Volume 18 is Published
Volume 19 is Building
Stay notified as new articles appear:
Recent articles RSS feed
eToC notification
Related articles:
No articles to displayRelated materials:
No materials to display
Review
Current Trends in Laboratory Class Teaching in University Bioscience Programmes
UK Centre for Bioscience, Higher Education Academy, and Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds.
Date received: 06/01/2009 Date accepted: 16/02/2009
Students and academics agree that there is a need to make learning and teaching in the bioscience laboratory more challenging and engaging. During recent years there have been many published accounts of novel laboratory exercises designed to enthuse and stimulate students through active learning. The purpose of this review is to raise awareness of these innovative methods that exploit computer-based approaches, encourage enquiry-based learning and may even involve students in cutting edge research during scheduled undergraduate laboratory classes.
Keywords: Laboratory teaching, enquiry-based learning, computer-based learning, social interaction, undergraduate research
Recently, the UK Centre for Bioscience, Higher Education Academy, held a workshop, for around 30 invited participants from industry and higher education, that explored the role of first year university practical/laboratory classes in the development of future bioscientists (Wilson et al., 2008). The workshop was held in part response to a survey of the student view of first year laboratory work in the biosciences (Collis et al., 2007, 2008). The published results of the survey and report of the workshop indicate that there is a pressing need to re-think the traditional approach to bioscience laboratory teaching in UK higher education. In particular, we must move away from ‘spoon feeding’ students during interminable, repetitive and boring practical classes that have highly predictable results; other authors have proposed similar reforms (Handelsman et al., 2004; Wood, 2008). All agree that, wherever possible, we should challenge and engage our undergraduates in enquiry-based exercises that fully embrace the Scientific Method. Thus, ideally, students should be asked to observe a phenomenon, ask questions and devise a testable hypothesis or model. They should design and carry-out an experimental strategy, record and critically analyse their results, reach conclusions about the validity of their hypothesis, and decide whether more experiments are needed to answer the original questions and new questions that may have arisen during the course of the investigation. If this can be achieved using approaches and settings that encourage students to engage more deeply with course content then all the better (Windschitl et al., 2008).
There is an extensive, international body of literature that supports laboratory teaching in bioscience disciplines ranging from bioinformatics to zoology (Table 1). This literature describes a very wide range of approaches designed to enthuse and stimulate students through active learning that may involve laboratory exercises placed in realistic and exciting contexts. Undergraduate students may even find themselves participating in novel research exercises during scheduled laboratory teaching. This review identifies and highlights recent examples of such good and innovative practice that ensures student engagement and an improved learning experience in the bioscience teaching laboratory. For specific issues relating to biology fieldwork in higher education please consult the review by Smith (2004).
Table 1 Bioscience education journals cited in this review (all journals are peer reviewed). The reader may also find the recent article by Dolan (2007) useful. He includes a more extensive list of publications specialising in science education practice and research, provides advice on how to locate articles on specific issues in science education and introduces a feature in CBE-Life Sciences Education: ‘Current Insights: Recent Research in Science Teaching and Learning’.
Journal
title (issues per annum), |
Disciplines covered |
Target audience |
Subscription type |
Miscellaneous |
Advances
in Physiology Education (4) |
Neuroscience; physiology; patho-physiology |
US K-12, undergraduate, postgraduate, professional |
Online free, print copies by subscription |
Includes section: ‘Teaching in the Laboratory’ |
American
Biology Teacher (9) |
Comprehensive coverage of biology |
Biology educators at all levels |
Subscription |
Includes ‘How to do it’ suggestions for lab. and field activities |
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education (6) |
Biochemistry; molecular biology; biophysics; cell biology |
Biochemistry and molecular biology educators at all levels |
Subscription for current year; earlier years freely available |
Includes section: ‘Laboratory Exercises’ |
Bioscience
Education (2) |
Comprehensive coverage of biology in higher education |
Biology educators in higher education |
Freely available |
|
Cell Biology
Education (CBE) — Life Sciences Education (4) |
Cell, developmental, molecular biology; biochemistry; neuroscience; genetics; bioinformatics; genomics; proteomics |
US K-12, undergraduate, postgraduate, professional |
Freely available |
|
Journal
of Biological Education (4) |
Comprehensive coverage of biology |
Largely for schools but some tertiary level material |
Freely available |
Includes section: ‘Practicals’ |
Journal
of Microbiology and Biology Education (1) |
recently broadened to include all aspects of biology |
Microbiology and other biology educators |
Subscription |
Formerly Microbiology Education |
Most of the journals listed in Table 1 contain a great deal of subject-specific information. For example, in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology, Boyer (2003) and Caldwell et al. (2004) consider the concepts and skills that should be imparted specifically during biochemistry and molecular biology laboratory programmes. There is no scope to include all of this material here; instead please consult the publications catering for individual disciplines (Table 1). Many of the articles cited in this review describe laboratory classes that involve students in experimental design and execution. Hiebert (2007) provides useful guidelines for instructors teaching students how to design experiments that involve comparison of two treatment groups.
