The National Academies Scientific Teaching Alliance (NASTA)

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: The National Academies Scientific Teaching Alliance (NASTA)

Name of Author: Jo Handelsman
Author Company or Institution: Yale University
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: All Biological Sciences Courses
Course Levels: Across the Curriculum, Faculty Development, Introductory Course(s), Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Assessment, Changes in Classroom Approach (flipped classroom, clickers, POGIL, etc.), Material Development
Keywords: Faculty development STEM education Institutional change Diversity

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): Jennifer Frederick, Yale University

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: The goals of the annual National Academies Summer Institutes for Undergraduate Education in Biology (SI; https://www.academiessummerinstitute.org/) are closely intertwined with central aims of the AAAS Vision & Change initiative. Launched in 2004 in response to recommendations in the 2003 NRC report Bio2010, the SI was designed as an intensive professional development workshop to transform undergraduate biology instruction, particularly in large introductory courses, by training university faculty in the principles and practice of research-based teaching. Departments apply to send teams to the SI, including administrators, senior and junior faculty. Interactive sessions on current learning research, active learning, assessment, and capitalizing on diversity guide participants in developing innovative instructional materials. Support has been primarily through grants from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), first to the University of Wisconsin's Program for Scientific Teaching and then to the Center for Scientific Teaching at Yale (CST) where the program is now based. At a 2012 leadership summit meeting designed to inform ongoing development of regional SIs as well as increase their impact, forty SI alums and leaders convened in Madison to work on 5 topics: alumni communication and sharing instructional materials; classroom assessment and biology education research; capitalizing on diversity; institutional change; and national presence. The corresponding workgroups are continuing their efforts on these topics, which align with HHMI’s evaluation interest in identifying key SI elements associated with faculty and institutional change. A major outcome of the summit meeting was a decision to expand the scope and activities of the SI. The National Academies Governing Board recently approved the SI’s request to rename the initiative as the 'National Academies Scientific Teaching Alliance' (NASTA) to reflect expanded emphases.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: NASTA will coordinate and integrate a variety of programs, designed to: 1) inform the scientific and science education communities about effective, evidence-based teaching practices, 2) continue providing professional development to current and future faculty in the application of effective pedagogies through regional National Academies Summer Institutes (SIs), and 3) study and report on the reach and impacts of the SIs and related activities through assessment coordinated by Yale’s CST. While the SIs will remain the centerpiece of its activities, NASTA also plans to offer scientific teaching workshops at professional meetings, organize on-campus workshops on effective pedagogical practices for present and future faculty and administrators, and provide a platform for collaborative research across institutions to evaluate the impact of SI-promoted instructional practices. Looking forward, the influence of NASTA will be amplified by maintaining strong ties with other vigorous transformation initiatives such as Vision & Change.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: From 2004-2010, approximately 35 faculty per year were trained at annual SIs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Well-documented success (e.g. Pfund et al., Science 324:470-471, 2009) and increasing demand prompted expansion to seven regional SIs between 2011 and 2012, along with increased evaluation efforts to maintain program fidelity and measure impact. To date, 685 participants representing almost all major U.S. research universities have trained at an SI. Evaluation has shown (ibid.) that SI graduates change their approach to teaching. In addition, many become agents of change at their home institutions, regionally, and nationally. Current evaluation efforts include a shift toward quantitative mixed methods and using a database for more sophisticated analysis of survey responses. In the current life cycle, we are beginning to examine practices adopted by faculty after they return to their home institutions. In the future, we intend to study the effect on student learning.

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Examples of far-reaching impacts of the SI initiative include: * Regional SIs have led to development of regional networks, which have spawned a four-institution scientific teaching TA training collaboration in the Northeast, and emerging research and evaluation partnerships. * In 2009, some 10% of the participants at the national symposium on Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education were SI alumns. * Five of the 40 recently chosen PULSE fellows are SI alumns. * SI alumns created (in 2010) and continue to lead the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER). * SI alumns have presented at national meetings of professional societies (for example, scientific teaching workshops held at ACSB in 2011, AAAS in 2012). * Numerous publications by SI alumns in peer-reviewed education journals have documented increased student learning resulting from application of scientific teaching principles. * Development of instructional materials from the SI’s is being integrated with the Scientific Teaching Toolbox project and the CourseSource initiative. * SI leaders have described the SIs as a model for professional development of science faculty to numerous groups, including the National Academies (2010) and the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (2012) * The SI model is spreading internationally; SI staff have conducted workshops in India and Jordan, and several foreign institutions have sent teams to an SI.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: As the impact of the SIs broadens, emphasis on transformation initiatives that go beyond classroom instruction has grown. Many of our participants arrive at the SI with prior knowledge of the foundational curriculum (e.g., Bloom’s Taxonomy, backward design, engaging teaching methods) and are eager to become agents of change. The 2012 leadership summit was a first step to address broad challenges such as diversity, curating and sharing instructional materials, and institutional transformation. NASTA evolved from the SI curriculum and the larger population impacted by its success; the new alliance will provide an infrastructure for advancing this work and collaborating with and learning from other transformation-minded groups across the STEM education landscape.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: Dissemination to date includes a book (Handelsman et al., 2007, 'Scientific Teaching,' W.H. Freeman), articles (e.g. e.g. Pfund et al., Science 324:470-471, 2009), instructional materials shared online (https://cst.yale.edu/teachable-tidbit-general-categories); the official launch of NASTA will be celebrated at a gathering at the National Academy of Sciences headquarters planned for August 2014.

