genetics education - cuny gk12...genetics and cell biology as prerequisites. the 3-credit create...

Copyright ! 2007 by the Genetics Society of AmericaDOI: 10.1534/genetics.107.071183

Genetics Education

Innovations in Teaching and Learning Genetics

Edited by Patricia J. Pukkila

Selective Use of the Primary Literature Transforms the Classroom Intoa Virtual Laboratory

Sally G. Hoskins,*,1 Leslie M. Stevens† and Ross H. Nehm*,§

*Biology Department and The Graduate Center, The City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10031,†Section of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 and §School of Education,

The City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10031

Manuscript received January 22, 2007Accepted for publication April 25, 2007

ABSTRACTCREATE (consider, read, elucidate hypotheses, analyze and interpret the data, and think of the next

experiment) is a new method for teaching science and the nature of science through primary literature.CREATE uses a unique combination of novel pedagogical tools to guide undergraduates through analysis ofjournal articles, highlighting the evolution of scientific ideas by focusing on a module of four articles fromthe same laboratory. Students become fluent in the universal language of data analysis as they decipher thefigures, interpret the findings, and propose and defend further experiments to test their own hypothesesabout the system under study. At the end of the course students gain insight into the individual experiencesof article authors by reading authors’ responses to an e-mail questionnaire generated by CREATE students.Assessment data indicate that CREATE students gain in ability to read and critically analyze scientific data, aswell as in their understanding of, and interest in, research and researchers. The CREATE approachdemystifies the process of reading a scientific article and at the same time humanizes scientists. The positiveresponse of students to this method suggests that it could make a significant contribution to retainingundergraduates as science majors.

DESPITE the stunning success of research sciencein the last half of the 20th century, there is a gen-

eral consensus that the teaching of science to collegestudents has not made parallel gains (Chickering andGamson 1987; Felder 1987; American Associationfor the Advancement of Science 1989; Seymour andHewett 1997; Glenn Commission 2000; McCray et al.2003; National Research Council 2003; Handlesmanet al. 2004; Alberts 2005; Cech and Kennedy 2005).Indeed, the vast increase in scientific knowledge haspotentially contributed to this problem, because instruc-tors feel compelled to teach their students an ever-growing body of facts, and students spend more timehoning their memorization skills than they do learninghow to understand and evaluate scientific data. The

sense of discovery felt by the scientists involved in gen-erating this new information is unfortunately rarely com-municated to undergraduates. Textbooks, for example,typically present the growth of scientific knowledge as agradual increase of information over time, ignoring theblind alleys, digressions, and unexpected findings thatin fact characterize research science. Although labora-tory courses are often proposed as a complement tolecture classes that rely on textbooks, students in labclasses too often test hypotheses developed by others,perform experiments for which the results are known,and fail to become intellectually invested in their re-sults. Many undergraduate science majors do not havethe opportunity to carry out individual laboratory re-search projects; even for those that do, the short-termnature of most such projects makes it difficult for stu-dents to visualize how their work fits into the overallscientific progress of the laboratory. As a consequence,many undergraduates have little sense of how scientific

1Corresponding author: Biology Department, The City College of NewYork, Marshak Hall 607, 138th St. and Convent Ave., New York, NY 10031.E-mail: [email protected]

Genetics 176: 1381–1389 ( July 2007)

knowledge is generated, how research projects progressover time, or of how scientists think about and actuallydo research. These factors often combine to inducedisappointed students to drop out of science majors(Seymour and Hewett 1997; Alberts 2005; Cech andKennedy 2005), a problem that is exacerbated for minor-ity students, who remain underrepresented at all levelsof academic science (National Science Foundation2002; American Council on Education 2003; Bok2003, Atwell 2004; total enrollment by gender/race/ethnicity is at http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2003/2003school.html).

As one approach to addressing these problems, wehave developed CREATE (consider, read, elucidate hy-potheses, analyze and interpret data, and think of thenext experiment), a teaching method that involves stu-dents in reading and analyzing the primary scientificliterature while simultaneously exposing them to theintellectual excitement and challenges experienced bythe scientists who carried out the work under discussion.In contrast to other approaches that use single or par-tial journal articles in the undergraduate classroom( Janick-Buckner 1997; Herman 1999; Muench 2000;Chowe and Drennan 2001; Klemm 2002; Herreid2004), CREATE focuses on a sequence of articles thatreports a single line of research from one laboratory as itdeveloped over a period of years. In addition to pro-moting the development of skills that students need tounderstand and analyze scientific information, theCREATE approach introduces students to issues re-garding the nature of science (Lederman 1992;Schwartz et al. 2004) and to the creative roles playedby individuals in scientific research. CREATE is notmeant to substitute for standard lecture classes andhands-on research projects, but rather to supplementand complement such classes. Consistent with the rec-ommendations of recent reform documents (AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science 1989;Bransford et al. 1999; Glenn Commmission 2000;National Research Council 1999, 2000, 2003), CREATEinvolves in-depth study of a single line of scientific re-search, which takes advantage of the narrative nature ofscience (Muench 2000; Kitchen et al. 2003). A CREATEmodule consists of four articles, published in sequencefrom the same lab, that are read and analyzed sequen-tially, providing insight into the evolution of ideas as aproject develops over time.

As outlined below, CREATE employs a unique combi-nation of pedagogical tools and active classroom ap-proaches that facilitate learning (Bransford et al. 1999;Siebert and McIntosh 2001; Chin et al. 2002; Zoharand Nemet 2002; Osborne et al. 2004). We had twooverall goals. The first was to develop each student’sability to think like a scientist in terms of designing ex-periments, analyzing and interpreting data, and crit-ically evaluating results as well as proposed follow-upexperiments. Our second goal was to increase the stu-

dents’ interest in science and scientific research byproviding them with insights into the experiences, bothintellectual and personal, of working scientists. Wetested the ability of CREATE to meet these goals in anelective course for juniors and seniors that requiredGenetics and Cell Biology as prerequisites. The 3-creditCREATE class met twice weekly for 75 min/class with asingle instructor (S. G. Hoskins), and the class sizeranged from 12 to 25 students in the three separateclasses (51 students overall) that are discussed in this re-port. We focused on a module of four articles from thelaboratory of Christine Holt (Cambridge, UK) (Nakagawaet al. 2000; Mann et al. 2002, 2003; Williams et al. 2003)that analyze the role of ephrin/eph-mediated signaltransduction in axon guidance during optic nervedevelopment. Our assessments indicate improvementsboth in the ability of CREATE students to thinkscientifically and in their confidence in their abilities.Importantly, CREATE students also developed a newappreciation for science and for scientists as individuals.

