Surry DW, Ensminger D 2001 What’s wrong with media comparison studies? Educ. Technol. 41 32 35
41. Traver HA, Kalshery MJ, Diwan JJ, Warden J 2001 Student reactions and learning: evaluation of a biochemistry course that uses web technology and student collaboration Biochem. Molec. Biol. Educ. 29 50 53
42. Wenger E 1998 Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
43. Zumbach J, Schmitt S, Reimann P, Starkloff P 2006 Learning life sciences: design and development of a virtual molecular biology learning lab J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 25 281 300

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.347
2012-05-03
2019-08-22

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

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: [email protected].
  • Copyright © 2012 American Society for Microbiology

Back to top
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