tin u. «.qu .
. 23...:
...
s .

(11,4?

{mgr

Y1 ...

MR
. ,
.ghfi -Ififihumn
74V .tN“

(4

.H

153...!

‘59:... 03.1.
I :0 .

 

t
9;:
|
In. its

1.4.3.59 .

.5 3115...“

 

 

 

x. if fil
riJUflnnC.’ but: . 3...;
1.. . 3. SI 1..
i... .5. HR 265..

 

 

 

 

 

“fififiuufiwilm , . . , . , . . . ‘ .
1 . . . . Maxi? .

rumL‘ 1. .h
v. .F

 

 

n.3, _LlBRARY
4:3! 3 Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE INFLUENCE OF ALTERNATIVE PEDAGOGICAL
METHODS IN POSTSECONDARY BIOLOGY EDUCATION:
HOW DO STUDENTS EXPERIENCE A MULTIMEDIA CASE-

STUDY ENVIRONMENT?

presented by

BJORN HUGO KARL WOLTER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD degree in Higher, Adult. and Lifelong Education

 

 

a K/m flr’9’4

Major Professor’s Signature

7‘2‘5~/0

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

-.-.-.- onu...

un—u-.-—--.-.u--.—.—-—-—-—-—.-.-.-.--.—.--

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5’08 K:IProjIAcc&PreleIRC/DateDue.indd

 

THE INFLUENCE OF ALTERNATIVE PEDAGOGICAL METHODS IN
POSTSECONDARY BIOLOGY EDUCATION: HOW DO STUDENTS
EXPERIENCE A MULTIMEDIA CASE-STUDY ENVIRONMENT?
By

Bjorn Hugo Karl Wolter

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2010

ABSTRACT
THE INFLUENCE OF ALTERNATIVE PEDAGOGICAL METHODS IN
POSTSECONDARY BIOLOGY EDUCATION: HOW DO STUDENTS
EXPERIENCE A MULTIMEDIA CASE-STUDY ENVIRONMENT?
BY
Bjorn Hugo Karl Wolter

The purpose of this study was to better understand how an online,
multimedia case study method influenced students’ motivation, performance, and
perceptions of science in collegiate level biology classes. It utilized a mix-
methods design including data from pre- and post-test, student surveys, and
focus group interviews to answer one primary question, did participation in the
affect student performance? Two sub-questions were: (a) did participation affect
persistence? and (b) did students believe it to be a good learning experience?

One hundred and eight students in 5 classes from 4 campuses in the
United States and Puerto Rico participated in this study during spring semester
2009. After receiving instruction on HIV, students took a 6 questions pre-test to
measure their initial knowledge of both HIV and lab procedures. Participants
then engaged in the Case It! learning environment, where they watched case-
studies on HIV, used virtual lab tools, created an online poster of their findings,
and role-played as both family members and physicians about their case. A
post-test identical to the pre-test was given to students upon completion. Both
were then scored using rubrics and analyzed via paired t-Tests and ANOVA.

The researcher visited all 4 study sites to conduct both the focus group interviews

and student surveys. Student surveys were quantified and descriptive statistic
generated. Focus group interviews were video recorded, transcribed, and
inductively and deductively coded.

Student knowledge increased because of participation, and the majority of
- students said they found the Case Itl project to be both a good learning
experience (95%) and one that would help with future classes or careers (87%).
Based on student interviews, the Case It! project did have a beneficial impact on
students’ intentions to persist as science majors. Many students noted that the
learning environment created an overall context in which they could apply
knowledge from multiple classes that allowed students to fit all the pieces of their
previous academic instruction together into a single, comprehensive picture—and
to place themselves within that picture. Students enjoyed the autonomy and
personal connections that using case studies and multimedia content offered,
and found the material more engaging and relevant. By involving students in
real-world situations, Case Itl demonstrated the application and effect of
theoretical knowledge and stimulated students’ curiosity. Case Itl appears to be
a learning environment that motivates students by making material relevant and
personal, thus creating enduring links between students and content which can
result in better performance and higher retention rates. It is an effective
pedagogical tool that, unlike many other such tools, is not instructor dependent,

and is adaptable to fit various learner types, settings, and levels.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family:
to my wife, Stefanie,
whose support, love, and encouragement
kept me at it through the good, the bad, and the utterly neurotic times;
to my daughters, Solveig and Aylin,
who motivated me to better myself to make a better life for them;
and to my mother, Mary,
proofreader and babysitter extraordinaire.

I could never have done this without any of you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the support of the many people who made this
study possible:

Dr. Mary Lundeberg, my dissertation co-chair and advisor, was
instrumental in all aspects of my doctoral education. Because of her, I was
involved with research projects from my first day at MSU, was able to network
with researchers and practitioners across the continent, and have had numerous
opportunities to present and publish research. Her advice, expertise, direction,
patience, and support are greatly appreciated.

Dr. John Dirkx, my dissertation co-chair and departmental advisor, has
helped me navigate the sometimes confusing pathways of the doctoral degree
process. I appreciate the time and effort he has invested in me.

Drs. Karen Klyczek, Mark Bergland, Catherine White, Rafael Tosado, and
Arlin Toro for helping me develop my survey instruments, and allowing me to
collect data in their classes. Their knowledge, input, and support throughout this
process was invaluable to me. I also thank Dr. Bergland again for allowing me
unlimited access to Case Itl and for supporting my research both financially and
academically.

All graduate students and faculty members before me who developed the
assessment tools and rubrics I modified for use in my study, including Hosun

Kang, Aroutis Foster, Viola Manokore, Mark Bergland, and Mary Lundeberg.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Studies of pedagogy and persistence .............................................................. 2
Studies from the field of engineering ................................................................ 7
Potential solutions ............................................................................................ 8
Deficiencies of previous studies ....................................................................... 9
Importance of the study .................................................................................. 10
Purpose .......................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 12
The current state of postsecondary biology ................................................... 12
Content vs. pedagogy ............................................................................... 13
Individual vs. systemic instructional reform ............................................... 15
Pace of change ......................................................................................... 16
Bioinformatics ........................................................................................... 1 6
Reforms in STEM education ........................................................................... 17
Case-based instruction ............................................................................. 17
The growing use of instructional technology in STEM instruction ............. 20
Clickers ................................................................................................ 21
Games and computer simulated learning environments ..................... 24
Models of student motivation .......................................................................... 27
The ARCS model of student motivation .................................................... 28
Attention .............................................................................................. 29
Relevance ............................................................................................ 29
Confidence ................................................................................. 29
Satisfaction .......................................................................................... 31
The Expectancy x Value model of student motivation .............................. 32
Principle factors in motivating students to learn ........................................ 32
Motivation and persistence ....................................................................... 33
Research questions ........................................................................................ 34
CHAPTER 3
METHODS ........................................................................................................... 35
Study sites ...................................................................................................... 36
University of Wisconsin—River Falls .......................................................... 36

vi

North Carolina A&T State University ......................................................... 37

Interamerican University of Puerto Rico—Metmpolitan Campus ............... 38
Interamerican University of Puerto Rico—San German ............................. 39
Participants ..................................................................................................... 39
Instructional intervention ................................................................................ 40
Case Itl simulation software ...................................................................... 42
Case It! launch pad ................................................................................... 42
Data collection ................................................................................................ 46
Development of instruments ..................................................................... 46
Learning assessment test .................................................................... 48
Student survey ..................................................................................... 50
Focus group interviews ........................................................................ 51
Collection procedures ............................................................................... 52
Learning assessment test .................................................................... 52
Student survey ..................................................................................... 52
Focus group interviews ........................................................................ 52
Data analysis .................................................................................................. 53
Learning assessment test ......................................................................... 53
Student survey .......................................................................................... 54
Focus group interviews ............................................................................. 55
Deductive coding ................................................................................. 55
Inductive coding ................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 57
Case study A: Cross-site comparison ............................................................ 57
Student performance ................................................................................ 57
Student intentions to persist ...................................................................... 65
Instructional quality .............................................................................. 66
Functional science (related to future work) .......................................... 72
Role-playing ......................................................................................... 74
Building self-efficacy ............................................................................ 77
Feeling like a scientist (community/integrated into science) ................ 78
Student beliefs .......................................................................................... 78
Diagnostic testing procedures ............................................................. 79
Learning ............................................................................................... 82
Science content ................................................................................... 84
Communication .................................................................................... 86
Multiple perspectives ........................................................................... 87
Turned-off science ............................................................................... 88
Stigma/denial/misconceptions ............................................................. 89
Need-to-know science ......................................................................... 90
Level of application ................................................................................... 91
Overview of case studies B-F ......................................................................... 92

vii

Case study B: University of Wisconsin—River Falls (UWRF-NM) ................... 92

Overview ................................................................................................... 92
Student performance ................................................................................ 93
Student intentions to persist ...................................................................... 93
Student beliefs .......................................................................................... 97
Level of application ................................................................................... 99
Case study C: University of Wisconsin—River Falls (UWRF-M) ................... 100
Overview ................................................................................................. 100
Student performance .............................................................................. 100
Student intentions to persist .................................................................... 102
Student beliefs ........................................................................................ 105
Level of application ................................................................................. 108
Case study D: North Carolina State A&T University (NCA&T) ..................... 108
Overview ................................................................................................. 108
Student performance .............................................................................. 108
Student intentions to persist .................................................................... 109
Student beliefs ........................................................................................ 113
Level of application ................................................................................. 116
Case study E: Interamerican University of Puerto Rico-Metropolitan Campus
(lUPR—M) ..................................................................................................... 116
Overview ................................................................................................. 116
Student performance .............................................................................. 1 17
Student intentions to persist .................................................................... 117
Student beliefs ........................................................................................ 120
Level of application ................................................................................. 122
Case study F: Interamerican University of Puerto Rico—San German Campus
(lUPR-SG) ................................................................................................... 122
Overview ................................................................................................. 122
Student performance .............................................................................. 122
Student intentions to persist .................................................................... 123
Student beliefs ........................................................................................ 127
Level of application ................................................................................. 129
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 130
Site differences ............................................................................................. 132
Instructional innovation ................................................................................. 134
An effective pedagogy ............................................................................ 134
A scalable pedagogy ............................................................................... 139
An updateable pedagogy ........................................................................ 140
Motivation inherent in Case Itl ...................................................................... 141
Attention .................................................................................................. 141
Relevance ............................................................................................... 142
Confidence .............................................................................................. 143

viii

Satisfaction ............................................................................................. 145

Expectancy x Value ................................................................................ 145
Limitations .................................................................................................... 146
Future research ............................................................................................ 148
Implications for practice ................................................................................ 151

Agencies ................................................................................................. 151

Faculty who teach undergraduate science ............................................. 151
Conclusions .................................................................................................. 1 52

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 155
Appendix A ................................................................................................... 155
Appendix B ................................................................................................... 160
Appendix C ................................................................................................... 163
Appendix D ................................................................................................... 164
Appendix E ................................................................................................... 165

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 168

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

LIST OF TABLES

Factors that cause students to lea ve STEM programs and concerns of

STEM students. .................................................................................... 3
Student characteristics for sites overall and by participants .............. 41
Performance results of pre-lpost-test repeated measures ................. 58

Changes in mean student performance and confidence on learning
assessment test from pre- to post-test (n = 92) ................................. 59

Question-by-question analysis of pre-/post-test questions by gender
and site ............................................................................................... 64

Definitions and examples of codes ............................................... 67-68

Categories of comments and their aggregate instances across all
sites (n =1 160) ................................................................................... 69

Changes in mean student performance and confidence on learning
assessment test from pre- to post-test at the University of Wisconsin—
River Falls BIOL 150 (U WFIF-NM) non-majors level course

(n = 42) ............................................................................................... 94

Categories of comments and their instances for the University of
Wisconsin—River Falls BIOL 150 (U WRF-NM) non-majors level course
(n =405) .............................................................................................. 95

Table 10. Changes in mean student performance and confidence on learning

assessment test from pre- to post-test at the University of Wisconsin—
River Falls BIOL 345 (U WRF-M) majors level course (n = 27) ........ 101

Table 11. Categories of comments and their instances for the University

of Wisconsin-River Falls BIOL 345 (U WRF-M) majors level course (n
=509) ................................................................................................ 103

Table 12. Changes in mean student performance and confidence on learning

assessment test from pre- to post-test at North Carolina A& T BIOL
401 (NCA& 7) majors level course (n =5) ......................................... 110

Table 13. Categories of comments and their instances for North Carolina A&T
University BIOL 401 (NCA& 7) majors level course (n =120) ........... 111

Table 14. Changes in mean student performance and confidence on learning
assessment test from pre- to post-test at Interamerican University of
Puerto Rico-Metropolitan MEDT 4531 (IUPR-M) majors level course
(n = 6) ............................................................................................... 118

