Although the use of clickers and peer discussion is becoming common in large-lecture undergraduate biology courses, their use is limited in small-enrollment seminar-style courses. To investigate whether facilitating peer discussion with clickers would add value to a small-enrollment seminar-style course, we evaluated their usefulness in an 11-student Embryology course at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Student performance data, observations of peer discussion, and interviews with students revealed that adding clickers to a small-enrollment course 1) increases the chance students will do the required reading before class, 2) helps the instructor engage all students in the class, and 3) gives students a focused opportunity to share thinking and to learn from their peers.

In introductory laboratory courses, many universities are turning from traditional laboratories with predictable outcomes to inquiry-inspired, project-based laboratory curricula. In these labs, students are allowed to design at least some portion of their own experiment and interpret new, undiscovered data. We have redesigned the introductory biology laboratory course at Brandeis University into a semester-long project-based laboratory that emphasizes concepts and contains an element of scientific inquiry. In this laboratory, students perform a site-directed mutagenesis experiment on the gene encoding human γD crystallin, a human eye lens protein implicated in cataracts, and assess the stability of their newly created protein with respect to wild-type crystallin. This laboratory utilizes basic techniques in molecular biology to emphasize the importance of connections between DNA and protein. This project lab has helped engage students in their own learning, has improved students’ skills in critical thinking and analysis, and has promoted interest in basic research in biology.

Efforts to improve science education include university science departments hiring Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES), scientists who take on specialized roles in science education within their discipline. Although these positions have existed for decades and may be growing more common, few reports have investigated the SFES approach to improving science education. We present comprehensive data on the SFES in the California State University (CSU) system, the largest university system in the United States. We found that CSU SFES were engaged in three key arenas including K–12 science education, undergraduate science education, and discipline-based science education research. As such, CSU SFES appeared to be well-positioned to have an impact on science education from within science departments. However, there appeared to be a lack of clarity and agreement about the purpose of these SFES positions. In addition, formal training in science education among CSU SFES was limited. Although over 75% of CSU SFES were fulfilled by their teaching, scholarship, and service, our results revealed that almost 40% of CSU SFES were seriously considering leaving their positions. Our data suggest that science departments would likely benefit from explicit discussions about the role of SFES and strategies for supporting their professional activities.

There is increasing enthusiasm for teaching approaches that combine mathematics and biology. The call for integrating more quantitative work in biology education has led to new teaching tools that improve quantitative skills. Little is known, however, about whether increasing interdisciplinary work can lead to adverse effects, such as the development of broader but shallower skills or the possibility that math anxiety causes some students to disengage in the classroom, or, paradoxically, to focus so much on the mathematics that they lose sight of its application for the biological concepts in the center of the unit at hand. We have developed and assessed an integrative learning module and found disciplinary learning gains to be equally strong in first-year students who actively engaged in embedded quantitative calculations as in those students who were merely presented with quantitative data in the context of interpreting biological and biostatistical results. When presented to advanced biology students, our quantitative learning tool increased test performance significantly. We conclude from our study that the addition of mathematical calculations to the first year and advanced biology curricula did not hinder overall student learning, and may increase disciplinary learning and data interpretation skills in advanced students.

Use of in-class concept questions with clickers can transform an instructor-centered “transmissionist” environment to a more learner-centered constructivist classroom. To compare the effectiveness of three different approaches using clickers, pairs of similar questions were used to monitor student understanding in majors’ and nonmajors’ genetics courses. After answering the first question individually, students participated in peer discussion only, listened to an instructor explanation only, or engaged in peer discussion followed by instructor explanation, before answering a second question individually. Our results show that the combination of peer discussion followed by instructor explanation improved average student performance substantially when compared with either alone. When gains in learning were analyzed for three ability groups of students (weak, medium, and strong, based on overall clicker performance), all groups benefited most from the combination approach, suggesting that peer discussion and instructor explanation are synergistic in helping students. However, this analysis also revealed that, for the nonmajors, the gains of weak performers using the combination approach were only slightly better than their gains using instructor explanation alone. In contrast, the strong performers in both courses were not helped by the instructor-only approach, emphasizing the importance of peer discussion, even among top-performing students.

