Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Article
*Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; and ¶Scientific Inquiry, The Evergreen
State College, Olympia, WA, 98505
Submitted January 22, 2010; Revised July 14, 2010; Accepted July 14, 2010
Monitoring Editor: Martha Grossel
Most scientific endeavors require science process skills such as data interpretation, problem
solving, experimental design, scientific writing, oral communication, collaborative work, and
critical analysis of primary literature. These are the fundamental skills upon which the concep-
tual framework of scientific expertise is built. Unfortunately, most college science departments
lack a formalized curriculum for teaching undergraduates science process skills. However,
evidence strongly suggests that explicitly teaching undergraduates skills early in their education
may enhance their understanding of science content. Our research reveals that faculty over-
whelming support teaching undergraduates science process skills but typically do not spend
enough time teaching skills due to the perceived need to cover content. To encourage faculty to
address this issue, we provide our pedagogical philosophies, methods, and materials for teaching
science process skills to freshman pursuing life science majors. We build upon previous work,
showing student learning gains in both reading primary literature and scientific writing, and
share student perspectives about a course where teaching the process of science, not content, was
the focus. We recommend a wider implementation of courses that teach undergraduates science
process skills early in their studies with the goals of improving student success and retention in
the sciences and enhancing general science literacy.
524
Science Process Skills
explicit instruction of science process skills, helping students also provide an extensive description of the Biology Fellows
acquire a repertoire of these skills early in the college cur- Program (BFP) from our 2006 report, sharing our teaching
riculum and thereby augmenting their content acquisition philosophies, methods, and core course materials used to
and interdisciplinary ways of knowing. We propose that explicitly teach science process skills. By describing our
instructing freshman in the process of science may enable pedagogical foundation and methods used in the BFP, we
more students to excel in their disciplines, particularly biol- hope to help other faculty incorporate and formalize the
ogy, because of its ever accumulating and fragmented con- teaching of science process skills as early as possible into
tent. undergraduate curricula.
Experts have a conceptual framework that allows them to
recognize meaningful patterns of information, effectively
organize content, flexibly retrieve pertinent knowledge with FACULTY VIEWS OF UNDERGRADUATES’
little effort, and assess their level of understanding of con- ACQUISITION OF SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS
cepts. Novices lack this framework and the accompanying
intellectual habits of mind (Bransford et al., 1999). In aca- Devoting more time to teaching the process of science may
demia and science education, experts are the faculty, who come at the expense of teaching content—is this tradeoff
possess both skills and content knowledge. Science process acceptable? To help answer this question, we created an
skills are the indispensable tools of scientists, helping them online science process skills survey for faculty (Supplemen-
form their conceptual framework, thereby facilitating learn- tal Material A, Faculty Survey). The survey was vetted by
ing of new content associated with novel science problems nine faculty from four institutions for question clarity and to
(Wilensky and Reisman, 1998; Bransford et al., 1999; Hogan validate the science process skills list we had generated. We
and Maglienti, 2001; National Research Council [NRC], sent the survey to approximately 450 life science faculty and
2005). Through explicit instruction and assessment of stu- postdoctoral fellows from a wide range of institutions of
dents’ science process skills we can help students gain the higher education using email lists from professional meet-
same skills that faculty use every day and help them to ings, or by sending it to faculty and departmental chairs at
approach science as scientists do. Indeed, these are the same specific institutions. To maximize the number of partici-
skills strongly promoted by the American Association for pants, our emails asked the recipients to forward the survey
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for K–12 science edu- to other faculty within the life science departments at their
cation (AAAS 1993) and highlighted in reports that outline institutions. We had 159 respondents, comprising 154 fac-
recommendations for collegiate science education (NRC, ulty and 5 postdoctoral fellows with teaching experience (all
2003; American Association of Medical Colleges and respondents will be referred to as faculty). On average, the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2009; Labov et al., 2009). respondents had been teaching for 14 years. Although half
Acquisition of science process skills can have a profound of respondents (51%) were from research 1 (R1) universities,
impact on student success in college science classes. In 2006, others institutions were also represented: non-R1 (11%), lib-
we reported evidence that freshmen who participated in a eral arts colleges (23%), and community colleges (14%). We
course in which they were explicitly taught science process asked faculty to identify how important it is, on a scale from
skills outperformed students who did not participate in the 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), for undergraduates
program in subsequent introductory biology courses (Dirks majoring in the life sciences to obtain 22 specific science
and Cunningham, 2006). Similarly, students in a molecular process skills by the time they graduate with a 4-yr degree.
biology course who practiced data analysis, diagrammatic On average, faculty signified that it was important for stu-
visualization, and other analytical reasoning skills had im- dents to acquire all of the 22 skills listed in the survey, with
proved test scores compared with those in a control course all skills receiving a mean score of 3.5 or higher (Table 1).