THE CREATE METHOD

In our previous experience, when students were as-signed to read research articles, they often read only theabstract, introduction, and discussion, merely glanced atthe figures and tables, and accepted the authors’ con-clusions without developing a thorough understandingof the experimental results on which they were based. Toavoid this problem, we do not initially provide CREATEstudents with the articles’ titles, abstracts, discussion/conclusion sections, or the authors’ names. Using thespecific exercises outlined below, we challenge the stu-dents to understand the methods, explain the experi-mental designs, and interpret the data as if they hadmade these findings themselves. Class discussion focuseson figure-by-figure data analysis and interpretation, withthe professor acting as ‘‘lab head’’ and discussion leader,guiding students through evaluation of experiments andin synthesis and application of scientific concepts—higher-level cognitive activities known to facilitate un-derstanding (Bloom et al. 1956). Mini-lectures of 10–15min are occasionally used to review essential backgroundmaterial, but most class time is spent in whole-class orsmall-group discussion. After analyzing each article, thestudents generate their own proposals for what the nextexperiment would be if they were carrying out the re-search themselves. They then discuss and debate theirideas with other students in an exercise meant to modelthe peer review that real science undergoes. As theCREATE process repeats with each module article, stu-dents experience how an actual research project devel-ops over time. To enhance the students’ understandingof the personal experience of scientists carrying outresearch, students communicate with some of the articleauthors by e-mail, in which they pose their own questions

1382 S. G. Hoskins, L. M. Stevens and R. H. Nehm

about researchers’ motivations and experiences. Sequen-tial steps of the CREATE process are summarized below:

Consider: We explain to the students that, as theyread each article, our goal is for them to work throughthe data as if they had generated it themselves. To fa-cilitate this, they are given each section (Introduction, Re-sults and Methods, Discussion) sequentially and they arenot provided with the title and abstract of the article norwith the names of the authors. Although some studentsmay try to circumvent this process by using the Internetto obtain the complete article prematurely, we did notfind this to be a problem in our CREATE classes. Even ifstudents do ‘‘look ahead,’’ it does not significantly in-terfere with their learning experience because most ofthe CREATE activities require the students to think forthemselves.

The students are introduced to the principles ofconcept mapping (Good et al. 1990; Novak 1990, 2003;Allen and Tanner 2003). They are then assigned toread the Introduction section of the first article andto construct a concept map of it by defining key termsand creating appropriate diagrammatic linkages be-tween them. Such maps highlight the range of issuesthat the article addresses and alert students to conceptsthat they need to review in preparation for reading andanalyzing the article. This exercise empowers the stu-dents to take charge of their own learning (Novak andGowin 1984; Brooks and Brooks 1993).

Read: Students read the Methods and Results sec-tions of the article. Then they are instructed to gothrough the Results section figure by figure and, usingthe information in the Methods section, ‘‘work back-wards’’ from the data presented in each figure (or table)to determine how the results were obtained, that is,what experiment was performed. Students (1) diagrameach experiment in a cartoon format that illustratesthe methods used, (2) annotate the figures by addingclarifying labels, and (3) write their own descriptivetitles for each cartoon and each figure. We emphasizethat the cartoons are meant to depict what was physicallydone in each experiment (see Figure 1 for an exampleof a CREATE student’s cartoon), not to show what theresults were or to restate what the authors said about theexperiment. We require the students to draw a sketchfor this step, rather than a flow chart. We find thatcreating a visual representation of what was done ineach experiment is critical for the students’ ability tointerpret the resulting data. In the annotation step, thestudents use the information from the figure legend toinstructively label each panel in the figure. They notewhich panels serve as controls and which are experi-mental and also categorize the type of experimentdepicted, e.g., ‘‘dose-response histogram.’’ To carry outthis step, students must look closely at the figures andtheir legends to determine exactly what is representedin each panel. Finally, writing their own titles for thefigures as well as their cartoons gives the students a sense

of ownership of the material and can help them to distillthe essential information. For example, one studentrewrote ‘‘Ephrin-B overexpression at the chiasm in-duces precocious ipsilateral projections in the earlytadpole’’ as ‘‘Early Ephrin-B drives axons ipsilaterally.’’

Each of these activities promotes the developmentof conceptual linkages between what was actually donein each experiment and the data that were obtained.These methods encourage visualization and abstractionas well as integrative and synthetic thinking, all of whichfacilitate learning (Bloom et al. 1956; Kozma andRussell 1997; Foertsch 2000, Zull 2002; Yuretich2004). These steps—the cartooning, annotation, andretitling—are done by students as homework in prepa-ration for class. Thus, students arrive in class familiarwith the article and ready to participate actively in classdiscussion.

Elucidate the hypotheses: Research articles typicallyinvolve numerous individual experiments, each of whichplays a role in the final conclusions. Introductions toarticles, however, tend to emphasize one major finding,and the Materials and Methods sections often describethe methods without linking them to individual figuresor tables. The students triangulate between their car-toons, annotated figures, and rewritten figure/tabletitles to dissect the ‘‘anatomy’’ of the study by identifyingeach individual experiment and defining the specifichypothesis that it tested or the question that it addressed.The student-generated hypotheses or questions arewritten above the figure or table to which they apply.

Figure 1.—Sample student cartoon. To link the informa-tion given in the Methods sections with the data representedin figures and tables of the Results, students make sketches toillustrate the experiments that were performed. The studentcartoon above illustrates an experiment in which mouse Lcells were transfected with frog ephrinB2 and then frog reti-nal explants were challenged to extend axons on membranecarpets made from the L cells. Creating these visual represen-tations facilitates understanding of the hands-on lab work thatled to the results reported.

Genetics Education 1383

Analyze and interpret the data: Students analyze eachfigure using CREATE analysis templates (supplementalFigure S1 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/),which build on the work done in the previous stepsand guide them in determining which panels in afigure (or numbers in a table) should be compareddirectly. As they fill in the templates, students comparethe control and experimental panels that they identi-fied during figure annotation, relate the results to thehypothesis or question that the experiment addresses,and begin to draw conclusions. Students also explicitlyrelate the findings to the hypotheses previously eluci-dated, judge how convincing they find the data to be,and note any questions that they would like to ask theauthors. Templates filled out as homework preparestudents for active discussion of the outcomes of ex-periments. Templates are always used for article 1 ofthe module. Some students continue to use them forsubsequent articles while others are able to generatetheir own analyses after their initial experience withthe templates.

