1887

Brewing for Students: An Inquiry-Based Microbiology Lab

    Authors: Brian K. Sato1,*, Usman Alam1, Samantha J. Dacanay1, Amanda K. Lee1, Justin F. Shaffer2
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697; 2: Department of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Bio-chemistry and Molecular Biology, 2238 McGaugh Hall MC3900, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697. Phone: 949-824-0661. E-mail: [email protected].
    • ©2015 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 223-229. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    714.62 Kb
  • XML
  • HTML
    54.05 Kb

    Abstract:

    In an effort to improve and assess student learning, there has been a push to increase the incorporation of discovery-driven modules and those that contain real-world relevance into laboratory curricula. To further this effort, we have developed, implemented, and assessed an undergraduate microbiology laboratory experiment that requires students to use the scientific method while brewing beer. The experiment allows students to brew their own beer and characterize it based on taste, alcohol content, calorie content, pH, and standard reference method. In addition, we assessed whether students were capable of achieving the module learning objectives through a pre-/posttest, student self-evaluation, exam-embedded questions, and an associated worksheet. These objectives included describing the role of the brewing ingredients and predicting how altering the ingredients would affect the characteristics of the beer, amongst others. By completing this experimental module, students accomplished the module objectives, had greater interest in brewing, and were more likely to view beer in scientific terms. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education

References & Citations

1. Allen D, Tanner K 2005 Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: seven strategies, from the simple to complex Cell Biol Educ 4 262 268 10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113 16344858 1305885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action: a summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science July 15–17, 2009 Washington, DC
3. Caruso SM, Sandoz J, Kelsey J 2009 Non-STEM undergraduates become enthusiastic phage-hunters CBE Life Sci Educ 8 278 282 10.1187/cbe.09-07-0052 19952096 2786278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-07-0052
4. 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 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 19047424 2592046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
5. Ebert-May D, Brewer C, Allred S 1997 Innovation in large lectures: teaching for active learning BioScience 47 601 607 10.2307/1313166 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1313166
6. Eddy SL, Hogan KA 2014 Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE Life Sci Educ 13 453 468 25185229 4152207
7. Fonseca MJ 2011 Natural antibiotics: a hands-on activity on garlic’s antibiotic properties Am Biol Teach 73 342 346 10.1525/abt.2011.73.6.7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/abt.2011.73.6.7
8. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S 2011 Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology Science 332 1213 1216 10.1126/science.1204820 21636776 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820
9. Hoskins SG, Stevens LM, Nehm RH 2007 Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory Genetics 176 1381 1389 10.1534/genetics.107.071183 17483426 1931557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.071183
10. Howard GS 1980 Response-shift bias: a problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports Eval Rev 4 93 106 10.1177/0193841X8000400105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8000400105
11. 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
12. Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D 2010 Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills CBE Life Sci Educ 9 435 440 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001 21123690 2995761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001
13. National Research Council 2003 BIO2010: transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists The National Academies Press
14. National Research Council 2009 A new biology for the 21st century The National Academies Press
15. National Research Council 2015 Reaching students: what research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering The National Academies Press
16. Sato BK 2013 Attack of the killer fungus: a hypothesis-driven lab module J Microbiol Biol Educ 14 230 237 10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.612 24358387 3867761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.612
17. Sato BK, Kadandale P, He W, Murata PMN, Latif Y, Warschauer M 2014 Practice makes pretty good: assessment of primary literature reading abilities across multiple large-enrollment biology laboratory courses CBE Life Sci Educ 13 677 686 25452490 4255354
18. Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW 2014 Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementation CBE Life Sci Educ 13 102 110 24591509 3940451
19. Stewart R, Stein DC, Yuan RT, Smith AC 2013 “The Farmer’s Dilemma”—an interrupted case study for learning bacterial genetics in the context of the impact of microbes on the organic food industry and biotechnology J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 36 37 10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.643
20. Weber CF 2014 Hormones and antibiotics in nature: a laboratory module designed to broaden undergraduate perspectives on typically human-centered topics J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 277 286 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.734
21. Wood WB 2009 Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them Ann Rev Cell Dev Biol 25 93 112 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175306
22. Young VA, Kiefer AM 2014 Kimchi: spicy science for the undergraduate microbiology laboratory J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 297 298 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.695 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.695

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914
2015-12-01
2020-09-19

Abstract:

In an effort to improve and assess student learning, there has been a push to increase the incorporation of discovery-driven modules and those that contain real-world relevance into laboratory curricula. To further this effort, we have developed, implemented, and assessed an undergraduate microbiology laboratory experiment that requires students to use the scientific method while brewing beer. The experiment allows students to brew their own beer and characterize it based on taste, alcohol content, calorie content, pH, and standard reference method. In addition, we assessed whether students were capable of achieving the module learning objectives through a pre-/posttest, student self-evaluation, exam-embedded questions, and an associated worksheet. These objectives included describing the role of the brewing ingredients and predicting how altering the ingredients would affect the characteristics of the beer, amongst others. By completing this experimental module, students accomplished the module objectives, had greater interest in brewing, and were more likely to view beer in scientific terms. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/16/2/jmbe-16-223.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Author and Article Information

  • Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
  • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Bio-chemistry and Molecular Biology, 2238 McGaugh Hall MC3900, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697. Phone: 949-824-0661. E-mail: [email protected].
  • ©2015 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.

Figures

Brewing for Students: An Inquiry-Based Microbiology Lab
[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-1,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-1,properties={foaf_givenname=Brian K., foaf_name=Brian K. Sato, foaf_surname=Sato, pub_correspondenceLink=*, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-2,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-2,properties={foaf_givenname=Usman, foaf_name=Usman Alam, foaf_surname=Alam, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-3,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-3,properties={foaf_givenname=Samantha J., foaf_name=Samantha J. Dacanay, foaf_surname=Dacanay, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-4,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-4,properties={foaf_givenname=Amanda K., foaf_name=Amanda K. Lee, foaf_surname=Lee, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-5,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-5,properties={foaf_givenname=Justin F., foaf_name=Justin F. Shaffer, foaf_surname=Shaffer, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914-aff2]]}]]
Citation: Sato B, Alam U, Dacanay S, Lee A, Shaffer J. Brewing for students: an inquiry-based microbiology lab . J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 16(2):223-229 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914.f1-jmbe-16-223
FIGURE 1

Sample brews from student groups. These beers were made using (A) extra light, (B) amber, and (C) extra dark malt extract following the protocol outlined in the methods.

jmbe/16/2/jmbe-16-223f1_thmb.gif
jmbe/16/2/jmbe-16-223f1.gif
Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Sample brews from student groups. These beers were made using (A) extra light, (B) amber, and (C) extra dark malt extract following the protocol outlined in the methods.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 223-229. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914.f2-jmbe-16-223
FIGURE 2

Students achieved the module learning objectives through a variety of assessments. (A) A 14-question pre-/posttest was administered before and after the beer module in laboratory sections ( 93 students). Each question (Q) was related to the indicated learning objective (LO; shown below each question). Post-test gains are statistically significant ( 0.0001) for each question by -test. (B) Students noted their agreement with the following statements after completion of the module on a five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). At that time, they were also asked to note their agreement prior to the start of the module. Post-test gains are statistically significant ( 0.0001) by chi-square test. Questions were asked using the iClicker system during lecture ( 86 students). (C) Student performance on three module-related questions on the final course exam are indicated (Q1–3, 95 students). For comparison, performance on the same exam for other questions of similar Bloom’s levels (levels 2 (comprehension) and 3 (application)), as well as overall performance on the final exam, are indicated. Performance on Q1 and Q3 is significantly higher compared with the other Bloom’s level 2 and 3 questions and compared with the overall exam performance ( 0.0001) by -test. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean for all figures.

jmbe/16/2/jmbe-16-223f2_thmb.gif
jmbe/16/2/jmbe-16-223f2.gif
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Students achieved the module learning objectives through a variety of assessments. (A) A 14-question pre-/posttest was administered before and after the beer module in laboratory sections ( 93 students). Each question (Q) was related to the indicated learning objective (LO; shown below each question). Post-test gains are statistically significant ( 0.0001) for each question by -test. (B) Students noted their agreement with the following statements after completion of the module on a five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). At that time, they were also asked to note their agreement prior to the start of the module. Post-test gains are statistically significant ( 0.0001) by chi-square test. Questions were asked using the iClicker system during lecture ( 86 students). (C) Student performance on three module-related questions on the final course exam are indicated (Q1–3, 95 students). For comparison, performance on the same exam for other questions of similar Bloom’s levels (levels 2 (comprehension) and 3 (application)), as well as overall performance on the final exam, are indicated. Performance on Q1 and Q3 is significantly higher compared with the other Bloom’s level 2 and 3 questions and compared with the overall exam performance ( 0.0001) by -test. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean for all figures.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 223-229. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.914
Download as Powerpoint

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