An examination of student outcomes in studio chemistry

Kiste, Alan L.; Scott, Gregory E.; Bukenberger, Jesse Paul; Markmann, Miles; Moore, Jennifer

doi:10.1039/c6rp00202a

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Curriculum design at our own university has led to the development of studio classrooms for general chemistry courses, which integrate the laboratory and lecture portions of the course into one space and time period. The studio classroom helps students to explicitly connect concepts taught in lecture through experimentation, resulting in improved exam scores, more expert-like learning attitudes, and positive assessments of the active learning environment from both students and instructors ( Kiste et al, 2017 ). In order to apply these findings and address the lack of active learning opportunities for transcription and translation in our biochemistry curriculum, we sought to incorporate cell-free protein synthesis (CFPS) into our classroom laboratories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Genetic Code Kit: An Open-Source Cell-Free Platform for Biochemical and Biotechnology Education

Williams

Gregorio

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching the processes of transcription and translation is challenging due to the intangibility of these concepts and a lack of instructional, laboratory-based, active learning modules. Harnessing the genetic code in vitro with cell-free protein synthesis (CFPS) provides an open platform that allows for the direct manipulation of reaction conditions and biological machinery to enable inquiry-based learning. Here, we report our efforts to transform the research-based CFPS biotechnology into a hands-on module called the "Genetic Code Kit" for implementation into teaching laboratories. The Genetic Code Kit includes all reagents necessary for CFPS, as well as a laboratory manual, student worksheet, and augmented reality activity. This module allows students to actively explore transcription and translation while gaining exposure to an emerging research technology. In our testing of this module, undergraduate students who used the Genetic Code Kit in a teaching laboratory showed significant score increases on transcription and translation questions in a post-lab questionnaire compared with students who did not participate in the activity. Students also demonstrated an increase in self-reported confidence in laboratory methods and comfort with CFPS, indicating that this module helps prepare students for careers in laboratory research. Importantly, the Genetic Code Kit can accommodate a variety of learning objectives beyond transcription and translation and enables hypothesis-driven science. This opens the possibility of developing Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) based on the Genetic Code Kit, as well as supporting next-generation science standards in 8-12th grade science courses. Keywords: biochemical education, learn by doing, cell-free protein synthesis (CFPS), in vitro transcription and translation, synthetic biology (synbio), central dogma of molecular biology (CDMB), chemical education and teaching, augmented reality (AR) Abbreviations: CFPS, cell-free protein synthesis; CUREs, course-based undergraduate research experiences; sfGFP, superfolder green fluorescent protein.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Genetic Code Kit: An Open-Source Cell-Free Platform for Biochemical and Biotechnology Education

Williams

Gregorio

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a different institution, 227 students in an LA-supported chemistry course were surveyed and respondents agree that the course is better suited for learning (≈90%) and they are more motivated (≈65%) and enjoy the course (≈80%) more than in courses without LAs. Additionally, students agree that in LA-supported courses, they interact more with their peers (≈90%) and concepts are better connected (≈75%), which could explain why LAs increase enjoyment, understanding, and appreciation for course material (Kiste, Scott, Bukenberger, Markmann, & Moore, 2017).…”

Section: Talbot (2013)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of literature assessing the impact of the learning assistant model

Barrasso

Spilios

2021

IJ STEM Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of modern education reform is focused on implementation of evidenced-based teaching, but these techniques are sometimes met with trepidation from faculty, due to inexperience or lack of necessary resources. One near-peer teaching model designed to facilitate evidenced-based teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics classrooms is the Learning Assistant (LA) model. Here, we describe the details of the LA model, present a scoping review of literature using the four original goals of the LA model as a framework, and suggest future areas of research that would deepen our understanding of the impact that the LA model may have on education. We summarize how the LA model improves student outcomes and teacher preparation and identify a relative deficiency of literature that addresses how the LA model impacts faculty and departmental/institutional change. Additionally, of the 39 papers reviewed, 11 are strictly pre-experimental study designs, 28 use quasi-experimental designs or a combination of quasi and pre-experimental, and none of them included a true experimental design. Thus, we conclude that current studies suggest that LA model positively impacts education, but more refined assessment would improve our understanding of the model. Furthermore, despite the encouraging research on the impact of the LA model and the proliferation of LA programs at institutions across the world, the study of the LA model has been, for the most part, limited to a small group of education researchers. Therefore, a major objective of this review is to introduce the LA model to a new group of instructors and researchers who can further our understanding of this promising model.

show abstract

“…Variations on this style of course delivery have been implemented at a variety of institutions and in a variety of subject areas during the last few decades, including in Cal Poly chemistry and physics courses (Bailey, Kingsbury, Kulinowski, Paradis, & Schoonover, 2000; Kiste, Scott, Bukenberger, Markmann, & Moore, 2017). Early work, which established a framework for studio delivery, anecdotally reported very positive feedback from students and instructors, resulting in more widespread adoption and more rigorous evaluation of the approach (Altmiller, 1973; Apple & Cutler, 1999; Laws, 1991, 1997; Wilson & Jennings, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beichner and Saul (2003) found that students in studio sections had better scores on 8 out of 9 standardized exam questions, Roy (2003) measured a roughly 50% greater improvement in performance on post‐ vs. pre‐tests with a studio approach, Cummings (2008) documented improvements in normailzed gain for multiple subject areas, and Kiste et al. (2017) found significant improvements in learning and increased engagement in studio sections. Positive attitude or behavior outcomes (without considering learning) were documented by Wilson (1994), who found end‐of‐semester surveys showed nearly twice as many students in studio‐style sections agreed that they enjoyed the course relative to those in a traditional section, and Lux (2002), who saw retention rates at a community college increase from around 50% in traditional sections to 80% in a studio section.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparable outcomes in studio vs. traditional delivery of an introductory soil science course

Rees

Winberry

2020

Natural Sciences Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studio‐style course delivery involves the integration of laboratory activities with lecture elements of the course, with the goal of increasing student learning and satisfaction through directly linking laboratory and lecture concepts while focusing on active learning. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of studio delivery of an introductory soil science class at California Polytechnic State University, we first redesigned the course to integrate appropriate technology and to align lectures with laboratory activities. We then offered multiple test sections of the course, including concurrent studio and traditional lecture/laboratory sections taught by the same instructor using the same materials and activities. Student learning was measured at the end of the course with exam questions, including sets with or without direct connection to laboratory activities. Student attitudes were evaluated with a survey. Few significant differences were found between studio and traditional sections, gender, grade point average, or major. Some students seemed to struggle with the extended time commitment for each meeting of the studio‐style section, but overall, results were very positive for both styles of delivery. Careful design and delivery of the course, including aligning lecture and laboratory materials and incorporating active‐learning strategies, resulted in a high degree of satisfaction with the course, with or without integration of the laboratory and lecture components.

show abstract

An examination of student outcomes in studio chemistry

Cited by 22 publications

References 68 publications

The Genetic Code Kit: An Open-Source Cell-Free Platform for Biochemical and Biotechnology Education

The Genetic Code Kit: An Open-Source Cell-Free Platform for Biochemical and Biotechnology Education

A scoping review of literature assessing the impact of the learning assistant model

Comparable outcomes in studio vs. traditional delivery of an introductory soil science course

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About