Enquiry-based learning (EBL) approach to laboratory teaching
Lord and Orkwiszewski (2006) compared performance for two large groups of students taught by different instructional methods during an introductory biology course. The control group followed several pages of written directions in a laboratory manual while the experimental group was divided into small cooperative learning teams who designed their own experiments. The results indicated that students engaged in EBL obtained higher scores in laboratory tests and enjoyed their investigations more than students taught by traditional methods. In addition, students taught using the enquiry approach acquired enhanced reasoning skills during the course of the programme. During the last two decades similar results have been obtained by many workers (see, for example, Hall and McCurdy, 1990; Rodenbaugh et al., 2007; and many of the studies cited elsewhere in the current article). Evidence of this nature makes a strong case for practical classes that engender and maintain students’ interest in laboratory work by incorporating an enquiry-based mode of learning. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the recent literature abounds with excellent examples of classes where students design experiments and solve problems that often incorporate open-ended elements. The following reports illustrate that EBL approaches are prominent in many fields of biology extending from molecular biology to ecology fieldwork. In addition, please see the next section for a number of excellent examples of EBL in cutting edge research environments; clearly an enquiry-based approach is a key component of research-led undergraduate practical sessions.
White (1999) described a readily adopted ‘Red and White Yeast Lab’ exercise that provided an introduction to science as a process. Students were not necessarily expected to obtain the ‘correct answer’. Instead, as with many effective EBL approaches, they benefited greatly from discussions with their peers as they tested their hypotheses in the laboratory. Halme et al. (2006) described a concept-based laboratory section of an Introductory Biology course as a hybrid of ‘hands on’ and ‘minds on’ learning. Within this voluntary component of the course, EBL laboratory exercises were designed that helped clarify difficult concepts and highlighted connections between topics introduced during lectures. In the context of another laboratory-based Introductory Biology course, Lindquester et al. (2005) combined EBL with an ‘information fluency’ approach for teaching students the knowledge and data gathering skills that must be developed by researchers.
Given the nature of the publications that support bioscience education (Table 1) it is perhaps not surprising that articles on EBL frequently describe procedures for the biochemistry, physiology or cell biology laboratory. There are comparatively few examples of enquiry based approaches in plant biology but a useful exception is the report by Spiro and Knisely (2006). They asked students to develop hypotheses and design experiments in a laboratory programme that developed an understanding of the fern life cycle and involved an investigation of a mutation affecting gametophyte sexual development. Similarly there are few examples of EBL in zoology although Burrowes (2007) described an interesting investigative approach adopted during a one day field trip involving marine invertebrates in a coral reef.
In the physiology laboratory, students adopted novel EBL approaches in investigations that featured a wide range of diverse host organisms including plants, humans and rainbow trout (Kolkhorst, 2001; Rivers, 2002; Myers and Burgess, 2003; Fitzpatrick, 2004; Luckie, 2004; Cotter and Rodnick, 2007). Chaplin (2003) adopted an EBL approach that ensured the stepwise acquisition of investigative skills in an anatomy/physiology laboratory while Frantz et al. (2006) involved undergraduates in experimental design and other aspects of EBL during a neuroscience summer research programme.
In the molecular sciences Cunningham et al. (2006) used an enquiry based approach for students learning and optimizing agarose gel electophoresis while Stahelin et al. (2003) had students design and perform experiments involving site-directed mutagenesis. Kuldell (2006) described a particularly good example of experiential learning with students given the opportunity to adopt a hypothesis-driven approach, design experiments involving RNA interference and microarrays, and evaluate the data. In a more ‘traditional’ biochemistry laboratory exercise, Collins and Bell (2004) had students adopt an enquiry based approach as they learned about fermentation in yeast while Brauner et al. (2007) used authentic medical cases as the basis of a project-oriented course that included student laboratory work focused on disease-related proteins. Castanho (2002) described a heuristics-based approach to experiential learning in molecular biophysics while in molecular phylogenetics, Parker et al. (2004) had students consider an open-ended evolutionary question about relationships between five species of Drosophila. In another EBL approach to evolutionary biology students asked and answered questions relating to structural adaptations in molluscs and vertebrates (Rehorek, 2004). Luciano et al. (2002) used bacteriophage selected from sewage as a model system for EBL in which students characterised phage in team projects that mimicked real life research.
Bioinformatics lends itself well to EBL in classes involving large numbers of students. For example, Bednarski et al. (2005) used a range of bioinformatics tools during a large introductory EBL-based laboratory that explored the genetic basis of human disease. In an investigative approach involving both bioinformatics and functional genomics, students identified novel genes in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans (Griffin et al., 2003). Similarly, Kaspar (2002) described an EBL approach that combined a laboratory experience, involving sequencing of random human cDNA fragments, with an internet assignment in which students searched appropriate databases to determine whether the cDNA sequences had already been identified.
In the field of cell biology, DebBurman (2002) devised a series of mock research projects that mimicked the activities of the scientific community. Cutting edge research in the undergraduate laboratory is the subject of the next section and model organisms like C. elegans have been exploited most effectively during research activities embedded in undergraduate teaching programmes (see below). In addition, Guziewicz (2002) used C. elegans in a sophisticated EBL approach that involved students investigating roles for synaptic vesicles and neurotransmitters in the nervous system of this organism.
