ASM events
This conference is managed by the American Society for Microbiology
Table of contents
  1. 1. References
  2. 2. Annotated References

This bibliography is subdivided into two sections. This first contains the list of references, without annotations, the second contains the same list, but expands to include my annotation of the references.

References

Buckner, B., Beck, J., Browning, K., Fritz, A., Grantham, L., Hoxha, E., Kamvar, Z., Lough, A., Nikolova, O., Schnable, P. S., Scanlon, M. J., and Janick-Buckner, D. (2007). Involving undergraduates in the annotation and analysis of global gene expression studies: creation of a maize shoot apical meristem expression database. Genetics 176, 741-747.

Chaplin, S. B., Manske, J. M., and Cruise, J. L. (1998). Introducing Freshmen To Investigative Research--A Course for Biology Majors at Minnesota's University of St. Thomas. Journal of College Science Teaching 27, 347-350.

French, D. P., and Russell, C. P. (2006). Improving student attitudes toward biology. In: Handbook of College Science Teaching, eds. J. J. Mintzes and W. H. Leonard, Arlington, VA: NSTApress, 15-23.

Luckie, D. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Loznak, S. D., and Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of Collaborative Inquiry throughout a Biology Curriculum Increases Student Learning: a Four-year Study of "Teams and Streams". Advances in Physiology Education 287, 199-209.

Mallow, J. V. (2006). Science anxiety: research and action. In: Handbook of College Science Teaching, eds. J. J. Mintzes and W. H. Leonard, Arlington, VA: NSTApress, 3-14.

Pukkila, P.J. (2004). Introducing student Inquiry in Large introductory genetics classes.  Genetics 166, 11-18.

Sleister, H. M. (2007). Isolation and characterization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae mutants defective in chromosome transmission in an undergraduate genetics research course.  Genetics 177, 677-688.

Stiller, J. W., and Coggins, T. C. (2006). Teaching Molecular Biological Techniques in a Research Content. American Biology Teacher 68, 36-42.

Sundberg, M.D. (2002). Assessing student learning. Cell Biology Education 1, 11-15.

Trosset, C., Lopatto, D., and Elgin, S. (2008).  Implementation and assessment of course-embedded undergraduate research experiences: some explorations. In: Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science: The Transformation from Student to Scientist, eds. R. Taraban and R. L. Blanton, New York: Teachers College Press, 33-49.

Annotated References

Buckner, B., Beck, J., Browning, K., Fritz, A., Grantham, L., Hoxha, E., Kamvar, Z., Lough, A., Nikolova, O., Schnable, P. S., Scanlon, M. J., and Janick-Buckner, D. (2007). Involving undergraduates in the annotation and analysis of global gene expression studies: creation of a maize shoot apical meristem expression database. Genetics 176, 741-747.

In this article the authors describe a research project involving undergraduates.  While this research is not itself a course, the research project itself has similarities with the research (annotation of existing genomic data) that I plan on incorporating into my genetics course.  The article describes annotation of microarray data generated by collaborators at a large university.  In addition to addressing specific questions, the goal of the research is ultimately presentation to the research community, giving students a sense of their participation in the progress of science.  Some of the training for the work occurs in lower level biology courses.  The outcomes in this article are anecdotal, with no assessment.

Chaplin, S. B., Manske, J. M., and Cruise, J. L. (1998). Introducing Freshmen To Investigative Research--A Course for Biology Majors at Minnesota's University of St. Thomas. Journal of College Science Teaching 27, 347-350.

This article describes a research course directed at first to second year biology students.  The authors reiterate some of the benefits of students participating in research (as attributed to an article by J.R. Brandenberger – a reference I have been unable to locate) and address the importance of learning by doing.  They note that cookbook labs teach techniques but students do not learn the process of science through these exercises.  The article also points to the misconception that research is only something in which the top students are able to participate; the authors’ class suggests otherwise.  This is an argument that I think is important for the incorporation of research in my genetics class, as well as my overall philosophy of teaching and learning.  Results indicate that students that complete the course are more likely to stay in the major and demonstrate a 4% attrition rate as compared to a 33% for students who have not taken the course.  This article is of relevance to my project as I intend to integrate research into a 200-level course that has second year students.  Additionally, this article cites some interesting references that I did not pick up in my initial searches.

 

French, D. P., and Russell, C. P. (2006). Improving student attitudes toward biology. In: Handbook of College Science Teaching, eds. J. J. Mintzes and W. H. Leonard, Arlington, VA: NSTApress, 15-23.

This chapter describes some changes made to an introductory biology sequence with the major change being in the way the courses are taught, switching from lecture to more active learning based on scenarios (real world context).  Student attitudes were surveyed prior to the change in course structure and then in the new course.  The surveys were given at the beginning and end of the semester so that change in attitude could be assessed.  Results were analyzed with respect to gender and to ACT composite scores.  The data demonstrate that the active learning generally resulted in a more positive attitude towards biology. An appendix contains their “Biology Attitude Scale”.


Luckie, D. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Loznak, S. D., and Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of Collaborative Inquiry throughout a Biology Curriculum Increases Student Learning: a Four-year Study of "Teams and Streams". Advances in Physiology Education 287, 199-209.