Acknowledgements: Michelle Withers, Director of NASTA and Associate Professor of Biology, West Virginia University William B. Wood, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder Jenny Frederick, Co-director of the Center for Scientific Teaching, Yale University Mark Graham, Evaluation Director of the Center for Scientific Teaching, Yale University James Young, Executive Director of the Center for Scientific Teaching, Yale University

Accelerated Transformation at Yale and Beyond

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: Accelerated Transformation at Yale and Beyond

Name of Author: Jennifer Frederick
Author Company or Institution: Yale University
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: All Biological Sciences Courses, STEM education
Course Levels: Across the Curriculum, Faculty Development, Introductory Course(s), Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Assessment, Changes in Classroom Approach (flipped classroom, clickers, POGIL, etc.), Material Development
Keywords: Biology education Faculty development Introductory research course Institutional change

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): Jo Handelsman, Yale University Phineas Rose, Yale University

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: The Center for Scientific Teaching (CST) at Yale leads a national effort to transform undergraduate science teaching at colleges and universities across the United States. Our mission has been inspired and informed by reports such as Biology 2010, the AAAS Vision and Change meeting report, and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2012 “Engage to Excel” report. We employ the evidence-based method of scientific teaching and its cornerstones - active learning, diversity, and assessment - in programs to train faculty, instructors, postdoctoral scholars, and graduate students in teaching and mentoring. By promoting better teaching, our aim is to inspire a larger, more diverse population of college students to pursue majors and careers in science.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: 4 professors redesigning introductory biology (Biology 101-104, a year-long course in four modules) requested training in scientific teaching. We offered a customized National Academies Summer Institute in July 2012. Twenty-four science and engineering faculty and instructors attended the 4-day training. Jo Handelsman and Jennifer Frederick are co-PIs on a Davis Education Foundation award to support development of a new undergraduate course that follows the PCAST recommendation to provide research experiences early in college. The grant supports postdocs as key instructional partners for our ?From Microbes to Molecules? research course and for the Biology 101-104 course. Additional support for an expanded ?Small World Initiative? from the Helmsley Charitable Trust will fund training for representatives from 24 Pilot Partner institutions. Instructors will attend training and implement the research course at their institution and contribute to evaluation and assessment efforts. This program creates a vehicle for spreading effective STEM teaching approaches while simultaneously tapping into new resources for antibiotic discovery, and provides a large cohort of students with key roles in advancing microbiology research. CST efforts promote transformation by encouraging a more diverse population of students to major in and pursue careers in STEM fields. Our evaluation director developed a persistence model that incorporates theories of learning, motivation, and professional socialization as a framework for examining programs and practices that encourage students to persist in STEM. Our 2012 PNAS paper, “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students” (Moss-Racusin et al) demonstrated pervasive gender bias among academic scientists. Since raising awareness can be an effective intervention, we are collaborating with a playwright on a dramatic work based on bias examples collected through personal interviews with male and female scientists.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: Yale transformation: faculty participation in the Yale Summer Institute, tracking continued involvement in the follow up strategy meetings and teaching discussions, expansion of the science education community beyond those who attended the 2012 Yale Summer Institute, demand for additional training in scientific teaching, influence on courses, curricula, and student persistence in and attitudes about STEM courses at Yale (both majors and non-majors) Beyond Yale: growth and impact of the Small World Initiative will be evaluated by interest in course implementation at collaborating institutions and the outcomes of crowdsourcing antibiotic discovery data, numbers of Pilot Partners, securing additional funding STEM education nationwide: we will evaluate use of the persistence model to influence institutional policy and programs; the impact of the film project as a gender bias intervention will be rigorously tested through controlled social scientific experiments

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Major outcomes of the first Yale SI include the nucleation of a multi-disciplinary community of science educators, new instructional materials available to the larger community, increased demand for science education seminars, and increased interest in the Yale Scientific Teaching Fellows Program (semester-long pedagogy courses for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars offered in both life sciences and physical sciences versions). Our follow-up lunch discussions with Yale SI alums provide rich examples of evidence-based pedagogy in Yale classrooms and serve as points of connection for this community. The science education network here continues to grow and we have experienced a steady increase in teaching consultation requests from colleagues interested in infusing active learning into their teaching. STEM educational transformation at Yale has an impact on the national landscape as well, and our involvement in the National Academies Scientific Teaching Alliance (submitted under separate abstract) positions us to continue contributing to broader efforts to transform science education.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: Resistance to prioritizing educational initiatives at a research institution remains a challenge. Teaching opportunities for postdoctoral scholars are now permitted under certain conditions (PI and funding agency approval, appropriate adjustments to effort), although we have been part of the institutional conversation to broaden access to valuable training and experience. Top-level administrative support has been a critical factor in surmounting these challenges, although more leverage could be provided by sweeping recommendations and policies from governmental funding agencies.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: Products of Center for Scientific Teaching initiatives will be made available to the public as follows: - Instructional materials developed at the Yale Summer Institute are available online - The curriculum for the introductory biology research course will be available through a manuscript (in preparation); eventually we will offer open access to pilot tested and revised curricula for a variety of research course formats - The persistence model is expected to be published in Science later in 2013 - The outcomes of the gender bias film project will be published; if successful, the intervention and supporting materials will be made widely available

Acknowledgements: Jo Handelsman, Director of the Center for Scientific Teaching Mark Graham, Evaluation Director of the Center for Scientific Teaching Corinne Moss-Racusin, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Skidmore College Evava Pietri, Postdoc, Yale Department of Psychology and the Center for Scientific Teaching Tiffany Tsang, Postdoc, the Center for Scientific Teaching

Converting Advanced Lab Courses to Research Collaborations

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: Converting Advanced Lab Courses to Research Collaborations

Name of Author: Douglas Chalker
Author Company or Institution: Washington University
Author Title: Associate Professor
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Bioinformatics, Cell Biology, Genetics, Microbiology, Plant Biology & Botany, Virology
Course Levels: Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Changes in Classroom Approach (flipped classroom, clickers, POGIL, etc.), Mixed Approach
Keywords: Classroom Research CURE Survey Advanced Laboratory Faculty development active inquiry

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): Sarah Elgin, Washington University in St Louis