Ideally, undergraduate students should become familiar with a wide range of experimental techniques and acquire numerous skills prior to undergraduate or postgraduate research studies. Zhou et al. (2007) addressed these requirements by providing a comprehensive training programme in research procedures while Zhang (2008) allowed undergraduates to explore a range of commonly used molecular biology techniques as they sought to solve fundamental problems in molecular genetics.
Cutting edge research in undergraduate laboratory classes
Perhaps the most effective way to ensure student engagement in practical classes is to give undergraduates the opportunity to participate in entirely original and valuable research activities during scheduled laboratory sessions. As new techniques and model organisms have been developed and exploited in molecular and cell biology research laboratories, academics have enthusiastically embraced these procedures and incorporated them into undergraduate programmes that give students a taste of a genuine research experience. For example, during the last three decades C. elegans has emerged as a very powerful research tool for cell biologists. Hurd (2008) exploited this organism in a teaching laboratory that used RNA interference in a miniature epigenetic screen for novel phenotypes of this organism. The results of the screen, combined with a literature search, directed students towards a single gene that they attempted to subclone. Other authors indicated that the combination of authentic C. elegans research resources with enquiry-based learning benefited student learning and described a useful educational web portal for these resources (Lu et al., 2007, 2008). The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is another invaluable model organism: undergraduate students have used S. cerevisiae to test the mutagenicity of household compounds (Marshall, 2007) and have exploited the yeast two hybrid system in a screen for unknown proteins that interacted with their proteins of interest (Odom and Grossel 2002). Mitchell and Graziano (2006) used the readily manipulated unicellular alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in a practical exercise for sophomore (Level 2) students that involved an investigation of flagellar proteins and that struck a balance between directed experimental activity and independent research. In yet another interesting approach, Oates (2002) described an ‘antibiotic prospecting’ exercise in which a student research team considered a number of questions relating to the development of antibiotics, agreed on an approach for the identification of new, naturally occurring antibacterial agents and devised a workflow and testing protocol for the evaluation of the novel compounds. Boomer et al. (2002) characterised and compared novel bacteria from hot spring communities in a US national park on the basis of 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences.
Many undergraduate research experiences have a real ‘wow’ factor. Hammamieh et al. (2005) had undergraduates carry out research with mouse mammary tumour cells that mirrored current cancer research, while DiBartolomeis and Moné (2003) established teams of students who, over a four week period, investigated mammalian apoptosis in an environment that closely simulated an active cell or molecular biology research laboratory. In the field of immunology, students examined the relationship between immune function and stress in a semester-long research project involving enzymes immunoassays. Specific tools and assays were provided but other aspects were developed by students with appropriate guidance from tutors. This approach was found to be a more effective learning experience than laboratory sessions involving ‘traditional’ instructor-designed experiments (Goyette and DeLuca, 2007). In molecular medicine, Brauner et al. (2007) not only used authentic medical cases as the bases for laboratory exercises but also asked students to develop proposals for future research. Silveira (2008) asked students to investigate the so-called ‘God gene’ that encodes vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2). There have been claims that polymorphisms in VMAT2 play a role in an individual’s openness to spiritual experiences. In a highly interactive research exercise, each student amplified a portion of their own VMAT2 gene, analysed three polymorphic sites and looked for associations between particular VMAT2 alleles and scores on a personality test.
Further useful and interesting examples of students obtaining original results during practical classes in molecular biology include the isolation of novel microsatellites (short tandem repeats) from ostrich DNA (Possik et al., 2003); the design of degenerate primers to amplify conserved homologues of genes encoding cell signalling components from an unexplored organism (LeClair, 2008); the generation and characterization of mutants defective in chromosome transmission (Sleister, 2007); and the construction of site-directed mutants of a prokaryotic gene and analysis of the effects of the mutations on the encoded enzymes, in the context of an advanced laboratory course (Rasche, 2004). The author of the latter study described how the EBL approach could be used as a springboard for larger scale projects that individual students could pursue in research laboratories.
Undergraduate teaching with research programmes in molecular biology can benefit greatly from ready access to DNA microarrays which may be used to measure, simultaneously, the level of gene expression for each gene in a genome. For examples of applications for microarray technology in undergraduate teaching see Campbell et al. (2007a) and references therein, Kushner (2007), and Walker et al. (2008). In the USA, the Genome Consortium for Active Teaching (GCAT) has helped make DNA microarray experiments affordable for undergraduate teaching and research in a wide range of institutions. The consortium provides DNA to undergraduates who perform experiments then return the chips to GCAT for scanning (Campbell et al., 2007a). Undergraduates conducting microarray experiments must frequently validate microarray data for individual, selected genes. In research laboratories this usually involves the prohibitively expensive real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. Bradford et al. (2005) report an alternative, inexpensive and student-friendly gel electrophoresis-based PCR method for quantifying mRNA levels in undergraduate laboratories. In addition, Campbell et al. (2007b) describe a free, Web-based electronic resource that can be used to train students how to analyse microarray data.