(Kitchen et al., 2003). Explicit instruction in generating and The list of 22 skills was clustered into 10 major categories
interpreting scientific graphs (Shah and Hoeffner, 2002) and based on similarity of skill, and faculty were asked to select
experiential research projects that promoted science process the three most important skill categories. Faculty from all
skills also benefited students’ learning and reinforcement of institution types indicated that problem solving/critical
course content (Souchek and Meier, 1997; DebBurman, 2002; thinking, interpreting data, and communicating results: oral
Wilke and Straits, 2005; Yeoman and Zamorski, 2008). The and written, were the most important (Figure 1). In contrast,
use of primary literature to improve critical thinking in when faculty were asked to select the three least important
undergraduates has also been well documented (Janick- skill categories that students should acquire, we saw differ-
Buckner, 1997; Fortner, 1999; Hermann, 1999; Henderson ences in faculty responses based on institution type. The
and Buising, 2000; Muench, 2000; Kozeracki et al., 2006; least important skills for faculty from R1 universities,
Hoskins et al., 2007; Gehring and Eastman, 2008). Lastly, non-R1 universities, and liberal arts colleges related to meta-
faculty in other science, technology, engineering, and math cognition and collaborative work (Figure 2A), whereas the
(STEM) disciplines, such as chemistry (Bunce and Hutchin- least important skills selected by faculty at community col-
son, 1993; Veal et al., 2009), physical chemistry (Nicoll and leges were those related to research (Figure 2B). However,
Francisco, 2001), and geology (McConnell et al., 2003), have regardless of the institution type, many respondents com-
shown the connection between student acquisition of science mented that it was “very difficult” to select the three least
process skills and academic success. important skills students should acquire because all the
Here we present results from a survey indicating over- listed skills were important. We received 14 comments from
whelming support by faculty for teaching undergraduates faculty indicating that the question was “impossible” to
science process skills, as well as the direct conflict they feel answer because it was “vital” or “critical” that students
between spending time teaching content and process. We learn all the skills we provided on our list.
Figure 4. Percent faculty (N ⫽ 156) at different institutions who Figure 6. Percent faculty (N ⫽ 100) selecting reasons that prevent
felt that the amount of time they spent teaching science process them from spending more time teaching science skills. Numbers sum to
skills was NOT sufficient. greater than 100% due to respondents choosing more than one response.
failed to provide them with the conceptual framework stakes” learning environment where students would be held
needed for them to succeed in subsequent science courses. accountable for their own education without incurring large
penalties for their failures. Thus the grading emphasis was
on students’ in-class participation and improvements on
TEACHING THE PROCESS OF SCIENCE their assignments over time, rather than the quality of their
initial work. Students also frequently worked in groups of
There are only a few documented programs that formally three to four, modeling the collaborative aspects of science.
aim to place a greater emphasis on teaching the process of This low-stakes, noncompetitive approach allowed students
science as opposed to just delivering content for life science to take more risks when completing assignments and gen-
majors. A project at Brigham Young University (BYU) refo- erated a more productive learning environment for a cohort
cused undergraduate biology teaching efforts toward train- who would subsequently be taking biology together in a
ing students to interpret data and think analytically (Kitchen much larger (400⫹ students) class. This approach to learning
et al., 2003). BYU students who were taught these skills was perceived as less stressful and threatening by the BFP
achieved higher exam and diagnostic test scores than stu- students based on student comments as well as the fact that
dents in a course where the focus was solely on information from 2003 to 2006 (the time frame in which we evaluated the
transfer. Student response to the course design was gener- program) we observed a very high retention rate with 98%
ally positive, and some students indicated that they wished of the 196 BFP students successfully completing both quar-
they had learned these skills earlier in their education ters of the BFP.