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: Engaging students in authentic research experiences improves persistence and success in STEM majors and careers. Participation in research is also correlated with improved critical thinking and deeper conceptual understanding of science. To provide as many research opportunities as possible, most biology laboratory courses are now structured as investigative experiences in which students undertake original, collaborative research projects.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: Biology Department Faculty are encouraged to incorporate research projects based on their own research interests into the lab courses that they teach. The success of this approach by a few has encouraged other faculty to develop new courses or redesign previously existing ones in this manner. Almost all current Biology laboratory offerings have investigative components. Class-based, original research experiences encompassing a broad range of subjects (e.g. bioinformatics, molecular and cell biology, biochemistry, immunology and ecology) are now available to a large percentage of our biology majors. Some inquiry-based modules were designed by graduate or post-doctoral teaching assistants, which provided important professional development for this next generation of educators. In Prof. S.C.R. Elgin’s bioinformatics lab (Biology 4342), students are provided a ~40kbp segment of DNA sequence from an ongoing genome project and are asked to suggest needed finishing sequencing and then annotate the region. In Prof. D.L. Chalker’s cell biology lab (Biology 3492), students functionally characterize their own unstudied gene predicted from the genome sequence of the model ciliate Tetrahymena. Students clone their chosen gene, make and describe the localization of a fluorescent protein fusion to the gene’s coding region among other studies.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: In these courses, student data are used to update scientific databases and have been distributed through research publications, with enrolled students acknowledged or recognized as authors, demonstrating that students in class investigative labs can contribute novel research findings (2-5). With professors teaching closely aligned with areas of research interest, they are intellectually engaged, benefit in a tangible manner from the time investment, and are better able to communicate their passion for science. As judged by teaching evaluations and exit surveys, these courses are among students’ favorites from among our offerings. Assessment data collected over four years (n=37) using the Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) survey in one course (Biology 3492) revealed clear gains in students’ understanding of the research process, readiness for more demanding research, understanding how scientists approach real world problems, and the ability to analyze data. Gains in this course compared favorably to the gains noted in a parallel survey of independent undergraduate research experiences (SURE). In addition, course-based research experiences provide other student growth opportunities in areas that are complementary to those that result from independent mentored research, such as science writing and oral presentation.

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Overall, our experiences indicate that encouraging integration of faculty research with teaching can promote the adoption of innovative curriculum, help transform teaching practice throughout a department or other community, and motivate faculty members to promote the most effective pedagogy beyond their own institution.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: One of the biggest challenges is encountered in assessing the effectiveness of this pedagogy. Discipline faculty are not trained in educational assessment and have limited time to develop these skills. Similar challenges are found in dissemination as encouraging faculty at other institutions to adopt this strategy can be difficult without administrative by-in. Seeking outside funding for dissemination can help meet this need as it removes budgetary concerns from the administration.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: In addition to wide adoption of this strategy in the Biology department, several faculty members are engaged in efforts to disseminate their curricula to other institutions. The most successful initiative has been the Genomics Education Partnership (https://gep.wustl.edu) (1), based on Biology 4342, which has been disseminated widely. A second model for dissemination is the Ciliate Genomics Consortium, based on Biology 3492 curriculum, which brings together members of an existing research community to form a professional learning community to implement effective teaching strategies.

Acknowledgements: References: 1. Lopatto, D., et al. 2008. Undergraduate research. Science 322:684-5. 2. Malone, C. D., et al. 2005. Mol Cell Biol 25:9151-64. 3. Malone, C. D., et al. 2008. Eukaryot Cell 7:1487-99. 4. Shaffer, Cet al.. 2010. CBE Life Sci Educ 9:55-69. 5. Leung et al 2010, Genetics 185:1519-1534. Acknowledgements: This abstract reports the efforts of many colleagues: Drs. J Jez, R. Kranz, E, Herzog, B. Carlson,and L. Strader, D. Mendez, and S. Horrell. Funding was provided by HHMI and NSF grants to Washington University or the listed professors.

The Genomics Education Partnership: Shared Research

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: The Genomics Education Partnership: Shared Research

Name of Author: Sarah C R Elgin
Author Company or Institution: Washington University in St Louis
Author Title: Professor
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Bioinformatics, Biotechnology, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics
Course Levels: Independent study / research, Introductory Course(s), Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Changes in Classroom Approach (flipped classroom, clickers, POGIL, etc.)
Keywords: bioinformatics comparative genomics eukaryotic genes/genomes research lab course collaborative network

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: The Genomics Education Partnership (GEP) was founded in 2006 to provide undergraduates with an opportunity to participate in a large-scale genomics research project. By incorporating genomics research into the undergraduate curriculum, the GEP faculty members can provide a research experience for a larger number of students than can generally be accommodated in a traditional summer research program. Our major research goal has been to examine the evolution of the ‘dot’ chromosome (Muller F element) of Drosophila, an unusual domain that exhibits both heterochromatic and euchromatic properties. (Our first publication is Leung, W. et al. 2010 Genetics 185: 1519-1534, Evolution of a distinct genomic domain in Drosophila: Comparative analysis of the dot chromosome in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis. Our second publication, in preparation, will have ~500 student and ~50 faculty co-authors.) Future projects will focus on the expansion of the F element in a subgroup of species, and on the search for conserved motifs specific to this element and its genes.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: Bioinformatics research typically requires only access to computers and the Internet, and thus has lower costs and fewer lab safety concerns than most life science research. While GEP faculty members teach students a common set of bioinformatics protocols, each student in the class applies their knowledge to a unique region of a genome, taking responsibility for their own project. We find that students can effectively acquire many bioinformatics skills through peer instruction, allowing a team approach to the research. A genomics-based course has the advantage that a central website (maintained by W. Leung and C.D. Shaffer, Washington University in St Louis) can support the efforts of a large number of faculty and their students across the country, providing cost-effective implementation. An anonymous survey of the GEP faculty has shown that this central support is of critical importance in enabling the faculty to introduce this novel, research-centered curriculum to their campuses.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: To assess the undergraduate experience, students are asked to take a pre/post course quiz and survey. The quiz tests student knowledge of eukaryotic genes and genomes. The survey examines science-related attitudes, and includes 20 questions that are identical to the nationally utilized Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences. All research projects (~40 kb segments of the domain of interest) are completed at least twice independently by students at different schools, and the results reconciled. Final results are submitted to GenBank and connected to FlyBase.