Further innovative approaches
Howard and Miskowski (2005) boosted student engagement and learning during a semester–long EBL course designed for a large Cell Biology class. They created a number of laboratory-based modules and in each of these students used a range of techniques as they sought to answer one of more questions set in a fictional context. Similarly, Caprette et al. (2005) created a modular laboratory course in Biosciences, with modules lasting one quarter to one half a semester. These short modules were taught independently of lecture courses and this model enabled experimentation with new technologies, and different approaches to laboratory education and assessment, that the authors found difficult to achieve in a traditional programme.
In a course designed for students majoring in non-science subjects, Cell Biology was taught effectively, and hands-on experience in practical classes maximised, using a range of procedures and approaches commonly encountered in the forensic science laboratory (Arwood, 2004). Wendell and Pickard (2007) developed an ingenious approach for teaching ‘human’ genetics to undergraduates: they used rapid cycling ‘fast plants’ as subjects in a class designed to illustrate the techniques used in paternity exclusion cases.
Sé et al (2008) adopted several approaches for teaching Medical Biochemistry with emphasis on problem-based learning and student participation that included students providing blood samples during laboratory classes! Juška et al. (2006) combined laboratory exercises, mathematical modelling and model-based data analysis during an investigation of microbial growth in the teaching laboratory. They indicated that their approach could be used in the teaching of other topics in biology including enzyme and receptor kinetics. Citing strong evidence demonstrating that cooperative groups, when used correctly, can improve the academic performance of participating students, Jensen (1996) described how quizzes can be used to establish an effective cooperative environment in the Anatomy and Physiology laboratory.
The importance of social interaction during laboratory classes
In a recent survey, UK students on first year Bioscience courses indicated that laboratory classes can provide valuable opportunities for social interaction with other students and members of staff (Collis et al., 2007, 2008). During a follow-up event, members of staff agreed that the development of good social interaction can help foster a positive sense of inclusion and effective learning during practical classes (Wilson et al., 2008). In the US both students and instructors identified reliance on the social nature of learning as an important feature of an interdisciplinary science course (Park-Rogers and Abell, 2008). The organisers helped ensure effective social interaction between students by devoting two pages of their laboratory manual to advice on how to work constructively in teams. In another very recent report, Madhuri and Broussard (2008) describe a redesigned Developmental Biology course that not only embraced a number of elements of good practice in enquiry based learning but also established a successful ‘community of scientific practice’ that encouraged extensive social interaction within and between groups of students. Luckie et al. (2004) devised a programme of EBL laboratories, called ‘Teams and Streams’, in which teams of students posed a series of questions/hypotheses, designed experiments and reported their findings in a range of formats. Sé et al. (2008) fostered closer interaction between staff and undergraduates using a range of approaches including creation of a ‘BioBio blog’ that enhanced out of class exchanges between tutors and students. In a remarkable example of collaboration in an undergraduate teaching laboratory, students worked together to sequence, assemble and annotate the entire genome of a strain of Enterobacter cloacae (Drew and Triplett, 2008). Finally, it should be noted that many of the articles cited elsewhere in this review also place strong emphasis on the importance and benefits of students cooperating in teams in the bioscience teaching laboratory.
E-learning in support of laboratory classes
Gibbins et al. (2003) reported that computer-assisted learning could enhance learning and teaching outcomes in a laboratory-based molecular biology class while Dantas and Kemm (2008) used e-learning to ensure students adopted an active, engaged approach to laboratory exercises in physiology; students were asked to complete tasks in which they predicted the outcomes of potential experimental investigations prior to work in the laboratory. They were asked to provide explanations for their suggestions and were therefore given the opportunity to think carefully about the concepts and mechanisms underlying the experiments in their own time and at their own pace. Students then tested their hypotheses in the laboratory, interpreted their results, compared them with their earlier predictions and made a second electronic submission summarising their results and conclusions. Goldberg and Dintzis (2007) adopted an alternative approach with pre-laboratory online learning. Prior to each ‘laboratory’ session in a Physiology/Histology course, students were required to view pre-laboratory virtual lectures and annotated digital slides. This material was then considered in the laboratory which was used for team-based exercises that included student presentations, a question/answer session and an online quiz. The authors reported a positive outcome for this approach. Students were introduced to advanced microscopy techniques, and their critical thinking skills promoted, during a large introductory microbiology course involving computer-based case studies taken from real life scenarios (Merkel et al., 2006).
The Bristol ChemLabS project (www.chemlabs.bris.ac.uk) has involved the development of an interactive, online Dynamic Laboratory Manual that helps students prepare thoroughly for laboratory classes in chemistry. The manual incorporates video clips and interactive simulations that allow students to observe and practice techniques, build the confidence to use sophisticated equipment and develop a better understanding of the chemistry they are studying. The manual also incorporates formative and summative assessments; the latter permit assessment of student performance during practical classes and help eliminate the need for tedious write-ups after every class. The skill of scientific writing is taught elsewhere in the course. A ‘BioLabS’ equivalent of the Bristol ChemLabS initiative would seem a very attractive proposition.
