1887

A Modified CREATE Intervention Improves Student Cognitive and Affective Outcomes in an Upper-Division Genetics Course

    Authors: Stanley M. Lo1,2,3,*, Tiffany B. Luu1,#, Justin Tran1,#
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093; 2: Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093; 3: Program in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 17 July 2019 Accepted 24 January 2020 Published 30 April 2020
    • ©2020 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 California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0355, La Jolla, CA 92093. Phone: 858-246-1087. E-mail: [email protected].
    • # These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2020 vol. 21 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    111.25 Kb
  • HTML
    85.71 Kb
  • PDF
    1.18 MB

    Abstract:

    Many national reports have called for undergraduate biology education to incorporate research and analytical thinking into the curriculum. In response, interventions have been developed and tested. CREATE (onsider, ead, lucidate the hypotheses, nalyze and interpret the data, and hink of the next xperiment) is an instructional strategy designed to engage students in learning core concepts and competencies through careful reading of primary literature in a scaffolded fashion. CREATE has been successfully implemented by many instructors across diverse institutional contexts and has been shown to help students develop in the affective, cognitive, and epistemological domains, consistent with broader meta-analyses demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning. Nonetheless, some studies on CREATE have reported discrepant results, raising important questions on effectiveness in relation to the fidelity and integrity of implementation. Here, we describe an upper-division genetics course that incorporates a modified version of CREATE. Similar to the original CREATE instructional strategy, our intervention’s design was based on existing learning principles. Using existing concept inventories and validated survey instruments, we found that our modified CREATE intervention promotes higher affective and cognitive gains in students in contrast to three comparison groups. We also found that students tended to underpredict their learning and performance in the modified CREATE intervention, while students in some comparison groups had the opposite trend. Together, our results contribute to the expanding literature on how and why different implementations of the same active-learning strategy contribute to student outcomes.