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Student members of the GEP have improved over 7 megabases of sequence (from the F element, and a euchromatic reference region at the base of the D element) and produced more than 1,000 manually curated gene models, as well as annotating other features of these domains. Last year over 1000 students from 54 colleges and universities participated in GEP-affiliated lab courses. Student results for four Drosophila species are currently being assembled and analyzed to better understand the evolution of this domain (manuscript in preparation). Students show significant gains on the quiz, which tests their understanding of the structure and function of eukaryotic genes and genomes. Their responses on the CURE survey are generally the same or better than responses from students who have spent a summer in a mentored research experience, assessed by the parallel SURE survey (supervised by D. Lopatto, Grinnell College). The pedagogical results confirm and extend our prior findings (Lopatto et al. 2008 Science 322: 684-85, Undergraduate Research: Genomics Education Partnership; Shaffer et al. 2010 CBE-Life Sci Educ 9: 55-69, The Genomics Education Partnership: Successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions). Positive responses on the quiz and survey show little correlation with characteristics of the home institution (e.g. private vs. public, school size, etc.), but do correlate with the amount of time that the faculty member can schedule for GEP-related work (lecture/discussion plus lab time); more time enables a more beneficial research experience. As GEP member schools are very diverse, these results are consistent with the interpretation that students from all backgrounds, working in a variety of settings, will benefit from participating in a research-based lab course.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: While a centralized project such as that run by the GEP is an excellent way for faculty to begin teaching research-based laboratory courses, ultimately one would like that research to be directly tied to the research interests of the individual faculty member. Better bioinformatics interfaces (for example, an easy route for loading a new genome into a browser such as the UCSC Browser) are needed to reach this goal.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: Since its inception, the GEP has grown substantially, and now has over 100 partner schools (see current members at https://gep.wustl.edu). Members join by attending a 3 - 5 day workshop at Washington University. All curriculum is freely available on the GEP website under a Creative Commons license. We find that the collaborative nature of a shared research effort helps to make this an enjoyable and effective way to teach. The results suggest that such national projects are cost-effective, can have a widespread impact on life-science teaching, and should be supported in greater number.

Acknowledgements: I thank all faculty members of the GEP (see https://gep.wustl.edu/community/current_members) and their students; Jeremy Buhler, Elaine Mardis, Chris Shaffer, and Wilson Leung, all of Washington University; and David Lopatto, Grinnell College, for their participation in this project. This work has been supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute through grant #52007051 to SCRE and by Washington University in St Louis.

Inquiry-Based Genomics Lab Module Collection

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: Inquiry-Based Genomics Lab Module Collection

Name of Author: Lois Banta
Author Company or Institution: Williams College
Author Title: Associate Professor
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Bioinformatics, Cell Biology, Ecology and Environmental Biology, Evolutionary Biology, General Biology, Genetics, Integrative Biology, Microbiology, Neuroscience, Organismal Biology, Physiology & Anatomy, Plant Biology & Botany, Virology
Course Levels: Across the Curriculum, Faculty Development, Introductory Course(s), Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Material Development
Keywords: inquiry-based integrative genomics bioinformatics faculty-development

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): Erica J. Crespi, Vassar College Ross H. Nehm, Ohio State University Jodi A. Schwarz, Vassar College Susan Singer, Carleton College Cathryn A. Manduca, Carleton College Eliot C. Bush, Harvey Mudd College Elizabeth Collins, Vassar College Cara M. Constance, Hiram College Derek Dean, Williams College David Esteban, Vassar College Sean Fox, Carleton College John McDaris, Carleton College Carol Ann Paul, Wellesley College Ginny Quinan, Wellesley College Kathleen M. Raley-Susman, Vassar College Marc L. Smith, Vassar College Christopher S. Wallace, Whitman College Ginger S. Withers, Whitman College Lynn Caporale, Consultant

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: The integration of genomic and bioinformatic approaches into undergraduate curricula represents one response to the national calls for biology teaching that is more quantitative and that promotes deeper understanding of biological systems through interdisciplinary analyses. Yet relatively few of the faculty members who teach undergraduate biology have expertise in the fields of genomics or bioinformatics. For these instructors, designing new teaching labs in a field that is developing so rapidly can feel particularly daunting. Our genomics education initiative was designed to address the challenges of helping faculty members integrate genome-scale science into the undergraduate classroom.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: The project utilized a grassroots model for faculty development, by supporting a national consortium of faculty members from eight liberal arts colleges in 1) learning about genomics and bioinformatics; 2) developing curriculum and laboratory teaching materials that stem from their own research and/or teaching interests, and that are informed by research in the learning sciences; and 3) devising tools to evaluate the efficacy of their genomics curricular innovations. Three workshops over three years supported these goals through a combination of learning from expertise within the participating group and from outside expertise on specific topics. The workshops brought together a total of 34 faculty participants from 19 institutions to develop a set of lab modules containing a substantial genomics component. Building on a proven faculty development model formulated by the geoscience education community, we complemented the multi-workshop program with a web-based interactive information portal. The initiative was structured such that the iterative interactions resulting from our three-workshop series would allow participants to share the experience of curriculum development, from the inception of an idea for a curricular module to the assessment of the implementation of that module, thereby generating a community of genomics educators among undergraduate institutions in the process. In addition, by bringing together educators from different institutions and scientific backgrounds, we aimed to stimulate discussion of interdisciplinary approaches to teaching genomics and facilitate the establishment of collaborations with other colleges and universities.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: Products include peer-reviewed, guided inquiry-based, integrated instructional units (I3Us) adaptable to a range of teaching settings, with a focus on both model and non-model systems. Each curricular module is built on vetted design principles: (1) they have clear pedagogical objectives; (2) they are integrated with lessons taught in the lecture; (3) they are designed to integrate the learning of science content with learning about the process of science; and (4) they require student reflection and discussion (National Research Council, America’s Lab Report, Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision; 2005). Each I3U was peer reviewed by fellow participants, as well as by a professional project consultant who has extensive experience with web-based description of teaching materials using this format to ensure that the I3U met the design criteria articulated above, and to evaluate whether the Activity Sheet provided both an easily accessible overview of the content and enough detailed information for other instructors to adapt and implement the material and its associated assessment strategies.