The overwhelming message from the publications reviewed in this article and the findings of recent reports (ASBM, 2008; Wilson et al., 2008) is that there is a pressing need for reform of laboratory teaching practice during undergraduate programmes in the biosciences. Most importantly, it would seem clear that active, enquiry-based learning is often more effective than traditional, didactic approaches to teaching and learning (Lujan and DiCarlo, 2006; Michael, 2006). Furthermore, undergraduate students appear to benefit greatly not only from supervised research projects that may last for a whole semester but also from more limited project experiences that provide the opportunity for novel research in the context of the teaching laboratory.
Another major recurrent theme from the literature reviewed was the need for an improved continuum of the student experience in the teaching laboratory. This begins with what is often perceived to be an unsatisfactory transition from school to university: there is some concern that school students have less experience of practical work and are less well prepared for university classes than they were in previous years. There is therefore a need for improved communication and collaboration between teachers in schools and those involved in the design of first year practicals in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). As students progress through undergraduate studies, and tackle increasingly complex and demanding laboratory exercises, we can maintain continuity by ensuring that there is constant reinforcement and consolidation of the knowledge base and skills acquired. This can be achieved by designing laboratory classes that build upon and complement knowledge and skills introduced earlier and elsewhere in programmes.
The introduction of more computer based learning (CBL) initiatives may help facilitate reform of laboratory teaching practice in bioscience programmes. It is clear that e-learning can be used effectively in support of laboratory classes in the biosciences (Gibbins et al., 2003; Merkel et al., 2006; Goldberg and Dintzis, 2007; Dantas and Kemm, 2008) and anecdotal evidence indicates that colleagues in a number of biological sciences faculties in the UK are embracing a CBL-enhanced approach to laboratory teaching. A national initiative in support of CBL in biological sciences teaching laboratories, and based largely on the Bristol ChemLabS approach, could have a major impact on the standard of laboratory teaching in UK HEIs.
In conclusion, there is a need to restructure traditional laboratory classes to enable students to learn by discovery, interact more effectively with peers and tutors, and begin to appreciate the excitement of performing experiments. Hopefully this approach will engender and maintain students’ enthusiasm for laboratory work during their time at university and in future careers. All of this presents a major challenge in view of the very large numbers of students taught by many institutions, the expense of cutting edge procedures and the greater weighting placed on research vs. teaching activities by many universities. Nonetheless, the benefits to academia, research institutes and industry of graduates who can effectively carry out research, think independently and solve problems are enormous. It is therefore to be hoped that the numerous examples of good practice in laboratory teaching included in this review, along with the recommendations of recent reports on undergraduate teaching (ASBM, 2008; Wilson et al., 2008), will be adopted and implemented by many HEIs in the near future.
ASBM (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology) (2008) Biochemistry/Molecular Biology and Liberal Education: a report to the Teagle Foundation available at www.asbmb.org/uploadedFiles/ProfessionalDevelopment/Resources/Teagle%20Report(1).pdf (accessed 7 January 2009)
Arwood, L. (2004) Teaching cell biology to
nonscience majors through forensics, or how to design a killer
course. CBE Life Sciences Education 3, 131–138
doi:10.1187/cbe.03-12-0023
Bednarski, A.E., Elgin, S.C.R. and Pakrasi,
H.B. (2005) An inquiry into protein structure and genetic disease:
introducing undergraduates to bioinformatics in a large introductory
course. CBE Life Sciences Education 4, 207–220
doi:10.1187/cbe.04-07-0044
Boomer, S.M., Lodge, D.P. and Dutton, B.E. (2002) Bacterial diversity studies using the 16S rRNA gene provide a powerful research-based curriculum for molecular biology laboratory. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 3 (1), 18–25
Boyer, R. (2003) Concepts and skills in the
biochemistry/molecular biology lab. Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology Education 31, 102–105
doi:10.1002/bmb.2003.494031020192
Bradford, W.D. Cahoon, L., Freel, S.R., Mays
Hoopes, L.L. and Eckdahl, T.T. (2005) An inexpensive gel electrophoresis-based
polymerase chain reaction method for quantifying mRNA levels. CBE
Life Sciences Education 4, 157–168
doi:10.1187/cbe.04-09-0051
Brauner, A., Carey, J., Henriksson, M., Sunnerhagen,
M. and Ehrenborg, E. (2007) Open-ended assignments and student
responsibility. Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology Education 35,
187–192
doi:10.1002/bmb.49
Burrowes, P.A. (2007) How to make a field trip a hands-on investigative laboratory: learning about marine invertebrates. The American Biology Teacher Online Publication, April 2007
