Undergraduate Biology Lab Courses:
Comparing the Impact of Traditionally Based
“Cookbook” and Authentic Research-Based
Courses on Student Lab Experiences
Brownell SE et al. 2012. J. College Science Teaching 41(4): 36-45
Presented by Dr. Walsh
Introduction
 Laboratory courses are the standard method of
providing students the opportunity to get practical
hands-on experience in any field of science
http://www.southseattle.edu/images/virtual-tour/programs/BiologyLabs.jpg
Background
 Traditionally structured science laboratory courses
- Common in high school and undergrad (McComas 2005)
- Provide step-by-step instructions = “cookbook lab”
- Minimum intellectual engagement (Modell and Michael 1993)
- Inaccurate model of science inquiry (Cox and Davis 1972)
Background
 Redesign of science lab courses promoted for decades
- Must allow active investigation (Holt et al. 1969)
- Must encourage independent thinking (AAAS 2010)
 Although undergrad lab courses have incorporated a
wide variety of active learning experiences
- Broad range of teaching methods and wide
range of outcomes (NRC 2000, Weaver et al. 2008)
Objective
 This study:
- Evaluates a biology lab course that is specifically
design to incorporate authentic research
- Compares affective outcomes to matched-pair
students in a concurrent cookbook lab course
Methods
Experimental Group
 Biology lab course designed for authentic research
- Single project, not pre-designed, outcome unknown
- Collaboration and peer review
- Results presentation
 Hypotheses generated from
model system schematic
MODEL SYSTEM
Methods
Comparison Group
 Biology lab course with traditional cookbook design
- Manual instructions for four modules, various topics
- Predesigned procedures for three modules
- One lesson on experimental design
- One independent project
Methods
Demographics of experimental and comparison condition matched
pairs and unmatched comparison condition students.
Methods
 Student affective outcomes measured by questionnaires
- Specifically designed survey instrument
- Pre-course: three blocks of questions
- Preference for course structure
- Self-confidence in performing lab techniques
- Interest in future biology research
- Post-course: with two additional blocks of questions
- How often certain events occurred in course
- Recommendation for their course
Results
“What is your level of agreement with the following statements
related to biology lab courses?”
Scale = 1 (strongly disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79
* Between group (p < .05)
** Within-group (p < .05)
Results
“What is your level of agreement with the following statements
related to biology lab courses?”
Scale = 1 (strongly disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77
* Between group (p < .05)
** Within-group (p < .05)
Results
“In how many of the nine classes (or prelabs) did the following
occur in your lab section?”
Scale = 1 (0 classes) 2 (1-3 classes) 3 (4-6 classes) 4 (7-8 classes) 5 (9 classes)
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84
* Between group (p < .05)
** Within-group (p < .05)
Results
“How confident do you feel in your ability to execute the
following biology lab-based tasks?”
Scale = 1 (not confident) 2 (somewhat confident) 3 (confident) 4 (very confident)
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86
* Between group (p < .05)
** Within-group (p < .05)
Results
“What is your level of interest for doing the following researchrelated experiences?”
Scale = 1 (strong disinterest) 2 (disinterest) 3 (interest) 4 (strong interest)
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77
* Between group (p < .05)
** Within-group (p < .05)
Discussion
Statistically Significant Results
 Experimental group compared to cookbook lab group
- Increased preference for aspects of course structure
- Increased self confidence in performing lab techniques
- More positive attitude toward authentic research components
- Greater recognition of research components in class
- Greater interest in pursuing further biology research
Conclusions
 Provides evidence that authentic research-based
biology labs impact student affective outcomes
 Provides evidence to support recommendations that
lab courses should incorporate authentic research
 Future studies are to include larger, randomly-selected
sample size
 Future studies are to include measurement of student
achievement outcomes
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2010. Vision and change in undergraduate
biology education: A call to action. Report. Washington (DC); [cited 2012 Oct 10]. Available from:
http://visionandchange.org/files/2010/03/VC_report.pdf
Cox DD, Davis LV. 1972. The context of biological education: The case for change. Washington
(DC): American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Holt CE, Abramoff P, Wilcox LV, Abell DL. 1969. Investigative laboratory programs in biology: A
position paper of the commission on undergraduate education in the biological sciences. Bioscience
19: 1104-1107.
McComas W. 2005. Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning. Science
Teacher 27(7): 24-29.
Modell HI, Michael JA. 1993. Promoting active learning in the life sciences classroom: Defining the
issues. Annals of the N.Y. Acad. Of Sciences 701: 1-7.
National Research Council. 2003. BIO 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future
research biologists. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
Weaver GC, Russell CB, Wink CJ. 2008. Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies
in undergraduate science. Nature Chemical Biology 4: 577-580.