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Eleven I3Us were designed and implemented as multi-week modules within the context of an existing biology course (e.g., Microbiology, Comparative Anatomy, Introduction to Neurobiology); an additional three I3Us were incorporated into interdisciplinary Biology/Computer Science classes. Although these I3Us were designed for courses currently taught by the project participant within the specific institution’s curriculum, we propose that they can be inserted into other courses that encompass similar content and/or learning goals. We have received numerous communications from colleagues at other institutions who have adapted our I3Us for their courses.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: Many participants lacked expertise needed to analyze sequence data or design wet labs and were overwhelmed by the array of possible tools, deciding which tools were useful in which scientific contexts, and the challenges of mastering their user interfaces. Some were concerned about teaching material with which they had little previous scientific experience. Most were isolated from colleagues who shared their interest or had the needed expertise to support their initial learning in this area. We provided hands-on training in three intensive days of short workshops, enabling participants to become familiar with bioinformatic tools for finding sequences, predicting the structure of proteins, visualizing and comparing genomes, and constructing phylogenetic trees. Participants who needed significantly more time to explore the tools and develop self-sufficiency maintained communication with at least one of the presenters over the course of the year, to obtain more training and to get ideas. For many, adapting bioinformatics tools into their modules was more easily accomplished by asking phylogenetic questions rather than adapting tools that could be used to explore genome-level questions of gene function or structure. The greatest challenge was that no robust assessment system, characterized by valid and reliable instruments evaluated by experts in education and psychometrics, existed to assess the efficacy of newly developed genomics and bioinformatics curricula. To help faculty build assessment tools, we provided: (1) A professional development session for faculty participants that reviewed the basics of educational assessment and the types of tools that could be employed in assessment efforts; (2) Individualized consultations to help participants build their assessments; and (3) Individualized consultations with faculty to assist in the interpretation of assessment data derived from point (2) above.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: All modules, together with extensive supporting material, are accessible on a dedicated website (https://serc.carleton.edu/genomics/activities.html) that also provides links to bioinformatics tools and on-line assessment and pedagogical resources, as well as all presentations from all three workshops, pre- and post-workshop content, and suggested readings provided by workshop leaders. The project website serves as a portal to Activity Sheets describing each I3U; these Activity Sheets include learning goals, teaching tips, and links to teaching materials, as well as downloadable assessment tools, that can be customized by any interested educator. Information about the collection of I3Us has been disseminated via publication.

Acknowledgements: This information has been published previously (Cell Biology Education-Life Science Education 11:203-208; 2012). The project was funded by the Teagle Foundation, with supplemental support from Williams College, Vassar College, and Schering-Plough.

Internships for Undergraduate Students with Disabilities

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: Internships for Undergraduate Students with Disabilities

Name of Author: Richard Mankin
Author Company or Institution: USDA-ARS-Center for Med., Agric., Vet. Entomology
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Agricultural Sciences, Biophysics, Ecology and Environmental Biology, Organismal Biology
Course Levels: Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Assessment, Research
Keywords: interdisciplinarity assessment research agriculture mentorship

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: Enhance research experiences of undergraduate biology students with disabilities by providing internships at an agricultural research laboratory. In the last three years, we have focused more on internships in the broader context of the students' educational institutions and our local resources. In interactions with the interns’ educational institutions, we have coordinated research projects of interns with their instructors and facilitated incorporation of the research into their coursework. Subsequent presentations by the interns to classmates were expected to be of benefit to the class and to the instructors. Also, we have encouraged interns to interact with other researchers and technical staff at the Center and nearby institutions, including the University of Florida and the Florida Division of Plant Industry.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: Design multidisciplinary research projects that can be completed during a summer. The projects include components of pest management, biology, electronic and acoustic technology, and computer programming. Coordinate efforts with instructors and advisors at the students' educational institutions. Provide opportunities for additional interaction of students with other researchers in multiple institutions in the local area (University of Florida, Florida Division of Plant Industry). Wherever possible, make opportunities for the students to explore areas of interest where they have particular skills or strengths. Include field trips to nearby farms and agribusinesses. Assess results.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: Discussions with interns, staff, and researchers. Adaptations of survey tools discussed in Vision and Change Final Report

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Students were enthusiastic at the enhanced opportunities to interact with peers and other researchers in carrying out their projects, as well as to obtain feedback from farmers. Many of the technical and scientific staff responded with helpful suggestions and opened their labs to further interactions and learning experiences for the interns. Feedback was provided in seminars where the interns presented their work. Assessments enabled identification of problem areas.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: The intense level of activity caused additional stress for some of the staff not used to working with young persons. Contact with these staff was reduced whenever possible, and the impact was lessened by the short, 8-week duration of the internships. In addition, each student has different interests and needs, and each research project has different dead-ends and barriers to overcome. Aspects of several projects failed. Fear, caution, or unfamiliarity often presents high barriers to interactions with persons who have apparent disabilities. Seminars where students presented information and brainstorming sessions helped overcome some of these challenges.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: Journal articles by the interns have been published, seminars have been presented, and researchers have been recruited as mentors for next year.

Acknowledgements: Funding from the Citrus Research and Development Foundation, and support and helpful comments from many local staff and researchers.