(Kitchen et al., 2003). Similarly, faculty at Lake Forest College Other teaching strategies focused on helping students de-
(LFC) successfully integrated the teaching of science process velop better study and metacognitive skills. We began the
skills with content in a sophomore-level introductory biol- program by discussing our learning objectives and the role
ogy class (DebBurman, 2002). LFC students who were of metacognition in learning (Bransford et al., 1999; Table 2).
taught science process skills in this relatively explicit man- After a brief introduction, students had small group discus-
ner reported that this helped them more readily acquire sions about what they hoped to accomplish in the program
content in other classes and made them realize that they and in their first year as a college student, how they learn
needed to improve their proficiencies in these areas. In 2006, best, and how they know when they really know something.
we reported that incoming freshmen who participated in a As an assignment we gave students time management
unique premajors program (BFP) that explicitly taught sci- sheets, asking them to indicate their hour-by-hour activities
ence process skills had significantly greater success in sub- for the week and identify the blocks of time that they
sequent introductory biology courses compared with stu- thought were “quality” study hours—those hours when
dents who did not participate in the program (Dirks and they were fully awake and not distracted. We also instructed
Cunningham, 2006). In that report we showed 1) the demo- students to work toward being an active learner (i.e., taking
graphic make-up of the BFP, 2) a comparison of non-BFP notes while reading their textbook, drawing models of con-
and BFP students’ grades in the introductory biology series, cepts, and creating questions). A critical aspect of our ap-
and 3) BFP students’ learning gains on pre- and posttests in proach was to keep our pedagogy transparent throughout
graphing and experimental design. In response to many the course, taking time each class period to reflect on the
requests by faculty, here we provide a detailed description purpose of an activity or assignment, as well as keeping a
of our pedagogical philosophies, methodologies, and mate- positive learning environment— one that was predomi-
rials for teaching the course, as well as additional assessment nantly student-centered, collaborative, and active.
results of student learning gains in scientific communication To further develop students’ metacognition we would
and survey information about BFP participants’ views of the address their tendencies to overestimate their proficiency at
program. science process skills. We found that many students had
been exposed to some skills, such as reading graphs or
designing experiments, but were not proficient at these
Pedagogical Foundations of the BFP: Helping tasks, even if they thought they were. Therefore, before
Students Learn How to Learn extensive instruction in any given skill area, students were
The BFP at the University of Washington was founded to challenged with a moderately difficult assignment for which
increase student success and retention in the biological they received detailed feedback without penalty. These as-
sciences, particularly students from underrepresented signments also served as our diagnostic pretests for deter-
groups. The three main programmatic goals were to 1) mining student learning gains throughout the program
teach freshmen science process skills, 2) help them to (Supplemental Material B; SM1). From our experience, we
develop more robust study techniques and metacognition, found that students were more receptive to instruction after
and 3) introduce them to the culture of science. This trying these assignments on their own. This “try and fail”
premajor program was offered for two credits approach to learning has been demonstrated to be successful
during winter and spring quarters, meeting once a week in other contexts, especially mathematics, where students
for 1.5 h; thus it was a relatively small time commitment are asked to attempt difficult problems on the board on a
for students who had other academic requirements to regular basis (Mahavier, 1997).
fulfill. The BFP class size ranged from 50 to 60 students Early in the program we introduced students to Bloom’s
each quarter. taxonomy of cognitive domains (Bloom et al., 1956), explain-
While the BFP had several components, we believe the ing the different levels at which they would be challenged in
success of the program was primarily due to a combination the BFP and their future science courses. To emphasize the
of pedagogical methods. We designed the BFP to be a “low- value of Bloom’s taxonomy, we gave students practice at
Table 2. Continued
identifying the cognitive levels at which they were working by writing, etc.), students were provided with a grading rubric
deconstructing activities from both the perspective of the educator (Supplemental Material B, SM2), given detailed instruction on
and student. This pedagogical transparency helped students to the science process skill that was part of the initial exercise, and
invest more in their work and better assess their own learning. then introduced to new science content. The same skill was
We also dedicated several class periods to helping students then incorporated into subsequent assignments, allowing stu-
practice different learning strategies and providing them with dents to practice skills in the context of different content (Fig-
tools for effective studying. Students were taught how to dia- ure 7). For example, in class we would introduce basic statistics
gram questions by circling key terms and underlining parts
that they had been specifically asked to address. We gave
instruction and practice for concept mapping (Novak, 1990)
and for creating diagrams or drawings as representational
models; we frequently required students to use these tools during
mini-lectures to organize their interpretation of biological content.