References & Citations

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science 1989 Science for all Americans Oxford University Press New York NY
2. Boyer Commission 1998 Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s research universities Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University Stoney Brook, NY https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED424840
3. National Research Council 2003 BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists The National Academies Press Washington, DC
4. Association of American Medical Colleges, Howard Hughes Medical Institute 2009 Scientific foundations for future physicians Washington, DC
5. 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
6. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2012 Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics Executive Office of the President Washington, DC
7. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine 2011 Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads The National Academies Press Washington, DC
8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways The National Academies Press Washington, DC
9. National Research Council 2012 A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas The National Academies Press Washington, DC
10. Bowen CW 2000 A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement J Chem Educ 77 116 119 10.1021/ed077p116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed077p116
11. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP 2014 Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics Proc Natl Acad Sci 111 8410 8415 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 24821756 4060654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
12. Prince M 2004 Does active learning work? A review of the research J Engineer Educ 93 223 231 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
13. Ruiz-Primo MA, Briggs D, Iverson H, Talbot R, Shepard LA 2011 Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning Science 331 1269 1270 10.1126/science.1198976 21393529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1198976
14. Hoskins SG, Stevens LM, Nehm RH 2007 Selective use of 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
15. Chi MT 2009 Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities Topics Cogn Sci 1 73 105 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
16. Chi MT, Wylie R 2014 The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes Educ Psychol 49 219 243 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
17. National Research Council 2000 How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school, expanded ed The National Academies Press Washington, DC
18. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018 How people learn II: learners, contexts, and cultures The National Academies Press Washington, DC
19. Piaget J 1973 To understand is to invent: the future of education Grossman Publishers New York, NY
20. Vygotsky LS 1978 Mind in society: the development of higher mental process Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA
21. Hoskins SG 2008 Using a paradigm shift to teach neurobiology and the nature of science: a CREATE-based approach J Undergrad Neurosci Educ 6 A40 23493428 3592661
22. Hoskins SG, Stevens LM 2009 Learning our LIMITS: less is more in teaching science Adv Physiol Educ 33 17 20 10.1152/advan.90184.2008 19261755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.90184.2008
23. Hoskins SG 2010 Teaching science for understanding: focusing on who, what, and why 151 179 Meinwald J, Hildebrand JG Science and the educated American: a core component of liberal education American Academy of Arts and Sciences Cambridge, MA
24. Hoskins SG 2010 “But if it’s in the newspaper, doesn’t that mean it’s true?” Developing critical reading and analysis skills by evaluating newspaper science with CREATE Am Biol Teach 72 415 420 10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.5
25. Hoskins SG, Krufka A 2015 The CREATE strategy benefits students and is a natural fit for faculty Microbe 10 108 112
26. Hoskins SG, Gottesman AJ, Kenyon KL 2017 CREATE two-year/four-year faculty workshops: a focus on practice, reflection, and novel curricular design leads to diverse gains for faculty at two-year and four-year institutions J Microbiol Biol Educ 18 18.3.65 10.1128/jmbe.v18i3.1365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i3.1365
27. Kenyon KL, Onorato ME, Gottesman AJ, Hoque J, Hoskins SG 2016 Testing CREATE at community colleges: an examination of faculty perspectives and diverse student gains CBE Life Sci Educ 15 ar8 10.1187/cbe.15-07-0146 26931399 4803097 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0146
28. Gottesman AJ, Hoskins SG 2013 CREATE cornerstone: introduction to scientific thinking, a new course for STEM-interested freshmen, 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
29. Hoskins SG, Lopatto D, Stevens LM 2011 The CREATE approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates’ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefs CBE Life Sci Educ 10 368 378 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027 22135371 3228655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027
30. Hoskins SG, Gottesman AJ 2018 Investigating undergraduates’ perceptions of science in courses taught using the CREATE strategy J Microbiol Biol Educ 19 19.1.6 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1440
31. Stevens LM, Hoskins SG 2014 The CREATE strategy for intensive analysis of primary literature can be used effectively by newly trained faculty to produce multiple gains in diverse students CBE Life Sci Educ 13 224 242 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0239 4041501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0239
32. Clark IE, Romero-Calderón R, Olson JM, Jaworski L, Lopatto D, Banerjee U 2009 “Deconstructing” scientific research: a practical and scalable pedagogical tool to provide evidence-based science instruction PLOS Biol 7 e1000264 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000264
33. Round JE, Campbell AM 2013 Figure facts: encouraging undergraduates to take a data-centered approach to reading primary literature CBE Life Sci Educ 12 39 46 10.1187/cbe.11-07-0057 23463227 3587854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0057
34. Sato BK, Kadandale P, He W, Murata PM, 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 10.1187/cbe.14-02-0025 25452490 4255354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-02-0025
35. McCartney M, Childers C, Baiduc RR, Barnicle K 2018 Annotated primary literature: a professional development opportunity in science communication for graduate students and postdocs J Microbiol Biol Educ 19 19.1.24 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439 29904517 5969403 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439
36. Segura-Totten M, Dalman NE 2013 The CREATE method does not result in greater gains in critical thinking than a more traditional method of analyzing the primary literature J Microbiol Biol Educ 14 166 175 10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506 24358379 3867753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
37. Hoskins SG, Kenyon KL 2014 Letter to the editor J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 3 4 10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.725 24839508 4004737 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.725
38. Borrego M, Cutler S, Prince M, Henderson C, Froyd JE 2013 Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses J Engineer Educ 102 394 425 10.1002/jee.20020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20020
39. Bryk AS, Gomez LM, Grunow A, LeMahieu PG 2015 Learning to improve: how America’s schools can get better at getting better Harvard Education Press Cambridge, MA
40. Froyd JE, Henderson C, Cole RS, Friedrichsen D, Khatri R, Stanford C 2017 From dissemination to propagation: a new paradigm for education developers Change Mag Higher Learn 49 35 42 10.1080/00091383.2017.1357098 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1357098
41. Stains M, Vickrey T 2017 Fidelity of implementation: an overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices CBE Life Sci Educ 16 rm1 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113 28213585 5332058 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113
42. McCormick AC, Zhao CM 2005 Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification Change Mag Higher Learn 37 51 57 10.3200/CHNG.37.5.51-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.5.51-57
43. Sampson V, Clark DB 2008 Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions Sci Educ 92 447 472 10.1002/sce.20276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