Class discussion of the articles focuses on data anal-ysis, and the instructor runs the discussion much like alab meeting. Some analysis is done in small groups, withstudents charged to work together and then to reporttheir conclusions back to the class. When all of the fig-ures have been analyzed and thoroughly discussed inclass, students record their overall interpretations andconclusions as a list of bulleted points—points that theythink would be worth including in a Discussion section.Only after completing their own lists are students pro-vided with the actual Discussion section of the article.After reading it, they make a similar list of points basedon the authors’ conclusions. Comparing the two listshighlights the role of interpretation in science, show-ing that data may be interpreted from several differ-ent or even opposing viewpoints (Germann and Aram1996). Finally, students make a summary concept map,this time using the articles’ figures and tables as centralconcepts and creating linkages between them that indi-cate the logical flow of ideas in the article. After theintense and detailed analysis of individual experiments,this is an opportunity for the students to step back andweave the individual parts of the article into a ‘‘bigpicture.’’

Think of the next experiment: Each student imag-ines that he or she is an author of the article justanalyzed and asks: What experiments should be donenext? The students diagram two of their proposedexperiments in cartoons that are discussed in class. Tomodel the scientific peer-review process, the class collab-oratively devises criteria for judging proposals and thendivides into several three- or four-person ‘‘grant panels,’’each of which selects one of the student experiments to‘‘fund.’’ Often, different groups choose different ‘‘best’’experiments. Such an outcome contrasts with somestudents’ preexisting views of scientific research as a

linear path with one obvious step after another. Grantpanel discussions help students hone data interpreta-tion and verbal logic skills (Vanzee and Minstrell1997; Marbach-Ad and Sokolove 2000; Zohar andNemet 2002) and foster an understanding of howscience works by modeling the discussions and debatesthat are characteristic of research laboratories (Steitz2003) and actual grant panels.

Final steps and reiteration of the CREATE process:After the CREATE methods are applied to the firstarticle, the process is repeated with each additionalmodule article, although in these cases there is theadded excitement of discovering whether the experi-ments reported in the subsequent articles match any ofthe students’ proposed experiments. For students whoindependently had the same idea as the authors, theexperience reinforces the idea that they are learning tothink like scientists. For students who have different‘‘next experiments,’’ the experience underscores theidea that real projects can move in many differentdirections. This realization contrasts with some stu-dents’ previously held beliefs that science is very pre-dictable and that scientists always know what theirresults will be (Table 1 and supplemental Table S1 athttp://www.genetics.org/supplemental/). Analysis ofthe subsequent articles generally proceeds more rap-idly because the students are now familiar with theexperimental system as well as with the CREATE tools.

Interviews with scientist–authors: At the conclusionof the module, our first class of CREATE students pre-pared a survey of 12 questions (supplemental TableS2 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/) that wase-mailed to each author of the four articles, a group thatincluded technicians, graduate students, postdoctoralfellows, and principal investigators. One author visitedthe class and was interviewed directly in a session thatwas videotaped. Subsequent CREATE student cohortsread the e-mail interviews and viewed the videotapegenerated by the first class; thus, authors were contactedonly once. CREATE students’ questions ranged fromscientific (‘‘How did you choose your research area?’’)and ethical concerns (‘‘Have you ever encountered anyethical issues and how were they resolved?’’) to morepersonal issues (‘‘Did you ever wake up and just want togive up? How did you deal with it?’’). The range ofresponses from 10 different authors (50% responserate) to the same questions highlighted for students thatscientists are individuals with different motivations andgoals. Especially important for our students was the re-alization that their previous stereotypes of scientists as‘‘antisocial’’ and as ‘‘geniuses’’ were inaccurate (Table 1and supplemental Table S1 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/), which evoked comments such as: ‘‘Irealized !for the first time" that scientists are people likeme. . . . if I wanted to, if I worked at it . . . I could becomea scientist’’ (supplemental Table S1 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/).


Assessment: Many studies that describe methods forengaging undergraduate students with the primary sci-entific literature have been published (see, for example,Janick-Buckner 1997; Herman 1999; Muench 2000;Chowe and Drennan 2001; Mangurian et al. 2001;Klemm 2002; Herreid 2004). We did not directly com-pare the CREATE approach with these other methodsbecause we did not design CREATE solely as a methodfor reading the primary literature. Instead, the CREATEapproach uses a linked sequence of articles as a portalinto the research laboratory such that the studentsexperience many of the cognitive activities that scien-tists use in their daily work. CREATE students also hadthe opportunity to learn about the personal experiencesof the scientists involved in the work. Our goal was toachieve a synergy between the intellectual and personalaspects of research science that would enhance stu-dents’ interest in science as well as their abilities to readand understand scientific literature. For these reasons,we chose to use pre- and post-course testing, an estab-lished approach in science education, to determinewhether the students made gains in these specific areas(Edwards and Fraser 1983; McMillan 1987; Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson 1996; Stoddart et al. 2000;Bissell and Lemons 2006; Bok 2006).

To determine whether there were improvements inthe students’ ability to critically read and interpret data,we administered critical thinking tests (CTTs; adaptedfrom http://www.flaguide.org/) pre- and post-course.CTT questions required the use of general data analysisskills and were not specific to the CREATE module. Todetermine whether the CREATE approach facilitatedthe ability of students to understand and integrateconcepts related to the module content, we carriedout pre- and post-course assessments in which studentsconstructed concept maps based on seed terms (Novak2003). (Note that these assessment maps were distinctfrom previously described concept maps used as learn-ing tools in the CREATE classroom.) Finally, to explorestudents’ understanding of the nature of science andtheir attitudes toward science and scientists, we usedoral interviews (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Novak1998; Ary et al. 2002) and an online, anonymous Self-Assessed Learning Gains survey (http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/salgains/instructor/). The latter two assessmentsalso provided information on the students’ own percep-tions of how their critical thinking and data analysisskills had changed and gave us feedback on students’reactions to the course format.

CREATE, in all three implementations, was demon-strated to improve students’ critical thinking skills(Figure 2) and their ability to read/analyze scientificliterature and understand complex content (Figure 2and supplemental Figures S2 and S3 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/). Students taught using theCREATE method self-reported increased confidence intheir reading and analysis abilities, as well as enhanced

skills that transferred from the CREATE class to otherscience classes (supplemental Figure S4 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/). They also exhibitedimproved understanding of the nature of science,increased interest in science participation, enhancedpersonal engagement with science, and more positiveviews of science and scientists (Table 1; supplementalFigure S4 and supplemental Table S1 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/). Thus, CREATE studentsexperienced gains in both their academic skills andtheir perception of the scientific enterprise.