The authors describe an alternative to traditional labs in introductory classes for physiology majors.  They note that students do not experience the processes of science in the traditional lab setting.  They also suggest that students are turned off by the experience of labs that are of the ‘cookbook’ variety.  By making their labs inquiry based, with students developing a research question, designing, and conducting the experiments, the authors demonstrate that they have increased the cognitive level of the learning (based on Bloom’s taxonomy) from knowledge to application, analysis and synthesis.  They balanced “cookbook” labs to learn techniques with the inquiry labs, but started the inquiry part very early in the semester. Initially that authors felt that the experience might be too demanding for the students, however were surprised to find that the students rose to the challenge.  Interestingly, they found that the students participating in these labs showed an increase in performance on content exams in addition to qualitative results reflecting an increase in the positive comments on student feedback forms.  Once the authors established the new inquiry lab format, they returned to the traditional format for a semester, and have been using the new inquiry format since.  They believe that this makes their assessment of the inquiry format much stronger, and I tend to agree. The authors give a thorough curricular design and assessment strategy for both formats for easy comparison.  While my project will be different, as I will be giving them the research problem and not requiring them to initiate the development of their own research question, this is a similar model to what I hope to implement.  On a final note, the authors point out that traditional labs can be very time consuming for the professor, with much work before and after the lab that does not necessarily make for increased learning, and may be a lost opportunity for student learning.  They constantly quote their mantra “less teaching, more learning”.

 

Mallow, J. V. (2006). Science anxiety: research and action. In: Handbook of College Science Teaching, eds. J. J. Mintzes and W. H. Leonard, Arlington, VA: NSTApress, 3-14.

This chapter describes common reasons for science anxiety, research that has been conducted on this anxiety, as well as some potential ways that this anxiety could be lifted.  Of the 9 practices that are listed, the one that affects my project most directly would be (3) Theme-based curricula as the introduction of a research project will in theory provide a unifying theme to the course.

 

Pukkila, P.J. (2004). Introducing student Inquiry in Large introductory genetics classes.  Genetics 166, 11-18.

In this article Pukkila describes ways in which inquiry can be introduced into an introductory genetics class.  She notes that although the textbooks include the key experiments in genetics, students cannot distinguish “between the conclusion and the methods used to reach the conclusion”, and stresses the importance on students moving to evaluation of evidence rather than accepting the conclusions of others.  Although one way to do this would be to base the class on reading the primary literature, Pukkila suggests a more “incremental” mode of changing the course – incorporating small units of inquiry.  She points out the importance of student preparation, and achieves this by picking a figure from the reading and assigning questions based on that figure.  In class work involves 1-2 collaborative discussions per meeting. Additionally she has students submit questions about the reading as the basis of discussion, or has the students analyze experimental design (such as discussing what would happen if one aspect of the experiment was changed). Data collected was quantitative (class evaluations, grades – though theses did not change) and qualitative in nature.


Sleister, H. M. (2007). Isolation and characterization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae mutants defective in chromosome transmission in an undergraduate genetics research course.  Genetics 177, 677-688.

In this article, Sleister describes an upper level genetics research course designed to give students a “real” research experience. The project covered both classical and molecular genetics activities, providing a broad exposure to different areas of genetics even thought the project was limited to a single model organism.  Assessment demonstrated that when compared to a traditional lab experience, students felt that the research lab experience had: “helped them better understand genetic concepts and methods”, “helped them make connections between different concepts/experiments”, and that the “technical skills are/will be valuable in further studies…or in a future career”.  Sleister makes the point that in both types of labs the students would learn “how to perform [a] method” but in the research lab the students “gain first-hand experience with the when and why to apply a particular method”.  One aspect of the article that I really like is a table she provides that lists the major course objectives and ties each objective to a specific activity or assignment that is part of the research project.  While this article describes a research project carried out in an upper-level course (the course has a prerequisite of an introductory genetics course), it has many similarities to what I would like to do in my genetics course.


Stiller, J. W., and Coggins, T. C. (2006). Teaching Molecular Biological Techniques in a Research Content. American Biology Teacher 68, 36-42.

This article describes a semester long project in a research context that uses many of the molecular biology techniques common in research.  The authors address the benefit of such an approach as it is hypothesis driven and connects the techniques to the reason for their use and the “assumptions implicit in their use”.  The authors also indicate that the techniques can be coupled or “strung together” leading to an understanding of how the techniques might be used to solve a problem. They discuss the benefits of unexpected results, which are often lacking in the “canned” laboratory exercises, as either thought provoking or in need of trouble-shooting. The article thoroughly describes the steps involved in the project that the authors used in their project.  Of particular interest is the indication that this project was interspersed with “traditional labs” during the lulls in project activity.  The article addresses many of the advantages that I hope that a research-based lab would present to the students.


Sundberg, M.D. (2002). Assessing student learning. Cell Biology Education 1, 11-15.

In this essay Sundberg describes how the biological educational literature has changed from descriptive (new techniques, ideas and their implementation) to assessing student learning.  He points out that the point of assessment is to “determine the impact of instruction on improving student learning”.  He raises the question of whether or not it is important to have a control and what that control might look like.  Importantly, this essay describes some of the major quantitative and qualitative techniques for assessment and discusses advantages and disadvantages for each.  This provides a good starting point for thinking about how I might go about assessing student learning in my class as I study the use of research in the lab experience.

Trosset, C., Lopatto, D., and Elgin, S. (2008).  Implementation and assessment of course-embedded undergraduate research experiences: some explorations. In: Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science: The Transformation from Student to Scientist, eds. R. Taraban and R. L. Blanton, New York: Teachers College Press, 33-49.

This chapter describes three courses in which research has been embedded into the lab experience.  The authors list the results of a poll in which faculty were asked what attributes an undergraduate research experience should have, providing a guide for shaping the experience student should have in a course incorporating research.  The authors also point out the difficulties inherent in the incorporation of research into courses.  These include the unpredictable nature of research, the difficulties in mentoring the large number of students in the course, and the necessity of assigning grades and difficulties in doing so.  Assessment was carried out and compared to a similar assessment of students at participated in summer research experiences.





Tag page
You must login to post a comment.