44. Lacum EB, Ossevoort MA, Goedhart MJ 2014 A teaching strategy with a focus on argumentation to improve undergraduate students’ ability to read research articles CBE Life Sci Educ 13 253 264 10.1187/cbe.13-06-0110 4041503 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0110
45. Rohrer D, Taylor K 2007 The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning Instruct Sci 35 481 498 10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8
46. Rohrer D, Dedrick RF, Burgess K 2014 The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems Psychonomic Bull Rev 21 1323 1330 10.3758/s13423-014-0588-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0588-3
47. Birnbaum MS, Kornell N, Bjork EL, Bjork RA 2013 Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: the roles of discrimination and retrieval Mem Cogn 41 392 402 10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7
48. Kang SH, Pashler H 2012 Learning painting styles: spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast Appl Cogn Psychol 26 97 103 10.1002/acp.1801 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801
49. Rohrer D 2012 Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts Educ Psychol Rev 24 355 367 10.1007/s10648-012-9201-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9201-3
50. Taylor K, Rohrer D 2010 The effects of interleaved practice Appl Cogn Psychol 24 837 848 10.1002/acp.1598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1598
51. Bybee RW 2014 The BSCS 5E instructional model: personal reflections and contemporary implications Sci Children 51 10 13 10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10 http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10
52. Kapur M 2010 Productive failure in mathematical problem solving Instr Sci 38 523 550 10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x
53. Kapur M 2012 Productive failure in learning the concept of variance Instr Sci 40 651 672 10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6
54. Kapur M 2008 Productive failure Cogn Instr 26 379 424 10.1080/07370000802212669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
55. Kapur M 2011 A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components Instr Sci 39 561 579 10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3
56. Kapur M, Bielaczyc K 2012 Designing for productive failure J Learn Sci 21 45 83 10.1080/10508406.2011.591717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
57. Owens MT, Seidel SB, Wong M, Bejines TE, Lietz S, Perez JR, Sit S, Subedar ZS, Acker GN, Akana SF, Balukjian B, Benton HP, Blair JR, Boaz SM, Boyer KE, Bram JB, Burrus LW, Byrd DT, Caporale N, Carpenter EJ, Chan YHM, Chen L, Chovnick A, Chu DS, Clarkson BK, Cooper SE, Creech C, Crow KD, de la Torre JR, Denetclaw WF, Duncan KE, Edwards AS, Erickson KL, Fuse M, Gorga JJ, Govindan B, Green LJ, Hankamp PZ, Harris HE, He ZH, Ingalls S, Ingmire PD, Jacobs JR, Kamakea M, Kimpo RR, Knight JD, Krause SK, Krueger LE, Light TL, Lund L, Márquez-Magaña LM, McCarthy BK, McPheron LJ, Miller-Sims VC, Moffatt CA, Muick PC, Nagami PH, Nusse GL, Okimura KM, Pasion SG, Patterson R, Pennings PS, Riggs B, Romeo J, Roy SW, Russo-Tait T, Schultheis LM, Sengupta L, Small R, Spicer GS, Stillman JH, Swei A, Wade JM, Waters SB, Weinstein SL, Willsie JK, Wright DW, Harrison CD, Kelley LA, Trujillo G, Domingo CR, Schinske JN, Tanner KD 2017 Classroom sound can be used to classify teaching practices in college science courses Proc Natl Acad Sci 114 3085 3090 10.1073/pnas.1618693114 28265087 5373389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618693114
58. Smith MK, Wood WB, Knight JK 2008 The genetics concept assessment: a new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics CBE Life Sci Educ 7 422 430 10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045 19047428 2592048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045
59. Shi J, Wood WB, Martin JM, Guild NA, Vicens Q, Knight JK 2010 A diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology CBE Life Sci Educ 9 453 461 10.1187/cbe.10-04-0055 21123692 2995763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-04-0055
60. Taber KS 2018 The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education Res Sci Educ 48 1273 1296 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
61. Gormally C, Brickman P, Lutz M 2012 Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments CBE Life Sci Educ 11 364 377 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026 23222832 3516792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026
62. Nix RK, Fraser BJ, Ledbetter CE 2005 Evaluating an integrated science learning environment using the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey Learn Environ Res 8 109 133 10.1007/s10984-005-7251-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-7251-x
63. Rovai AP, Wighting MJ, Lucking R 2004 The classroom and school community inventory: development, refinement, and validation of a self-report measure for educational research Internet Higher Educ 7 263 280 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.09.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.09.001
64. Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK 2011 Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions CBE Life Sci Educ 10 55 63 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101 21364100 3046888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
65. Westine CD, Spybrook J, Taylor JA 2013 An empirical investigation of variance design parameters for planning cluster-randomized trials of science achievement Eval Rev 37 490 519 10.1177/0193841X14531584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14531584
66. National Research Council 2004 On evaluating curricular effectiveness: judging the quality of K–12 mathematics evaluations The National Academies Press Washington, DC
67. Maher JM, Markey JC, Ebert-May D 2013 The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative research CBE Life Sci Educ 12 345 351 10.1187/cbe.13-04-0082 24006382 3763001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-04-0082
68. Virtanen V, Lindblom-Ylänne S 2010 University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the biosciences Instruct Sci 38 355 370 10.1007/s11251-008-9088-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9088-z
69. Suárez-Orozco C, Casanova S, Martin M, Katsiaficas D, Cuellar V, Smith NA, Dias SI 2015 Toxic rain in class: classroom interpersonal microaggressions Educ Res 44 151 160 10.3102/0013189X15580314 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15580314
70. Walton GM, Cohen GL 2011 A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students Science 331 1447 1451 10.1126/science.1198364 21415354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364
71. Canning EA, Muenks K, Green DJ, Murphy MC 2019 STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes Sci Adv 5 eaau4734 10.1126/sciadv.aau4734 30793027 6377274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734
72. Yan VX, Bjork EL, Bjork RA 2016 On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: a priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit J Experiment Psychol Gen 145 918 933 10.1037/xge0000177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000177
73. Karpicke JD, Butler AC, Roediger HL III 2009 Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory 17 471 479 10.1080/09658210802647009 19358016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009
74. Ebert-May D, Derting TL, Hodder J, Momsen JL, Long TM, Jardeleza SE 2011 What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs BioScience 61 550 558 10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9
75. Henderson C, Dancy MH 2009 Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 5 020107 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020107
76. Andrews TM, Leonard MJ, Colgrove CA, Kalinowski ST 2011 Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses CBE Life Sci Educ 10 394 405 10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061 22135373 3228657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
77. Bussey TJ, Orgill M, Crippen KJ 2013 Variation theory: a theory of learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research Chem Educ Res Pract 14 9 22 10.1039/C2RP20145C http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20145C
78. Lloyd GM, Cai J, Tarr JE 2017 Issues in curriculum studies: evidence-based insights and future directions 824 852 Cai J Compendium for research in mathematics education National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Reston, VA
79. Amundsen C, Wilson M 2012 Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education Rev Educ Res 82 90 126 10.3102/0034654312438409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312438409
80. Henderson C, Beach A, Finkelstein N 2011 Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature J Res Sci Teach 48 952 984 10.1002/tea.20439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881
2020-04-30
2020-10-20

