Search

This study assessed the impact of flipped instruction on study effort, exam performance, motivation, and perceived class quality in two sections of an introductory chemistry course. Giving frequent assignments and quizzes provided enough incentive to ensure pre-class study compliance, and flipped instruction did not appreciably increase overall study time. However, technology failures early in the class show an important lesson of what can occur when a teaching modality dependent on technology is used. Unlike in our previous study, flipped students underperformed their control counterparts in the final exam. Differentiated treatment effects were identified, as sophomores and females benefited more from flipped instruction. Similar trends were also observed with student letter grades from a subsequent chemistry course. Flipped instruction did not increase student general motivation. Flipped females, however, exhibited stronger end-of-quarter motivation than flipped males. Flipped students perceived the class to be of lower quality and expressed discontent with in-class technology failures and active learning techniques. We reflect upon the resilience of the traditional lecture format and suggest that new pedagogical methods be implemented at a conservative rate to preserve student learning outcomes in the face of implementation issues.

Converting a first-term, accelerated summer organic chemistry course to a flipped format reduced the achievement gap in the flipped course and in the second-term traditional lecture course between Non-Repeaters taking an accelerated course to "get ahead" and Repeaters taking the course to "get back on track". The difference in final exam performance in the second-term course was nearly halved, the GPA gap in both courses was reduced, and the gap in passing rate for the second-term course was eliminated. First-generation students who took the first-term course in the flipped format experienced a final exam score boost in the second-term course regardless of repeater status. While most students responded positively to the flipped course structure, repeating students held a stronger preference for the flipped format. These findings provide guidance on how to create courses that promote equity, access, and retention of diverse students in STEM.

There is concern that online education may widen the achievement gap between students from different socioeconomic classes. The recent discussion of integrating massive open online courses (MOOCs) into formal higher education has added fuel to this debate. In this study, factors influencing enrollment and completion in a pre-college preparatory MOOC were explored. University of California at Irvine (UCI) students of all preparation levels, defined by math Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score, were invited to take a Bio Prep MOOC to help them prepare for introductory biology. Students with math SAT below 550 were offered the explicit incentive of an early change to the biology major upon successful completion of the MOOC and two additional onsite courses. Our results demonstrate that, among course registrants, a higher percentage of UCI students (>60%) completed the course than non-UCI registrants from the general population (<9%). Female UCI students had a greater likelihood of enrolling in the MOOC, but were not different from male students in terms of performance. University students entering with low preparation outperformed students entering who already had the credentials to become biology majors. These findings suggest that MOOCs can reach students, even those entering college with less preparation, before they enter university and have the potential to prepare them for challenging science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses

The seeds of Camellia oleifera produce high amount of oil, which can be broadly used in the fields of food, industry, and medicine. However, the molecular regulation mechanisms of seed development and oil accumulation in C. oleifera are unclear. In this study, evolutionary and expression analyses of the MADS‐box gene family were performed across the C. oleifera genome for the first time. A total of 86 MADS‐box genes (ColMADS) were identified, including 60 M‐type and 26 MIKC members. More gene duplication events occurred in M‐type subfamily (6) than that in MIKC subfamily (2), and SEP-like genes were lost from the MIKCC clade. Furthermore, 8, 15, and 17 differentially expressed ColMADS genes (DEGs) were detected between three developmental stages of seed (S1/S2, S2/S3, and S1/S3), respectively. Among these DEGs, the STK-like ColMADS12 and TT16-like ColMADS17 were highly expressed during the seed formation (S1 and S2), agreeing with their predicted functions to positively regulate the seed organogenesis and oil accumulation. While ColMADS57 and ColMADS07 showed increasing expression level with the seed maturation (S2 and S3), conforming to their potential roles in promoting the seed ripening. In all, these results revealed a critical role of MADS‐box genes in the C. oleifera seed development and oil accumulation, which will contribute to the future molecular breeding of C. oleifera. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary literature offers rich opportunities to teach students how to think like a scientist, but the challenges students face when they attempt to read research articles are not well understood. Here, we present an analysis of what masters students perceive as the most challenging aspects of engaging with primary literature. We examined 69 pairs of pre- and postcourse responses from students enrolled in a masters-level course that offered a structured analysis of primary literature. On the basis of these responses, we identified six categories of challenges. Before instruction, techniques and experimental data were the most frequently identified categories of challenges. The majority of difficulties students perceived in the primary literature corresponded to Blooms lower-order cognitive skills. After instruction, conclusions were identified as the most difficult aspect of primary literature, and the frequency of challenges that corresponded to higher-order cognitive skills increased significantly among students who reported less experience with primary literature. These changes are consistent with a more competent perception of the primary literature, in which these students increasingly focus on challenges requiring critical thinking. Students difficulties identified here can inform the design of instructional approaches aimed to teach students how to critically read scientific papers.

