Abstract Preparation for ASMCUE Hosted by Min-Ken Liao, Furman University

Abstract Preparation for ASMCUE Hosted by Min-Ken Liao, Furman University The webinar will start promptly at 11:30 AM EST Enable your speakers: -click on the dropdown arrow next to the speaker icon (top of screen) -click “Unmute my speakers” and your speaker icon should turn green -adjust the presentation volume by clicking on the dropdown arrow next to the speaker icon and clicking “Adjust speaker volume” You will be able to communicate with Jen and the other participants by typing in the chat box in the lower right-hand side of the screen Use the “Raise your hand” button at the top of the page and click the dropdown to agree or disagree during various points in the presentation Warm-up Assignment: While we are waiting for everyone to join, please visit the links in the “While You are Waiting” box! Click a link title, then click “Browse To.” For technical issues, please contact Lyndsey Van Druff lvandruff@asmusa.orgor 202-942-9322

ASMCUEMay 16-19, 2013The Inverness Hotel & Conference CenterEnglewood, Colorado Introduction to ASMCUE Kelly A. Gull Manager, Faculty Programs American Society for Microbiology

ASMCUE 2013Steering Committee Chair Todd Primm Sam Houston State University Huntsville, TX Microbrew Review Chair Jennifer HerzogHerkimer County Community College Herkimer, NY Vice Chair Mary Mawn Empire State College Saratoga Springs, NY Local Organizer Aimee BernardUniversity of Colorado, Denver Denver, CO Abstract Review Chair Robyn Puffenbarger Bridgewater College Bridgewater, VA Local Organizer Timberley Roane University of Colorado, Denver Denver, CO

ASM Leadership and Staff Chair, ASM Education Board Neil Baker Ohio State University (retired) Ocean City, MD Manager, Faculty Programs Kelly GullASM Washington, DC Chair, ASM Committee on Undergraduate Education Sue Merkel Cornell University Ithaca, NY Coordinator, Faculty Programs Michelle Slone ASM Washington, DC Director, ASM Education Department Amy Chang ASM Washington, DC

“Blending Science and Education” Plenary Lectures Science Sessions Pedagogy Sessions Resource Sessions New! Assessment Tools Sessions Microbrew Symposia Poster Session Topical Meal Sessions Exhibit Program ASMCUEProgram

ASMCUE 2012 – 336 attendees 45-50% First-time attendees 40% Masters and doctoral institutions 35% Undergraduate institutions 25% Community colleges 6% International 50% Teaching > 10 years 87% ASM members 20% ASM General Meeting attendance Who Attends ASMCUE?

Students • 75% Biology • 55% Nursing • 25% Non-majors biology • 15% Microbiology • 15% Doctoral/medical microbiology Courses • 52% Introductory microbiology • 66% Introductory biology • 43% Upper division microbiology/biology • 13% Human anatomy and physiology Who/What Do Participants Teach?

Promoting Scholarship Poster Presentations Microbiology & biology education research Demonstration of a scientific problem (hypothesis and/or statement of problem, methods used, results and conclusion) Assessment of student learning required Abstracts published in Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 34 presentations in 2012 Microbrew Sessions Best practices/favorite laboratory or classroom activity No assessment required 15-minute “chalk talk” oral presentation 42 presentations in 2012

Location A - Denver International Airport (DEN)B – The Inverness Hotel and Conference CtrC - Colorado Convention Center A  B ~30 milesB  C ~17 miles

Fees & asm2013 • ASMCUE Early Reg Fees:$699 ASM Member; $799 Non-member • Hotel: $110 per night plus tax; attendees can stay on through asm 2013 • Transportation to downtown Denver:complimentary hotel shuttle to light rail; Dry Creek Station – 40 min to Convention Center stop; $8.00 round trip • Saturday evening:“Field Trip” to asm2013 Opening Session and Reception; Transportation provided; New! $20 Fee • (211 attendees in 2012) • Sunday at asm2013:One-day complimentary registration May 19th only; Transportation not provided • (174 attendees in 2012)

ASMCUE 2013 Timeline January 1, 2013 Conference Registration Opens February 1, 2013 Abstract Submission Deadline February 8, 2013 Travel Award Submission Deadline February 15, 2013 Microbrew Abstract Submission Deadline March 15, 2013 Early-Bird Registration Deadline April 12, 2013 Conference Registration Closed May 16-19, 2013 ASMCUE May 18-21, 2013 ASM General Meeting

Abstract Preparation for ASMCUE Min-Ken Liao Furman University January 14 and 15, 2013

Outline • Process of review • Immediate rejections • Accepts • Modifies • Guidelines and rubric • Three things to remember • Suggestions • Q&A • Survey

