Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Quantitative reasoning is a critical skill in biology and has been highlighted as a core competency byVision and Change. Despite its importance, students often struggle to apply mathematical skills in new contexts in biology, a process called transfer of knowledge. However, the supports and barriers that students perceive for this process remain unclear. To explore this further, we interviewed undergraduate students in an introductory biology lab course about how they understand and report the transfer of quantitative skills in these courses. We then applied these themes to the Step Back, Translate, and Extend (SBTE) framework to examine student perceptions of the supports and barriers to their knowledge transfer. Students reported different supports and barriers at each level of the transfer process. At the first step of the framework, the recognition level, students reported reflecting on previous chemistry, statistics, and physics learning as helpful cues to indicate a transfer opportunity. Others, however, reported perceiving math and science as separate subjects without overlap, causing a disconnect in their recognition of transferable knowledge. In the second level of the framework, students recall previous learning. Students reported repetition and positive dispositions toward science and math as supportive factors. In contrast, gaps of time between initial learning and new contexts and negative dispositions hindered recall ability. The final level of the SBTE framework focuses on application. Students reported being better able to apply previous learning to new contexts in the biology lab when they could relate their applied skills to “real-world” applications, external motivating factors, and future career goals. These students also reported proactively seeking outside resources to fill gaps in their understanding. Generating data in a lab setting was also mentioned by students as both a supportive factor of application when they felt confident in their answers and a hindrance to application when they felt unsure about its accuracy. 

ABSTRACT Students with strong metacognitive skills are positioned to learn and achieve more than peers who are still developing their metacognition. Yet, many students come to college without well-developed metacognitive skills. As part of a longitudinal study on metacognitive development, we asked when, why, and how first-year life science majors use metacognitive skills of planning, monitoring, and evaluating. Guided by the metacognition framework, we collected data from 52 undergraduates at three institutions using semi-structured interviews. We found that first-year students seek study recommendations from instructors, peers, and online resources when they plan their study strategies. First-year students struggle to accurately monitor their understanding and benefit when instructors help them confront what they do not yet know. First-year students evaluate the effectiveness of their study plans at two specific points: immediately after taking an exam and/or after receiving their grade on an exam. While first-year students may be particularly open to suggestions on how to learn, they may need help debunking myths about learning. First-year students acknowledge they are still learning to monitor and welcome formative assessments that help them improve the accuracy of their monitoring. First-year students may be primed to receive guidance on their metacognition at the points when they are most likely to evaluate the effectiveness of their study strategies and plans. Based on our results, we offer suggestions for instructors who want to support first-year students to further develop their metacognition. 

ABSTRACT Undergraduate genetics courses have historically focused on simple genetic models, rather than taking a more multifactorial approach where students explore how traits are influenced by a combination of genes, the environment, and gene-by-environment interactions. While a focus on simple genetic models can provide straightforward examples to promote student learning, they do not match the current scientific understanding and can result in deterministic thinking among students. In addition, undergraduates are often interested in complex human traits that are influenced by the environment, and national curriculum standards include learning objectives that focus on multifactorial concepts. This research aims to discover to what extent multifactorial genetics is currently being assessed in undergraduate genetics courses. To address this, we analyzed over 1,000 assessment questions from a commonly used undergraduate genetics textbook; published concept assessments; and open-source, peer-reviewed curriculum materials. Our findings show that current genetics assessment questions overwhelmingly emphasize the impact of genes on phenotypes and that the effect of the environment is rarely addressed. These results indicate a need for the inclusion of more multifactorial genetics concepts, and we suggest ways to introduce them into undergraduate courses.