Isaacson Annotated Bibliography
1.) Dasgupta, A. P., Anderson, T. R.,& Pelaez, N. (2014). Development and validation of a rubric for diagnosing students’ experimental design knowledge and difficulties. CBE-Life Sciences
Education, 13, 265-284.
This paper developed a rubric (RED – rubric for experimental design) that can be used to test for students’ experimental design abilities. The authors first performed a comprehensive literature review to determine which areas of experimental design have already been determined to be a problem for undergraduate students. They then used data collected from undergraduate biology students to identify five areas that students had difficulty with regards to experimental design. Some of these difficulties were identified as much as 50 years ago and still remain a problem today. The difficulties they identified in their study were similar to those identified in their literature review. The authors then used the data collected to develop the RED and subsequently validated the rubric as an effective tool to determine if students’ knowledge of experimental design changed during the course of instruction in the classroom.
This rubric could be used as an assessment tool for my research study in in a pre-/post-test format to determine if students’ difficulty in experimental design is lessened following instruction in my class of interest.
2.) Sirum, K., & Humburg, J. (2011). The experimental design ability test (EDAT). Bioscene, 37 (1), 8-
16.
This paper describes the development of an assessment tool to determine students’ experimental design abilities (Experimental Design Ability Test [EDAT]). The test is content independent, does not require knowledge of specific terminology or statistics, and can be quickly completed by the students and scored by the instructor. The authors found, using the EDAT test, that students in the Experimental
Group (students who participated in a re-designed introductory biology course that included non-lecture based teaching and student-designed labs which included instruction in using the scientific method) made significant gains in their experimental design capability as compared to the Traditional Group
(students who participated in traditional lectures with descriptive labs). The test described in this paper can also be given in a pre-/post-test manner and could be used as an assessment tool for my study.
3.) Brownell, S. E., Wenderoth, M. P., Theobald, R., Okoroafor, N., Koval, M., Freeman, S., Walcher-
Chevillet, C. L., & Crowe, A. J. (2014). How students think about experimental design: Novel conceptions revealed by in-class activities. BioScience, 64, 125-137.
This paper uses an adapted version of the EDAT, the Expanded Experimental Design Ability Tool (E-
EDAT) to evaluate gains in students experimental design abilities. The authors designed two activities.
The analyze activity required that students evaluate data and the second design activity required that students propose a novel experiment. The authors found a novel problem in experimental analysis and design; that many students had misconceptions about the importance of and difference between sample size and repetition of experiments. They also found no differences in the E-EDAT scores between

Isaacson Annotated Bibliography the two activities. However, compared to students who only attended a lecture on experimental design, those who completed the design activity (but not the analyze activity) performed significantly better on the E-EDAT. This is another example of a test that could be used as an assessment tool in a pre-/posttest format for my study.
4.) Libarkin, J. & Ording, G. (2012). The utility of writing assignments in undergraduate bioscience.
CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11, 39-46.
This paper determined that three short (average of 4-7 pages) writing assignments overall significantly increased students’ ability to write critically and scientifically. The authors found that students were able to write about science more effectively and improved in their ability to state conclusions based on data. However, these writing assignments did not generate significant differences in their ability to state a hypothesis or make connections. It is unclear if more or longer writing assignments would increase student gains, particularly in their ability to develop hypotheses and make connections. This paper is important for my research study as the course I am interested in analyzing is a writing-enhanced course that includes 7 writing assignments that vary from 1-20 pages in length. I am particularly interested in whether this course increases students’ ability to formulate a research question and develop a testable hypothesis.
5.) Griffith, A. B. (2007). Semester-long engagement in science inquiry improves students’ understanding of experimental design. Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology, 5, 1-27.
This paper assessed the effect of an inquiry-based ecology laboratory class over two years on students’ ability to understand experimental design. During the course of this laboratory students’ designed experiments to address hypotheses about invasive species. Self-assessment and pre-/posttests were used to determine that an inquiry-based laboratory improved student understanding of experimental design. Although this paper did not specifically test for improvement in the development of research questions and hypothesis generation, self-assessment/attitude questions showed a clear and significant increase in students’ confidence in their ability to write a testable hypothesis. Therefore,
I believe a study to specifically analyze students’ comfort and ability to generate testable hypotheses is warranted. Furthermore, the course I am interested in assessing is not a laboratory-based or lecturebased class as has been the topic of most experimental design studies but instead is a non-content driven, writing-enhanced course that specifically focuses on experimental design without actually performing any experiments.