Aligning ASMCUE Abstracts Aligning ASMCUE Abstracts to Biological ConceptsIn 2009, ASM established a curriculum task force to update the ASM Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Microbiology Education. Building on the 2011 Vision and Change report which urged faculty to refrain from presenting science as a sea of facts and work towards ensuring that students have a foundational understanding in biology, the Committee affirmed the core biological concepts of evolution, structure and function, pathways, information flow and systems. They also identified a sixth concept specific to microbiology, the impact of microorganisms. Abstract authors will be asked to identify up to two concepts that best relate to their submission. Seeking Abstracts related to Microbiology of Brewing Beer and West Nile VirusIn a series aimed at delving more deeply into the microbiology behind events in the news, the ASM Education Board and the American Academy of Microbiology (AAM) will present on two topics at ASMCUE: If the Yeast ain’t Happy, ain’t Nobody Happy: The Microbiology of Beer; and FAQ: West Nile Virus. In an effort to develop supporting materials for educators to incorporate activities that deepen students' understanding about these topics, AAM is seeking help from the ASM educator community. The FAQ Series is available at the Academy website in pdf format. Please review the materials and consider submitting an abstract that is aligned with these topics to either the Poster Presentation Session or as a Microbrew activity. MERKEL, S.. The Development of Curricular Guidelines for Introductory Microbiology that Focus on Understanding. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, North America, 13, feb. 2012. Available at: <http://jmbe.asm.org/index.php/jmbe/article/view/363>. Date accessed: 13 Jan. 2013

Process of review • In 2012, 46 were reviewed and 34 were accepted. • This year: Two teams of three with a chair • Two criteria • Demonstration of a scientific problem • Quality of written content • A spread sheet • Three outcomes: R, A, and M • When reviewers agree • When reviewers don’t agree

Immediate rejections • If you were an abstract reviewer, what kinds of abstracts will you reject right away? Please enter your answers.

Immediate rejections: top 10 • Selling a product, including graduate school recruit • Irrelevant (out of scope): missed ASM GM deadline • Have been published and/or presented before May 16, 2013 • Not innovative • No hypothesis/question • Objective unclear • Inadequate experimental methods • Insufficient data • Student learning unaddressed • No conclusions

Immediate accepts • What do good abstracts have in common? Please enter your answers.

Immediate accepts • We accepted this one right away without positive results in 2010.

Examination of the Progress towards Cognitive Development in Engineering and Science Students Enrolled in Biology Courses J. B. O’Connor. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN This study examined the intellectual development and critical thinking skills in students enrolled in courses in the general biology sequence over a 3-year period. The study stems from a noted decline in student performance in the third course in the general biology sequence compared to the first course. Also, student attitudes towards the third course were poor. The third course is more challenging as it includes in-class activities to foster critical thinking with many additional application level questions (according to Bloom’s taxonomy) on the exams. The hypotheses for this study were: 1) the introduction of study skills into the first course would help improve student performance and development of critical thinking skills in the third course and 2) these lessons may foster intellectual development. To test these hypotheses, study skill exercises (note-taking, concept mapping, asking and answering questions, self-evaluation) were introduced into 1 of 4 sections in Fall, 2007 and 2 of 3 sections in Fall, 2008. A survey to measure student attitudes, confidence, and intellectual development according to the Perry scheme was administered to students in the first and third courses. In addition, grades and performance on critical thinking questions were examined. Data sets were compared using a t-test assuming equal variance. The students introduced to study skills did not statistically differ from the control students in regard to grades in the third course (p = 0.23, 2008; p = 0.31, 2009; p = 0.39, 2010), critical thinking (p = .41, 2008; p = 0.35, 2009; p = 0.43, 2010), attitudes (p= 0.31, Q1; p = 0.33, Q2), and confidence (p = 0.42, Q3; p = 0.30, Q4). Students did not differ in intellectual development (p=.42) with almost all students placing at the dualism level. Biomedical engineering (BE) majors do not take the third course in sequence but delay the course for a year. As the majority of the students were BE majors (83%, study skills; 72% control), this discontinuity with the introduction of engineering courses may have impacted the results.