Caldwell, B., Rohlman, C. and Benore-Parsons,
M. (2004) A curriculum skills matrix for development and assessment
of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology laboratory
programs. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education 32, 11–16
doi:10.1002/bmb.2004.494032010295
Campbell, A.M., Ledbetter, M.L.S., Hoopes,
L.L.M., Eckdahl, T.T., Heyer, L.J., Rosenwald, A., Fowlks, E.,
Tonidandel, S., Bucholtz, B. and Gottfried, G. (2007a) Genome consortium
for active teaching: meeting the goals of BIO2010. CBE Life Sciences Education 6, 109–118
doi:10.1187/cbe.06-10-0196
Campbell, A.M., Hatfield, W.T. and Heyer,
L.J. (2007b) Make microarray data with known ratios. CBE
Life Sciences Education 6, 196–197
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-05-0028
Caprette, D.R., Armstrong, S. and Beason,
K.B. (2005) Modular laboratory courses: an alternative to a traditional
laboratory program. Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology Education 33, 351–355
doi:10.1002/bmb.2005.49403305351
Castanho, M.A.R.B. (2002) Dealing with the
challenges of teaching molecular biophysics to biochemistry majors
through an heuristics-based approach. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 30, 163–168
doi:10.1002/bmb.2002.494030030031
Chaplin, S.B. (2003) Guided development of independent inquiry in an anatomy/physiology laboratory. Advances in Physiology Education 27, 230–240
Collins, L.T. and Bell, R.P. (2004) How to generate understanding of the scientific process in introductory biology. A student-designed laboratory exercise on yeast fermentation. The American Biology Teacher 66, 51–53
Collis, M., Gibson, A., Hughes, I.E., Sayers,
G. and Todd, M. (2007) Report: The Student View of 1st Year Laboratory
Work in Biosciences. Centre for Bioscience, available at www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/reports/1styearlabs.pdf (accessed
7 January 2009)
10.3108/beej.11.2
Collis, M., Gibson, A., Hughes, I.E., Sayers, G. and Todd, M. (2008) The Student View of 1st Year Laboratory Work in Biosciences – score gamma? Bioscience Education 11-2 available at www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej-11-2.aspx (accessed 7 January 2009)
Cotter, P.A. and Rodnick, K.J. (2007) Fishing
for an ECG: a student-directed electrocardiographic laboratory
using rainbow trout. Advances in Physiology Education 31, 211–217
doi:10.1152/advan.00096.2006
Cunningham, S.C., McNear, B., Pearlman, R.S.
and Kern, S.E. (2006) Beverage-agarose gel electrophoresis: an
inquiry-based laboratory exercise with virtual adaptation. CBE Life Sciences Education 5, 281–286
doi:10.1187/cbe.06-01-0139
Dantas, A.M. and Kemm, R.E. (2008) A blended
approach to active learning in a physiology laboratory-based subject
facilitated by an e-learning component. Advances in Physiology Education 32, 65–75
doi:10.1152/advan.00006.2007
DebBurman, S.K. (2002) Learning how scientists
work: experiential research projects to promote cell biology learning
and scientific process skills. CBE Life Sciences Education 1, 154–172
doi:10.1187/cbe.02-07-0024
DiBartolomeis, S.M. and Moné, J.P.
(2003) Apoptosis: a four-week laboratory investigation for advanced
molecular and cellular biology students. CBE Life Sciences Education
2, 275–295
doi:10.1187/cbe.03-06-0027
Dolan, E.L. (2007) Grappling with the literature
of education research and practice. CBE Life Sciences Education
6, 289–296
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-09-0087
Drew, J.C. and Triplett, E.W. (2008) Whole genome sequencing in the undergraduate classroom: outcomes and lessons from a pilot course. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 9.
Fitzpatrick, K.A. (2004) An investigative
laboratory course in human physiology using computer technology
and collaborative writing. Advances in Physiology Education 28,
112–119
doi:10.1152/advan.00007.2004
Frantz, K.J., DeHaan, R.L., Demetrikopoulos,
M.K. and Carruth, L.L. (2006) Routes to research for novice undergraduate
neuroscientists. CBE Life Sciences Education 5, 175–187
doi:10.1187/cbe.05-09-0119
Gibbins, S., Sosabowski, M.H. and Cunningham,
J. (2003) Evaluation of a web-based resource to support a molecular
biology practical class – does computer-aided learning really
work? Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31, 352–355
doi:10.1002/bmb.2003.494031050260
Goldberg, H.R. and Dintzis, R. (2007) The
positive impact of team-based virtual microscopy on student learning
in physiology and histology. Advances in Physiology Education 31,
261–265
doi:10.1152/advan.00125.2006
Goyette, S.R. and DeLuca, J. (2007) A semester-long
student-directed research project involving enzyme immunoassay:
appropriate for immunology, endocrinology, or neuroscience courses.
CBE Life Sciences Education 6, 332–342
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-01-0001
Griffin, V., McMiller, T., Jones, E. and
Johnson, C.M. (2003) Identifying novel helix-loop-helix genes in
Caenorhabditis elegans through a classroom demonstration of functional
genomics. CBE Life Sciences Education 2, 51–62
doi:10.1187/cbe.02-09-0040
Guziewicz, M., Vitullo, T., Simmons, B. and
Kohn, R.E. (2002) Analyzing defects in the Caenorhabditis elegans
nervous system using organismal and cell biological approaches.