Table 15. Categories of comments and their instances for the lnterAmerican
University of Puerto Rico-Metropolitan MEDT 4531 (lUPFl-M) majors
level course (n =39) .......................................................................... 119

Table 16. Changes in mean student performance and confidence on learning
assessment test from pre- to post-test at Interamerican University of ‘
Puerto Rico—San German BIOL 4600 (lUPFi-SG) majors level course
(n = 12) ............................................................................................. 124

Table 17. Categories of comments and their instances for lnterAmerican

University of Puerto Rico—San German BIOL 4600 (lUPR-SG) majors
level course (n =87) .......................................................................... 125

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Screenshot of the Case It! simulation software ................................. 43

Figure 2. Screenshot of a phylogenetic tree created using Case It! and the

Mega4 software ................................................................................ 44
Figure 3. Screen shot of a student created webposter made in Case It! launch

pad .................................................................................................... 45
Figure 4. Screen shot of student conferencing via Case Itl Launch pad .......... 47
Figure 5. Student performance means by site ................................................. 60
Figure 6. Average student gain from pre- to post-test based on site ............... 61
Figure 7. Student performance means over time ............................................. 63
Figure 8. Student ratings of most useful Case Itl components ........................ 80

xii

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

“Why do we have to know this?” and “How does this apply to the ‘real-
world’?” are questions educators in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) fields often hear from students. There is a long tradition of
lecturing in the sciences, with emphasis placed on memorization and learning
material by rote (e.g. Aikenhead, 2006; Seymour, 1995); however, previous
research has shown that such methods result in poor student recall and
comprehension (e.g. Dale, 1969; Lord, 2007; McDonald & Dominguez, 2005).
Furthermore, students often find lectures difficult to relate to, disengaging, and
boring (), producing ambivalent or negative opinions of science and a
disinclination to pursue degrees and careers in the STEM fields (Astin & Astin,
1993; Seymour 8 Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990).

Poor pedagogy in STEM courses and programs is affecting student
persistence in major. Seymour and Hewitt (1997, pp. 32-35) identify no less than
23 independent factors that affect student retention in STEM fields, the most
common of which are poor teaching by faculty, the overwhelming pace and
workload of STEM programs, a lack or loss of interest in science, and the belief
that other, non-STEM majors are more interesting or present better educational
and career opportunities. These findings have subsequently been validated by a
number of other researchers (e.g. Aikenhead, 2006; Callahan, Hertberg-Davis,
Hockett, & Reed, 2008; Kardash 8 Wallace, 2001; Kaya, Kilic, & Akdeniz, 2004;

National Science Foundation, 1998).

Studies of pedagogy and persistence

One of the largest single factors influencing student retention in STEM
fields is teaching (Kardash & Wallace, 2001; Koballa & Glynn, 2007; Osborne &
Collins, 2000; Seymour, 2002; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Strenta, Elliot, Adair,
Matier, & Scott, 1994). In their seminal work, Seymour and Hewitt (1997, p. 33)
identify “poor teaching by S.M.E. faculty” as the single most important concern
amongst those students who left science and engineering programs (see Table
1). Both Tobias (1990) and Kardash and Wallace (2001) found that students
thought the biggest barrier to learning was not the content or difficulty of courses,
but rather the pedagogical methods used to convey that knowledge. Instructional
method in STEM fields has been largely predicated on a transmission model that,
“places personal student issues second to efficient course delivery” (Boldt, 2005,
p. 63). Although lectures enjoy a long history of use in most fields of academia, it
has become evident that some students do not feel they learn efficiently from
them, nor do they particularly enjoy them. Student complaints about lectures
include the focus on “getting through” a set amount of material, a lack of
connection between theory and application, emphasis on rote memorization, and
a lack of interaction between students and faculty (e.g. Kardash & Wallace, 2001 ;

Prince, 2004; Yadav, et al., 2007).

Table 1.

Factors that cause students to leave STEM programs and concerns of STEM
students”

 

Concerning to

 

Causes Concerning to Concerning to
Issue students to students who stuggnézwrho ALL students
p g p 9 programs p 9
Turned off 43% 60% 49%
science
Non-STEM 40%
majors more
attractive
POOI' teaching 3670 90°/o 74°/o 83°/o
Curriculum 35% 41 %
overload
Inappropriate 82% 40% 63%
reasons for
initially
choosing
STEM
program
Poor advising 75% 52% 65%

 

*Adapted from Seymour & Hewitt (1997, p. 33)

Another major factor limiting student retention in STEM programs has
been a lack of engagement in class. Although the use of active learning
pedagogies has increased among many STEM programs, many students still feel
“turned off” by dry content or delivery (see Table 1; Acker, Hughes, & Fendley Jr.,
2002; Astln & Astin, 1993; Seymour, 2002; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Several
presenters at a recent meeting of the Board on Science Education of the National
Academies noted both the need for, and the promise of, active learning in
undergraduate STEM education (Dancy & Henderson, 2008; Froyd, 2008;
Gregerman, 2008). Felder, Felder, and Dietz (1998) found that students in active
and cooperative learning environments in a series of introductory chemical
engineering courses had a 17% higher retention rate. Two promising practices
that utilize active engagement are undergraduate research programs, which can
significantly improve student retention (Gregerman, 2008), and case-based
instruction (Lundeberg, 2008; Walter, Kang, Lundeberg, & Herreid, 2009; Wolter,
Lundeberg, & Bergland, 2009). It is hypothesized that case-based instruction
involving majors in research might be especially effective in increasing retention.

Student perception of how science affects them or impacts their lives has
been a growing problem related to retention in STEM fields (Bovina &
Dragul'skaia, 2008; Kardash & Wallace, 2001; Kaya, et al., 2004; Seymour,
1995; Tobias, 1992). Students in STEM programs frequently complain that they
feel disengaged from the material. Cited causes of this disenfranchisement

include instructional style, an emphasis on rote memorization, or the inability to

relate the material studied to their own personal lives (Kardash & Wallace, 2001;
McConnell, Steer, Owens, & Knight, 2005). Research has shown that students
are more interested in tapics that have a direct connection to their own lives,
such as sexuality, drug use, or diseases (Aikenhead, 1992; Foster, Wolter,
Lundeberg, & Kang, 2008; Stoker & Thompson, 1969; Wolter, Lundeberg, &
Bergland, 2009). Other factors related to relevancy that affect persistence are I
the lack of perceived future benefits, beliefs that non-STEM majors are more
interesting or rewarding (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997), dislike for the exclusive
culture of science (Aikenhead, 2002, 2006), an inability to perceive the future
application of current instruction (Kardash & Wallace, 2001; Wolter, Lundeberg,
et al., 2009), and an overall lack of understanding of what it means to be a
scientist (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990, 1992).

Just as attracting students into STEM majors has been an issue, so too
has been keeping students in the field. Astin and Astin (1993) note that most
programs typically experience up to 40% attrition rates. Current students leave
STEM programs for many of the same reasons they avoid them initially, but also
cite poor teaching, an overwhelming pace and workload, and a chasm between
theory and application of knowledge as factors that influence their decisions to
leave (Kardash & Wallace, 2001; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990). Many
students identify a disconnect between their lives and the science they learn in

the classroom.

Schreiner and Sjeberg (2004) argue that it is important to know more
regarding what students think about science and technology to improve the
curriculum. The Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) project addresses
issues of declining enrollments in science majors by asking students their
perceptions of science and technology (Matthews, 2007), and emphasizes
finding relevance between school topics and students’ lives (Sjeberg &
Schreiner, 2005). The ROSE questionnaire has been administered in more than
37 countries, and indicates students are most interested in health, sexuality,
genetics, the origin of life, space, the universe, and natural disasters (Matthews,
2007). However, how a topic is taught also matters, not just the nature of the
topic. The method in which material is presented to students has the potential to
affect student motivation, and by extension both performance and persistence
(e.g. Allen, 1999; Cornell & Martin, 1997; Malone, 1981a, 1981b; Theall &
Franklin, 1999).

As mentioned above, many researchers believe that both PBL and CBI
can influence student persistence in STEM programs. A growing body of
literature emphasizes the relevance of multimedia, case-based science learning
to students, especially in undergraduate science courses (Herreid, 2001, 2005a,
2005b; Lundeberg, et al., 2002; T. M. Smith & Emmeluth, 2002; Sokolove,
Marbach-Ad, & Fusco, 2003). Prior research has indicated that students become
more engaged with, and interested in, science when it is made culturally relevant

to their lives (Aikenhead, 2002, 2006; Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009).

Studies from the field of engineering. Student persistence in STEM
fields has been highly correlated to secondary schooling preparation in the
sciences and GPA (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000; Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Huang,
Taddese, & Walter, 2000); however, there is little literature on how exactly
alternative pedagogical techniques impact retention in the sciences. The field of
engineering appears to be far more proactive in this research than other STEM
fields. Nationally, engineering programs experience high rates of attrition. In
response, researchers in engineering education have dedicated a significant
amount of time to the issue, finding that fewer students leave programs that
emphasize “real-world” application and connections with content (Fortenberry,
Sullivan, Jordan, & Knight, 2007; Froyd & Ohland, 2005), and that a student
services approach featuring peer-mentoring and counseling appears to positively
influence student retention rates (Sleeman & Sorby, 2007).

Felder and his associates (Felder, 1995; Felder, et al., 1998; Felder,
Felder, Mauney, Hamrin Jr., & Dietz, 1995) conducted an extensive longitudinal
study of student instruction, retention, and performance in one engineering
program from 1990 to 1993. One of their findings was that traditional,
transmission model introductory courses that emphasize the roles of competition
and individual, rather than group, work discourage women and minorities from
persisting in STEM programs (Felder, et al., 1995), and that incorporating
coursework that stresses and rewards cooperative learning has the potential to

reduce the attrition of women in engineering programs (Felder, et al., 1995).

Felder’s massive study also concluded that instructional pedagogy that
incorporates cooperative, group-based work was not only more effective in
helping students master content (Felder, 1995), but may also play a part in
programmatic completion since students were more confident in their knowledge,
and had better attitudes toward instruction (Felder, et al., 1998). Other studies
have demonstrated that cooperative learning communities show promise in
increasing student completion rates and retention rates (T sang & Halderson,
2008). Early involvement with research and information about the nature of the
discipline have also been shown to have positive effects on student perceptions
and persistence (e.g. Fainlveather, 2008; Gregerman, 2008).

Potential solutions. Even though previous studies of STEM pedagogy
are limited, they do provide useful insight into what actions might beneficially
influence student success in STEM programs. Major factors affecting student
persistence include: (a) an overall lack of motivation due to poor instruction; (b)
feeling dissociated from the social structure of the sciences; (c) bad advising; (d)
waning interest in the sciences due to impersonal pedagogies and disinterested
faculty; (e) level of preparation; and (f) awareness of discipline (Seymour &
Hewitt, 1997; see Table 1). Previous studies have highlighted the importance of
improving instruction in STEM fields (e.g. Herreid, 2006; Kardash & Wallace,
2001; Seymour, 2002; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1992), which may be

accomplished in many ways.

Many researchers (e.g. Burrowes, 2003; Felder, et al., 1998; Kumar &
Sherwood, 2007; Lundeberg, et al., 2002; Prince & Felder, 2007; Seymour, 2002;
Walter, Kang, Lundeberg, & Herreid, 2009) advocate a shift from instructor-
centered pedagogies such as lectures toward student-centered, active
engagement instruction like problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based
instruction (CBI). In PBL students work in groups to collectively solve poorly
structured, open-ended problems (Savery, 2006). CBI environments are similar,
but are more structured, using engaging narratives to introduce students to an
issue (Herreid, 1994; Lundeberg, Levin, & Harrington, 1999). Recent research
studies in CBI have investigated the effect of incorporating technologies like
personal response systems (Wolter, Kang, Lundeberg, & Herreid, 2009; Wolter,
Kang, Lundeberg, Herreid, & Zhang, 2009), and the importance of personal
relevance (Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). Other researchers (Gregerman,
2008; Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007; Taraban & Blanton, 2008) have
identified the incorporation of undergraduate research into programs as another
technique with the potential to address the underlying causes of student attrition.
All of these practices have the potential to speak to issues of engagement,
relevancy, and motivation in STEM instruction.