This study compared the effectiveness of collaborative group composition and instructional method on reasoning gains and achievement in college biology. Based on initial student reasoning ability (i.e., low, medium, or high), students were assigned to either homogeneous or heterogeneous collaborative groups within either inquiry or didactic instruction. Achievement and reasoning gains were assessed at the end of the semester. Inquiry instruction, as a whole, led to significantly greater gains in reasoning ability and achievement. Inquiry instruction also led to greater confidence and more positive attitudes toward collaboration. Low-reasoning students made significantly greater reasoning gains within inquiry instruction when grouped with other low reasoners than when grouped with either medium or high reasoners. Results are consistent with equilibration theory, supporting the idea that students benefit from the opportunity for self-regulation without the guidance or direction of a more capable peer.

Self-formed out-of-class study groups may benefit student learning; however, few researchers have quantified the relationship between study group use and achievement or described changes in study group usage patterns over a semester. We related study group use to performance on content exams, explored patterns of study group use, and qualitatively described student perceptions of study groups. A pre- and posttest were used to measure student content knowledge. Internet-based surveys were used to collect quantitative data on exam performance and qualitative data on study group usage trends and student perceptions of study groups. No relationship was found between gains in content knowledge and study group use. Students who participated in study groups did, however, believe they were beneficial. Four patterns of study group use were identified: students either always (14%) or never (55%) used study groups, tried but quit using them (22%), or utilized study groups only late in the semester (9%). Thematic analysis revealed preconceptions and in-class experiences influence student decisions to utilize study groups. We conclude that students require guidance in the successful use of study groups. Instructors can help students maximize study group success by making students aware of potential group composition problems, helping students choose group members who are compatible, and providing students materials on which to focus their study efforts.

This article reports on a one-semester Advanced Cell Biology course that endeavors to bridge the gap between gaining basic textbook knowledge about cell biology and learning to think and work as a researcher. The key elements of this course are 1) learning to work with primary articles in order to get acquainted with the field of choice, to learn scientific reasoning, and to identify gaps in our current knowledge that represent opportunities for further research; 2) formulating a research project with fellow students; 3) gaining thorough knowledge of relevant methodology and technologies used within the field of cell biology; 4) developing cooperation and leadership skills; and 5) presenting and defending research projects before a jury of experts. The course activities were student centered and focused on designing a genuine research program. Our 5-yr experience with this course demonstrates that 1) undergraduate students are capable of delivering high-quality research designs that meet professional standards, and 2) the authenticity of the learning environment in this course strongly engages students to become self-directed and critical thinkers. We hope to provide colleagues with an example of a course that encourages and stimulates students to develop essential research thinking skills.

Several reports on science education suggest that students at all levels learn better if they are immersed in a project that is long term, yielding results that require analysis and interpretation. I describe a 12-wk laboratory project suitable for upper-level undergraduates and first-year graduate students, in which the students molecularly locate and map a gene from Drosophila melanogaster called dusky and one of dusky's mutant alleles. The mapping strategy uses restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis; hence, students perform most of the basic techniques of molecular biology (DNA isolation, restriction enzyme digestion and mapping, plasmid vector subcloning, agarose and polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, DNA labeling, and Southern hybridization) toward the single goal of characterizing dusky and the mutant allele dusky⁷³. Students work as individuals, pairs, or in groups of up to four students. Some exercises require multitasking and collaboration between groups. Finally, results from everyone in the class are required for the final analysis. Results of pre- and postquizzes and surveys indicate that student knowledge of appropriate topics and skills increased significantly, students felt more confident in the laboratory, and students found the laboratory project interesting and challenging. Former students report that the lab was useful in their careers.