CBE Life Sciences Education 1, 18–25
doi:10.1187/cbe.01-08-0001
Hall, D.A. and McCurdy, D.W. (1990) A comparison
of a biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS) laboratory and
a traditional laboratory on student achievement at two private
liberal arts colleges. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 27, 625–636
doi:10.1002/tea.3660270703
Halme, D.G., Khodor, J., Mitchell, R. and
Walker, G.C. (2006) A small-scale concept-based laboratory component:
the best of both worlds. CBE Life Sciences Education 5, 41–51
doi:10.1187/cbe.04-10-0053
Hammamieh, R., Anderson, M., Carr, K, Tran,
C.N., Yourick, D.L. and Jett, M. (2005) Students investigating
the antiproliferative effects of synthesised drugs on mouse mammary
tumor cells. CBE Life Sciences Education 4, 221–234
doi:10.1187/cbe.04-10-0053
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner,
R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S.,
Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M. and Wood, W.B. (2004) Scientific teaching.
Science 304, 521–522
doi:10.1126/science.1096022
Hiebert, S.M. (2007) Teaching simple experimental
design to undergraduates: do your students understand the basics?
Advances in Physiology Education 31, 82–92
doi:10.1152/advan.00033.2006
Howard, D.R. and Miskowski, J.A. (2005) Using
a module-based laboratory to incorporate inquiry into a large cell
biology course. CBE Life Sciences Education 4, 249–260
doi:10.1187/cbe.04-09-0052
Hurd, D.D. (2008) A microcosm of the biomedical
research experience for upper-level undergraduates. CBE Life Sciences Education 7, 210–219
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-09-0089
Jensen, M.S. (1996) Cooperative quizzes in the anatomy and physiology laboratory: a description and evaluation. Advances in Physiology Education 271, 48–54
Juška, A., Gedminienė, G. and
Ivanec, R. (2006) Growth of microbial populations. Mathematical
modelling, laboratory exercises, and model-based data analysis.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 34, 417–422
doi:10.1002/bmb.2006.494034062669
Kaspar, R.L. (2002) Integrating internet
assignments into a biochemistry/molecular biology laboratory course.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 30, 36–39
doi:10.1002/bmb.2002.494030010007
Kolkhorst, F.W., Mason, C.L., DiPasquale, D.M., Patterson, P. and Buono, M.J. (2001) An inquiry-based learning model for an exercise physiology laboratory course. Advances in Physiology Education 25, 45–50
Kuldell, N.H. (2006) How golden is silence?
Teaching undergraduates the power and limits of RNA interference.
CBE Life Sciences Education 5, 247–254
doi:10.1187/cbe.05-11-0124
Kushner, D.B. (2007) DNA microarrays in the undergraduate laboratory: experimentation and handling large datasets in as few as six weeks. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 8.
LeClair, E.E. (2008) Teaching the toolkit.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 36, 225–233
doi:10.1002/bmb.20174
Lindquester, G.J., Burks, R.L. and Jaslow,
C.R. (2005) Developing information fluency in introductory biology
students in the context of an investigative laboratory. CBE Life Sciences Education 4, 58–96
doi:10.1187/cbe.04-07-0046
Lord, T. and Orkwiszewski, T. (2006) Moving
from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory.
The American Biology Teacher 68, 342–345
doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2006)68[342:DTIIIA]2.0.CO;2
Lu, F-M, Eliceiri, K.W., Stewart, J. and
White, J.G. (2007) WormClassroom.org: an inquiry-rich educational
web portal for research resources of Caenorhabditis elegans. CBE Life Sciences Education 6, 98–108
doi:10.1187/cbe.06-07-0176
Lu, F-M, Eliceiri, K.W., Squirrell, J.M.,
White, J.G. and Stewart, J. (2008) Student learning of early embryonic
development via the utilization of research resources from the
nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. CBE Life Sciences Education 7,
64–73
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-09-0066
Luciano, C., Young, M. and Patterson, R. (2002) Bacteriophage: a model system for active learning. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 3, 1-6
Luckie, D.B., Maleszewski, J.J., Loznak,
S.D. and Krha, M. (2004) Infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout
a biology curriculum increases student learning: a four year study
of ‘teams and streams’. Advances in Physiology Education
28, 199–209
doi:10.1152/advan.00025.2004
Lujan, H.L. and DiCarlo, S.E. (2006) Too
much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution? Advances in Physiology Education 30, 17–22
doi:10.1152/advan.00061.2005
Madhuri, M. and Broussard, C. (2008) “Do
I need to know this for the exam?” Using popular media, inquiry-based
laboratories, and a community of scientific practice to motivate
students to learn developmental biology. CBE Life Sciences Education
7, 36–44
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-06-0044
Marshall, P.A. (2007) Using Saccharomyces
cerevisiae to test the mutagenicity of household compounds: an
open ended hypothesis-driven teaching lab. CBE Life Sciences Education
6,
307–315
doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0204
Merkel, S., Dispensa, M. and Ghiorse, W. (2006) An evaluation of web-based case studies in microscopy. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 7
Michael, J. (2006) Where’s the evidence
that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30,