A New Microbiology Curriculum Based on Vision & Change

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: A New Microbiology Curriculum Based on Vision & Change

Name of Author: Ann Stevens
Author Company or Institution: Virginia Tech
Author Title: Professor
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Microbiology, Virology
Course Levels: Across the Curriculum, Faculty Development, Introductory Course(s), Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Mixed Approach
Keywords: General Microbiology, curricular guidelines, learning outcomes, backward design, professional society network

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): Sue Merkel, Cornell University Amy Chang, American Society for Microbiology

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: Meaningful reform must come from many venues, including faculty and professional societies. In particular, professional societies play a critical and unique role as they have national stature, deep networks and resources, and respect from a wide range of faculty. In 2010, the AAAS and the NSF released the report Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. In light of these recommendations, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) revised its curriculum guidelines for introductory microbiology courses to emphasize deep understanding of core concepts, critical thinking and essential laboratory skills. In 2011, the ASM appointed a task force to develop a curriculum that would be relevant to both biology majors and allied health students. Early on, the task force adopted the five overarching concepts presented in Vision and Change. A sixth concept based on the potential applications of microbiology was added. The final list of core concepts is: evolution, cell structure and function, metabolic pathways, information flow and genetics, microbial systems and the impact of microorganisms.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: Task force members affirmed the process outlined by Vision and Change and adopted the framework of ‘backwards design’ (Wiggins and McTighe), in which curricula are designed around learning goals and assessments. Initially, they examined curricula from a variety of introductory microbiology courses and created a list of 24 ‘fundamental statements.’ Each fundamental statement is linked to one core concept and identifies an essential concept in microbiology. For example, a fundamental statement under the core concept of ‘Metabolic Pathways’ is ‘The growth of microorganisms can be controlled by physical, chemical, mechanical, or biological means.’ Each statement is purposefully broad, with the intention that educators use the statements to develop learning goals and assessments particular to their courses. The task force further embraced development of student skills, including understanding the process of science, communication and collaboration skills, quantitative competency, and the ability to interpret data. They added key laboratory skills which are critical for microbiology. Knowing it was vital to engage the educator community, the task force solicited feedback from ASM members on three occasions. The first was via an online survey that asked respondents to rate each fundamental statement and suggest ideas for additional ones. Based on feedback from more than 165 educators, the task force produced a second draft and subsequently solicited feedback from participants at the 2011 ASM Conference for Undergraduate Educators (ASMCUE). Over 140 educators participated, providing critical feedback. The third draft was published in the Society’s monthly magazine for members (nearly 40,000 readers) as well as on the ASM website (www.asm.org). Comments were collected from the community, which led to the final version. Feedback indicates a consensus on the fundamental knowledge that students should obtain in microbiology.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: We are currently working to identify educators who have adopted the curriculum to document its implementation. In addition, because this represents a significant change in how many educators teach, we are engaging the community in discussions about how to use the guidelines and developing resources to encourage adoption. We will work with educators at a variety of different institutions to assess the impact of this new approach through surveys and questionnaires.

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Our hope is that as they adopt this curriculum, educators will also adopt the process of backward design. Our first step is to help educators learn how to write learning objectives, which guide students to understand the fundamental statements. To that end, ASM sponsored a plenary working session at the 2013 ASMCUE helping the participants to write learning outcomes that are mapped to the ASM curriculum guidelines. An ASM Task Committee is being formed to shepherd this work through a consensus-building process.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: The new curriculum is asking most educators to change how they teach, from being content based to being focused on skills and learning. To ensure community acceptance of the ASM guidelines, the necessary scaffolding for faculty to implement guidelines and change practices is paramount. The plan is to develop a clearinghouse of practical, user-friendly resources during 2013-2014 (e.g. learning outcomes mapped to core concepts and accompanied by active learning activities) and a virtual community of practitioners involved in classroom improvements to help microbiology faculty adopt the guidelines. Finally, the ASM is engaging textbook writers and publishers to work together to advance the curriculum.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: This community-driven, consensus-building approach ensures that microbiology educators will incorporate the ASM recommended guidelines in future activities, presentations, classes, courses and programs. The national framework of concepts, statements, assessments and learning goals enable educators to more easily adapt the guidelines to their teaching needs. The ASM Task Committee will match teaching resources with learning goals, providing a range of activities that illustrate each fundamental statement in numerous ways for diverse student audiences. The resources and approaches enable students to build an enduring understanding of core microbiology concepts, as was called for in Vision and Change. Ultimately, the guidelines and supporting material have been developed by, with and for microbiologists. The ASM approach of engaging a leading disciplinary society in developing, implementing and advancing curriculum guidelines is a model for other societies.

Acknowledgements: NA

Biochemistry Curriculum Initiatives at UVA

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: Biochemistry Curriculum Initiatives at UVA

Name of Author: Linda Columbus
Author Company or Institution: University of Virginia
Author Title: Asst. Prof.
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biophysics
Course Levels: Across the Curriculum, Faculty Development, Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Assessment, Changes in Classroom Approach (flipped classroom, clickers, POGIL, etc.), Material Development
Keywords: Integrated, research-based, active learning, curriculum design, engaging the community

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): John Hawley, University of Virginia

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: The goal of our initiatives is to increase student learning through the design of an integrated and research-based curriculum and creating an institutional and national community of faculty.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: Student-centered learning. A research-based undergraduate biochemistry laboratory was designed. The students’ (85-90 per year) biochemically characterize a protein for which a 3D structure has been determined, but functional data is not reported. Effective teaching practices were introduced and learning materials were developed. Students use knowledge from this course and past courses to design and execute a functional assay of their protein. The year-long course concludes with student groups preparing a manuscript, and orally presenting a poster detailing their results. I developed an upper-level course “From Lab Bench to Medicine Cabinet” that utilizes the CREATE method to teach students how to read primary literature that highlights basic science contributions to therapeutic development. The students share and lead discussion using the steps of the CREATE method. The students write two research papers on a therapeutic and give two presentations. Campuswide commitment to change. I received a UVA grant to fund outside speakers to demonstrate the balance of teaching and research and the adoption of effective teaching practices (~80 UVA faculty). In addition, I have organized a group (20 faculty) in the college that focuses on increasing minority participation through the UVA LSAMP program. Engaging the biology community. I organized a workshop “Teaching Science Like We Do Science” at the annual Biophysics Society meeting (~50 participants/yr). I participate and help organize a New Faculty Workshop for Chemistry faculty that focuses on effective teaching practices and assessment (PI, Andrew Feig)

