No description available.

ABSTRACT This project describes the development and evaluation of two laboratory courses in First Year Biology, each of which is part of a larger full-year course of instruction given by the Biology Department at McMaster University. Introductory Human Physiology is prepared for Physical Education students. Adaptation in the Biological World - a general Biology course - is prepared for Natural Sciences students. Design of the laboratory exercises utilizes a variety of different educational models which are intended to stimulate the students' interest in Biology. The exercises give students first-hand experience with important principles and concepts related to the lecture material. This project stresses the role of the Teaching Assistants who supervise activities in the laboratories and who demonstrate the basic skills we expect students to learn. Conclusions drawn from this project are: 1. The majority of students consider the laboratory courses to be useful. 2. Educational goals established for the courses are being met. 3 • Change and improvement are important ongoing components of the curriculum. 4. As funds become available, we must introduce more interesting techniques and methodologies to the curriculum. 5. It is essential to maintain a high level of efficiency and organization within the team of people associated with laboratories. / Thesis / Master of Science (Teaching)

The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of face-to-face and virtual laboratories in a large-enrollment introductory biology course on students* motivation to learn biology. The laboratory component of post-secondary science courses is where students have opportunities for frequent interactions with instructors and their peers (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Seymour, Melton, Wiese, & Pederson-Gallegos, 2005) and is often relied upon for promoting interest and motivation in science learning (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003; Lunetta, Hofstein, & Clough, 2007). However, laboratory courses can be resource intensive (Jenkins, 2007), leading post-secondary science educators to seek alternative means of laboratory education such as virtual laboratories. Scholars have provided evidence that student achievement in virtual laboratories can be equal to, if not higher than, that of students in face-to-face laboratories (Akpan & Strayer, 2010; Finkelstein et al., 2005; Huppert, Lomask, & Lazarowitz, 2002). Yet, little research on virtual laboratories has been conducted on affective variables such as motivation to learn science. Motivation to learn biology was measured at the beginning and end of the semester using the Biology Motivation Questionnaire © (Glynn, Brickman, Armstrong, & Taasoobshirazi, 2011) and compared between the face-to-face and virtual laboratory groups. Characteristics of the two laboratory environments were measured at the end of the semester by the Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (Walker & Fraser, 2005). Interviews with 12 participants were conducted three times throughout the semester in the phenomenological style of qualitative data collection. The quantitative survey data and qualitative interview and observation data were combined to provide a thorough image of the face-to-face and virtual laboratory environments and their impacts on students* motivation to learn biology. Statistical analyses provided quantifiable evidence that the novel virtual laboratory environment did not have a differential effect on students* motivation to learn biology, with this finding being supported by the qualitative results. Comparison of the laboratory environments showed that students in the face-to-face labs reported greater instructional support, student interaction and collaboration, relevance of the lab activities, and authentic learning experiences than the students in the virtual labs. Qualitative results indicated the teaching assistants in the face-to-face labs were an influential factor in sustaining students* motivation by providing immediate feedback and instructional support in and out of the laboratory environment. In comparison, the virtual laboratory students often had to redo their lab exercises multiple times because of unclear directions and system glitches, potential barriers to persistence of motivation. The face-to-face students also described the importance of collaborative experiences and hands-on activities while the virtual laboratory students appreciated the convenience of working at their own pace, location, and time. According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 2001), the differences in the learning environments reported by the students should have had ramifications for their motivation to learn biology, yet this did not hold true for the students in this study. Therefore, while these laboratory environments are demonstrably different, the virtual laboratories did not negatively impact students* motivation to learn biology and could be an acceptable replacement for face-to-face laboratories in an introductory biology course.

The primary purpose of this study was to compare academic variables from students participating in mixed teaching methods/course revitalization biology courses to those in traditional courses at two community colleges in Tennessee. A two-group comparison design using archived data was used, which evaluated differences in final grades, exam scores, and homework completion as indicators of the academic success between an urban institution and a rural college. A power analysis was performed using G*Power software to provide the needed sample size, indicating a size of 176. There were 227 students in the active teaching lecture classrooms, and 198 students in the lab classes. SPSS randomly selected matching numbers from those enrolled in Non-CR lab courses using the “select cases” function. As community colleges provide an essential service, meeting needs for students who may not be afforded the same opportunities to attend larger institutions, this research attempted to add to the available literature concerning student retention and academic success. In both the Introductory Biology lecture and lab courses, there was a statistically significant increase in lecture homework completion (p = .045) and lab homework completion (p < .001) in those students who participated in the course revitalization (CR) courses. There were also higher test scores on three of the five lecture unit exams, as well as all three of the laboratory unit exams (p < .001 for all three exams) for those students in the CR courses. The final grades for students in the mixed methods courses were significantly higher (p < .001 for lecture and lab) for those students than those in the traditionally formatted courses. There was no statistical difference in mean final exam scores for the two populations of students. Between the two institutions, there were more As and Bs in the mixed methods courses (p < .001). Finally, there were more As and withdrawals at the rural community college than the urban college. These findings show that students have academic success, measured by unit scores, final grades, and homework completion, in those courses presented in mixed-methods manner in Introductory Biology I courses at the community college.

