21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Method to Increase Undergraduate Laboratory Student Confidence in Performing Independent Research†

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          INTRODUCTION Cookbook-type protocols, common to high school and undergraduate-level science classes, are a less effective means of instruction than inquiry-based labs as they allow students to be passive and typically do not require critical thinking (1). They do not accurately reflect the investigative nature of science, where there is no accompanying fill-in-the-blank, universal protocol that is used to discover new information (2, 3). To improve the quality of science education, there has been a push to replace these cookbook-style protocols with more open-ended investigative or inquiry-type instruction that is student centered (4–7). Our research has demonstrated increased engagement when students use, or anticipate using, data from their own genome (8). Inquiry-based learning activities model the scientific process much better than cookbook labs and lead to increased understanding of the scientific process (9, 10). To promote independent learning, we designed our undergraduate course to apply the scaffolding instructional methodology (11) to wean students from cookbook laboratory procedures by sequentially introducing protocols with decreasing amounts of written instructor guidance. Scaffolding originated as adults helped children develop higher psychological functioning and ability to express themselves through guided interactions (12, 13), ultimately enabling children to do things independently that normally require adult guidance and assistance (13). We have applied this method to our undergraduate Advanced Molecular Biology Laboratory at Brigham Young University (Appendix 1, Methods) with the goal of teaching the students to find and use protocols and develop scientific independence. This method enables student transition from instructor dependence to scientific independence. General application of this method involves students performing a series of planned experiments while sequentially providing them with 1) protocols with step-by-step instructions typed out by the professor, 2) instruction with manufacturers’ protocols augmented with additional explanations inserted by the professor, 3) unaugmented manufacturers’ protocols, 4) protocols received from scientists, 5) a primary literature protocol, and finally, 6) protocols found by the students themselves (Fig. 1). We applied this method to our Advanced Molecular Biology Laboratory course. Results from our student survey demonstrated significant increases in student confidence to use and adapt new protocols to carry out experiments. Students also showed greatly increased confidence in their ability to troubleshoot and to carry out independent research experiments. FIGURE 1 Overview of the application of the weaning philosophy and approach. The weaning approach is applied to any laboratory class by initially providing students with protocols that are highly modified by the professor (1st and 2nd), followed by protocols with decreasing amounts of professor modifications and protocols with no professor modifications (3rd), and finally resources from which the students must extrapolate protocols (4th and 5th). Ultimately, students are not provided with protocols, but instead find protocols on their own (last). The red color on the left that decreases from top to bottom represents the amount of student dependence on the written instructions from the professor, and the blue color on the right that increases from top to bottom represents the amount of student independence at each stage of the weaning. PROCEDURE Simple, professor-provided protocols We start with simple, professor-written protocols (Fig. 1). These instructions include detailed steps to accomplish the experiments adapted from kit instructions and simplified for ease of use. We applied this principle with our DNA fingerprinting module (Fig. 2): students isolate genomic DNA (14), perform PCR, do PCR DNA cleanup and restriction enzyme digests (15), and analyze DNA on gels. Each of the protocols is step-by-step instructions typed out by the professor. FIGURE 2 Specific application of the weaning philosophy and approach. The name of each specific module (left) is listed with its accompanying experiments (middle) and the type of resources that are provided for those experiments (right). The color and intensity of the background fields of the modules represent the amount of professor dependence (red) or student independence (blue) in each module (see Fig. 1). Experiments listed in green print are procedures that the students have learned in previous modules. The other color print (black or white) differs only for ease of reading. Manufacturers’ protocols with added instructions In the second phase we use protocols/instructions that come with kits, supplemented with additional instructions by the professor (Fig. 1). Our Site-Directed Mutagenesis module (Fig. 2) applies this principle. Students isolate plasmid DNA, perform site-directed mutagenesis, bacterial transformations, colony selection, and colony PCR, and sequence PCR products. We use supplemented protocols from the QIA-prep Miniprep (16), PHUSION Site-Directed Mutagenesis (17), and the ZERO BLUNT TOPO PCR Cloning Kits (18). Students apply first module protocols as they perform restriction digests, gel electrophoresis, and colony PCR in