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: For the research-based laboratory course, a number of different assessments (SALG, learning gain focused grading rubrics, and pre- and post-testing) show that the students learning gains improved with the designed year-long undergraduate biochemistry laboratory. For the Lab Bench to Medicine Cabinet, I assess their learning through the development of their concept maps and the quality of their writing assignments and presentations

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Since the courses have been offered, ~360 students have participated. For the courses developed, the students perceive increased confidence and performance in biochemistry concept and performance, and in scientific literacy. Based on the course assessments, the students have achieved the learning goals that we have established. It is difficult to assess the impacts on the faculty and institutions that my efforts have had. Anecdotally, some faculty have engaged and come together with interest and determination to change their curriculum and methods. This year, our general chemistry laboratory has begun to implement active-learning modules. Our initiatives provided a ground-up approach by enabling the faculty to generate ideas and interests to match the administrations initiatives and funding for change.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: Organizing a research-based laboratory for 85 students has come with many unanticipated difficulties. Training teaching assistants in active-learning instruction was a major challenge. In addition, detailed grading rubrics still remain a challenge in terms of reliable assessment of learning gains. Uninterested and unwillingness to accept or adopt change in the faculty is still a major challenge. In addition, convincing the faculty that quality teaching and research are not mutually exclusive is still a major challenge.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: In order to facilitate adoption of a similar curriculum by others, this course was intentionally designed to be highly modular. This modularity allows instructors to focus on standalone portions of the curriculum. Furthermore, widespread dissemination of the course material is enabled by a website (https://biochemlab.org).

Acknowledgements: NSF MCB 0845668, NSF DUE 1044858, and a Cottrell Scholar Award from the Research Corporation for the Advancement of Science.

Molecular Biology Simulations for Case Based Learning

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: Molecular Biology Simulations for Case Based Learning

Name of Author: Karen Klyczek
Author Company or Institution: University of Wisconsin-River Falls
Author Title: Professor
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Agricultural Sciences, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Bioinformatics, Biotechnology, Cell Biology, Evolutionary Biology, General Biology, Genetics, Immunology, Integrative Biology, Microbiology, Virology
Course Levels: Introductory Course(s), Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Changes in Classroom Approach (flipped classroom, clickers, POGIL, etc.), Material Development
Keywords: computer simulations case studies bioinformatics molecular biology

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): Mark Bergland, University of Wisconsin-River Falls

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: Our goal is to facilitate case studies and other active learning strategies via development of computer simulations of molecular biology lab techniques. This project addresses Vision and Change recommendation to relate biology concepts to real-world examples and make biology content relevant for students. The NSF-funded Case It project has produced case studies mainly in genetic and infectious diseases, in which students use simulation software to analyze authentic DNA and proteins sequences associated with the cases. By analyzing these cases, students address several core competencies, including applying the process of science, using quantitative reasoning, using modeling and simulation, and understanding the relationship between science and society. Based in part on the recommendations in the Vision and Change report, we have developed materials designed to prepare students for research projects involving bioinformatics analysis, to extend the existing case studies and for use with student-generated experiments. The software and materials are made available free of charge on the Case It web site (www.caseitproject.org) and have been used by secondary and undergraduate schools worldwide. Case It was awarded a 2011 Science Prize for Inquiry-based Instruction (Bergland et al. 2012, Science 337, 426 (2012).

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: Case It is an open-ended simulation that reads any nucleotide or amino acid sequence file, and includes methods for analyzing DNA and proteins. These methods include restriction digestion and mapping, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), DNA electrophoresis, Southern blotting and dot blotting, microarray analysis, protein electrophoresis, Western blotting, and ELISA. Bioinformatics capabilities (sequence alignment, tree building) have been added via integration with MEGA software. The download includes the simulation as well as all of the sequences necessary to run the cases described on the web site. The case descriptions can be viewed from the Case It home page or downloaded as a pdf file. Students read case scenarios and explore background information for the case. They then use the simulation to open sequence files associated with the case and run the appropriate procedure to analyze the sequences, generating results in the form of images that can then be incorporated into presentations or reports. At the introductory-biology level, students can assume roles of persons in the cases, such as health-care professionals, lab technicians, researchers, or hypothetical family members. They then discuss results either in person or online. The open-ended nature of the simulation encourages inquiry by enabling users to analyze any DNA sequence, including entire viral or bacterial genomes, with any probe, primer, or restriction enzyme. For example, freshmen at UWRF participating in the HHMI Science Education Alliance PHAGES project use the Case It simulation to generate virtual digests of known phage genomes for comparison with actual gels of their newly discovered phages.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: Assessment of the use of the Case It materials has demonstrated that it provides an active and collaborative learning environment that engages and motivates students. Pre- and post testing as well as individual and focus group interviews were used to assess its impact on student learning and perceptions in courses at several institutions in the United States and Puerto Rico. In all courses, students demonstrated significant learning gains as a result of using the simulation to analyze case studies involving bioinformatics analysis. In addition, students reported that the activities allowed them to explore science concepts from multiple perspectives in a real world context. The instructor-independent efficacy demonstrated in these studies indicates that the use of Case It materials has the potential to be scalable in a variety of institution types.