Deficiencies of previous studies

A wealth of articles exist identifying the need for improved pedagogy in

STEM fields; however, many of these simply identify the lack of even adequate

instruction as an issue without identifying potential strategies for improvement

(e.g. Astin & Astin, 1993; Augustine, et al., 2006; Seymour, 2002; Seymour &
Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990, 1992). Other studies identify broad ideas to address
the issue, but lack specifics about tools or implementation (e.g. Aikenhead, 2007;
Bailek & Botstain, 2004; Bell, 2004; Burrowes, 2003; Irwin, 1995; Kumar &
Sherwood, 2007). This is not to say that experimental studies of pedagogy in
STEM programs do not exist—they do—but most focus on reaching specific
disadvantaged groups (e.g. Hurtado, et al., 2008; Hurtado, et al., 2007; Kang,
Wolter, Lundeberg, & Herreid, 2009; 0. Lee & Luykx, 2007; National Science
Foundation, 2003), or investigating barriers in adapting alternative pedagogies
(e.g. Moriarty, 2007; Seymour, 1995; Walczyk, Ramsey, & Zha, 2007). There is
a limited body of literature on effective pedagogical techniques in STEM (e.g.
Bergland, et al., 2006; Lundeberg, et al., 2002; Walter, Kang, Lundeberg, &
Herreid, 2009; Wolter, Kang, Lundeberg, Herreid, et al., 2009; Walter,
Lundeberg, et al., 2009), to which this study adds.
Importance of the study

Science education researchers have known for over 25 years that poor
teaching is a major issue deterring undergraduates from majoring in STEM fields;
however, there is lack of empirical information on effective pedagogical tools in
the existing body of literature. Even though we know what does not work for
students, because we lack information on effective strategies, and because of the
conservative nature of instruction in most STEM fields, teaching still tends to

adhere to the traditional lecture/transmission model of education that emphasizes

10

rote memorization, is disengaging, and fails to illustrate the validity of content to
students’ lives.
Purpose

This study attempted to contribute to the existing knowledge base on
effective STEM pedagogy by exploring the influence of an alternative, online
instructional tool in undergraduate, majors-level biology classrooms across
diverse sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. It examines the effects of the
learning environment on student motivation, performance, and perceptions of
what makes for good instruction in biology. In this study, pre— and post-test
assessments were used to measure the relationship between instructional
method and student performance. A student survey and focus group interviews
evaluated student perceptions of their experience and intentions to persist in
program. Case studies were developed in parallel at each of the five study sites,
incorporating student performance statistics, focus group interviews, and student

cpinion surveys.

11

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

This review will focus on research detailing the current state of
postsecondary biology instruction, including the problems it is facing. The
growing use of instructional technologies will then been discussed, as well as
models of student motivation in collegiate classrooms. Finally, the research
questions of this study will be presented.
The current state of postsecondary biology

Many students report the lack of adequate instruction in STEM fields as a
major factor affecting their persistence in programs. One anonymous reviewer of
Seymour and Hewitt (1997) stated, “[As a science major] plan your educational
strategy to avoid being ‘weeded out’ by SME faculty who don’t want to admit that
you exist until you have put up with two solid years of cheerful neglect and brutal
abuse” (Anonymous 1999). Although lectures are a traditional method of
instruction in most sciences, many of today’s students are bored and
disenfranchised with them. Students of all backgrounds frequently cite the
stereotypical “talking head” lecture used for the past century in science education
as a major detraction (Kardash & Wallace, 2001; Lord, 2008; Moriarty, 2007;
Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). Wolter, Lundeberg, and Bergland (2009) found
that students in introductory biology thought classroom science was boring or
irrelevant; however, when material was placed in a relevant context to their own

lives, students become both more engaged and interested in science.

12

Content vs. pedagogy. In the 20 years since Boyer (Boyer, 1990) wrote
about the need of the American professoriate to reconsider its priorities, most
institutions will say that they value effective teaching—especially in the STEM
fields—but the realities are somewhat different. No American college or
university in its right mind will say that it does not value teaching; however,
faculty reward structures tell a different tale. The fact remains that most faculty
tenure systems at American universities and colleges are designed to reward
research and conversely punish teaching (Fairweather, 2005; Leslie, 2002). This
is demonstrated by the fact that at all 4-year institutions, regardless of type, the
more time faculty spend on teaching, the lower their average pay (Fairweather,
2005). Fairweather (2008, p. 23) observes that,

...Career publications remain the strongest predictor of faculty pay

irrespective of type of institution (emphasis in original). An economic

analysis of the estimated effect of an additional hour spent in the
classroom and an additional career publication at the mean shows that it
costs money to spend time teaching whereas publishing is invariably
rewarded with higher pay.

This institutionalized paradox in values of has carried over to faculty
attitudes where it manifests as an argument about whether to teach STEM
courses based strictly on content supported by research, or based on effective
pedagogy supported by the scholarship of teaching. There is an enduring
perception amongst STEM faculty that improving instructional quality comes at

the cost of research productivity (Boardman & Bozeman, 2007; Fairweather,

2005; Parker, 2008). Leslie (2002) notes that there exists a contradiction in

13

faculty attitude where teaching ability is valued, but research activity is perceived
as the primary force influencing career goals such as tenure and status.

Research activity is frequently grant-driven, and every institution takes
their cut of any grant received by their faculty; therefore, the benefits of research
for the institution are bi-fold, (a) they receive income indirectly via it, and (b) the
publications that result from research increase their prestige. Teaching,
however, results in neither of these. Realistically students will continue to attend
higher education regardless of whether instructional reforms happen, therefore
the is little financial incentive for institutions to reward teaching which is perceived
as coming at the cost of research. Although the benefits of pedagogical reform in
STEM fields has been established, Fairweather (2008, p. 24) notes that,
“...enhancing the value of teaching in STEM fields requires much more than
empirical evidence of instructional effectiveness. It requires active intervention
by academic leaders at the departmental, college, and institutional level.”

STEM faculty vary considerably in attitudes and behaviors towards
instruction and students (Fairweather 8. Paulson, 2008); however, Pascarella and
Terenzini (2005) demonstrated that the most effective teaching techniques are
not discipline dependent. Those professors who do make the effort to reform the
structure of their classes primarily focus on individual classroom-level
interventions, such as shifting away from lectures and toward more learner-
centered actives (Fairweather, 2008). Despite the preponderance of evidence

that changes in pedagogy can positively influence student opinions, performance,

14

and retention in STEM courses (e.g. Eiseman & Fairweather, 1996; Fairweather
& Beach, 2002; P. Fisher, Zeligman, & Fainiveather, 2005; Wankat, 2002), there
has been none of the locked for macro-level change because reform dies out
without institutional and faculty support (Fairweather, 2008).

Individual vs. systemic instructional reform. Instruction that integrates
active and collaborative learning with engaging contexts results in better student
performance irrespective of academic discipline (Fairweather, 2008; Kuh, Kinzie,
Buckley, Bridges, & Kayek, 2007; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Witt, 2005). As noted
above, successful pedagogical innovations in STEM education frequently are
isolated to developers because reform efforts are widely viewed as voluntary
professional development (Fairweather, 2008; Wullf & Austin, 2004).

Strong pedagogy is frequently instructor dependent, rather than
applicable across a wide variety of institutions, students, and faculty, resulting in
a problem “scaling up” (e.g. Eiseman & Fairweather, 1996; Fairweather, 2008;
Kumar & Sherwood, 2007; Yadav, et al., 2007). While classroom instructional
reforms have demonstrated site-specific efficacy, they have not led to the
expected systemic reforms in student retention and comprehension. Studies
such as Fisher, Zeligman, and Fairweather (2005) have shown reformist
techniques can be extremely effective in improving student scores and critical
thinking, but often fail to have systemic effect because such techniques are

instructor specific and they are not integrated into programmatic curriculum.

15

The faculty who choose to participate in professional development are
already demonstrably committed to improving instruction (Gappa, Austin, & Trice,
2007); however, most STEM faculty, are not trying to maximize their teaching
efficacy, but rather to teach well enough so they can maximize research time
(Massy & Zemsky, 1994). It is arguably with those instructors that even modest
gains in STEM pedagogical reform will be made (Fainiveather, 2008; Labov,
Singer, George, Schweingruber, & Hilton, 2009).

Pace of change. A major problem facing STEM instruction in the 21St
century is the ability (or lack thereof) of the curriculum to reflect and incorporate
the latest developments from the field. The pace at which the American
educational system changes is a long-standing joke, frequently resulting in the
question, “What change?” While the educational system might be highly
conservative with a great deal of institutional inertia (Duderstadt, 2000; Wallis &
Steptoe, 2006), knowledge within disciplines evolves faster every year (e.g.
Bush, 2009; Knight, 2007). Many STEM professors still rely heavily on both
textbooks and publisher provided instructional material, even though they always
lag behind the leading edge of discovery in field because of the publication
process (e.g. Yore, 1991 ). Pedagogical tools that can eliminate this lag time
between discovery, implementation, and incorporation into curriculum could
significantly impact the quality of instruction in STEM education.

Bioinformatlcs. Biology and life sciences are undergoing a rapid change

in the way that systemic and molecular information is collected and processed

16

(Emmott & Rison, 2006). Bioinformatics combines techniques from computer
science, molecular biology, genetics, statistics, applied mathematics, and
systematics to answer questions in biology primarily dealing with large-scale
DNA-sequencing, protein structure, and molecular processes (Baldi & Brunak,
2001; Cristianini & Hahn, 2006). Examples of current research projects include
the Human Genome Project, synthetic drug design, modeling evolution, and
predictions of gene expression (Zvelebil & Baum, 2007). Bioinformatics
scientists collect and analyze massive amounts of data about the genetic and
molecular components of entire biological systems to increase understanding of
biological processes. By using computers to assist in mapping DNA and protein
sequences, researchers can deduce links and interactions, and making sense of
the relationships between, within, and amongst systems (Baldi & Brunak, 2001;
Cristianini 8 Hahn, 2006; Emmott & Rison, 2006; Zvelebil & Baum, 2007).
Reforms In STEM education.

Case-based instruction. Case-based instruction has been used in
higher education since 1927 (Kagen, 1993), primarily in professional education
fields, such as law, business, and medicine (Herreid, 2006; Lundeberg, et al.,
1999). However, the pedagogy has become increasingly popular as an
instructional vehicle across educational fields (Herreid, 1994; Kang & Walter,
2008; Yadav, et al., 2007). Prince and Felder (2006) incorporate case-based
instruction under the umbrella of inductive teaching techniques, and closely

associate it with other student-centered and student-directed pedagogies such as

17

PBL, discovery learning, just-in-time teaching (JiTl'), and inquiry-based learning
(Savery, 2006).

Case-based instruction is a valuable and valid pedagogy because it allows
students to individually develop their own knowledge bases and pathways on a
subject such that it is both relevant and important to them (Levin, 1999; Savery,
2006). The use of case studies in science education can result in students
making a meaningful connection with the material, improve understanding, and
increase engagement (Kumar & Chubin, 2000; Kumar & Sherwood, 2007;
Rybarczyk, Baines, McVey, Thompson, & Wilkins, 2007; Yadav, et al., 2007).
The complex nature of case studies leads students to assess problems from a
myriad of perspectives (Bell, 2004), and those that emphasize the human
dimension of an issue or controversy may be able to powerfully demonstrate the
relevance of a given topic to students and generate engagement (Bell, 2004;
Yadav, et al., 2007). In providing students with real-world problems in a situated
learning contexts, case studies motivate students to learn by making the material
both relevant and engaging (Bergland, et al., 2006; Prince & Felder, 2006).

A recent national study found that faculty who use case studies believe
their students develop both stronger analytical cognitive abilities, and a deeper
understanding of the topic (Yadav, et al., 2007). Other research has verified this
faculty perception, showing that the use of case-based learning in science
education can significantly promote knowledge acquisition, the development of

critical thinking skills in students, and student retention (Burrowes, 2003; Dori,

18

Tal, & Tsausu, 2003; Prince & Felder, 2007; Rybarczyk, et al., 2007; Savery,
2006; R. A. Smith & Murphy, 1998). Choi, Lee, and Jung (2008) have developed
data that suggests the use of online multimedia case-studies may be especially
effective in accessing sensing, sequential, and reflective learners.

Advancement in the sciences can be represented as an ever-narrowing
pipeline whose traditional teaching methodologies tend to cause students to
dropout because of the emphasis on rote memorization, lack of situated
application, and perceptions of poor teaching (Kardash & Wallace, 2001 ;
Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Kardash and Wallace (2001, p. 199) note in their
study of student perceptions of science classes that, “...how information is taught
appears to be at least as much of concern as what information is taught.” Many
researchers believe that case-based instruction has the potential to alleviate
these instructional issues by providing real-world situations in which students
explore and apply knowledge through discovery and application (Herreid, 2006;
Lundeberg, et al., 1999; Lundeberg, et al., 2002; Lundeberg & Yadav, 2006a,
2006b; R. A. Smith & Murphy, 1998; Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). Because
of this, the use of case-based learning across disciplines is projected to increase
as more postsecondary institutions embrace “...social constructivist and situated
learning pedagogies” (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005, p. 243) in the 21St century.