Figure 2.—Summary of results on CTT. Students whotook CREATE classes demonstrated gains in their ability tocritically analyze data and draw logical conclusions. CTTs re-quiring data interpretation were administered pre- and post-course. The CTT was a 30-min closed-book activity, designedon the basis of the Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide(http://www.flaguide.org/), in which students read and re-sponded to six ‘‘story problems’’ requiring them to interpretdata presented in charts or tables and explain why they did ordid not agree with the conclusions stated in the problem. Thistest was not based on material covered in the CREATE mod-ules. Horizontal bars with asterisks indicate questions onwhich significant increases in numbers of logical justifications(statements) or decreases in numbers of illogical justificationswere seen post-course, compared to pre-course, in written re-sponses to CTT questions (***P , 0.001; **P , 0.02; *P ,0.05; paired t-test). These data suggest that students’ criticalthinking and data analysis abilities improved during theCREATE semester. For each question, we included only datafor students who answered the same question in both pre- andpost-tests; thus, the N is smaller for questions 4, 5, and 6. Errorbars indicate standard error. Questions 1–3, N # 48; question4, N # 42; question 5, N # 34; question 6, N # 24. Additionalinformation regarding the CTT appears in the supplementaldata at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/.


TA

BL

E1

Po

st-c

ou

rse

inte

rvie

ws:

stu

den

tco

mm

ents

abo

ut

CR

EA

TE

and

its

effe

cto

nth

eir

view

so

fsc

ien

cean

dth

eir

ow

nab

ilit

ies

Cla

ss1

Cla

ss2

Cla

ss3

Rea

ctio

nto

the

CR

EA

TE

app

roac

hB

efor

e!th

eC

RE

AT

Ecl

ass"

Iu

sed

tore

adth

een

tire

pap

eran

dth

engo

toth

ep

ictu

res.

No

w..

.it’s

figu

res

firs

t,th

ente

xt..

..I’

mm

ore

of

ad

etec

tive

now

.I

cou

ld,

like

,p

inp

oin

tce

rtai

nw

ord

san

dlo

ok

itu

p..

..I

cou

ldfi

nd

the

mai

np

art

of

the

figu

re.

An

dI

was

n’t

able

tod

oth

atbe

fore

,I

wo

uld

just

read

,to

read

....

Iw

ou

ldo

nly

get

it!th

eo

vera

llp

oin

tof

the

exp

erim

ent

or

arti

cle"

afte

rI

read

the

wh

ole

pap

er,

and

pro

bab

lyw

ent

thro

ugh

itw

ith

like

,a

pro

fess

or

or

som

eth

ing,

or

incl

ass?

Bu

tn

owI

thin

kI’

mgo

od

on

my

ow

n.

Ico

uld

dec

iph

erw

hat

the

mes

sage

is,

on

my

ow

n.

(S2)

Iw

ou

ldre

com

men

dit

toev

ery

stu

den

tta

kin

ga

scie

nce

maj

or

orn

onsc

ien

cem

ajo

r,an

dI

thin

kth

iscl

ass

sho

uld

be

ap

rere

qu

isit

ein

ord

erto

grad

uat

ew

ith

asc

ien

ced

egre

e.I

thin

kit

’sa

very

stro

ng

clas

sth

atex

pan

ds

all

the

stu

den

ts’

min

ds.

...

An

dI

thin

kth

atth

isco

urs

ew

ill

defi

nit

ely

hel

pan

yon

ew

ho

wan

tsto

pu

rsu

ea

care

era

scie

nce

,w

hat

ever

that

mig

ht

be,

beca

use

ith

elp

syo

ure

ally

real

lyu

nd

erst

and

wh

atsc

ien

ceis

abo

ut.

It’s

no

tju

sta

text

bo

ok

that

you

read

and

mem

ori

zeth

ings

;yo

uac

tual

lyle

arn

som

uch

.(S

1)

It’s

the

mo

stef

fect

ive

way

ofte

ach

ing

that

I’ve

ever

had

,es

pec

iall

yin

asc

ien

ceco

urs

e.B

ecau

sein!re

al"

scie

nce

you

’re

no

tre

ally

give

nex

ams,

and

you

’re

not

aske

d,

like

,to

mem

ori

zeth

ings

—yo

u’r

eas

ked

toan

alyz

ean

du

nd

erst

and

—an

dI

thin

kth

iscl

ass

real

lyfo

cuse

do

nan

alyz

ing

and

un

der

stan

din

g,as

op

pos

edto

mem

ori

zin

g.(S

3)

Tra

nsf

ero

fth

eC

RE

AT

Eap

pro

ach

too

ther

clas

ses

Iw

alke

daw

ayw

ith

skill

sth

atar

ego

ing

toh

elp

me

inev

ery

sin

gle

clas

sI

take

agai

n,

and

even

inli

fe,

real

ly.

Ife

elli

keI

can

take

on

my

ow

nta

xes

this

year

!!la

ugh

s"Ju

stb

ein

gab

leto

sit

do

wn

and

focu

san

dn

otge

tbo

gged

do

wn

.(S

6)

Ih

ada

pap

erfo

ro

ne

of

on

eo

fm

yo

ther

clas

ses—

call

edM

usc

lean

dN

erve

—I

had

tod

oa

revi

ewp

aper

on

ap

rese

nta

tio

nI

did

.A

nd!b

ecau

seo

fth

eC

RE

AT

Ecl

ass"

Ih

ave

nev

erre

adth

rou

ghp

aper

sso

qu

ickl

yth

anI

did

thos

efi

vep

aper

s,an

dI

cou

ldac

tual

lysi

tth

ere

and

say,

‘‘Oh

,th

ism

akes

sen

se;

OK

.T

his

isd

ose

resp

onse

tocr

eati

ne

inem

bry

on

icu

mb

ilic

alco

rds.

I’m

like,

oh

,th

atw

asso

grea

t!I

did

n’t

thin

kI

wou

ldap

ply

itso

quic

kly

...

(S7)

Ito

ok

mic

robi

olo

gy—

we

read

ap

aper

then

—if

Ire

adit

agai

nit

wo

uld

pro

bab

lybe

tota

lly

dif

fere

nt

no

w,

wit

hth

isap

pro

ach

....

IfI

had

tod

oit

all

over

agai

n,

I’d

pro

bab

lyw

ant

tota

keth

isco

urs

eaf

ter

the

firs

ttw

oin

tro

cou

rses

—b

ecau

seit

allo

wed

me

toin

terp

ret

info

rmat

ion

dif

fere

ntl

y;‘‘t

hin

kou

tsid

eth

ebo

x’’

soto

spea

k...

.T

his

pre

tty

mu

chre

qu

ired

us

tod

oal

lth

ew

ork

ou

rsel

ves.