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Since 2012, the Case It software has been used by more than 10,000 students at 60 schools around the world. It was downloaded by many more faculty, from 105 different countries, so there is likely to be additional use that we have not been able to document. When we have assessed the impact on students in classes as described above, students using Case It showed improved post-test scores, and students' confidence in their knowledge also increased (Wolter et al., 2012, J Sci Educ Technol DOI 10.1007/s10956-012-9387-7). Faculty involved in software development, case writing, and assessment have been able to cite this work as scholarly activity for retention, promotion and tenure purposes.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: Barriers to implementation of the Case It software include the need for faculty training in the use of the simulation. To address this issue, we have given many workshops at professional meetings and at the invitation of biology departments. We also have developed screencast tutorials that are posted on the web site. The web site also includes discussion forums where questions about the use of the simulation can be addressed. Finally, we are exploring the development of mobile applications of the software for use on tablets and other devices.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: We have given over 50 presentations, including workshops, oral presentations, and posters, at science education meetings in a variety of venues. In 2013 so far, we have presented at the NSF/AAAS TUES conference, American Society for Microbiology Conference for Undergraduate Educators, Science Case Network conference, and HHMI Quantitative Biology/BioQUEST workshop. We no longer have grant funding, but still plan to present at conferences as funding allows. Limited travel funds are available through the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, and from conference organizers when we are invited to present. We have published several papers describing strategies for implementing Case It and assessing its effectiveness, in Science, the Journal of Science Education Technology, American Biology Teacher, and others. In 2011 we joined the Science Case Network RCN-UBE project, and are collaborating with other case study and problem based learning projects to dissemination information and resources for faculty interesting in incorporating these active learning strategies (www.sciencecasenet.org). In 2012, the Case It web site, www.caseitproject.org, has been updated to include more interactive features and facilitate more effective dissemination of materials, and will continue to be updated.

Acknowledgements: The National Science Foundation has provided funding to support development, dissemination, and assessment of Case It materials (DUE grants 9455425, 9752268, 0229156, 0717577). Mary Lundeberg, formerly at Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, has coordinated assessment of the project, with assistance from undergraduate and graduate students; in particular, Bjorn Wolter, former MSU graduate student. Chi-Cheng Lin assisted with critical aspects of the software that allowed incorporation of bioinformatics features. Rafael Tosado, Interamerican University of Puerto Rico-Metro Campus, Arlin Toro, Interamerican University of Puerto Rico-San German, and C. Dinitra White, North Carolina A & T State Unviversity, assisted in case development and assessment in their courses. Kim Mogen, Brad Mogen, University of Wisconsin-River Falls, and Eric Ribbens, Western Illinois University, have written case scenarios. Numerous faculty and student users have provided feedback on software features and ideas for new cases. The University of Wisconsin-River Falls College of Arts & Sciences and Provost’s office have provided support for faculty time and travel to conferences.

Expanding a Research-Infused Botanical Curriculum

Return to search results | New search

Title of Abstract: Expanding a Research-Infused Botanical Curriculum

Name of Author: Jennifer Ward
Author Company or Institution: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Author Title: Assistant Professor
PULSE Fellow: No
Applicable Courses: Agricultural Sciences, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Ecology and Environmental Biology, General Biology, Plant Biology & Botany
Course Levels: Across the Curriculum, Introductory Course(s), Upper Division Course(s)
Approaches: Adding to the literature on how people learn, Assessment, Changes in Classroom Approach (flipped classroom, clickers, POGIL, etc.), Material Development
Keywords: assessment, consortium, inquiry, plant biology, undergraduate research,

Name, Title, and Institution of Author(s): H. David Clarke, University of North Carolina at Asheville Jonathan L. Horton, University of North Carolina at Asheville

Goals and intended outcomes of the project or effort, in the context of the Vision and Change report and recommendations: Our goals were to incorporate inquiry-based research experiences into undergraduate plant biology courses , including lower-division botany (required of all majors), so that all students had an authentic undergraduate research experience. We hoped to improve student learning of course content and familiarize them with the scientific process. Finally, we worked to overcome barriers of faculty time, student time/preparation, and funding.

Describe the methods and strategies that you are using: Undergraduate students developed and tested curricular modules based on their own independent research projects. These modules were tested by other research students before being used in a classroom setting. Then, undergraduate classroom students used modules in their plant biology lab courses, generating hypotheses and data related to the larger research project. In the past three years, we have involved over 300 classroom students and 12 undergraduate research mentors in this project.

Describe the evaluation methods that you used (or intended to use) to determine whether the project or effort achieved the desired goals and outcomes: To determine if exposure to the research-infused botanical curriculum increased students' content knowledge, we administered a quiz in Moodle courseware. To assess the effects of our new curriculum on students' scientific process, we used rubric scores on two journal-style papers; the rubric was tested for intergrader reliability. All data were analyzed with SAS 9.2 with PROC GLM and PROC PAIREDT.

Impacts of project or effort on students, fellow faculty, department or institution. If no time to have an impact, anticipated impacts: Student scores on journal-style papers rose after use of our curricular modules (P = 0.001), and sophomores improved their abilities to state hypotheses (P = 0.001), identify types of variables (P = 0.001), and choose appropriate statistical analyses (P = 0.017). Comparing pre- and post-test results demonstrated that students perceived significant gains in field experience, experimental design and analysis ability, writing experience, comfort with citing primary scientific literature, and recognizing the importance of plant science (P < 0.05 for all). In addition, they gained content knowledge in some botanical subdisciplines (P < 0.05). Research students also showed positive shifts in attitudes towards teaching and their own research. Our approach has now been adopted by other courses, departments, and regional universities.

Describe any unexpected challenges you encountered and your methods for dealing with them: In response to students' ongoing challenges in data interpretation, we have changed the way in which we teach these subjects.

Describe your completed dissemination activities and your plans for continuing dissemination: Results have been presented at 4 disciplinary conferences and 2 education conferences, and we are preparing them for publication. In late 2012, we created a coordinated undergraduate research network to investigate Southern Appalachian ecosystems’ resilience to environmental change. This research focus will serve as a platform for imparting botanical knowledge while advancing quantitative literacy, improving student attitudes towards STEM and NOS (Nature of Science), teaching creative STEM thinking, and encouraging higher-order cognitive processes. The place-based curricular modules that we are creating will be partially developed and administered by undergraduate and graduate research students (3 graduate T.A.s per year) and will have a direct impact on the learning of over 1000 undergraduates per year, including B.S.Ed. students.

Acknowledgements: Undergraduate research students included Scott Arico, Katherine Culatta, Jacob Francis, David Greene, Jennafer Hamlin, Ashley Hanes, Karissa Keen, Aaron Maser, Joseph McKenna, Megan Rayfield, Matt Searels, Katherine Selm, and Emmalie von Kuilenberg. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation (DUE 0942776) and the North Carolina Biotechnology Center.