Search for: All records

Previous research has shown that students employ intuitive thinking when understanding scientific concepts. Three types of intuitive thinking—essentialist, teleological, and anthropic thinking—are used in biology learning and can lead to misconceptions. However, it is unknown how commonly these types of intuitive thinking, or cognitive construals, are used spontaneously in students’ explanations across biological concepts and whether this usage is related to endorsement of construal-consistent misconceptions. In this study, we examined how frequently undergraduate students across two U.S. universities ( N = 807) used construal-consistent language (CCL) to explain in response to open-ended questions related to five core biology concepts (e.g., evolution), how CCL use differed by concept, and how this usage was related to misconceptions agreement. We found that the majority of students used some kind of CCL in the responses to these open-ended questions and that CCL use varied by target concept. We also found that students who used CCL in their response agreed more strongly with misconception statements, a relationship driven by anthropocentric language use, or language that focused on humans. These findings suggest that American university students use intuitive thinking when reasoning about biological concepts with implications for their understanding. 

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are an effective method of engaging large numbers of students in authentic research but are associated with barriers to adoption. Short CURE modules may serve as a low-barrier entryway, but their effectiveness in promoting expansion has not been studied. The Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance in the Environment (PARE) project is a modular CURE designed to be a low-barrier gateway into CURE use. In a series of interviews, we track and characterize use of PARE in 19 PARE-interested instructors throughout the Innovation-Decision Process described by Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory. The majority (16/19) implement PARE at least once, and a majority of these implementers (11/16) expanded use by the final interview. Three of four cases of discontinuance were due to a disruption such as moving institutions or a change in course assignment and occurred for community college faculty. Expanders expressed fewer personal challenges than nonexpanders. Overall analysis shows that perception of barriers is nuanced and impacted by the innovation itself, the institutional context, and one’s own experiences. These results suggest that a short duration, low barrier CURE can serve as a catalyst for implementation of a longer duration CURE.