Brownell SE et al. 2012. J. College Science Teaching 41(4): 36-45

1. Undergraduate Biology Lab Courses: Comparing the Impact of Traditionally Based “Cookbook” and Authentic Research-Based Courses on Student Lab Experiences Brownell SE et al. 2012. J. College Science Teaching 41(4): 36-45 Presented by Dr. Walsh

2. Introduction • Laboratory courses are the standard method of providing students the opportunity to get practical hands-on experience in any field of science http://www.southseattle.edu/images/virtual-tour/programs/BiologyLabs.jpg

3. Background • Traditionally structured science laboratory courses • Common in high school and undergrad (McComas 2005) • Provide step-by-step instructions = “cookbook lab” • Minimum intellectual engagement (Modell and Michael 1993) • Inaccurate model of science inquiry (Cox and Davis 1972)

4. Background • Redesign of science lab courses promoted for decades • Must allow active investigation (Holt et al. 1969) • Must encourage independent thinking (AAAS 2010)  Although undergrad lab courses have incorporated a wide variety of active learning experiences - Broad range of teaching methods and wide range of outcomes (NRC 2000, Weaver et al. 2008)

5. Objective • This study: • - Evaluates a biology lab course that is specifically • design to incorporate authentic research • - Compares affective outcomes to matched-pair • students in a concurrent cookbook lab course

6. Methods • Experimental Group • Biology lab course designed for authentic research • - Single project, not pre-designed, outcome unknown • - Collaboration and peer review • - Results presentation MODEL SYSTEM • Hypotheses generated from • model system schematic

7. Methods • Comparison Group • Biology lab course with traditional cookbook design • - Manual instructions for four modules, various topics • - Predesigned procedures for three modules • - One lesson on experimental design • - One independent project

8. Methods Demographics of experimental and comparison condition matched pairs and unmatched comparison condition students.

9. Methods • Student affective outcomes measured by questionnaires • Specifically designed survey instrument • Pre-course: three blocks of questions • Preference for course structure • Self-confidence in performing lab techniques • Interest in future biology research • - Post-course: with two additional blocks of questions • - How often certain events occurred in course • - Recommendation for their course

10. Results “What is your level of agreement with the following statements related to biology lab courses?” Scale = 1 (strongly disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree) * Between group (p < .05) ** Within-group (p < .05) Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79

11. Results “What is your level of agreement with the following statements related to biology lab courses?” Scale = 1 (strongly disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree) * Between group (p < .05) ** Within-group (p < .05) Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77

12. Results “In how many of the nine classes (or prelabs) did the following occur in your lab section?” Scale = 1 (0 classes)2 (1-3 classes)3 (4-6 classes) 4 (7-8 classes) 5 (9 classes) * Between group (p < .05) ** Within-group (p < .05) Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84

13. Results “How confident do you feel in your ability to execute the following biology lab-based tasks?” Scale = 1 (not confident) 2 (somewhat confident) 3 (confident) 4 (very confident) * Between group (p < .05) ** Within-group (p < .05) Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86

14. Results “What is your level of interest for doing the following research-related experiences?” Scale = 1 (strong disinterest) 2 (disinterest) 3 (interest) 4 (strong interest) * Between group (p < .05) ** Within-group (p < .05) Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77

15. Discussion • Statistically Significant Results • Experimental group compared to cookbook lab group • - Increased preference for aspects of course structure • - Increased self confidence in performing lab techniques • - More positive attitude toward authentic research components • - Greater recognition of research components in class • - Greater interest in pursuing further biology research

16. Conclusions • Provides evidence that authentic research-based • biology labs impact student affective outcomes • Provides evidence to support recommendations that lab courses should incorporate authentic research • Future studies are to include larger, randomly-selected sample size • Future studies are to include measurement of student achievement outcomes

17. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2010. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Report. Washington (DC); [cited 2012 Oct 10]. Available from: http://visionandchange.org/files/2010/03/VC_report.pdf Cox DD, Davis LV. 1972. The context of biological education: The case for change. Washington (DC): American Institute of Biological Sciences. Holt CE, Abramoff P, Wilcox LV, Abell DL. 1969. Investigative laboratory programs in biology: A position paper of the commission on undergraduate education in the biological sciences. Bioscience 19: 1104-1107. McComas W. 2005. Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning. Science Teacher 27(7): 24-29. Modell HI, Michael JA. 1993. Promoting active learning in the life sciences classroom: Defining the issues. Annals of the N.Y. Acad. Of Sciences 701: 1-7. National Research Council. 2003. BIO 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. Weaver GC, Russell CB, Wink CJ. 2008. Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science. Nature Chemical Biology 4: 577-580.