Case based instruction has the potential to address many of the issues
relating to retention in the STEM fields. It (a) creates active engagement

(Herreid, 1994, 2006b; Lundeberg, et al., 1999), (b) motivates students via

19

working on “authentic” tasks and real world problems (Bergland, et al., 2006;
Herreid, 1994, 2006b), (0) promotes active learning (Callahan, et al., 2008;
Lundeberg, et al., 1999), (d) promotes higher-order thinking skills (Dori, Tal, &
Tsausu, 2003; R. A. Smith & Murphy, 1998), (e) helps students set content
mastery goals (Rybarczyk, et al., 2007; Savery, 2006), (f) exposes students to
ethical and societal problems (Herreid, 1994; Kang & Lundeberg, 2008;
Lundeberg, et al., 2002), and (9) causes students to examine problems from
multiple perspectives (Herreid, 2006; Walter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009).

Case-based instruction is not without its difficulties. Yadev et al. (2007, p.
37) identified five major obstacles that faculty encounter when using cases: (a)
lack of preparation, (b) how to assess student learning and participation, (c) a
lack of relevant cases, ((1) student resistance to case-based instruction, and (e)
pressure to cover more content. Herreid (2003) provides a narrative of the
complete failure of a case-based course due to disorganization and the use of
multiple instructors. While the benefits of using case studies in science
education have been well documented, challenges such as these may deter
those uninitiated to case-based instruction.

The growing use of instructional technology In STEM Instruction.
Since the advent of the first computers more than 50 years ago, their integration
into teaching environments has steadily increased. Computer-assisted
instruction (CAI) has become widespread and integral to education from the

primary to postsecondary levels (Chambers & Sprecher, 1984; Keller, 2008; K0 &

20

Rossen, 2010). At the collegiate level, virtually every professor communicates
with students via email, utilizes online course management software, teaches in a
multimedia-enabled classroom, creates content on their PC, or teaches online.
This trend continues to grow as new, “digital native” (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005)
professors integrate technology into the classroom. A recent report by the
Microsoft Corporation (Emmott & Rison, 2006) notes that the importance of
technology in STEM instruction will only continue to grow in the next decade,
require an urgent reevaluation of how programs train future both future
practitioners and professors. The authors also assert that technology will have
particular significant impacts on biology and chemistry where it can assist in the
conceptualization of especially abstract yet vital concepts (Emmott & Rison,
2006). The following are just a few examples of how technology is changing
collegiate instruction.

Clickers. Personal Response Systems, or “Clickers,” are an instructional
technology whose use has surged on campuses across America in the past
decade. There are many manufacturers of systems, and the devices themselves
range from simplistic 5-button remotes to units that resemble graphing
calculators; however, all virtually all use local radio frequency (RF) signals to
create a classroom network that links student clickers to a receiver attached to
the professor’s computer. Clickers provide immediate, real-time feedback to
students in even the largest lecture hall, directly influencing student learning (e.g.

Guthrie & Carlin, 2004; Mayer, et al., 2009). Although instructors must create

21

most questions ahead of class, they are able to instantly estimate student
comprehension. Student interaction and feedback are proven and important
facilitators of student learning (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006; Herzog, 2007), and
previous studies suggest that students: (a) pay more attention; (b) develop
independent, personally intuitive, organization of concepts; and (c) engage in
metacognitive self-evaluation when lectures incorporate clicker questions
(Duncan, 2005; Mayer, et al., 2009). Clicker use has also been linked to
improved motivation (Crouch & Mazur, 2001), which may lead to cognitive
persistence (Dufresne, Gerace, Leonard, Mestre, & Wenk, 1996), and increased
mastery goal setting (Roschelle, Penuel, & Abrahamson, 2004). Duncan (2005)
demonstrated the efficacy of using clickers as an active learning strategy to
improve both student performance and opinion in large science lecture
classrooms.

The successful use of clickers is associated with several educational
theories, such as the importance of feedback (Cain, Black, & Rohr, 2009;
Yourstone, Kraye, & Albaum, 2008), student motivation (Trees & Jackson, 2007),
and generative learning (Mayer, et al., 2009). Previous researchers (e.g. Guthrie
& Carlin, 2004) indicated that clickers provide an excellent source of feedback,
which may directly influence student learning. By using clickers, professors are
able to answer students’ questions instantly, and students are more engaged

when instruction centers on the discussions of these questions (Duncan, 2005).

22

Horowitz (1988) reported that by using a student response system, students
significantly increased their attentiveness during the class.

A recent 3-year, longitudinal study (Mayer, et al., 2009) focused on the
utility of using clickers facilitate faculty questions, student response, and student
attention. The authors emphasize that each of these factors is essential to
creating engagement, which is in turn vital to student learning, stating

If students do not feel they are involved in the Ieaming situation, they are

less likely to work hard to make sense of the presented material and

therefore less likely to perform as well as they could on assessments

measuring their learning. (Mayer, et al., 2009, p. 51)

The researchers used 3 experimental groups, a control (no clickers or questions),
a no-clicker group (questions and paper-based responses), and a clicker group
(questions and clickers). They found that the clickers treatment group scored
significantly higher on midterm and final exams combined than either the control
or no-clicker group (Mayer, et al., 2009). It is interesting to note that students
who receive the same questions as the clicker group, but responded via paper
scored significantly lower than the clicker group, indicating that the clicker
condition itself was aiding student learning, and not just the question method of
instruction. These findings articulate well with the primary thesis of generative
learning theory that cognitively engaged students learn more (Mayer & Wittrock,
2006)

While there are advantages to incorporating clickers into large lecture

classrooms, Mayer, et al. (2009) point out that there are major challenges facing

23

higher education in implementation and how to integrate these benefits in ways
that promote student learning and not necessarily just student performance.

Games and computer simulated learning environments. The use of
games and simulations has become common amongst those interested in
discovery-oriented science education (Kulik, 2002). Previous studies have
shown that both can significantly impact a student’s ability to construct personal
knowledge and meaning, as well as develop collaborative learning skills (e.g.
Jackson, 2009; Lai-Chong Law, Kickmeier-Rust, Albert, & Holzinger, 2008; Ryan,
Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006; Vogel, et al., 2006). The structure of actions in games
may also allow students to develop higher-order skills because they control the
activity and must make decisions in response to stimuli, requiring them to
strategize and engage in Judgment-Bebevior-Feedback loops (Garris, Ahlers, &
Driskell, 2002).

Video games and simulations are effective instructional tools for multiple
reasons. Mayo (2009) notes that games and simulations are effective because
they utilize many pedagogical techniques that have been proven effective in
other situations. These include such items as the ability to vary the pace of the
game to fit the user and the ability to present information in multiple ways so as
to access as many learning types as possible (Gee, 2003). Games and
simulations also offer scalable delivery of information where complex issues or
goals are first presented as small, accomplishable tasks, which are then

repeated several times before evolving into more complex scenarios. This

24

method of deliver is also known as “concurrent chaining” (Peck & Detweiler,
2000), and allows students to build confidence in the knowledge and skills
necessary to accomplish tasks. Video games give information “situated
meaning” (Mayo, 2009) and reinforce key concepts, as well as providing students
social interactions associated with content, all of which drives learner motivation,
engagement, and achievement (Keller, 2010). By giving students control and
autonomy over task and activities within the learning environment, simulations
improve learning outcomes (Vogel, et al., 2006), enjoyment, and motivation
(Ryan, et al., 2006). Video games are fun, active learning environments where
students are instruments of their own learning. Because of this, they are more
apt to spend longer periods of time interacting with the material, and hopefully
making meaningful connections with it (Jackson, 2009; Keller, 2010; Mayo,
2009). Gaming simulations also describe many of the tenets of Merrill’s (2002)
model for successful learning, such as containing an intrinsic motivation to play,
having clear rules and goals, providing an attractive learning environment, using
an engaging, yet unpredictable storyline, providing immediate feedback, and
being interactive, challenging, and competitive (Lai-Chong Law, et al., 2008;
Prensky, 2001 ).

Studies have shown that dynamic, computer-based simulations can
enhance student comprehension and retention of complex topics (Trey & Khan,
2008) and significantly improve student performance (Holzinger, Kickmeier-Rust,

& Albert, 2008) beyond the capabilities of fixed measures, such as text. They

25

may also increase learning 7-40% over lectures (Mayo, 2009; Vogel, et al.,
2006). Most researchers agree that this is because simulations provide students
with simplified models of real-world situations that help them integrate a wide
array of facts, ideas, and principles from multiple sources (Kulik, 2002; Ryan, et
al., 2006; Vogel, et al., 2006). Games also tend to focus on higher-order
instructional objectives, requiring students to do more than just memorize facts
and actively involving them in the learning process (Kulik, 2002).

The ability to manipulate parameters in simulated environments allows
students the ability to experiment with outcomes and actively engage in both self
and scientific discovery in a very real and personal manner (Clark, Nelson,
Sengupta, & D'Angelo, 2009; Llado & Sanchez, 2009). In addition to developing
scientific reasoning and skills, simulations can also develop students’ deep-
reasoning, analytical abilities, and personal meaning-making in relation to the
content (Clark, Nelson, Sengupta, & D'Angelo, 2009). Video games and
simulations also offer multiple levels of interaction with material analogous to the
multiple levels of interaction students have with material in science classrooms
(Jackson, 2009).

Kulik (2002) notes that while games and simulations have the potential be
useful instructional tools, simply including them in a curriculum does not
guarantee success. Far too often it is predicated on the individual instructor’s
ability to utilize simulations as a medium (Becker, 2007), rather than on the

efficacy of the learning environment. Few examples exist of simulated

26

environments in science that remove the instructor as a variable in the success of
the program.
Models of student motivation

Student persistence in any program is arguably a product of motivation to
stay in that program (Allen, 1999; Theall & Franklin, 1999). If a student is
inspired by their class-related, personal, and social experiences in a course of
study, they are far more likely to remain in program than students who feel
alienated, isolated, ignored, and otherwise de-motivated by their encounters (e.g.
Pintrich, 2003; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). Motivation is broadly defined
as what an individual wants, needs, or desires, while motives are those stimuli
that cause one to act upon them (Glynn, Aultman, & Owens, 2005; Koballa &
Glynn, 2007). Brophy (2004) tell us that, “In the classroom context, the concept
of student motivation is used to explain the degree to which students invest
attention and effort in various pursuits...” (p. 4, emphasis in original).

In general, the many theories of student motivation can be grouped into
four categories: (a) physiological; (b) behavioral; (c) cognitive; and (d) emotional
(Keller, 2010). Of the four, behavioral and cognitive theories are the most
common (e.g Brophy, 2004). The legacy culture of education in the United
States from Kindergarten through post-secondary schooling is predicated on a
behavioralist perspective of motivation that presupposes pe0ple only respond to
basic needs. An example of this point of view would be to assume a student’s

only motivation to perform in class is to attain a passing grade, which is

27

necessary to move on to the next class or to obtain their degree. Thus,
behavioral models of student motivation are based on the manipulation of
students, whereas cognitive models emphasize engaging and interacting with
students (Alberto & Troutman, 1999; Brophy, 2004).

Researchers recognize that student motivation is far more complex than
the “carrot-and-stick” model that rewards desired behaviors and punishes
unwanted ones. Motivation can be derived from multiple sources, and is not
necessarily an intrinsic value but can be a product of expectations, meaningful
content, and student-centered activities (Brophy, 2004; Druger, 2000; Maehr &
Braskamp, 1986). Just as motivation can be the product of multiple sources, so
too can it be view from multiple perspectives. In a summary of research,
Renchler (1992) notes that motivation can be viewed as: (a) a personal trait, like
a highly competitive student gaining personal validation through being the “best;”
(b) a response to specific environmental stimuli, such as the praise or regard of a
valued peer or teacher; or (c) a product of student cognition, such as a sense of
control or ownership or a self-image the student is motivated to maintain.

The ARCS model of student motivation. Of the many theories of
student motivation, few are as well known and have such a preponderance of
support as Keller’s ARCS model (Keller, 1979, 1983, 1987, 2010). Keller asserts
that student motivation in any course is a product of 4 factors: (a) Attention; (b)

Relevance; (0) Confidence; and (d) Satisfaction.

28

Attention. To motivate students, any course or project must gain and
keep the students’ curiosity. To do this instructors can use perceptual arousal,
analogous to sensory stimuli, in which novel, incongruous, or surprising elements
are introduced. Inquiry can also keep students’ attention by asking them to
answer or develop questions, or to solve specific problems. Keller (2010)
suggested a third method of gaining attention is through variability, maintaining
interest by using different techniques, methods, or sources of information.