...I

tw

asn

’tju

sta

bu

nch

of

fact

sth

atw

eju

sth

adto

acce

pt.

We

had

toac

tual

lyq

ues

tio

nit

.(S

8)

Un

der

stan

din

go

fh

ow

scie

nti

fic

rese

arch

isca

rrie

do

ut

Iex

pec

ted

:th

eyh

ada

theo

ry,

they

pro

ved

that

theo

ry;

that

’sit

.!N

ow"I

see

it’s

mo

reli

kea

bli

nd

per

son

pla

ced

ina

roo

man

dtr

yin

gto

feel

aro

un

das

tow

hat

they

thin

ka

stru

ctu

rem

ayb

e;an

dev

enw

hen

they

thin

ka

stru

ctu

reis

‘‘th

at’’

they

’re

stil

ln

ot

sure

asto

wh

atit

is,

bu

tth

eyca

nki

nd

of

com

eu

pw

ith

wh

atit

is,

base

do

nth

esh

ape,

and

tou

chin

git

,an

dco

mp

arin

git

toan

oth

erst

ruct

ure

that

’sn

ext

toit

....

(S4)

Ith

ou

ght!b

efo

re"f

rom

lab

tola

bth

eyh

adto

buy

each

oth

ers’

thin

gs;

like

ifI

nee

ded

akn

ock

ou

tm

ou

seI

wou

ldh

ave

tob

uy

it?

Bu

tit

actu

ally

turn

edou

tto

be

agi

vean

dta

ke,

like

‘‘my

stu

ffis

you

rst

uff

’’—I

did

n’t

kno

wth

at.

An

oth

erth

ing

is..

.alo

to

fre

visi

on

goes

into

thes

ep

aper

s...

.wh

ich

show

syo

uth

atit

’sn

ota

llcu

tan

dd

ried

;it

’sn

otal

lcl

ear;

and

that

even

top

grad

esc

ien

tist

sca

nm

ake

mis

take

s...

.It

’sli

kea

circ

le;

ifth

ose

pap

ers

wer

en’t

pas

sed

aro

un

dan

dre

adfr

om

on

ep

erso

nto

ano

ther

,fr

om

one

stu

den

tto

ano

ther

,n

ewid

eas

wo

n’t

com

eu

p..

..It

’sa

net

wo

rk.

It’s

an

etw

ork

of

tho

ugh

ts.

(S10

)

As

far

asre

sear

ch,

Ile

arn

edth

ato

ne

answ

erca

nle

adto

som

any

dif

fere

nt

thin

gs,

and

ever

yp

erso

nh

asth

eir

own

idea

sab

ou

tw

her

eth

eid

eas

wil

lle

ad.

An

dI

thou

ght

that

was

like

the

coo

lest

thin

g—yo

ukn

ow

,yo

uco

uld

hav

e,li

kesi

xd

iffe

ren

tgr

ou

ps

do

ing

the

sam

ere

sear

ch,

and

get

the

sam

ere

sult

;th

engo

ind

iffe

ren

td

irec

tio

ns.

An

dI

tho

ugh

tth

atw

asin

tere

stin

g,be

cau

seI!h

ad"a

lway

sth

ou

ght

ever

ybo

dy

wo

uld

goin

the

sam

ed

irec

tio

n.

(S3)

(con

tin

ued

)


TA

BL

E1

(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Cla

ss1

Cla

ss2

Cla

ss3

Th

inki

ng

like

asc

ien

tist

Ith

ink

the

bigg

est,

kin

dof

like

enlig

hte

nm

entf

orm

e!la

ugh

s"is

that

you

can

hav

eyo

ur

own

idea

s..

.an

dyo

uca

nco

me

up

wit

hyo

ur

own

inte

rpre

tati

onof

thin

gsan

dn

otn

eces

sari

lybe

‘‘wro

ng.

’’I

thin

kth

ere

isa

lotm

ore

crea

tivi

tybe

hin

dsc

ien

ceth

anm

ost

peo

ple

are

awar

eof

....

Th

rou

ghth

isco

urs

e,th

ecr

eati

vity

,for

me

it’s

been

like

‘‘Wow

Ica

nre

ally

thin

kab

outt

hes

eth

ings

and

not

just

take

inth

isd

ata

and

say

‘‘OK

this

isit

;Ica

n’t

ques

tion

it.’’

For

me

that

was

the

bigg

esti

nsi

ght.

Itw

aslik

e‘‘I

can

ques

tion

itan

dm

aybe

com

eu

pw

ith

anal

tern

ate

exp

lan

atio

n.

An

dit

mig

htb

e,it

mig

htn

otbe

,bu

tatl

east

I’m

‘allo

wed

’to

do

so;t

her

e’s

no

big

law

agai

nst

that

.’’(S

12)

You

nee

dto

besk

epti

cal

insc

ien

ce—

no

tju

stta

keth

ed

ata

for

wh

atth

eysa

yit

is.A

lot

of

tim

es!b

efo

re",

we

stu

dy

pap

ers,

we

just

loo

kat

the

dis

cuss

ion

and

the

titl

ean

dta

keth

atfo

rgr

ante

d,

and

this

clas

sh

asta

ugh

tu

sto

be

skep

tica

l—to

besc

ien

tist

s,an

dlo

ok

atth

ed

ata

and

try

toan

alyz

eit

for

ours

elve

san

dse

eif

we

get

the

sam

eco

ncl

usi

on

that

they

got

...

fro

mth

ed

ata.

(S6)

My

sco

pe

of

thin

kin

gh

asb

een

wid

ened

.Fi

rst,

Ih

ave

mo

reid

eas

pu

lled

toge

ther

and

I’m

usi

ng

my

init

iati

vem

uch

mo

re.

An

dI’

mb

ein

gin

no

vati

vean

dI’

mb

ein

gve

ryac

tive

;ri

ght

onm

yfe

etth

inki

ng;

and

Ih

ave

mo

rein

tere

stin

do

ing

the

wo

rk.

My

inte

rest

has

bee

nb

oost

edu

p.

It’s

very

easy

;it

’sm

ade

op

enfo

rm

eto

bri

ng

ou

tth

eb

est

ou

to

fm

ean

dth

ento

join

wit

ho

ther

s.T

he

oth

erth

ing

too

;in

that

clas

sw

ele

arn

edto

wo

rkto

geth

er.

We

had

dif

fere

nt

typ

eso

fp

eop

lein

the

gro

up

s,so

we

wer

ele

arn

ing

som

eth

ing

else

.In

add

itio

nto

ou

rin

div

idu

alca

pac

itie

sw

ew

ere

lear

nin

gh

owto

exch

ange

idea

sw

ith

oth

ers.