Many of these activities were followed by an evaluation session in
which students would use their diagrams to teach their peers
content while the instructor assessed their materials. By requiring
students to practice a repertoire of study skills during each class
period, we reinforced new approaches to studying and learning.
learning in a developmental biology course. CBE Life Sci. Educ. National Research Council (NRC) (2005). How Student Learn: His-
7, 54 – 63. tory, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom, Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Handelsman, J., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science 304, 521–
522. NRC (2003). BIO 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for
Future Research Biologists, Washington, DC: National Academies
Handelsman, J., Miller, S., and Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific Teaching, Press.
New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Nicoll, G., and Francisco, J. F. (2001). An investigation of the factors
Henderson, L., and Buising, C. (2000). A peer reviewed research influencing student performance in physical chemistry. J. Chem.
assignment for large classes. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 30, 109 –114. Educ. 78, 99 –102.
Hermann, C. (1999). Reading the literature in the jargon-intensive Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: a useful tool for science
field of molecular genetics. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 29, 252–253. education. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 937–949.
Preszler, R. W. (2006). Student and teacher learning in a supplemen-
Hogan, K., and Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological
tal learning biology course. Bioscene 32, 21–25.
underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclu-
sions. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 663– 687. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics,
and engineering undergraduate majors: an explanatory account. Sci.
Hoskins, S. G., Stevens, L. M., and Nehm, R. (2007). Selective use of Educ. 79, 437– 473.
the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual labo-
ratory. Genetics 176, 1381–1389. Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to really read
Shah, P., and Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension
and discuss primary literature. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 27, 29 –32.
research: implications for instruction. Edu. Psychol. Rev. 14, 47– 69.
Kardash, C. D. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding.
experience: perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty Educ. Leadership. 63, 66 –70.
mentors. J. Educ. Psych. 92, 191–201.
Sirum, K. L., Madigan, D., and Klionsky, D. J. (2009). Enabling a
Kitchen, E., Bell, J. D., Reeve, S., Sudweeks, R. R., and Bradshaw, culture of change: a life science faculty learning community pro-
W. S. (2003). Teaching cell biology in the large-enrollment class- motes scientific teaching. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 38, 38 – 44.
room: methods to promote analytical thinking and assessment of Souchek, R., and Meier, M. (1997). Teaching information literacy
their effectiveness. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 180 –194. and scientific process skills: an integrated approach. Coll. Teach. 45,
Kozeracki, C. A., Carey, M. F., Colicelli, J., and Levis-Fitzgerald, M. 128 –131.
(2006). An intensive primary-literature-based teaching program di- Veal, W. R., Taylor, D., and Rogers, A. L. (2009). Using self-reflection
rectly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their to increase science process skills in the general chemistry laboratory.
transition to doctoral programs. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 5, 340 –347. J. Chem. Educ. 86, 393–398.
Labov, J. B., Singer, S. R., George, M. D., Schweingruber, H. A., and Wilensky, U., and Reisman, K. (1998). Connected Science: Learning
Hilton, M. L. (2009). Effective practices in undergraduate STEM Biology through Constructing and Testing Computational Theo-
education. Part I: examining the evidence. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 8, ries—An Embodied Modeling Approach, Nashua, NH: New En-
157–161. gland Complex Systems Institute.
Leonard, W. H. (2000). How do college students best learn science? Wilke, R. R., and Straits, W. J. (2005). Practical advice for teaching
J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 29, 385–388. inquiry-based science process skills in the biological sciences. Am.
Biol. Teach. 67, 534 –540.
Mahavier, W. (1997). A gentle discovery method. Coll Teach 45,
Wood, W. (2009). Revising the AP biology curriculum. Science 325,
132–136.
1627–1628.
McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., and Owens, K. D. (2003). Assessment Wright, R., and Klymkowsky, M. W. (2005). Points of view: content
and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. J. versus process: is this a fair choice? Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 189 –198.
Geosci. Educ. 51, 205–216.
Yeoman, K. H., and Zamorski, B. (2008). Investigating the impact of
Muench, S. B. (2000). Choosing primary literature in biology to skill development of an undergraduate scientific research skills
achieve specific educational goals. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 29, 255–260. course. Biosci. Educ. e-Journal 11.