preparation for sequencing to confirm the success of their mutagenesis. Manufacturers’ protocols In the third phase we provide students with only the protocols/instructions that come from the kit (Fig. 1). We use three protocols (short, long, and average-length) students might actually experience in the real world. Students must glean what is necessary from the protocol to be able to do the experiment. Our Northern Blotting module applies this principle (Fig. 2). Students isolate RNA using TRIZOL Reagent (19), with a two-page protocol outlining multiple procedures. This is followed by northern blotting using a detailed 42-page NORTHERNMAX-GLY kit and protocol (20). Students look through the protocol and decide which steps to include for their application. Finally, we use the Chemiluminescent Nucleic Acid Detection Module and protocol, a straightforward kit and instructions, to visualize the probe on their blots. Real-life protocols The final phase in our methodology toward independence is to use protocols the students might receive from other researchers when trying to reproduce published techniques. Students receive a protocol sent from a postdoctoral fellow and a primary-literature paper from which they need to reproduce an experiment. Students follow the postdoc protocol and read and understand the primary literature paper to glean what they need to replicate the experiments contained therein. These are the types of protocols they might encounter in a research career. Using and applying them in a carefully controlled laboratory experience prepares them for independent research. We applied this principle with our Electroporation Mobility Shift Assay (EMSA) module. The instructional resources for these experiments are a primary research paper (21) and a protocol from a postdoc (G. Ramaswamy, 2003. Gopi’s nuclear extract protocol, personally communicated protocol to isolate nuclear proteins from C. elegans). Students determine how to perform the EMSA in the paper from the materials and methods section and additional outside resources online. The terse protocol provided by the postdoc has each step for nuclear protein isolation, but no logistical commentary. The chemiluminescence kit and protocol used in the third module is again used here to reinforce the skills they previously acquired. Independent application Having experienced a range of instructional materials and performed several molecular techniques, students are asked to directly apply what they have learned throughout the semester. The culminating event is when students choose, design, and perform independent projects for the last four weeks of the semester. Students independently come up with their own scientific questions, plan the procedures, find the necessary protocols, and perform the experiments. Instructors only approve their projects and provide the necessary reagents. The pinnacle event is the last day of class when students present their independent projects, complete with background, hypothesis, experimental procedures, data, results, and conclusions to the entire class. With the final independent project, the students have moved from preplanned, instructor-dependent, results-controlled experiments to independently conceived, designed, and executed projects that succeed or fail based on the student. CONCLUSION Here we present the application of a scaffolding pedagogical method to transform undergraduate laboratory students into independent researchers. We surveyed student attitudes about their abilities to perform independent research. Student abilities to independently plan and execute appropriate experiments increased, as did their confidence to do independent research (Appendix 2, Measuring Learning). This methodology is likely applicable to any lab course in life sciences striving to develop independent undergraduate researchers. Consistent results between three sections taught by three different professors suggest that this method is not instructor specific, but generally applicable. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS Appendix 1: Methods (course sections, survey instrument, data analysis, advanced molecular biology laboratory protocols, laboratory safety procedures) Click here for additional data file. Appendix 2: Measuring learning and supplemental figures (S1, S2) Click here for additional data file.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Education. Scientific teaching.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The ontogenesis of speech acts

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Vision and Change in Biology Undergraduate Education, A Call for Action—Initial Responses

              INTRODUCTION Last July, as a culmination of a year of conversations among biology faculty and students, university administrators, and biology professional societies, more than 500 biologists met to discuss the needs of undergraduate biology in light of the exciting changes in the discipline itself and what we are learning about how people learn (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2009; Woodin et al., 2009). This effort had major financial support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and input from representatives of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the AAAS, the convener of the meetings. On February 20, at the 2010 annual meeting of the AAAS, the executive summary of the findings of the conference, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Education, A