Abstract:

Many national reports have called for undergraduate biology education to incorporate research and analytical thinking into the curriculum. In response, interventions have been developed and tested. CREATE (onsider, ead, lucidate the hypotheses, nalyze and interpret the data, and hink of the next xperiment) is an instructional strategy designed to engage students in learning core concepts and competencies through careful reading of primary literature in a scaffolded fashion. CREATE has been successfully implemented by many instructors across diverse institutional contexts and has been shown to help students develop in the affective, cognitive, and epistemological domains, consistent with broader meta-analyses demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning. Nonetheless, some studies on CREATE have reported discrepant results, raising important questions on effectiveness in relation to the fidelity and integrity of implementation. Here, we describe an upper-division genetics course that incorporates a modified version of CREATE. Similar to the original CREATE instructional strategy, our intervention’s design was based on existing learning principles. Using existing concept inventories and validated survey instruments, we found that our modified CREATE intervention promotes higher affective and cognitive gains in students in contrast to three comparison groups. We also found that students tended to underpredict their learning and performance in the modified CREATE intervention, while students in some comparison groups had the opposite trend. Together, our results contribute to the expanding literature on how and why different implementations of the same active-learning strategy contribute to student outcomes.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/21/1/jmbe-21-36.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Author and Article Information

  • Received 17 July 2019 Accepted 24 January 2020 Published 30 April 2020
  • ©2020 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 California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0355, La Jolla, CA 92093. Phone: 858-246-1087. E-mail: [email protected].
  • # These authors contributed equally to this work.