Relevance. One of the most important things for any learning
environment to do is to demonstrate to students how the material being
presented does or may affect students personally. If students find content to be
pertinent or useful to them, they are more likely to be motivated (Wolter,
Lundeberg, et al., 2009). Potential benefits and uses should be emphasized and
reinforced by using specific examples and analogies that draw links between the
students’ lives and the material being learned. Assessing individual student
ambitions and demonstrating how those goals may be met can also build
relevance (Keller, 1999, 2010).

Confidence. Building confidence and perceptions of self-efficacy
reinforces motivation. Students need to believe that they can succeed at the
tasks they are given; however, they also need to be challenged. Tasks that are
too easy make students feel they are wasting their time and detract from overall
motivation to learn. Keller and Suzuki (1988) note that there are three important

motivational dimensions to student confidence. First is perceived competence in

29

which students are motivated in situations where they believe they have the skills
needed to succeed; however, learning usually involves utilizing new skills and
knowledge bases where pupils feel less confident. Therefore, to optimize
motivation in these scenarios, students need controlled environments where
mistakes may be made without embarrassment. Second is perceived control,
which is exercised when students feel their actions and choices directly affect the
outcome of situations, and they therefore feel more in control. Control breeds
confidence, which in turn breeds motivation and persistence. Third is an
expectancy for success, which has also been called “Self-fulfilling prophecy”
(Jones, 1977; Schunk & Pajares, 2009) where because students believe they can
accomplish a task, they exert more effort and perform better. This is an
important observation because actual probabilities of success do not necessarily
factor into student psychological expectations. In the STEM fields it is not
uncommon for students to suppose material will be simply too hard to
comprehend, resulting in failure even where objective odds would suggest
success (Keller 8 Suzuki, 1988; Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009).

Strategies to increase confidence may include allowing students personal
control so they are the facilitators of their own accomplishments, providing
multiple opportunities for achievement where students can gain validation, and
providing detailed requirements that allow students to gauge their likelihood of
success. It should be noted however that while confidence can beneficially affect

both performance and motivation, over-confidence may have the opposite effect

30

and in fact de-motivate students (Hackett 8 Betz, 1989; Nietfeld, Cao, 8
Osborne, 2005).

Satisfaction. Learners need to gain some feeling of reward or
satisfaction with their experiences to remain motivated. Keller and Suzuki (1988)
note that, “if the outcomes of learners’ efforts are consistent with their
expectations, and if they feel good about the outcomes, then they are likely to
remain motivated” (p. 405). Satisfaction may manifest as a sense of
accomplishment—that the tasks performed were important and worthwhile, or as
a feeling of success—that they are capable of performing. Additionally, students
who feel a sense of pride in their accomplishments are more likely to both retain
information and remain motivated. Factors that may influence student
satisfaction may include: (a) reinforcement and feedback, which can sustain
motivation; (b) predictable, intrinsic rewards, which can result in consistent
behavior; and (c) cognitive evaluation, which includes reflective praise for
accomplishments from both peers and instructors (Keller, 2008, 2010; Keller 8
Suzuki, 1988; Shellnut, Knowltan, 8 Savage, 1999; Visser 8 Keller, 1990).

Keller’s ARCS model of student motivation has been extensively
researched (Deimann 8 Keller, 2006; Means, Jonassen, 8 Dwyer, 1997; Small 8
Gluck, 1994; Visser 8 Keller, 1990), and its validity well established. Recent
research has also established its applicability to computer-based, online, and
distance learning environments (Astleitner 8 Wiesner, 2004; Keller, 1999, 2008;

Keller 8 Suzuki, 2004; Song 8 Keller, 2001). Other research by Cornell and

31

Martin (1997) has shown that in online and distance courses, student motivation,
persistence, and performance can be influenced by instructional design.

The Expectancy x Value model of student motivation. This is an
inclusive model that places motivation within a social context where motivation is
the product of students’ expectations of success and degree to which they value
such success (Brophy, 2004; Feather, 1982; Wigfield 8 Eccles, 2000). In other
words, if students either do not believe they can succeed, or see noreason to,
they are not motivated. Brophy (2004) draws a distinct difference between
learning, typically defined as comprehension, processing, or mastery, and
performance, the simple demonstration of knowledge. He theorizes that student
motivation to learn is related to students’ intentional learning processes, not their
performance (Brophy, 2004). Based on this model, to be motivated, students
must have expectations for success (e.g. clear goals, a belief in success), and
intrinsic factors, those which access personal values or interests. Many of these
intrinsic factors overlap with factors identified in the ARCS model as creating
motivation (Keller, 1979, 1983, 2010).

Principle factors In motivating students to learn. Merrill (Merrill, 2002,
p. 43) identifies five core principles of learning and motivation common to all
theories, stating that learning is promoted when:

1. Learners are engaged in solving real-world problems.

2. Existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge.

3. New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner.

32

 

4. New knowledge is applied by the learner.

5. New knowledge is integrated into the leamer’s world.

Keller (2008) takes these five principles a step further in applying them to digital

environments, stating that motivation to learn is promoted when:

1.

2.

5.

Curiosity is aroused by gaps in current knowledge.

Material learned is perceived to be relevant and meaningful to the
learner.

Learners believe they can succeed in mastering the task.

Learners anticipate and experience satisfying outcomes to a learning
task.

Learners employ volitional strategies to protect their intentions.

Motivation and persistence. Student motivation to learn is a cognitive

function of trying to contextualize and understand material that utilizes specific

mental pathways (Brophy, 2004). These pathways are activated by certain

aspects within a learning environment, such as those illustrated by the ARCS

model (Keller, 1983) that grab the learners attention, establish the relevancy of

the material, build learner confidence, and develop a sense of satisfaction.

Previous research has linked the use of PBL and CBI learning environments to

improved student motivation (e.g. Ertmer, Newby, 8 MacDougall, 1996; Hmelo-

Silver, 2004; Lee, 2007; Richardson, 1993), because these tools have the

potential to create cognitive dissonance and curiosity. Numerous researchers of

college student retention have noted that persistence is the product of several

33

social and academic sub-categories including motivation, social integration, and
self-direction (e.g. Baird, 2000; Braxton 8 Lien, 2000; Stage 8 Hossler, 2000;
Tinto, 1993, 2000). Other researchers have demonstrated that motivation can
beneficially impact both program persistence and academic performance (e.g.
Allen, 1999; Glynn, et al., 2005; Koballa 8 Glynn, 2007; Renchler, 1992; Theall 8
Franklin, 1999; Vollmeyer 8 Rheinberg, 2000) by engaging students in such a
way that individual and academic goals align. It is expected that the learning
environment being investigated in this study, Case Itl, will have positive effects
on persistence in program, performance, and student opinion.
Research questions

Declining numbers of undergraduate majors and graduate students in
STEM fields over the past 20 years has led to increasing national focus on
pedagogical reform in science instruction (Augustine, et al., 2006; Fairweather,
2008), and especially to increase minority participation (Astin 8 Oseguera, 2005;
Hurtado, et al., 2008). My primary research question is: Does using a case-
based multimedia project affect postsecondary students’ learning or motivation to
learn biology? I also have 2 sub-questions related to the primary question:

1. Does participation affect students’ performance? (i.e. Is there a

performance gain?)
2. Based on student comments, do students believe Case It! to be a

satisfactory and/or beneficial experience for them?

34

CHAPTER 3: Methods

This chapter lays out the procedures and methods used in conducting this
study investigating the effects of a specific pedagogical intervention designed to
improve undergraduate biology education. Specifically, its impact on student
opinion and performance was examined. One hundred and five biology students
from 5 introductory and upper division classes at 4 universities in the Midwest,
Southeast, and Puerto Rico took part in this study. The instructional intervention,
Case Itl, was comprised of 3 distinct stages, (a) viewing cases, (b) testing and
interpreting material from cases, and (0) sharing results and role-playing about
the cases.

Because of the complexity of ideas involved in understanding how this
particular instruction intervention affected students, I chose to use a mixed-
methods design. This design bridges the gap in theory between the traditional
constructivist and positivist theories of social research (Johnson 8 Onwuegbuzie,
2004) and offers the ability to answer complex questions in interdisciplinary
studies that do not lend themselves to either research tradition. Proponents of
the “incompatibility thesis” of social research design (Howe, 1988) assert that
quantitative and qualitative methods are diametrically opposite in their approach
to study design and data collection, and therefore completely incompatible with
each other. However, beginning in the 1990’s some post-modernist researchers
began to question the validity of adhering too strictly to one tradition or the other

when trying to gain a holistic view of complex questions (Creswell, 2007a).

35

Rather, they asserted that tools from each research tradition had strengths, and
that by mixing their use researchers could view issues from multiple
perspectives, which would more likely result in clearer pictures of the issues at
hand (Creswell 8 Clark, 2007; Onwuegbuzie 8 Leech, 2005). I chose to use
mixed-methods in this study because it incorporates the strengths of both
qualitative and quantitative techniques (Sechrest 8 Sidana, 1995), and would
help me better understand the impact of Case Itl’s alternative pedagogy in
greater detail.
Study sites

Study sites included 5 classes on 4 campuses in the Midwest, East Coast,
and Caribbean. Of the 5 classes, 4 were 300 or 400 level that focused on
aspects of human health. For example, one course was an immunology course
that utilized HIV as a main teaching theme, while another was a medical
technology class focusing on infectious diseases. The 5th class was a major’s
level introductory biology course that covered a broad array of topics. Every
student taught by 1 of the 5 participating instructors in spring semester of the
2008-2009 academic years was invited to take part in the study. These 5
courses were selected because they were taught by instructors who had helped
develop the latest version of the Case Itl learning environment, and because they
represented a broad cross-section of students in American higher education.

University of Wisconsin-River Falls. The University of Wisconsin—

River Falls (UWRF) is a regional comprehensive school located in western

36

Wisconsin approximately 45 minutes drive from Minneapolis, Minnesota. UWRF
is a residential campus founded in 1874, and is 1 of 13 4-year campuses run by
the University of Wisconsin system. The town of River Falls is approximately
13,000 people, and the university contributes half again that number with an
enrollment in Fall 2007 of 6,007. Even though it has an area of over 220 acres,
the main campus feels compact and welcoming. Commitment to current social
issues is evidenced by the number of recycling bins, and the new student union,
which is a “green” building. Ninety-three percent of students at UWRF are “white,
non-Hispanic,” 92.8% attend school full time, and 58.4% are women (Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System, 2008). Two biology classes at this site
were part of the study, 1 introductory level course (BIOL 150) and 1 majors level
(BIOL 345). Of the 50 students enrolled in BIOL 150 Introductory Biology, 86%
(n = 43) participated in focus group interviews/survey, where 18 were declared
biology majors and 25 were non-majors. Thirty-nine students were enrolled in
BIOL 345, Immunology, of which 38 consented to participate in focus group
interviews/survey (~97%).

North Carolina A&T State University. North Carolina A&T State
University (NCA8T) is a residential historically black university or college
(HBUC), and a land grant institution established by the second Morrill Act in
1890. The campus is located on approximately 180 acres in North Carolina’s
Piedmont region. As the state’s land grant institution, a primary focus has

historically been agriculture; however, the campus also has a growing cellular

37

and molecular biology program. The campus is comprised of over 100 buildings
and has been undergoing a $100 million renovation and modernization project
since 2002. NCA8T offers 99 degree programs and had a total undergraduate
enrollment in Fall 2007 of 9,048 students, of which 91% are African-American,
89.8% are full time students, and 52.2% are female (Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System, 2008). Of the 20 students enrolled in BIOL 401,
molecular biology, 6 consented to participate in FGls/survey (30%).

Interamerican University of Puerto Rico-Metropolitan Campus.
Interamerican University of Puerto Rico is a 4-year private university with 11
campuses spread across the island of Puerto Rico. Two campuses participated
in this study; San German Campus (lUPR-SG) and Metropolitan Campus (IUPR-
M). The Metropolitan Campus of Interamerican University is located in the
sprawling metropolis of San Juan. It is a relatively small, non-residential, and ill-
defined campus of approximately 20 acres hemmed in by expressways and
suburbs. There is 1 main instructional building with about 14 smaller satellite
buildings surrounding it. Some buildings have a run-down air to them, and a high
fence encloses the entire campus as a result of the high crime rate. IUPR-MC
was established and accredited in 1962, and offers 119 degrees from certificates
to doctorates. The campus is 100% Hispanic, but enrolls more part time students
(30.2%) and slightly more women (54.6%) than lUPR-SG. As of Fall 2007 IUPR-
M enrolled 6,936 undergraduate students, and 3,674 graduate students

(Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2008). Of the 26 students

38

enrolled in clinical immunology, MEDT 4531, at lUPR-MC, only 6 (23%)
participated in the FGI sessions due to a number of potentially mitigating factors
such as occurring late in day (4:30pm), discomfort with the interview process,
and students having just completed a full day of instruction as well as having
taken a final exam in a different course that same day.

