Increased Scaffolding and Inquiry in an Introductory Biology Lab Enhance Experimental Design Skills and Sense of Scientific Ability

Diversifying laboratory assessment modes broadens engagement with practical competencies in life science students

Laboratory practicals in life science subjects are traditionally assessed by written reports that reflect disciplinary norms for documenting experimental activities. However, the exclusive application of this assessment has the potential to engage only a narrow range of competencies. In this study, we explored how multiple modes of laboratory assessment might affect student perceptions of learned skills in a life science module. We hypothesized that while a mixture of assessments may not impact student summative performance, it might positively influence student perceptions of different skills that varied assessments allowed them to practice. This was informed by universal design for learning and teaching for understanding frameworks. In our study, in a third-year Bioscience program, written reports were complemented with group presentations and online quizzes via Moodle. Anonymous surveys evaluated whether this expanded portfolio of assessments promoted awareness of, and engagement with, a broader range of practical competencies. Aspects that influenced student preferences in assessment mode included time limitations, time investment, ability to practice new skills, links with lecture material, and experience of assessment anxiety. In particular, presentations were highlighted as promoting collaboration and communication and the quiz as an effective means of diversifying assessment schedules. A key takeaway from students was that while reports were important, an overreliance on them was detrimental. This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.

An Inorganic Chemistry Laboratory Technique Course using Scaffolded, Inquiry-Based Laboratories and Project-Based Learning

To enhance students' learning and help them understand the whole picture of the field of inorganic chemistry, an inorganic laboratory technique course was designed that uses scaffolded, inquiry-based lab experiments and project-based learning. The scaffolded, inquiry-based laboratories taught in the first 8 weeks of the course helped students better understand the aim of each lab and how to apply each lab technique to a bigger research project. The laboratory experiments also included opportunities for cooperative and collaborative learning through student group work and feedback. To further develop students' independent research skills, we implemented project-based learning in the second part of the course (last 4 weeks), in which students develop a research proposal based on independent literature research and the laboratory techniques they learned from the course. Pilot data suggest that the course helped improve students' interest in inorganic chemistry, science self-efficacy, and science identity. Additionally, students reported that both the scaffolded, inquiry-based laboratories and the project-based learning module enhanced their problem-solving and critical thinking skills.

An Equity-Focused Redesign of an Introductory Organismal Biology Lab Course To Develop Foundational Scientific Practices

Laboratory courses can serve as important avenues to equitably support introductory biology students to develop foundational scientific literacy skills while experiencing the authentic research process. We present a model for an equity-focused redesign of an introductory organismal biology laboratory course at a teaching institution with limited research infrastructure. We incorporated elements of inquiry, structure, and climate into our three redesigned course components: weekly research investigations, skill-building assignments, and student-designed group projects. Students were trained in the research process through weekly experiments using locally relevant model organisms, collecting and analyzing novel data and writing brief results sections in the conventions of a research journal article. Student groups then collaborated to complete a student-designed research project and poster presentation using one of the model organisms. Through weekly inquiry labs and practice in skill-building assignments, most students in the sample mastered skills in analyzing, graphing, and writing about experimental results. Notably, students mastered skills that were practiced more frequently throughout the lab course, demonstrating the value of repeated and scaffolded practice. Students reported significant gains in self-efficacy and science identity, as well as sense of project ownership. Student gains were influenced by instructor but not their major or the semester in which they took the course, and growth occurred across students regardless of their incoming score on the presemester survey. This intentional course design model, combined with consistent expectations for instructors across multiple sections, has the potential to equitably support students with a range of prior knowledge and experiences to make meaningful gains in science literacy skills during an introductory semester.

Can We Quantify If It's a CURE?

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) rapidly have become more common in biology laboratory courses. The effort to implement CUREs has stimulated attempts to differentiate CUREs from other types of laboratory teaching. The Laboratory Course Assessment Survey (LCAS) was developed to measure students' perceptions of how frequently they participate in activities related to iteration, discovery, broader relevance, and collaboration in their laboratory courses. The LCAS has been proposed as an instrument that can be used to define whether a laboratory course fits the criteria for a CURE or not. However, the threshold LCAS scores needed to define a course as a CURE are unclear. As a result, we examined variation in published LCAS scores among different laboratory course types. In addition, we examined the distribution of LCAS scores for students enrolled in our research-for-credit course. Overall, we found substantial variation in scores among CUREs and broad overlap among course types in scores related to all three scales measured by the LCAS. Furthermore, the mean LCAS scores for all course types fell within the main part of the distribution of scores for our mentored research students. These results suggest that the LCAS cannot be used to easily quantify whether a course is a CURE or not. We propose that the biology education community needs to move beyond trying to quantitatively identify whether a course is a CURE. Instead, we should use tools like the LCAS to investigate what students are actually doing in their laboratory courses and how those activities impact student outcomes.

Students' Emotions, Perceived Coping, and Outcomes in Response to Research-Based Challenges and Failures in Two Sequential CUREs

The ability to navigate scientific obstacles is widely recognized as a hallmark of a scientific disposition and is one predictor of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics persistence for early-career scientists. However, the development of this competency in undergraduate research has been largely underexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining introductory students' emotional and behavioral responses to research-related challenges and failures that occur in two sequential research-based courses. We describe commonly reported emotions, coping responses, and perceived outcomes and examine relationships between these themes, student demographics, and course enrollment. Students commonly experience frustration, confusion, and disappointment when coping with challenges and failures. Yet the predominance of students report coping responses likely to be adaptive in academic contexts despite experiencing negative emotions. Being enrolled in the second course of a research-based course sequence was related to several shifts in response to challenges during data collection, including less reporting of confusion and fewer reports of learning to be cautious from students. Overall, students in both the first and second courses reported many positive outcomes indicating improvements in their ability to cope with challenge and failure. We assert that educators can improve research-based educational courses by scaffolding students' research trials, failures, and iterations to support students' perseverance.