Call to Action (AAAS, 2010), was released at a session highlighting the recommendations from Vision and Change (V&C), presented by Carol Brewer, 1 the cochair of that event (George, 2010). Brewer set down the challenge to the community: “We all have work ahead of us to ensure that the transformations we make in undergraduate biology classrooms around the country reflect the biology we do in the twenty-first century. I am confident our community is up to the challenge. Because, after all, if not now, when? And if not us, then who?” 2 Keith Yamamoto 3 presented the principle findings of the New Biology committee (NAS, 2010) within the context of V&C: the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of research within the biological sciences and attention to its societal context, the growing complexity of the data generated and the need for computational and modeling skills to deal with that complexity, and the amazing power new technologies have brought to the discipline, allowing new questions to be posed and new approaches designed that were not possible before. He noted that the confluence and synergy of the V&C and the New Biology reports is striking and that “each will strengthen the impact of the other.” Joann Roskoski (Acting Assistant Director of the NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences) set out next steps contemplated by NSF, many of them in concert with other principal funders such as NIH and HHMI. Among NSF's efforts to “move the agenda forward,” she mentioned the following: increased support for existing programs to support course reform (NSF, 2010) and to encourage formation of networks of people funded to work on similar aspects of educational change (NSF, 2009b); and establishing initiatives to support institutional reform and to create an online resource of well-tested educational materials (to be done in concert with HHMI and NIH). Below, we highlight six of the key findings in the V&C Executive Summary, note some of the recent documents that resonate with those findings, and give a few examples of actions under way to implement these findings. KEY CONCEPTS AND COMPETENCIES The report notes that “to be scientifically literate, students need to understand a few overarching core concepts: evolution; pathways and transformations of energy and matter; information flow, exchange, and storage; structure and function; and systems;” and that undergraduates should master the following competencies: “understand the process of science, the interdisciplinary nature of the new biology and how science is closely integrated within society; be competent in communication and collaboration; have quantitative competency and a basic ability to interpret data; and have some experience with modeling, simulation and computational and systems level approaches as well as with using large databases.” These recommendations mirror those for revision of Advanced Placement courses and exams (College Board, 2009) and for the preparation of future physicians (AAMC-HHMI Committee, 2009; Long, 2010). As part of the next steps, we are currently contemplating convening a meeting of the various biology professional societies to discuss how their views of important concepts and competencies fit within the overarching goals given above. ENGAGING STUDENTS IN THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS “Students should have opportunities to participate in authentic research experiences and learn how to evaluate complex biology problems from a variety of perspectives, not just recite facts and terminology.” Historically, research scientists have welcomed undergraduate students into their laboratories to be part of their research teams. Recently, these efforts have been expanded to serve more students by incorporating authentic research experiences directly into student laboratories (e.g., see Lopatto et al., 2008) or engaging students in both introductory and upper-division courses in an in-depth discussion of research articles (Hoskins and Stevens, 2009). In the past 3 years, within its Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (formerly Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement Program), NSF has funded 29 classroom-centered undergraduate research projects. The institutions involved are as varied as Finger Lakes Community Colleges (Hewlett, 2008) and Stanford University (Simoni, 2009). HHMI has established an exciting undergraduate laboratory experience that unites students across the country in a joint effort to identify and characterize phage from soil bacteria, generating new findings and at the same time producing a set of engaged undergraduate students knowledgeable in the ways of science (HHMI, 2009). COMMUNITY BUILDING—CULTURAL CHANGE “The ultimate goal for biology departments should be to develop and grow communities of scholars at all levels of the educational process—from undergraduates to faculty to administrators—all committed to creating, using, assessing, and disseminating effective practices in teaching and learning. This kind of department-wide implementation requires cultural changes by all stakeholders and a commitment to elevate the scholarship of teaching and learning within the discipline as a professional activity.” This need for a community approach, including senior research scientists and science educators, was echoed by Keith Yamamoto in his discussion of twenty-first century biology. A relatively new program within NSF, Research Coordination