159–167
doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Mitchell, B.F. and Graziano, M.R. (2006)
From organelle to protein gel: a 6-wk laboratory project on flagellar
proteins. CBE Life Sciences Education 5, 239–246
doi:10.1187/cbe.05-07-0089
Myers, M.J. and Burgess, A.B. (2003) Inquiry-based laboratory course improves students’ ability to design experiments and interpret data. Advances in Physiology Education 27, 26–33
Oates, K.K. (2002) Inquiry science: case
study in antibiotic prospecting. The American Biology Teacher 64,
184–187
doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2002)064[0184:ISCSIA]2.0.CO;2
Odom, D.P. and Grossel, M.J. (2002) Using
the two-hybrid screen in the classroom laboratory. CBE Life Sciences Education 1, 43–62
doi:10.1187/cbe.02-02-0002
Park- Rogers, M.A. and Abell, S.K. (2008)
The design, enactment, and experience of inquiry-based instruction
in undergraduate science education: a case study. Science Education 92, 591–607
doi:10.1002/sce.20247
Parker, J.D., Ziemba, R.E., Helms Cahan,
S. and Rissing, S.W. (2004) An hypothesis-driven, molecular phylogenetics
exercise for college biology students. Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology Education
32, 108–114
doi:10.1002/bmb.2004.494032020318
Possik, P.A., Malagó-Jr., W., Torres,
B.B. and Silva, F.H. (2003) Achievement of original results in
an essentially practical course in molecular biology for undergraduate
students. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31, 323–328
doi:10.1002/bmb.2003.494031050253
Rasche, M.E. (2004) Outcomes of a research-driven
laboratory and literature course designed to enhance undergraduate
contributions to original research. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 32, 101–107
doi:10.1002/bmb.2004.494032020313
Rehorek, S.J. (2004) Inquiry-based teaching. An example of descriptive science in action. The American Biology Teacher 66, 493–499
Rivers, D.B. (2002) Using a course-long theme for inquiry-based laboratories in a comparative physiology course. Advances in Physiology Education 26, 317–326
Rodenbaugh, D.W., Failing, C.J., Fuentes, E., Wagner, A.A. and Yard, B.R. (2007) Having students design and develop laboratory exercises improves student learning outcomes in undergraduate physiology. The FASEB Journal 21, 478.21.
Sé, A.B., Passos, R.M., Ono, A.H.
and Hermes-Lima, M. (2008) The use of multiple tools for teaching
medical biochemistry. Advances in Physiology Education 32, 38–46
doi:10.1152/advan.00028.2007
Silveira, L.A. (2008) Experimenting with
spirituality: analyzing The God Gene in a nonmajors laboratory
course. CBE Life Sciences Education 7, 132–145
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-05-0029
Sleister, H.M. (2007) Isolation and characterization
of Saccharomyces cerevisiae mutants defective in chromosome transmission
in an undergraduate genetics research course. Genetics 177, 677–688
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.076455
Smith, D. (2004) Issues and trends in higher education biology fieldwork. Journal of Biological Education 39, 6–10
Spiro, M.D. and Knisely, K.I. (2008) Alternation
of generations and experimental design: a guided-inquiry lab exploring
the nature of the her1 developmental mutant of Ceratopteris richardii
(C-Fern). CBE Life Sciences Education 7, 82–88
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-82-88
Stahelin, R.V., Forslund, R.E., Wink, D.J.
and Cho, W. (2003) Development of a biochemistry laboratory course
with a project-oriented goal. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31, 106–112
doi:10.1002/bmb.2003.494031020182
Walker, D.E., Lutz, G.P. and Alvarez, C.J.
(2008) Development of a cross-disciplinary investigative model
for the introduction of microarray techniques at non-R1 undergraduate
institutions. CBE Life Sciences Education 7, 118–131
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-01-0006
Wendell, D.L. and Pickard, D. (2007) Teaching
human genetics with mustard: rapid cycling Brassica rapa (Fast
Plants Type) as a model for human genetics in the classroom laboratory.
CBE Life Sciences Education 6, 179–185
doi:10.1187/cbe.07-02-0010
White, B.T. (1999) The red and white yeast lab. An introduction to science as a process. The American Biology Teacher 61, 600–604
Wilson et al. (2008) Report: 1st Year Practicals — Their Role in Developing Future Bioscientists. Centre for Bioscience, available at www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/reports/pracworkshopreport.pdf (accessed 7 January 2009)
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. and Braaten,
M. (2008) Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as
a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations.
Science Education 92, 941–967
doi:10.1002/sce.20259
Wood, E.J. (2008) Laboratory practical work.
Bioscience Education 11-0, available at www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej-11-0.aspx (accessed
7 January 2009)
doi:10.3108/beej.11.0
Zhang, S. (2008) A research project-based
and self-determined teaching system of molecular biology techniques
for undergraduates. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
36, 181–188
doi:10.1002/bmb.20167
Zhou, X., Lin, J, Yin, Y., Sun, X. and Tang, K. (2007) Participation in research program. A novel course in undergraduate education of life science. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 35, 322–327
Cite this article
DOI:00:00:00