Interamerican University of Puerto Rico-San German. lUPR-SG is a
well-defined, midsized residential campus set in a rural area of southwestern
Puerto Rico. It is approximately 90 acres and comprises 49 campus buildings.
The campus first offered collegiate level courses in 1921, and was accredited in
1944. There is a palpable collegiate atmosphere similar to that found on the
campuses of liberal arts schools on the mainland. IUPR-SG is a 100% Hispanic
campus that enrolled 4,745 undergraduate students in Fall 2007, of which 52.9%
were females and 84% attended full time (Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System, 2008). Of the 22 students enrolled in BIOL 4600, histology, 12
participated in on site focus group interviews (~55%).

Participants

One hundred and five students enrolled in 5 classes participated in this
study. The vast majority (75%) of participants were either science majors or
post-baccalaureate students (n = 81); however, the introductory level course
included a large number of non-majors (n = 27), who accounted for roughly 63%

of participants in that class. Approximately 18.5% of students were Latino,

39

77.2% were Caucasian, and 5.6% were African-American. Females accounted
for 62% of the sample population (n = 67).

Every attempt was made to ensure that the participants in this study were
accurate representatives of their institutions. In most instances, participants did
indeed reflect their site averages (see Table 2). Where measured, participant
GPA was not significantly higher than overall GPA. There were roughly equal
numbers of participants based on class standing. At 2 of the 4 sites, the male-to-
female ratio amongst participants was in line with overall class averages;
however, at 2 sites, NCA8T and lAUP-MC, they were not (see Table 2). Males
were under-represented at NCA8T, where none participated, but were over-
represented at lAUP-MC where half the participating population was male vs. just
16.7% of the total (see Table 2). In all other measured variables, students from
these sites accurately represent the central tendency of their class.

Instructional intervention

Case Itl is a National Science Foundation sponsored project designed to
stimulate learning motivation in biology students by engaging them in the
practical application of investigative techniques as related to “real world”
problems that may affect them as individuals, such as genetic or infectious
diseases (Bergland, et al., 2006). Students author content, view peers’ posters,
and discuss their own and others’ posters with pupils around the globe.
Participants work collaboratively in groups of 2-3, and may select a topic that is of

interest to them. Each topic area has multiple case narratives from which

40

m_nm__m>m .02 m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88> m
cmmLc>< F
48.8 08.8 08.8 $8 08.8 $8. 08.6 «8.8 08.8 02.8 mason.
$4.8 08.8 some $8 «8.8 OS 03.8 08.8 08.3 08.3 222
.5950
some I .89 08.8 I I I I I I cameos.
use? 08.8 «8.8 «one: 08.9. «8.8 84$ 08.2 I I 8.8.0.
08.2 at: I I $98 08.8 08.8 08.8 08.4 as: .35..
some I I I so...“ 08.9 I I 02.8 08.8 855288
I I I I I I I I so? #4.: 5558....
9.55% mama
. . . . I I I I I I cm<
o 8 m «N m mm A S a a m m a a N
88 8.0 88 m S 8.8 88 a I a I a I a I Ec
:55 En. :55 .58 :55 gen. :55 .50. ...eeé ..eaa
omInss 0.24.3. 5.52 28mg: 228,25

 

.8596..th Ac ham. $55 8:» LS «96236936 Eobam

.N 653.

41

students can select. As part of the Case Itl environment, students are involved in
using multiple methods of DNA testing, bioinformatics, creating and presenting
web posters, and role-playing. The version of Case It! used comprised 3 semi-
autonomous functions:

Case It! Simulation Software. This portion of Case It! allowed students
to perform virtual lab tests such as gel electrophoreses, western blot, and ELISA
in a limited environment (see Figure 1). While allowing students to run these
tests, the simulation software also reduces costs associated with the lab tests
since expensive equipment and reagents do not need to be purchased.

Mega4 and a separate multiple alignment tool (ClustalW) are
bioinformatics tools newly added to Case Itl that allow students to analyze DNA
they have isolated using the simulation software. This ability permits the
construction of phylogenetic trees that graphically depict both the relation of
samples to each other and the relative degree of divergence between samples
(see Figure 2). Students use these trees to make inferences about the DNA
samples, for example to identify if a particular strain of HIV that one individual
contracted is related to another sample of HIV in a different individual.

Case It! Launch Pad is a minimal html design tool that allows students to
create virtual posters in cyberspace (see Figure 3). Participants are assigned to
research and author a web-poster about a human disorder, in the case of this
study HIV/AIDS. After viewing/reading different cases about individuals with this

disease, students utilize the Case It! software described above. Once the

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Screenshot of the Case Itl simulation software

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M4: TrL-e Explorer (treemk) Lil—SI M

ELM WVWEW WW . if“? ._ .. , _. ...... -
a 66838 t gfiléé -

FD; DNA Boyfriendtxt PCR T“
E —_L——DNALisa.txt PCR

9‘: DNA High pathogenic 1.06

655 —_I:— DNA High pathogenic 2m

5‘ DNA Low pathogenic 2m

‘: DNA Low pathogenic 1m

5% 1 DNA Low pathogenic 3.00

93 W 7

581—7025723000 ._ --- ..W . W-... __ -_-_-..-...-..__._._ _-_.. . ._____........---..- - //,

 

Figure 2. Screenshot of a phylogenetic tree created using Case It! and the
Mega4 software.

44

 

 

+++$++$

owe . ,,
‘gefdeiejtm ,1
efeieie-‘cweteie ‘

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Screen shot of a student created webposter made in Case It! launch
pad.

45

genetic assays were completed, students used Case Itl launch pad to create
web-posters that incorporate information developed from the 2 software
programs and research, and permitted student teams to share their research with
others.

Launch Pad also provides an online forum that allows conferencing to
occur between and among students from multiple sites (see Figure 4). Students
in 3 of the 4 classes sampled engaged in synchronous and asynchronous
Internet conferencing with other students at their own and other institutions once
their posters were published to the Case It! website. Because of a lack of time,
students at lUPR-MC did not participate in a formalized conference as part of
their learning experience; however, some students did say they discussed their
cases informally. For those students who did conference, each was required to
review other groups’ posters, to role-play as real-world individuals (patients or
family members) seeking information or advice, and in turn pose as an expert
answering questions asked by other role-playing students on their topic disease.
This interaction occurred via online discussion boards hosted on the Case It!
website.

Data collection

Development of instruments. Three data collection instruments were
developed and used in this study including (a) a pre-Ipost-test to examine
performance gains, (b) a pen-and-paper student survey intended to explore

student opinions about the project, and (0) focus group interviews designed to

46

W11} . .‘ - "- ' a ' A . 3.; In as ‘ 3d"
‘ I ' :1"! .11? _. I-r - , "1:95“. 42 :F- v 3‘ 3 ' _ .
A i . . r. -

 

5: . .'
Deter" * '-
. ‘ ‘-.."' --. . ie--. ». -.-.', '. .-r «. ..:-...-- r. -.,. -, .-.- . . - . -. -- ,« . . .. .W
‘7‘ [JAY ~A‘-'ti...t~afl.'}":t.5 'V-Y-r-i A33 ‘ \I .-' 5.145.211 *. l \ \L- .1 l; #3:"; 5’. .-‘. a ’.‘.': fi'T- I ,_‘~‘ -¢ .-.:-,"fj, .‘ ,4: ;' *- ‘ .' - '_ -' 1. ' , . ' ' '-v ’__ .:.\:;,-.. ; #1“??? 74Lv.._.‘-"_E4; gut. '.
u— I-” " I .-H'e}¢*kbtf3.!'~ 'ax'J-Q‘c‘J-L LA in. Ana-w L»! ...alv e "‘ Qw- '4 . uh" ' I

0 . Wed,Apr2220091(k10-.43 PM, wrote:
- OnWed,Apr22200906:42:llPM,

. wrote:

- >Fmofanwhatspecificnusurustmldlmkcto

» >pmectmyhusbandanddaughtufioquuifingl-Wu

- >wcll?lknowdmitcmbepassodmmughbloodmd

- >sanenbutmtlmemyothabodynnidsmaoould

> >pouibtybeatlnut?

- Toplutectymndmghu.ywsbmldnahemfeedha
~ WMMBwuldbcpmedmrwghmnflk.

» Youstmidbuyforumhfiommem.mbeuwnyto
~ pmtectymuhusbendistopnctioenbstincncezbowm.
- h‘snottcalisdcsoyousboulddefininlyuseoondom

- (nukemttnymusedcomcflynomducethecbm
» ofmsnfiningthevhustohim.0merthanbioodmd

' m,HIVcnnboposnedtiumghbtustufilkuwefl.

ibelieveWkflnsmdeofiwimawmmmmmmdmmmmamm
H... aboutuldngcamofyowbodytsttwfhstmp.mioewoulddeumdndskforhtm.butisnotexpoced
.-.. www.mmmmmchMm2waponmJHV
. bcmswdmmghMmflk,anNmmoddWywchmmumem.m,
mmmflubnmmemmuunchndmtheonlywmmoonmmJObec-nmt

 

 

Figure 4. Screen shot of student conferencing via Case It! Launch pad

47

more deeply probe student perceptions of experience. Pre-lpost-test exams
were collected by participating faculty; however, I conducted all student surveys
and focus group interviews on-site. All data analyzed statistically and
qualitatively.

Learning assessment test. A 6-question assessment instrument was re-
tooled for use with the current iteration of Case It! by a team of 6 biology
professors and 2 education experts at a workshop in River Falls, Wisconsin in
early August 2008, and is included in Appendix A. This instrument contained a
case study of a couple and their baby tested for HIV. The case presented
contained test results from ELISA and Western blots. Students answered
questions requiring them to interpret these results, and advise the family
regarding treatment. This case analysis task included 6 items worth a total of 26
points that tested: (a) ability to interpret ELISA test results, (b) ability to interpret
Western Blot test results, (0) theoretical knowledge of the uses of both ELISA
and Western Blot tests, (d) ability to present and interpret the results of both
ELISA and Western Blot tests to patients, and (e) ability to interpret a
phylogenetic tree to determine the source of infection. A confidence scale was
used to measure student confidence in their own knowledge by providing a 5-
point Likert scale for each assessment question. After each item, students were
asked to assess how confident they were that their answer was correct based on
a scale of 1 (very uncertain) to 5 (very certain) (e.g. Lundeberg, Fox, Brown, &

Elbedour, 2000).

48

Initially, the entire test was open-ended, and multiple-choice alternatives
were derived from actual student responses for items 1-3. Items 4 and 5 were
left as open-ended questions because the development team decided that this
was the best method to determine student comprehension of complex situations.
A 6"1 question was added to assess students’ ability to interpret phylogenetic
trees. Questions 1-5 of the instrument have been used several times previously
for publication, but have not been used to specifically test minority engagement
and learning in biological contexts. Question 6 on bioinformatics was new, and
had not been piloted; however the experts involved in redesigning the test taught
at culturally diverse institutions, including an HBUC and 2 Latino institutions, and
were asked to keep their own classes in mind as they revised. A Pearson
correlation score of 0.263 was computed in SPSS to determine the reliability of
question 6 by measuring pre-test vs. post-test scores, indicating unequal
reliability; however, Dimitrov and Rumrill (2003) note that the reliability of pre-
test/post-test gain scores is high when the question does not have equal
reliability since such questions are designed to measure performance
differences. Therefore, these results indicated that question 6 was reliable. In
addition, Wefer and Sheppard (2008) note the field of bioinformatics is so new
that neither federal nor state level standards exist. Because there is little
consensus on bioinformatics beyond a broad definition, there is little to no
availability for tested instruments. Other research in the associated field of

problem-based learning suggests that measures do not necessarily have to be

49

previously tested to be reliable (T arhan & Acar, 2007). The test was specifically
designed to be short to accommodate instructors’ time constraints (approximately
20 minutes), and to minimize student frustration. It was translated into Spanish
for students in Puerto Rico by native speakers and via Google Translate.
Student survey. An 11-question protocol specific to this research study

and developed in partnership with 6 faculty members was designed to probe
student perceptions of their experience from the perspectives of personal/cultural
relevance, intentions to persist, and individual awareness of learning (see
Appendix B). Items were developed and refined from: (a) previous interview
questions used in past studies of the Case Itl project, (b) published literature on
student attrition in STEM fields (e.g. Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990), and
(c) studies of student motivation in the sciences (e.g. Astleitner & Wiesner, 2004;
Koballa & Glynn, 2007). Specifically, items asked students about:

1. Future career plans.

2. Whether they believed the Case It! experience helped prepare them

for future classes or careers.

