Search

Recent emphasis on research competencies in undergraduate biology education means that more students are doing course-based research. Professional research scientists learn from failed research, but undergraduate students who encounter failure in their biology lab research may not always respond in ways that advance their learning. There is a need to examine individual students' responses to failed research as they conduct investigations in an undergraduate lab course. Here, we report a qualitative research case study based on data from interviews and course work to examine five undergraduate students' emotional responses, coping strategies, and perceptions of learning as they confronted failure in a semester-long intro lab course investigation. All five students displayed negative emotions when they encountered a research obstacle, but their coping strategies varied. However, by the end of their research process, all had responded with competent actions, relationship actions, and autonomous actions as adaptive coping strategies. Support seeking played a critical role to promote autonomy as a foundation for research self-efficacy. After completing their research, the students reported valuable learning from the experience. Implications for instruction are based on examples of coping strategies for managing negative emotions from failed research.

Since 2009, the U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences has funded Research Coordination Networks (RCN) aimed at collaborative efforts to improve participation, learning, and assessment in undergraduate biology education (UBE). RCN-UBE projects focus on coordination and communication among scientists and educators who are fostering improved and innovative approaches to biology education. When faculty members collaborate with the overarching goal of advancing undergraduate biology education, there is a need to optimize collaboration between participants in order to deeply integrate the knowledge across disciplinary boundaries. In this essay we propose a novel guiding framework for bringing colleagues together to advance knowledge and its integration across disciplines, the "Five 'C's' of Collaboration: Commitment, Collegiality, Communication, Consensus, and Continuity." This guiding framework for professional network practice is informed by both relevant literature and empirical evidence from community-building experience within the RCN-UBE Advancing Competencies in Experimentation-Biology (ACE-Bio) Network. The framework is presented with practical examples to illustrate how it might be used to enhance collaboration between new and existing participants in the ACE-Bio Network as well as within other interdisciplinary networks.

To keep biochemistry instruction current and relevant, it is crucial to expose students to cutting-edge scientific research and how experts reason about processes governed by thermodynamics and kinetics such as protein folding and dynamics. This study focuses on how experts explain their research into this topic with the intention of informing instruction. Previous research has modeled how expert biologists incorporate research methods, social or biological context, and analogies when they talk about their research on mechanisms. We used this model as a guiding framework to collect and analyze interview data from four experts. The similarities and differences that emerged from analysis indicate that all experts integrated theoretical knowledge with their research context, methods, and analogies when they explained how phenomena operate, in particular by mapping phenomena to mathematical models; they explored different processes depending on their explanatory aims, but readily transitioned between different perspectives and explanatory models; and they explained thermodynamic and kinetic concepts of relevance to protein folding in different ways that aligned with their particular research methods. We discuss how these findings have important implications for teaching and future educational research., (© 2018 K. A. Jeffery et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2018 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).)

It is essential to teach students about experimental design, as this facilitates their deeper understanding of how most biological knowledge was generated and gives them tools to perform their own investigations. Despite the importance of this area, surprisingly little is known about what students actually learn from designing biological experiments. In this paper, we describe a rubric for experimental design (RED) that can be used to measure knowledge of and diagnose difficulties with experimental design. The development and validation of the RED was informed by a literature review and empirical analysis of undergraduate biology students' responses to three published assessments. Five areas of difficulty with experimental design were identified: the variable properties of an experimental subject; the manipulated variables; measurement of outcomes; accounting for variability; and the scope of inference appropriate for experimental findings. Our findings revealed that some difficulties, documented some 50 yr ago, still exist among our undergraduate students, while others remain poorly investigated. The RED shows great promise for diagnosing students' experimental design knowledge in lecture settings, laboratory courses, research internships, and course-based undergraduate research experiences. It also shows potential for guiding the development and selection of assessment and instructional activities that foster experimental design., (© 2014 A. P. Dasgupta et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2014 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).)