(S2)

Per

son

alco

nn

ecti

on

tosc

ien

cean

dsc

ien

tist

sI

bel

ieve

scie

nti

sts

are

peo

ple

;th

eyar

elik

eev

eryd

ayp

eop

le.

An

yon

eca

nb

ea

scie

nti

st..

..B

efo

reI

use

dto

thin

kth

atsc

ien

tist

sw

ere

rigi

dp

eop

lew

ho

wo

rela

bco

ats

and

did

n’t

talk

toan

yon

e!la

ugh

s"bu

tfr

om

the

clas

san

dfr

om

the

resp

on

ses

we

got

from

the

e-m

ails

Ise

eth

atsc

ien

tist

sar

e‘‘p

eop

lep

erso

ns,

’’ev

eryd

ayp

eop

le;

mea

nin

gth

eyd

idn

’th

ave

tob

esu

per

-gen

iuse

so

rre

ally

up

inst

atu

sto

bec

om

ea

scie

nti

st;

wit

hco

nn

ecti

on

so

ran

yth

ing

like

that

.(S

1)

Id

efin

itel

yh

ave

chan

ged

my

per

spec

tive

of

scie

nti

sts.

Bef

ore

Ith

ou

ghtb

ein

ga

scie

nti

stw

asa

job

wh

ere

you

wer

ean

tiso

cial

;co

op

edu

pin

ala

b,a

nd

that

’sit

.An

dI

alw

ays

figu

red

peo

ple

wh

ob

eco

me

scie

nti

sts

are

no

t‘‘p

eop

lep

eop

le,’’

and

Id

on

’tth

ink

that

any

mo

re.

(S11

)

Igo

tto

see

they

’re

like

ever

yon

eel

se..

..G

row

ing

up

,yo

uth

ink

of

scie

nti

sts

asge

niu

ses

like

Ein

stei

no

rw

hat

ever

—b

ut

they

hav

ea

job

just

like

anyo

ne

else

,an

dth

eco

nce

pts

aren

’tth

atd

iffi

cult

...

anyo

ne

cou

ldth

ink

of

ano

ther

exp

erim

ent.

You

do

n’t

hav

eto

hav

ea

sup

er-h

igh

IQ.

It’s

just

thin

kin

gu

pth

ew

ork

and

bei

ng

tru

thfu

lw

ith

the

dat

aan

dn

ottw

eaki

ng

you

rre

sult

sto

mat

chw

hat

you

wan

tit

tob

e,b

ut

just

com

ing

up

wit

ha

hyp

oth

esis

,ru

nn

ing

the

exp

erim

ents

,w

riti

ng

the

dat

aas

you

see

itan

dtr

yin

gto

anal

yze

itas

bes

tas

po

ssib

le.

(S4)

Incr

ease

din

tere

stin

bec

om

ing

asc

ien

tist

Ith

ink

I’m

ali

ttle

bit

mo

reco

nfi

den

tth

atI

cou

ldd

oit

ifI

real

lyw

ante

dto

goin

that

dir

ecti

on

.I

thin

kth

eh

um

anas

pec

to

fit

and

the

way

that

rese

arch

isca

rrie

do

ut

by

ind

ivid

ual

s,th

atw

ho

leex

per

ien

ceh

asch

ange

dfo

rm

e.I

feel

that

ifI

wan

ted

tod

oit

Ico

uld

.L

ike,

ther

e’s

som

any

peo

ple

that

hel

pyo

ual

on

gth

ew

ayan

dge

tyo

ust

arte

d,

and

just

the

wh

ole

tho

ugh

tp

roce

ss,

toth

ink

of

exp

erim

ents

and

tod

oth

em,

isin

tere

stin

gto

me.

(S8)

Ife

elli

keth

isco

urs

e..

.h

asm

ade

me

bec

om

ele

ssin

tim

idat

ed..

..be

cau

seth

ese

peo

ple

are

just

like

you

and

I—yo

uca

nsi

th

ere

and

wo

nd

erw

hy

the

sky

isb

lue—

and

you

take

you

rq

ues

tio

nan

dyo

up

ut

itto

the

test

....

Th

isco

urs

eh

asd

efin

itel

yh

elp

edm

ew

ith

kno

win

gth

atsc

ien

tist

sar

eju

stp

eop

le,

just

like

you

and

I.W

hat

ever

wo

rkth

ey’r

ed

oin

g...

.Ica

nd

oit

mys

elf,

you

kno

w?

...

I’m

not

asc

ien

tist

,!b

ut

I’m"c

on

tem

pla

tin

gif

Ish

ou

ldb

e!..

.I’m

star

tin

gto

like

rese

arch

.W

hat

Ilo

veab

ou

tit

isth

ecr

eati

vep

art

ofit

.A

nd

I’m

qu

esti

on

ing.

...

can

Ist

illh

ave

that

wh

ile

bei

ng

am

edic

ald

octo

r?T

his

clas

sh

aski

nd

of

chan

ged

my

life

ina

way

.(S

3)

Im

ysel

fco

uld

be

asc

ien

tist

now

.B

efo

reI

was

like

‘‘!O

nly"

som

eki

nd

so

fp

eop

leca

nb

esc

ien

tist

s’’an

dit

has

tob

eli

keth

ese

gen

iuse

s,w

ho

wer

e,yo

ukn

ow

,li

keei

ght

tim

essm

arte

r—I

lear

ned

that

itca

nbe

anyb

ody.

An

yon

eca

nb

ea

scie

nti

st;

ith

asto

do

wit

hh

avin

ga

pas

sio

nto

do

rese

arch

,an

dju

sta

dri

ve,

and

no

tto

get

bo

gged

do

wn

byfa

iled

exp

erim

ents

and

thin

gsn

otgo

ing

righ

t,bu

tju

stto

goth

rou

gha

pro

cess

,b

ecau

seth

ere’

sa

thin

kin

gp

roce

ssyo

uh

ave

togo

thro

ugh

,o

fel

imin

atio

n,

and

tryi

ng,

and

exp

erim

enti

ng.