3. If the experience reinforced students’ desire to be science majors.

4. Topic interest pre- and post-experience.

5. The relevance of the project to students’ lives.

6. Student confidence in topic knowledge.

7. The most valuable learning components of the project.

8. Student opinions of the utility of role-playing on learning.

50

9. _ Student opinions of role-playing as individuals within the case, and
how much they learned be role-playing

10.Whether students felt the learning experience was a good one.

11.0ther information students wished to share about the project.

Of the 11 questions, 5 had been used in slightly different form in previous
studies of the learning environment. Participating faculty selected, reviewed, and
refined questions, serving as both pedagogical and content experts. I revised
Items multiple times individually, and with participating faculty as a group. Each
question was written as open-ended for inclusion in focus group interviews, and
as closed-ended and quantifiable for inclusion on the student survey. Once
formatting was finalized, the survey was translated into Spanish via both native
speakers and Google Translate.

Focus group Interviews. The same focus of the 11 questions used on
the student survey were included in the focus group interview protocol, but were
restated in a more open-ended fashion in an effort to elicit more detailed student
responses (see Appendix C). Where appropriate, follow-up probes were utilized
to gain a better understanding of students’ thoughts and opinions. Expecting that
time would be a limiting factor during interviews, questions were re-ordered to
ensure the most important were asked and answered. These items were also
translated into Spanish by an onsite interpreter and with the aid of Google

Translate.

51

Collectlon procedures. Prior to collecting any data from students,
consent forms (see Appendix D) were distributed at each phase of research,
collected, and kept on file. IRB approval was obtained from MSU (IRB #X07-
511) and all 4 research sites.

Learning assessment test. Students took the learning assessment tool
(see Appendix A) twice during the semester: once before using the Case It!
program, but after lectures on HIV, to establish a benchmark upon which to
measure both ability and confidence, and again shortly after completing their
Case ltl projects. The use of both a pre- and post-test allowed the computation
of gain scores and estimations of what students learned beyond lectures. Pre-
tests were administered much as student class evaluations are, by volunteer
students in class without the instructor present. Exams were sealed in envelopes
and given to me upon arrival onsite. Post-tests were either administered by
myself when onsite to conduct interviews, or again by a volunteer student.

Student survey. The 11-item student survey was given at the beginning
of focus group interviews. Students had approximately 10 minutes to answer,
and kept the surveys for reference during the interviews. At the end of each
session, students turned in the surveys directly to me.

Focus group Interviews. Students were given the opportunity to
participate in on-site focus group interviews to answer questions about: (a) their
experience with Case It! (b) whether they felt socially or culturally engaged by the

project, and (c) the relevance of their chosen research t0pic to their own lives

52

(see Appendix C). Each focus group interview last approximately 1 hour, with
group sizes ranging from 612 students depending on overall number of
participants. Student sat in a circle around a conference table and freely
commented on both my questions and statements made by other students. All
focus group interview session were video recorded and transcribed.

Participation was highly variable, ranging from 23-97%. The BlOL 345
class at UWRF had the highest participation rate at 97%, with a total of 38
students participating, divided into 4 focus groups. Over 86% of students
enrolled in BIOL 150 introductory biology at UWRF (n = 43) chose to participate,
also divided into 4 focus groups. Just over half of the students (n =12, 53%) at
lUPR-SG chose to participate in a single focus group interview. Approximately
30% (n = 6) of all students in the class at NCA&T participated in a single focus
group interview. MEDT 4531 at lUPFl-MC had the lowest participation rate at just
23%, with 6 students participating in a single focus group interview late in the
afternoon. ‘
Data analysis

A collective case study design (Creswell, 2007b; Yin, 2003) was used to
compare results across sites. Each site was analyzed individually based on the
research questions, and then all 4 were compared and contrasted.

Learning assessment test. I blindly scored all pre- and post-
assessment tests for all participants. Closed questions were scored using an

answer key, while open-ended questions were scored using a rubric adapted

53

from one used to score previous versions of the exam to minimize the role of
subjectivity in scoring exams (see Appendix E). lntra-rater reliability was
calculated on open-ended questions. I randomly rescored 27 (~20%) pre- and
post-test exams across all 5 participating courses and correlated secondary
scores to original scores in SPSS (Wuensch, 2007) to produce a Pearson
correlation score of 0.860, indicating a high degree of reliability. Scores were
analyzed using SPSS statistical software to generate descriptive statistics, gain
scores, and significance tests that were correlated with demographic information
collected to create an overall picture of each class. Data were analyzed using
repeated measures ANOVA to investigate changes between pre- and post-test
performance based on total score for each exam. Additional post hoc
comparisons were conducted to determine between-subjects effects such as
gender and study site. Gain score was also computed for each student from pre-
to post-test examination. An item analysis of performance was carried out by
ANOVA on overall performance, gender, and site, followed up by independent
sample t-tests.

Student survey. I conducted statistical analyses on all closed-ended
questions after they were quantified and entered into an SPSS database. I
generated descriptive statistics based on overall response to each of the 10
quantifiable questions, assessed gender interactions for each question via

independent sample Meets, and analyzed site interactions using ANOVA. When

54

provided, written answers on the survey were appended to focus group interview
transcripts and coded as part of each.

Focus group interviews. I organized data from focus group interviews
and open-ended survey questions both categorically and chronologically. This
data was reviewed repeatedly, and continuously coded. Transcripts were coded
simultaneously utilizing both deductive and inductive coding schemes. To ensure
reliability of findings, l blindly recoded 6 of the 11 interview transcripts, including
at least 1 from each class. These data were then analyzed in SPSS (Wunensch,
2007) to determine inter-rater reliability, which resulted in a Pearson correlation
score of 0.906 and supports a high level of confidence in coding reliability.

Deductive coding. I developed a priori codes from prior research on the
Case It! project and from the literature on student persistence in STEM programs
(Boyatzis, 1998; Creswell, 2007b). Themes included student engagement,
personal relevance, interest, motivation, and persistence in field. These themes
were revised repeatedly as research progressed and the presence or absence of
each was observed in the data.

Inductive coding. As analysis progressed, it became apparent that
themes were emerging in the data that were not accounted for by existing a priori
codes. To address this evolution of themes, open and axial coding schemes
(Creswell, 2007b) were utilized to group data into categories and relate them
back to pre-existing a priori codes and themes. Themes such as denial, bigger

picture, and critical thinking were identified in the text of student comments and

55

combined with axial codes developed prior to analysis to create a mosaic of
codes.

In general, each student comment was given a single code, although 65
(8.6%) student comments exhibited 2 themes. In such cases the comment was
counted for each theme it illustrated. For example, the comment that, “We're just
going into a field where you need to make sure that you're thinking about different
things, different demographics, and you need to make sure that you're able to put
yourself in their [the patient’s] shoes,” was counted twice because it address both
functional science and instructional quality.

Primary coding resulted in several clusters of themes. Upon further review
and secondary analysis, I reduced the number of original categories by
approximately 68%. Codes deemed to be thematically similar based on both

student comments and the existing literature were combined to enhance clarity.

56

CHAPTER 4: Results

In this mixed methods study, I collected data from both quantitative (pre-
test/post-test; student survey) and qualitative sources (focus group interviews).
Data were first analyzed as an aggregate whole (case study A) to create an
overall picture across all study sites of students’ persistence, performance, and
opinions. I then analyzed each site individually (case studies B-F) to identify any
site-specific differences. Within each site, data were organized by research
question.
Case Study A: Cross-site comparison

Student performance. The data from this study show that the Case ltl
learning environment positively influenced student performance. Students
showed a significant gain score over time (see Table 3), and significant
performance improvement on questions 26 (see Table 4). There were large,
significant gains from pre- to post-test for all groups (see Figure 5 & 6), and
student confidence in answers increased from pre- to post-tests (see Table 4).

Overall, there was a large, significantly positive increase in performance

from the pre- to post-test (F(1, 80) = 17.256, ps0.01, n2 = 0.177; see Table 3).

Results show the only significant influence on student performance was time
between the pre- and post-tests (noted as “time”), with no other combination of

factors yielding significant results (see Table 3); however, performance varied

significantly by site (F(4, 80)=4.293), ps0.01, n2 = 0.177; see Table 3) As Figure

57

Table 3.

Performance results of pre-/post-test repeated measures

 

 

 

 

C" Significance 2
F Hyp. Error (P) Tl
Within subjects tests
Time“ 17.256 1 80 0.000 0.1 77
Time x Gender 0.329 1 80 0.568 0.004
Time x Site 0.164 4 80 0.956 0.008
Time x Gender x Site 0.321 3 80 0.810 0.012
Between subjects tests
Gender 0.569 1 80 0.453 0.007
Site* 4.293 4 80 0.003 0.1 77
Note. * p s 0.01
** p 5 0.001

58

58 w e a £8555 ..

 

 

mod m e a. 28:33 .. ..sez
:mvmd emu; momd n 5N m 9:69 mesmEEEBB ho 5:26.925 m0
. . . . 2E...
fans 0 mm— F 3% w No? m m Scam 9:62:00 5 23$. 8 cosmo=aQ< m0
toomd 5: mmoé mm; m 9:93 95.6958 E $.3me “—0 cosmozaaxx v0
:355 was; Cod wood m Em £2me .w> <w_._m ..o comcmano m0
tamed mam; Na 3 31% m 93mm. 85 5983 8 202929.95 NO
toooé mac; mmoé 805 m 9.82 <w_._m .0 2.2399er 5
moceozcoo < ow ..er cmeE .38
-60.". -Qn. .mE
towed omo; mm: 5.50 m 2.32 woumELoEBE 3 5:90.895 m0
. . . . EEo
1.2m 0 mac F 3v F can 0 v Scam 0.5.0228 5 £38. .6 5283?. mo
.83 new; meow New; e 3:28. 9:858 5 958. cc c8332 «0
romeo 85 we; 83 5 sea some; .9 <me a 89858 no
mote 954 085 mead w 9.39 Em 5282, .0 5:96.925 NO
mmod mmoé mmmd momd v 3.39 <m_._m B 529999.... PO
cows. d om cmoE come .38
swan. .65 En.

 

.«N@ u 5 Reign 9 -90. E0...“ ES EmEmmmmmm mEEmQ :o mocobtcoo use mocmELotoQ Betas :92: E 6%:ch

.w 2an

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site pre-lpost-test scores

18 -/ .
16 _/ n
14 ~/
12 -
10 A IPre
8 ' 'Post
6 .
4 4
2 ..
o . 1 . . .

UWRF-NM UWRF-M NCA&T lUPR-M lUPR-SG

 

 

Figure 5. Student performance means by site.
Note: * = significant at p 50.05 (t(25)=2.599, p=0.015)
** = significant at p 50. 001 (t(41)=4.265, p=0. 000)

60

 

 

3.5

2.5

N

_L

0.5

O

 

Gain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UWRF-NM

UWFlF-M

NCA&T lUPR-M

illlt

lUPR-SG

 

Figure 6. Average student gain from pre- to post-test based on site
Note: No significant differences in performance gain based on site.

61

 

5 shows, there were significant improvements in performance by site. Although
there was an overall significant improvement in performance, the site-by-site
analysis demonstrated that the two classes at the University of Wisconsin—River
Falls significant improved from the pre- to the post-test (see Figure 5). However,
as Figure 6 shows, there was no significant difference in gain score between
sites. Given this, it is likely that the low sample sizes at the other three study ,
sites resulted in a lack of significance. Figure 7 shows that there was uniform
improvement over time.

Table 4 shows that participants demonstrated significant improvement
from the pre- to post-test on test items 3-6. Ceiling effects may have come into
play on item 2, interpretation of Western Blot results, as both the pre- and post-
test scores approached the maximum points possible (see Table 4). It is
interesting to note that student confidence in their answers increased uniformly
and significantly from pre— to post-test, even when their scores did not
significantly increase (see Table 4).

Overall, there was no significant performance difference between men and
women (see Table 3). Table 5 shows that gender was a significant factor in only
2 of the 12 pre-lpost-test questions, pre-test questions 1 and 5. On average,
men performed significantly better than women on pre-test question 1 (F(1,
102)=7.342, p50.01), whereas women outperformed men on pre-test question 5

(F(1, 101)=9.489, ps0.01). An item analysis of performance results showed that

62

 

Student performance over time

 

15

/

/

12.5 /

Mean score
d
A

—L
(O

 

 

 

1 2
Pre-test Post-test

11me

 

 

 

Figure 7. Student performance means over time.