Undergraduate biology education is often viewed as being focused on memorization rather than development of students' critical-thinking abilities. We speculated that open-note testing would be an easily implemented change that would emphasize higher-order thinking. As open-note testing is not commonly used in the biological sciences and the literature on its effects in biology education is sparse, we performed a comprehensive analysis of this intervention on a primary literature-based exam across three large-enrollment laboratory courses. Although students believed open-note testing would impact exam scores, we found no effect on performance, either overall or on questions of nearly all Bloom's levels. Open-note testing also produced no advantage when examined under a variety of parameters, including research experience, grade point average, course grade, prior exposure to primary literature-focused laboratory courses, or gender. Interestingly, we did observe small differences in open- and closed-note exam performance and perception for students who experienced open-note exams for an entire quarter. This implies that student preparation or in-test behavior can be altered by exposure to open-note testing conditions in a single course and that -increased experience may be necessary to truly understand the impact of this intervention.

Primary literature is essential for scientific communication and is commonly utilized in undergraduate biology education. Despite this, there is often little time spent training our students how to critically analyze a paper. To address this, we introduced a primary literature module in multiple upper-division laboratory courses. In this module, instructors conduct classroom discussions that dissect a paper as researchers do. While previous work has identified classroom interventions that improve primary literature comprehension within a single course, our goal was to determine whether including a scientific paper module in our classes could produce long-term benefits. On the basis of performance in an assessment exam, we found that our module resulted in longitudinal gains, including increased comprehension and critical-thinking abilities in subsequent lab courses. These learning gains were specific to courses utilizing our module, as no longitudinal gains were seen in students who had taken other upper-division labs that lacked extensive primary literature discussion. In addition, we assessed whether performance on our assessment correlated with a variety of factors, including grade point average, course performance, research background, and self-reported confidence in understanding of the article. Furthermore, all of the study conclusions are independent of biology disciplines, as we observe similar trends within each course.

Primary literature offers rich opportunities to teach students how to "think like a scientist," but the challenges students face when they attempt to read research articles are not well understood. Here, we present an analysis of what master's students perceive as the most challenging aspects of engaging with primary literature. We examined 69 pairs of pre- and postcourse responses from students enrolled in a master's-level course that offered a structured analysis of primary literature. On the basis of these responses, we identified six categories of challenges. Before instruction, "techniques" and "experimental data" were the most frequently identified categories of challenges. The majority of difficulties students perceived in the primary literature corresponded to Bloom's lower-order cognitive skills. After instruction, "conclusions" were identified as the most difficult aspect of primary literature, and the frequency of challenges that corresponded to higher-order cognitive skills increased significantly among students who reported less experience with primary literature. These changes are consistent with a more competent perception of the primary literature, in which these students increasingly focus on challenges requiring critical thinking. Students' difficulties identified here can inform the design of instructional approaches aimed to teach students how to critically read scientific papers.

Undergraduate biology education is often viewed as being focused on memorization rather than development of students' critical-thinking abilities. We speculated that open-note testing would be an easily implemented change that would emphasize higher-order thinking. As open-note testing is not commonly used in the biological sciences and the literature on its effects in biology education is sparse, we performed a comprehensive analysis of this intervention on a primary literature--based exam across three large-enrollment laboratory courses. Although students believed open-note testing would impact exam scores, we found no effect on performance, either overall or on questions of nearly all Bloom's levels. Open-note testing also produced no advantage when examined under a variety of parameters, including research experience, grade point average, course grade, prior exposure to primary literature--focused laboratory courses, or gender. Interestingly, we did observe small differences in open-and closed-note exam performance and perception for students who experienced open-note exams for an entire quarter. This implies that student preparation or in-test behavior can be altered by exposure to open-note testing conditions in a single course and that increased experience may be necessary to truly understand the impact of this intervention.

Primary literature is essential for scientific communication and is commonly utilized in undergraduate biology education. Despite this, there is often little time spent "training" our students how to critically analyze a paper. To address this, we introduced a primary literature module in multiple upper-division laboratory courses. In this module, instructors conduct classroom discussions that dissect a paper as researchers do. While previous work has identified classroom interventions that improve primary literature comprehension within a single course, our goal was to determine whether including a scientific paper module in our classes could produce long-term benefits. On the basis of performance in an assessment exam, we found that our module resulted in longitudinal gains, including increased comprehension and critical-thinking abilities in subsequent lab courses. These learning gains were specific to courses utilizing our module, as no longitudinal gains were seen in students who had taken other upper-division labs that lacked extensive primary literature discussion. In addition, we assessed whether performance on our assessment correlated with a variety of factors, including grade point average, course performance, research background, and self-reported confidence in understanding of the article. Furthermore, all of the study conclusions are independent of biology disciplines, as we observe similar trends within each course.