(S5)

Rep

rese

nta

tive

com

men

tsof

CR

EA

TE

stu

den

tsab

out

the

CR

EA

TE

app

roac

han

dit

sef

fect

onth

eir

view

so

fsc

ien

cean

dth

eir

own

abili

ties

.In

terv

iew

sla

stin

g$

20m

inw

ere

con

du

cted

atth

een

dof

the

sem

este

ran

dau

dio

tap

ed.I

nte

rvie

wqu

esti

ons

exam

ined

stu

den

ts’

over

allr

eact

ion

toth

eC

RE

AT

Eap

pro

ach

,wh

eth

erth

eco

urs

eh

adaf

fect

edth

eir

abili

tyto

‘‘th

ink

like

asc

ien

tist

,’’w

het

her

thei

rvi

ews

ofsc

ien

ceor

scie

nti

sts

had

chan

ged

over

the

cou

rse

ofth

ese

mes

ter,

wh

eth

erth

eir

scie

nti

fic

read

ing

skill

sh

adbe

enaf

fect

ed,

and

wh

eth

erth

eir

con

fid

ence

inth

eir

abili

tyto

par

tici

pat

ein

scie

nce

rese

arch

had

chan

ged

.We

mad

etr

ansc

rip

tso

fth

ein

terv

iew

sfr

omth

efi

rst

clas

san

du

sed

aco

nst

ant

com

-p

aris

onap

pro

ach

toca

tego

rize

resp

on

ses

onth

eba

sis

of

broa

dth

emes

that

emer

ged

inm

ult

iple

inte

rvie

ws

(Gla

ser

and

Stra

uss

1967

;No

vak

1998

;Ary

etal

.200

2).W

eth

enan

alyz

edin

terv

iew

sof

subs

equ

entc

ohor

tson

the

basi

sof

the

sim

ilari

tyto

ord

iffe

ren

cefr

omth

ein

itia

llyd

efin

edem

erge

ntc

ateg

orie

s(c

ente

red

hea

din

gs).

Th

en

um

ber

follo

win

gea

chq

uot

eco

rres

pon

ds

toa

dis

tin

ctst

ud

ent

(S)

par

tici

pan

t.C

lass

1:n#

12;

clas

s2:

n#

13;

clas

s3:

n#

12.


CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, CREATE is the only multiplyassessed educational method shown to increase bothunderstanding of and interest in scientific researchamong undergraduate students. In this regard it is alsonotable that 64% of our CREATE students were mem-bers of minority groups that are traditionally underrep-resented among students progressing on to careers inscience. We anticipate that the CREATE method willbenefit students from a variety of backgrounds, how-ever. Our data suggest that the CREATE approach couldsignificantly alleviate the well-documented disengage-ment of many college students from science (Seymourand Hewett 1997; National Science Foundation2002; Alberts 2005; Cech and Kennedy 2005). It is alsoimportant to note that the CREATE approach does notrequire any significant financial expenditure and there-fore will be accessible to instructors at many differenttypes of institutions.

We believe that the CREATE curriculum, which en-courages students to think of themselves as scientists, willcomplement and enhance students’ experience of tradi-tional lecture-based science teaching and inquiry labclasses. Although CREATE was initially developed for usein an upper division elective course with relatively few stu-dents, we believe that elements of the CREATE methodcan be effectively adapted for use in lower division andlarger science classes. The approach is adaptable tocontent in any area of science, and articles can be chosento be accessible to students at a variety of levels. Earlierexposure to CREATE analytical approaches may help stu-dents to develop critical analysis skills early in their collegecareers so that they can benefit from them throughouttheir college coursework (Braxton et al. 2000). Corre-spondingly, the earlier that students develop an appre-ciation for the creative nature of scientific investigationand, in particular, recognize that they, too, could makean important contribution to science, the less likely it isthat they will drop out of science majors.

In contrast to K–12 teachers, most instructors at thecollege level have not had formal training in how toteach effectively. Many faculty members in the sciencesobtain academic positions and promotions on the basisof their research accomplishments. In this respect, webelieve that the CREATE approach can benefit instruc-tors as well as students because, rather than requiringinstructors to learn a completely new teaching method,it encourages faculty members to use skills that manyemploy in their laboratories every day. The CREATEclass is very similar to a lab meeting in which methodsare described, results reported and analyzed, interpre-tations discussed, and future directions debated. Inshort, by using primary literature as a portal into theactivities of working scientists, and by guiding classdiscussions rather than lecturing, instructors can createa virtual laboratory in which every student is a scientist.

We thank David Eastzer, Shubha Govind, and David Stein for theirvaluable discussions and advice during the development and imple-mentation of this project. We thank Ruth Ellen Proudfoot for adviceon statistical analyses, Christina Nadar and Arturo de Lozanne for helpwith graphics, and two anonymous reviewers for insightful commentson a previous version of the article. We also are very grateful to CarolMason for her participation in a group interview, to Christine Holt forher encouragement of the project, and to all of the article authors whoresponded by e-mail to our students. Finally, we thank all of the CityCollege of New York students who participated in the CREATE classes.This material is based upon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) under grant no. 0311117 to S.G.H. and L.M.S. (Co-Principal Investigators). We thank the NSF for support and the NSFCourse, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program officersfor helpful discussions during the development and implementationof the CREATE project.

LITERATURE CITED

Alberts, B., 2005 A wakeup call for science faculty. Cell 123:739–741.

Allen, D., and K. Tanner, 2003 Approaches to cell biology teach-ing: mapping the journey—concept maps as signposts of devel-oping knowledge structures. Cell Biol. Educ. 2: 133–136.

American Association for the Advancement of Science,1989 Science for All Americans. AAAS, Washington, DC.

American Council on Education, 2003 20th Anniversary: minori-ties in higher education annual status report, pp. 85–86. Ameri-can Council on Education, Washington, DC.

Ary, D., L. Jacobs and A. Razavieh, 2002 Introduction to Research inEducation, Ed.6. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA.

Atwell, R., 2004 The long road ahead: barriers to minority partic-ipation persist, pp. 7–9 in Reflections on 20 years of Minorities inHigher Education and the ACE Annual Status Report. AmericanCouncil on Education, Center for Advancement of Racial andEthnic Equity, Washington, DC.

Bissell, A., and P. Lemons, 2006 A new method for assessing criticalthinking in the classroom. Bioscience 56: 66–72.

Bloom, B., M. Englehart, E. Furst, W. Hill and D. Krathwohl,1956 A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1—CognitiveDomain. McKay, New York.

Bok, D., 2003 Closing the nagging gap in minority chievement.Chron. High. Educ. 24: B20.

Bok, D., 2006 Our Underachieving Colleges. Princeton University Press,Princeton, NJ.

Bransford, J., A. Brown and R. Cocking (Editors), 1999 How Peo-ple Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Expanded edition.National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Braxton, J., J. Milem and A. Sullivan, 2000 The influence of ac-tive learning on the college student departure process. J. HigherEd. 71: 569–590.

Brooks, J., and M. Brooks, 1993 The Case for Constructivist Class-rooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,Alexandria, VA.

Cech, T., and D. Kennedy, 2005 Doing more for Kate. Science 310:1741.