Examination of the Progress towards Cognitive Development in Engineering and Science Students Enrolled in Biology Courses J. B. O’Connor. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN This study examined the intellectual development and critical thinking skills in students enrolled in courses in the general biology sequence over a 3-year period. The study stems from a noted decline in student performance in the third course in the general biology sequence compared to the first course. Also, student attitudes towards the third course were poor. The third course is more challenging as it includes in-class activities to foster critical thinking with many additional application level questions (according to Bloom’s taxonomy) on the exams. The hypotheses for this study were: 1) the introduction of study skills into the first course would help improve student performance and development of critical thinking skills in the third course and 2) these lessons may foster intellectual development. To test these hypotheses, study skill exercises (note-taking, concept mapping, asking and answering questions, self-evaluation) were introduced into 1 of 4 sections in Fall, 2007 and 2 of 3 sections in Fall, 2008. A survey to measure student attitudes, confidence, and intellectual development according to the Perry scheme was administered to students in the first and third courses. In addition,grades and performance on critical thinking questions were examined. Data sets were compared using a t-test assuming equal variance. The students introduced to study skills did not statistically differ from the control students in regard to grades in the third course (p = 0.23, 2008; p = 0.31, 2009; p = 0.39, 2010), critical thinking (p = .41, 2008; p = 0.35, 2009; p = 0.43, 2010), attitudes (p= 0.31, Q1; p = 0.33, Q2), and confidence (p = 0.42, Q3; p = 0.30, Q4). Students did not differ in intellectual development (p=.42) with almost all students placing at the dualism level. Biomedical engineering (BE) majors do not take the third course in sequence but delay the course for a year. As the majority of the students were BE majors (83%, study skills; 72% control), this discontinuity with the introduction of engineering courses may have impacted the results.

Examination of the Progress towards Cognitive Development in Engineering and Science Students Enrolled in Biology Courses J. B. O’Connor. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN This study examined the intellectual development and critical thinking skills in students enrolled in courses in the general biology sequence over a 3-year period. The study stems from a noted decline in student performance in the third course in the general biology sequence compared to the first course. Also, student attitudes towards the third course were poor. The third course is more challenging as it includes in-class activities to foster critical thinking with many additional application level questions (according to Bloom’s taxonomy) on the exams. The hypotheses for this study were: 1) the introduction of study skills into the first course would help improve student performance and development of critical thinking skills in the third course and 2) these lessons may foster intellectual development. To test these hypotheses, study skill exercises (note-taking, concept mapping, asking and answering questions, self-evaluation) were introduced into 1 of 4 sections in Fall, 2007 and 2 of 3 sections in Fall, 2008. A survey to measure student attitudes, confidence, and intellectual development according to the Perry scheme was administered to students in the first and third courses. In addition, grades and performance on critical thinking questions were examined. Data sets were compared using a t-test assuming equal variance. The students introduced to study skills did not statistically differ from the control students in regard to grades in the third course (p = 0.23, 2008; p = 0.31, 2009; p = 0.39, 2010), critical thinking (p = .41, 2008; p = 0.35, 2009; p = 0.43, 2010), attitudes (p= 0.31, Q1; p = 0.33, Q2), and confidence (p = 0.42, Q3; p = 0.30, Q4). Students did not differ in intellectual development (p=.42) with almost all students placing at the dualism level. Biomedical engineering (BE) majors do not take the third course in sequence but delay the course for a year. As the majority of the students were BE majors (83%, study skills; 72% control), this discontinuity with the introduction of engineering courses may have impacted the results.

Immediate accepts • Why didn’t we ask her to modify? • Two criteria: • Demonstration of a scientific problem • Quality of written content • Benefits of being in the meeting

Modifies • Everything in between R and A • If you were a reviewer: What’s in (or not in) an abstract would make you mark “M”? • Please enter your answers.

Modifies • Mechanical problems • Good project but unclear abstract • Try to get to the bottom of a seemingly finished project

Any questions so far?

Guidelines and rubric • Guidelines • Abstracts are limited to 1850 characters (excluding spaces). Completed abstracts should be submitted by midnight PST on February 1, 2013 at the Abstract Submission Site

Guidelines and rubric • Guidelines • The abstract should describe innovative teaching approaches or the specific activities conducted by the students and must indicate how those changes affected student learning. Work described in the abstract must have been tested on students and assessment of the activity’s outcomes should be described. • Guidelines are for the presenter and the attendees.

Guidelines and rubric • Rubric • Eligibility requirement • Background • Hypothesis • Assessment methods • Results • Conclusions • Relevancy • Structure

Three things to remember • Read the guidelines and rubric • Read the guidelines and rubric • Read the guidelines and rubric

Suggestions • Share your abstracts with your team members or your facilitators prior to submission • JMBEVol13, No 1 (2012) Abstracts from the 19th Annual ASM Conference for Undergraduate Educators (ASMCUE), held June 16-19, 2012 in San Mateo, CA. http://jmbe.asm.org/index.php/jmbe/article/view/412

QUESTIONS?

Abstract Preparation for ASMCUE Hosted by Min-Ken Liao, Furman University

Abstract Preparation for ASMCUE Hosted by Min-Ken Liao, Furman University

Presentation Transcript

HOSTED BY

by Ken Glennie University of Aberdeen

Hosted by:

Hosted by Drexel University

Hosted by:

Hosted By

By Chunyuan Liao

Hosted by

GIS@Furman

Hosted by:

Hosted by:

Hosted by:

HOSTED BY

HOSTED BY

HOSTED BY