The purpose of this two-part study is to examine how to improve introductory level non-majors biology courses to improve student attitude and learning gains in the sciences. The first part of this study examines the collective effect of three different pedagogies (service learning, concept mapping and guest lectures) on student attitude and learning gains in a freshman, non-majors biology course. Two classes, one with the three pedagogies, and one without, were compared. Data were collected from two classes in Fall 2008 (one treatment and one control) and two similar classes replicated in Fall 2009. Learning and attitude gains were measured by a pre and post biology assessment and the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) survey. Our findings indicate that the treatment methods did not improve student learning or attitudes compared to the control group. However, there was a significant increase in variability in the treatment group, indicating that the students exposed to the three pedagogies either had a very positive experience or a negative one, whereas the control group did not have this variability. Thus, the treatment did have a positive effect on some students. Both treatments experienced significant gains from pre to post on the biology assessment and SALG survey. The second part of the study investigated what concepts are considered by students and faculty to be most important to teach in introductory non-majors biology courses. A survey with 17 biology concepts was given to life science professors at BYU and UVU and biology students at BYU. Participants were asked to rank the concepts from most to least important. There were significant differences between professor and student mean rankings for 11 of the 17 biology concepts. This study showed a large discrepancy between what professors want students to learn and what students feel is important. It was particularly noteworthy that students ranked ecology and evolution as least important. This was especially alarming since evolution is considered to be the capstone of all biology and ecology is vital for capturing the "big picture" in biology.

<p dir="ltr">In 2011, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) published a report titled “Vision & Change: A Call to Action” that called for reform in undergraduate biology education. The report proposed core competencies that educators should target so students are graduating ready to tackle 21st-century challenges. Of these core competencies is the ability to reason quantitatively, which includes graphing. However, undergraduate biology students struggle with applying essential graph knowledge. The following dissertation project addresses these challenges by exploring two graphing tasks: constructing versus evaluating graphs. We primarily focused on introductory biology students' reasoning practices in applying graph knowledge between these two tasks. As such, we used a digital performance-based assessment tool, <i>GraphSmarts</i>, to analyze students' graphing choices and their justifications in an ecology-based scenario. Chapter 2 discusses the findings of these analyses (n=301), which revealed a disconnect in graph knowledge application between students' graph construction and evaluation skills. While students tend to create basic bar graphs when constructing graphs, they prefer more sophisticated representations, such as bar graphs with averages and error bars, during evaluation tasks—suggesting that the framing of a task influences students' application of graph knowledge between their recognition of effective data representation and their ability to produce such graphs independently. While insightful, we needed to explore ‘why’ this variation exists. Chapter 3 explores the root of this variation through student interviews (n=12). Students would complete the two tasks, followed by questions that help clarify their thought processes. Through the lens of the Conceptual Dynamics framework and the Dynamic Mental Construct model, the study identified two critical cognitive patterns, ‘mode-switching’ and ‘mode-stability.’ Results reaffirm the context-dependent nature of students' graphing knowledge and the influence of task framing on their reasoning processes, as seen in Chapter 2. Results from this project can inform recommendations that biology educators can consider, including 1) having students conduct multiple types of graphing tasks beyond construction, 2) teaching statistical features more explicitly by integrating them into course content, and 3) encouraging students to reflect on their graphing practices. That would be expected to address these instructional needs and foster characteristics of quantitative reasoning and graphing that transfer out of biology. Future directions on this work include exploring other standard graphing tools (Excel, R studio) on graph knowledge, examining the transferability of graphing skills across biological sub-disciplines, and developing targeted interventions for gaps in students' graphing competencies across various graphing tasks. Overall, the work contributes toward developing evidence-based instructional strategies that will be supportive in cultivating competent, robust quantitative reasoning and graphing skills among undergraduate biology students.</p>