Chickering, A. W., and Z. Gamson, 1987 Seven principles for goodpractice. AAHE Bull. 39: 3–7.

Chin, C., D. Brown and B. Bruce, 2002 Student-generated ques-tions: a meaningful aspect of learning in science. Int. J. Sci. Educ.24: 521–549.

Chowe, S., and P. Drennan, 2001 Analyzing scientific literature us-ing a jigsaw group activity. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 30: 328–330.

Edwards, J., and K. Fraser, 1983 Concept maps as reflectors of con-ceptual understanding. Res. Sci. Educ. 13: 19–26.

Felder, R., 1987 On creating creative engineers. Eng. Educ. 77:222–227.

Foertsch, J., 2000 Models for undergraduate instruction: the po-tential of modeling and visualization technology in scienceand math education, pp. 37–40 in Targeting Curricular Change:Reform in Undergraduate Education in Science, Math, Engineeringand Technology. American Association for Higher Education,Washington, DC.


Germann, P., and R. Aram, 1996 Student performances on the sci-ence processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclu-sions, and providing evidence. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 33: 773–798.

Glaser, B., and A. Strauss, 1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory.Aldine Publishing, Chicago.

Glenn Commission, 2000 Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation fromThe National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the21st Century. U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Good, R., J. Novak and J. Wandersee (Editors), 1990 Special issue:perspectives on concept mapping. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 27:921–1074.

Handlesman, J., D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Changet al., 2004 Scientific teaching. Science 304: 521–522.

Herman, C., 1999 Reading the literature in the jargon-intensivefield of molecular genetics. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 28: 252–254.

Herreid, C. F., 2004 Can case studies be used to teach critical think-ing? J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 33: 12–14.

Janick-Buckner, D., 1997 Getting undergraduates to criticallyread and discuss primary literature. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 27:29–32.

Kitchen, E., J. Bell, S. Reeve, R. Sudweeks and W. Bradshaw,2003 Teaching cell biology in the large-enrollment classroom:methods to promote analytic thinking and assessment of their ef-fectiveness. Cell Biol. Educ. 2: 180–194.

Klemm, W., 2002 FORUM for case study learning. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching31: 298–301.

Kozma, R., and J. Russell, 1997 Multimedia and understanding: ex-pert and novice responses to different representations of chem-ical phenomena. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 34: 949–968.

Lederman, N., 1992 Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the na-ture of science: a review of the research. J. Res. Sci. Teaching. 29:331–359.

Mangurian, L., S. Feldman, J. Clements and L. Boucher, 2001 An-alyzing and communicating scientific information. J. Coll. Sci.Teaching 30: 440–445.

Mann, F., S. Ray, W. A. Harris and C. E. Holt, 2002 Topographicmapping in dorsoventral axis of the Xenopus retinotectal systemdepends on signaling through ephrin-B ligands. Neuron 35: 461–473.

Mann, F., E. Miranda, C. Weinl, E. Harmer and C. E. Holt,2003 B-type Eph receptors and ephrins induce growth cone col-lapse through distinct intracellular pathways. J. Neurobiol. 57:323–336.

Marbach-Ad, G., and P. Sokolove, 2000 Can undergraduate biol-ogy students learn to ask higher level questions? J. Res. Sci. Teach-ing 37: 854–870.

McCray, R., R. Dehann and J. Shuck (Editors), 2003 ImprovingUndergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering andMathematics Report. Committee on Undergraduate Science Edu-cation, National Research Council, National Academy Press,Washington, DC.

McMillan, J., 1987 Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: areview of studies. Res. Higher Educ. 26: 3.

Muench, S., 2000 Choosing primary literature in biology to achievespecific educational goals. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 29: 255–260.

Nakagawa, S., C. Brennan, K. G. Johnson, D. Shewan, W. A. Harriset al., 2000 Ephrin-B regulates the ipsilateral routing of retinalaxons at the optic chiasm. Neuron 25: 599–610.

National Research Council, 1999 Transforming Undergraduate Ed-ucation in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. NRCCommittee on Undergraduate Science Education, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council, 2000 How People Learn: Bridging Re-search and Practice. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council, 2003 Bio 2010: Transforming Under-graduate Education for Future Research Biologists. National AcademyPress, Washington, DC.

National Science Foundation, 2002 Science and Engineering De-grees, by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 1991–2000. Arlington, VA.

Novak, J. D., 1990 Concept mapping: a useful tool for science ed-ucation. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 27: 937–949.

Novak, J. D., 1998 Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Mapstm asFacilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ.

Novak, J. D., 2003 The promise of new ideas and new technologyfor improving teaching and learning. Cell Biol. Educ. 2: 122–132.

Novak, J. D., and D. B. Gowin, 1984 Learning How to Learn. Cam-bridge University Press, New York.

Osborne, J., S. Enduran and S. Simon, 2004 Enhancing the quality ofargumentation in school science. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 41: 994–1020.

Ruiz-Primo, M., and R. Shavelson, 1996 Problems and issues in theuse of concept maps in science assessment. J. Res. Sci. Teaching33: 569–600.

Schwartz, R., N. Lederman and B. Crawford, 2004 Developingviews of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicitapproach to bridging the gap between nature of science and sci-entific inquiry. Sci. Educ. 88: 610–645.

Seymour, E., and N. Hewett, 1997 Talking About Leaving: WhyUndergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Siebert, E., and W. Mcintosh, 2001 College Pathways to the ScienceEducation Standards. National Science Teachers Association Press,Arlington, VA.

Steitz, J., 2003 Commentary: Bio 2010—new challenges for biologyeducators. Cell Biol. Educ. 2: 87–91.

Stoddart, T., R. Abrams, E. Gasper and D. Canaday, 2000 Con-cept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning: a reportof methodology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22: 1221–1246.

Vanzee, E., and J. Minstrell, 1997 Using questioning to guide stu-dent thinking. J. Learning Sci. 6: 229–271.

Williams, S. E., F. Mann, L. Erskine, T. Sakurai, S. Wei et al.,2003 Ephrin-B2 and EphB1 mediate retinal axon divergenceat the optic chiasm. Neuron 39: 919–935.

Yuretich, R., 2004 Encouraging critical thinking. J. Coll. Sci. Teach-ing 33: 40–45.

Zohar, A., and F. Nemet, 2002 Fostering students’ knowledge andargumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics.J. Res. Sci. Teaching 39: 35–62.

Zull, J., 2002 The Art of Changing the Brain. Stylus Press, Alexandria, VA.

Communicating editor: P. J. Pukkila


genetics education - cuny gk12...genetics and cell biology as prerequisites. the 3-credit create...

Documents