Figures

A Modified CREATE Intervention Improves Student Cognitive and Affective Outcomes in an Upper-Division Genetics Course
[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-1,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-1,properties={foaf_givenname=Stanley M., foaf_name=Stanley M. Lo, foaf_surname=Lo, pub_correspondenceLink=*, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-aff3],com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-aff1],com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-aff2]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-2,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-2,properties={foaf_givenname=Tiffany B., foaf_name=Tiffany B. Luu, foaf_surname=Luu, pub_hasAuthorNote=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/note/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-note1]], pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-3,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-3,properties={foaf_givenname=Justin, foaf_name=Justin Tran, foaf_surname=Tran, pub_hasAuthorNote=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/note/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-note1]], pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881-aff1]]}]]
Citation: Lo S, Luu T, Tran J. 2020. A modified create intervention improves student cognitive and affective outcomes in an upper-division genetics course . J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 21(1): doi:10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881.f1-jmbe-21-36
FIGURE 1
Implementation of the modified CREATE intervention. Annotated DART profiles for: A) a CREATE-only class, B) an interactive clicker lecture, and C) a mixed class with both CREATE and clicker questions. CQ = clicker question; DART = Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching.
jmbe/21/1/jmbe-21-36f1_thmb.gif
jmbe/21/1/jmbe-21-36f1.gif
Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Implementation of the modified CREATE intervention. Annotated DART profiles for: A) a CREATE-only class, B) an interactive clicker lecture, and C) a mixed class with both CREATE and clicker questions. CQ = clicker question; DART = Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2020 vol. 21 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881.f2-jmbe-21-36
FIGURE 2
Cognitive outcomes. (A) Pre- and post-course CI scores are plotted on the left -axis and students’ perceived learning on the right -axis. Two-way ANOVA indicates that the perceived learning score in CREATE was lower than the three comparison courses ( at least < 0.01), whereas the comparison courses were not statistically different among themselves. For CI scores, error bars indicate standard deviation; effect sizes (ES) are calculated by Cohen’s , and values are determined by two-way ANOVA. (B) Pre- and post-course TOSLS scores for the modified CREATE intervention are compared by -test ( < 0.001). Error bars indicate standard deviation, and ES is calculated by Cohen’s . (C) Distributions of students’ actual and perceived grades (legend: A, B, C, D, and F) are plotted as outer and inner rings respectively in the donut graphs and compared using Fisher’s exact test. CI = concept inventory items.
jmbe/21/1/jmbe-21-36f2_thmb.gif
jmbe/21/1/jmbe-21-36f2.gif
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Cognitive outcomes. (A) Pre- and post-course CI scores are plotted on the left -axis and students’ perceived learning on the right -axis. Two-way ANOVA indicates that the perceived learning score in CREATE was lower than the three comparison courses ( at least < 0.01), whereas the comparison courses were not statistically different among themselves. For CI scores, error bars indicate standard deviation; effect sizes (ES) are calculated by Cohen’s , and values are determined by two-way ANOVA. (B) Pre- and post-course TOSLS scores for the modified CREATE intervention are compared by -test ( < 0.001). Error bars indicate standard deviation, and ES is calculated by Cohen’s . (C) Distributions of students’ actual and perceived grades (legend: A, B, C, D, and F) are plotted as outer and inner rings respectively in the donut graphs and compared using Fisher’s exact test. CI = concept inventory items.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2020 vol. 21 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881.f3-jmbe-21-36
FIGURE 3
Affective outcomes. Results on the six affective dimensions from our survey are plotted: (A) personal relevance, (B) uncertainty of science, (C) critical voice, (D) shared control, (E) peer negotiation, and (F) affective support. Error bars indicate standard deviation, and statistical differences (by two-way ANOVA) are indicated by brackets and the following notation: * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; *** < 0.001; **** < 0.0001.
jmbe/21/1/jmbe-21-36f3_thmb.gif
jmbe/21/1/jmbe-21-36f3.gif
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Affective outcomes. Results on the six affective dimensions from our survey are plotted: (A) personal relevance, (B) uncertainty of science, (C) critical voice, (D) shared control, (E) peer negotiation, and (F) affective support. Error bars indicate standard deviation, and statistical differences (by two-way ANOVA) are indicated by brackets and the following notation: * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; *** < 0.001; **** < 0.0001.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2020 vol. 21 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881
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