In introductory biology, college students are taught to predict how populations will grow and change over time by using population growth models. These models are commonly represented as mathematical equations. However, students consistently struggle when math and biology concepts intersect in the classroom, and these struggles lead to suboptimal understanding of how mathematical population models are designed and used. Education literature suggests that students may struggle with population modeling because of math anxiety, the high cognitive load of the task, and the lack of scaffolding for abstract concepts. In our study, we sought to improve student mastery modeling exponential growth, logistic growth, and Lotka-Volterra predator-prey interactions through using pictorial diagrams in modeling pedagogy. We predicted that these diagrams would reduce the amount of triggered math anxiety, lower the cognitive load of the task through reducing element interactivity, and allow for a more scaffolding for abstract symbols through a pictorial representation bridge. To test the effectiveness of population diagrams, we created two versions of a population modeling lesson plan: one version taught using diagrams then equations, while the other taught using purely equations. We also designed practice and assessment questions that tested calculation and model-building ability. We assessed math anxiety, scientific reasoning ability, and math ability at the beginning of the semester and state anxiety, effort of tasks, and difficulty of tasks during each lesson. Over 200 students from a non-major biology course were randomly assigned to each group, and all were given a pre-assessment, four lessons, a practice test, and a unit test on population modeling. Our findings show that while the addition of pictorial models to the traditional pedagogy did not have a significant effect on exponential and logistic growth model mastery, students that were exposed to predator-prey diagrams were more able to create a new model for a three-level predator-prey interaction than students that were only given traditional pedagogy. In addition, students who were exposed to predator-prey interaction diagrams before they derived equations reported a lower cognitive load than students who were only exposed to equations. Although diagrams were not a more helpful calculation tool for students than traditional equations, using population diagrams before to equation derivation may help improve student mastery of growth model creation.

No description available.

<p dir="ltr">Scientific writing is a core competency within the undergraduate biology curriculum (AAAS, 2010), as it has wide-ranging applications in academic and professional life, alongside being a powerful tool for formative learning (Wingate, 2010). Due to its importance in critical analysis and understanding of biological concepts, developing scientific writing is necessary for success within the biological sciences disciplines (Clemmons et al., 2020). Peer review has emerged as a common pedagogical technique to address the need for scientific writing training. The expansive literature on peer review indicates its ability to engage students in critical thinking, increase writing confidence, and improve academic performance on writing assignments (Dochy et al., 1999; S. Gielen et al., 2010; van Zundert et al., 2010). Research on the usage of scaffolded curriculum within peer review has shown increased review validity from students (Cho et al., 2006; Liu & Li, 2014), and integrated plans to revise leads to increased revisions (Wu & Schunn, 2021) and the incorporation of more feedback that is correct (Jurkowski, 2018). However, despite the breadth of peer review research, the number of quasi-experimental and experimental studies assessing the benefits and perceptions of revision is small (Double et al., 2020; van Zundert et al., 2010). This study provides a detailed look at the effects of scaffolded peer review and structured revision on student perceptions of scientific writing self-efficacy and the utility value of the peer review process. After performing peer review, students were given either a supported revision worksheet, wherein students list the feedback received and if it is useful for revisions, or a general revision worksheet, where students list their planned revisions. Quantitative surveys and qualitative reflection questions were administered to gauge the scientific writing ability and the perceived usefulness of peer review and were compared between treatment groups. Little to no difference was found in how students perceived their scientific writing self-efficacy and the utility value of the peer review process. Despite the lack of differences, analysis of the themes within responses reveals alignment with the theoretical frameworks guiding this research. This study provides a rich account of the characteristics of scientific writing self-efficacy and utility value in undergraduate biology students during peer review and revision, which have implications for the future development of an effective scaffolded peer review curriculum.</p>

This study examined students' perception between short research experiences (SRE) courses and full-semester course research experiences (CRE) using the Persistence in the Sciences (PITS) survey and the interview questionnaire. The study also aimed to correlate the influence of student's demographic as a predictive indicator for Project Ownership Scores (POS) and Quantitative Literacy (QL) score means. The three courses studied at the University of North Texas were Biology for Science Majors Laboratory (BIOL 1760 SRE), Microbiology with Tiny Earth (BIOL 2042 Tiny Earth SRE), and Introductory Biology Research Laboratory I (BIOL 1750 SEA-PHAGES CRE). The mean scores for the PITS categories leaned favorably towards the research component of each laboratory course assessed in this study. The interview questionnaire showed 66% of the students in the SRE courses and 90% of the students in the CRE course preferred the research component of the lab. Paired survey demographic analysis for BIOL 1760 SRE showed significance for the Science Community Values with associate/bachelor's degree. BIOL 1750 SEA-PHAGES CRE showed significance in three of the six categories when comparing means for Project Ownership Emotion, Self-Efficacy, and Science Identity with Gender. Binary logistics was used to build a regression model to predict demographics with approximately 65% to 75% accuracy for each course. When analyzing students' QL score, the demographic category "Ethnicity" showed significance for BIOL 2042 Tiny Earth SRE. Categorizing the correct response into two categories for the QL test scores, the SRE and CRE courses, and analyzing the PITS scores for paired data sets showed that there was significance in the Networking category for the question "I have discussed my research in this course with professors other than my course instructor." The validated PITS, POS, and interview questionnaire could be a tool for use to analyze laboratories at UNT that offer a SRE or CRE component and to understand students' perceptions on the effectiveness of the laboratory.