Networks-Undergraduate Biology Education (RCN-UBE), established in response to early V&C conversations, supports such collaborations. Since its inception in 2009, four full projects (up to $100,000/year for up to 5 years) and seven incubator projects ($50,000 for 1 year) have been funded, with more in progress. Projects range from a large consortium of ethnobiologists working to combine their various information bases and to tailor them for use in undergraduate courses (Harrison, 2009) to an incubator-level effort to establish communities to address the need for useful instruments and techniques to assess conceptual learning (Fisher, 2010). DEVELOPING COMPUTATIONAL COMPETENCE “To be current in biology, students should also have experience with modeling, simulation and computational and systems-level approaches to biological discovery and analysis, as well as with using large data bases.” A recently established NSF program (NSF, 2009a) supports projects that involve teams of mathematics and biology majors and their professors in courses and research projects that emphasize the application of mathematical techniques to the solution of biological problems. That program is beginning to reap results: in a cadre of students who are comfortable with interdisciplinary approaches to biology, a series of peer-reviewed articles describing research results, and a new approach to biology education on many of the participating campuses. During the recent mathematical/biology symposia at the 2010 AAAS annual meeting, the organizer challenged each speaker to elucidate the way in which their research projects had been incorporated into undergraduate education, and each had activities in progress (Gross, 2010). FACULTY DEVELOPMENT Several initiatives have emerged in response to the need to help present and future faculty develop effective approaches to undergraduate biology education. The Scientific Teaching Institutes at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (UW) work with UW postdoctoral fellows and graduate students during the academic year and with teams of research university faculty during an intense 1-week summer institute for this purpose (Pfund et al., 2009). The Science Education Initiative at the University of Colorado, Boulder (www.colorado.edu/sei) uses Science Teaching Fellows as the vehicle to help interested and committed departments change their teaching approaches to be more student centered, interactive, and assessment-based (www.visionandchange.org/wp-content/themes/simpla_widgetized/files/William%20Wood_V&C%20PPT.ppt). The NIH Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Awards help postdoctoral students develop teaching skills and pedagogical knowledge as they work with established faculty in minority-serving institutions with the aim of facilitating the progress of postdoctoral candidates toward research and teaching careers in academia (NIH, 2010). DEVELOPING A WEBSITE IN RESPONSE TO V&C “One recommendation consistently emerged to help in this effort: the need for a consolidated resource of research and classroom experiences documenting what works and why. This biology education database could disseminate effective practices and provide a centralized location of resources for faculty and others to advance biology education.” A partnership with representatives from NIH, NSF, and HHMI is currently exploring the feasibility of such a site, and we welcome your advice (send suggestions to twoodin@nsf.gov). SUMMARY The executive summary provides an overview of some of V&C's key recommendations regarding next steps in the effort to mobilize the biology community. It is, in essence, a call for national service. A publication discussing these recommendations and action items in more depth will be available later this year. Meanwhile, we highly recommend reading the Executive Summary of V&C, the NAS report (NAS, 2010), and a seminal article by Labov et al. (2010) summarizing the synergy created by these several reports on the changing nature of studies in biology and concomitant need to change biology education. Then, take action! Our hope is to see the formation of a community of biologists, similar to that forming in geology (Manduca et al., 2010): one that will advance biology undergraduate education so it truly reflects the discipline it serves.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Microbiol Biol Educ
                J Microbiol Biol Educ
                JMBE
                Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
                American Society of Microbiology
                1935-7877
                1935-7885
                2017
                21 April 2017
                : 18
                : 1
                : 18.1.18
                Affiliations
                Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Mailing address: Brigham Young University, 4007 LSB, Provo, UT 84602. Phone: 801-422-9170. Fax: 801-422-0004. E-mail: stevenj@ 123456byu.edu .
                Article
                jmbe-18-18
                10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1230
                5524437
                28912928
                06529923-d572-4a75-ac1d-170e7f55163f
                ©2017 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

                History
                : 30 August 2016
                : 28 October 2016
                Categories
                Tips & Tools

                Comments

                Comment on this article