63

00-52. .5 22-525 .552 55 .058 228555 825:8 5.0025 u .3
2-525 55 .88 228552 82.2.8 0.0.5:. 2.5.5:

55 .88 228552 852.8 5.2.0525 as.» .82 __e 55 .88 228555 8.22.8 552 u E

00.53. .5 5.2-525 55 .88 228552 .8528 2-5.25 u a.
:08 55 .0502 2.50556 00.5055 :0Eo>> u Amy
5.5.5 55 .0503 2:52:55 “5055505 :05. u E .052

 

 

 

 

 

E 5.8 8 e 53 a. 058 8 .V 53 9.0 9.38. 8.225222
l l l l l l l l 59.0.0 .6 5:80.90“... o0

. . 2.5

Q woo o mm 5 m E v i l l l 05 Sena 9:00:50 5.
i i l i 5.888 2: e 8.5 .850 928. .e 558.29.. 00

.9 wood mm v oomd l l l I 2% 0.5.5 92.00500 5
l l l l l l l I .0200 05:00. .0 5:02.520. 50

l l l l l l l l 05m 85 5060.5 .m>
l l l l l l l l .0050 <w...m_ 5 50.5950 no

i l l l l l l l 05 05:00. 22m 52003
I l l l l l l l .0050 ho 5:80.925 NO

.5 55 5 s. 05.0 i . l l l 2.0 3.89
E moo o «2 F 82 .850 5:0 2 5.22.902. 5

g 52m .82... u. AS 52w d2... n.
0050.555 .6 0050.555 :0
200300.". “002.05

 

.050 b5 505:5 3 05.2005 .00....moQ\.0a 50 0.62.020 5....m0auioéofi0ao
.m 0.20...

64

location was a significant factor affecting 4 of the 12 pre-lpost-test questions. On
pre-test question 6, students in UWFlF-M performed significantly better than
pupils in UWRF-NM or IUPFt-SG (F(4, 99)=3.900, ps0.01; see Table 5).
. Students at NCA&T performed significantly better than all other sites on post-test
1 (F(4, 96)=8.378, ps0.001; see Table 5), while participants at UWRF-NM
performed significantly better than UWRF-M, and those at IUPR-SG performed
significantly better than UWRF-M. On post-test question 4, students from
UWRF-M performed significantly better than those from NCA&T, UWRF-NM, and
IUPR-SG (F(4, 95)=3.900, ps0.01; see Table 5). Students from both UWRF-M
and NCA&T performed significantly better than those from UWRF-NM and IUPR-
SG on post-test question 5 (F(4, 95)=4.213, ps0.01; see Table 5), but not versus
each other. Finally, on post-test question 6, students from UWRF-M performed
significantly better than NCA&T and UWRF-NM (F(4, 93)=4.904, ps0.001; see
Table 5), and students at lUPR-M performed significantly better than UWRF-NM.
Student intentions to persist. Overall, the use of the Case ’l't! learning
environment did appear to have a buttressing effect on student desires to persist
in their declared major. Students repeatedly iterated in focus group interviews
that the project reinforced their intentions to be science majors and validated their
career and/or course objectives. The multimedia, case-based learning
environment created an overall context for material from multiple classes that

allowed student to fit all the pieces of their previous academic instruction together

65

into a single, comprehensive picture—and to place themselves within that
picture.

Prior to conducting the study, several themes were identified as proxies for
student persistence based on the literature. Based on this list, and on emergent
coding, 5 themes related to persistence surfaced in student comments across the
study sites (see Table 6). Comments related either directly to student
persistence or persistence proxies accounted for just over 47% (n = 548) of all
statements from focus group interviews and surveys (see Table 7). The overall
picture presented was that Case It! did influence retention, and students
expressed an intention to persevere. Parametric statistics conducted on answers
to the student survey support this, demonstrating that on the whole, students
moderately agreed that Case Itl reinforced their desires to be science majors
(M=3.304; scale 1-5). Over 87% of students agreed that the project would help
them with future classes or careers, while 59% found it relevant to their lives.
Students like Noah said that it was, “...definitely a reinforcement. . .” while others
like Olivia and Emma thought the experience, “...helped me realize that I want to
go into the medical aspect of biotechnology and science,” or that it, “...reinforced
my career choice...”

Instructional quality. Table 7 shows that 250 (21.6%) student comments
were coded as referring to the overall instructional quality of Case It! Of these, a
few were generalized statements or opinions about instruction, and generally

positive, like those expressed by Gavin who said, “[Case Itl] just... pulled it all

66

...00.0.0 05 0.0..l..00..
05..> 05l>=.. :0 .0905 0.00. 00.00 .05 500.0... 5

...55500. .50> 5.3
05 000.. 0. 0>00 .05. 50> .00..0>000.5 300 0>020
0.0.0.... 0.00. 0. 05500.00 0>0>>.0 0.0.055...

.......5.0 500 00. 5 0:05 0203 .003 500 .0503
5 39. 9... salts... <0_._m 9.. 95 22888..
.00l0_00. 0.500555 05:500.0.50. .. 0.55 _.

....0.005 0 0.0 50> 0.... .00. 50> 00500.3...

.05
50500.0. 0. 0.50 00 0. 00.00 _._.0 0... ..0.000.00 05
.0 5:0 05 .0..< .30: 0.0.5 0. 5505 .0. 5.5.00. 00......

...00..05..0 0....00. 0 .0 550.
I0... 0.5.5. .0. .53 50> .. .00..00.0 00.00 00... 0........

...0.0000 05.50

5.0.5.. 85: 00; _ 95 =0. .0 5.... _ .5. 83 5.

.. . ..50 >05

5:0 5 >05 .05 50> .003 0. 0.5 50< 00.0: 050. 50>

5:0 0.5.00. 5 0.05 ..0 50> 000.0 .050 >.0>0 .3000.
50> ... 0. 0000.000 50.0.55 0 003 .. .05 500... .05. _.

00.00.0500:
.0 ..005.00.. 00000.5 .5000 0.:0E:.00

5500000. .00..>.000
.0 50.0000. 050500250 .0005. 5050.005
.0 005 55.000 05 650.00. .5000 0.000.050

.00..00..0.50.5 .0
.3500. 555.055 .050. 0.50000 .5000 0.000.056

.5550. 05.00.00 .0 0000.00 .0 >.0.000
.0 0.2.50 05 0.0. 52050.5 0.00. 55.00. .5050 .0
.0:0..00.0.5 50.5..50 >..:50.0.00 .5000 0.000.050

0000.00 500.0.0505
0. .0 0000.8 500.0.0505 o. .0098 05 00.0000
0. 0050.305. 5055000 0. 50.0.0. 0.000.500

.00>.. .0 0.005 .0055. 5.00550
0. 5..0> .00.:00I0.00.00 .5050 0.000.050
.0500: .0..:0.00 .0 .000..000> 05.0000 0. 0000000..

.00..00.0.:_ .0055.0-0.-.0055.0 ..0.05..05 :0
00 55.00 .m5>0.0-0_0. 55.55 5000.0>05 05020.5
05 5:5... .m:.>0_0-0_0. .0 5...: 05 .5050 0.000.050

.00000 .0. 00:0.0.0.0 0
.0 50.0.5 50000.00. ..0..0.00. 05 5.2, 00550008
5000.00 05.05.55 .5050 000.500 .0 0.000.250

500.08 0000.00

”050.00..

”00000.0 5550. 0.500005
"0.0._0m

”0000.00 0.5 50.050.002.056500

500050.50

“0000.00 500.505”.

”5:30.005...

$5.050 .0:0..05..0:.
5.0.00 0. 002.020.

 

000.50.050 0.00.0.6

00.58.0000

0050.00

00500 .0 00.00.05 500 000.....050Q

.0 0.00...

67

 

...0. 0 00000.5 05
5:05.050: 0:. 550.00 0... 00 .>_... 5.3 50000505
0000 00: 05. >0. :. 00000.00 .050500 05 55.55
.3 52:. 5:65 580 000.. .50. 500; _ .0... .<..

...5 5:.05 00... 5.000000: ..:05
. .50 55.00.05. .0 5:5. 0... 50.0000. 05 0. .003
..005 . 30:0. . .05 5005.50. .0 550. 000 5.. 0000...

...5 .5000
555>00 5.00 0.000 0: .000. 5lwo.< 5.3 0:0>:0
30:0. ..005 _ .05 50.5 >500. ..00005 5 30: 55......

A0000000

.003 500 505.03 05..> 05 300 5:0 .0500
5.50050. 05 00... .0 000.0 0000.00 0 5 500.00.
0; .05 55052 080... .2... =0 .5585 .5. 0000...

..:.0.00.:55500
0. 300 0.00. 0. 003 .005 .5.0>0 05 .05 5.5 ..

.0... 5 050.005 .0 0:05.005 0.50000 0. 0000000..

0.050500 .0 005 05 .0 505.000. .0 05.0.5
00 5050005 >...05..0 50.05. 50.000.005 .0
.0 0000.00 >0 505:0..0 55.00. 0. 50.0.0. 0.:05500

..0: ...3 .0 .505 50.5 .00000 .055 0000005
55 0.0.50 .050555 0. 50.0.0. 0500.055

00.05 005000050 0.0.555 50.. .0 .55..
50.0.55 0 5 050.5 50.000 0005000000 55000
.0005 50.50 0003.00 0550.305. .0 .0500. h
.0000.

>0. 5 50500 5550.00 5550.05 .0 0.0.50.00 5.3
>.0>..00..0 55.00.050.500 0. 50.0.0. 05050.00

“3005-0.-5002

”0000.00 ..0 500.5 k

H0:0..000:000.250.:0D\0E5..w

”002500050 0.0.55.2

“00.50.:55500

68

Table 7.

Categories of comments and their aggregate instances across all sites (n =1160)

 

 

Category n %

Intentions to persist 548 47.07%
Instructional quality: 250 21.55%
Functional science: 1 16 10.00%
Role-playing: 99 8.53%
Self-efficacy: 60 5.1 7%
Community/Integrated into science: 23 1.98%

Beliefs: 612 52.76%
Diagnostic testing process: 160 13.79%
Learning: 132 1 1 .38%
Science content: 116 10.02%
Communication: 70 6.04%
Multiple perspectives: 61 5.26%
Turned off science: 27 2.33%
Stigma/Denial/Misconceptions: 26 2.24%
Need-to-know: 20 1 .72%

 

Note: Percentage calculated by [n(category) / total n]

69

together,” or William who reported Case It! “...kind of ties everything together in
one thing, even what you learned in lecture and other wet labs.” Kira reported
that, “...it helps to actually apply what you’re learning in class, like we did with
Case It! and be able to understand it more...” Kira also said that she enjoyed
that the structure of instruction was different saying,

I just liked that it was a different approach to it. You know, every other

class, you sit there in lecture and you take notes, and this is what you do,

day in and day out, and the same with lab. But this is just a different
approach. I’ve never taken a class that used the technology in this way,
so it was interesting.
However, a few students like Aaron said, ‘..I just didn’t get into it. It seemed kind
of artificial to me, and a little bit forced,” indicating that the methods utilized by
Case It! were not universally relevant.

For many Case It! created a bridge between content and their private lives
by making cases personally relevant to them. This attitude is typified by Leah
who said that,

it made me feel more like a personal connection with them [the patients

in the cases]... since it was a true story, I was able to get a better

connection with doing the Western Blot and ELISA and being able to
speak to them.
Beth seconded this cpinion stating that, “...I think actually reading the case
studies of people’s actual lives, people that are affected by it, makes it more
human and less of something that like you learn in science class...” A feeling of
personal responsibility to the characters in the cases was frequently cited as a

reason for exerting greater effort on the project, as demonstrated by Emma who

said, “...when we got to the actual personal cases with it, you wanted to do it

70

more because you want to find out for those people...” Other students like
William said that the personal connections created were important because,
“...when you can see a name or a face to relate that to it makes it more real.”

An example of how information from this project can affect students’
private lives is evidence by Zoé who said that, “At first I wasn’t real happy about
doing it, but during the semester someone in my life has been diagnosed with
HIV, so it’s helped me understand the disease a lot.” Ashley extrapolated her
experiences to her future stating,

...I also think [Case ltl] helps in personal life if you’ve a friend or loved one

that’s going to have to deal with this disease—you’re going to be able to

hopefully take the knowledge that we’ve gained through here and be able
to put yourself in. . .their shoes...
Leah took a slightly different view of the same issue when she said,

...[Case Itl] was just real personal, and—well, down to earth I guess—but,

just to be able to possibly relate to these people, and to know that these

cases are real, and that you could get it, just made it—made Case It! more
fun to work with...

Many students expressed empathy for those involved with the cases, like
Ashley who said, “...you’re going to be able to hopefully take the knowledge that
we’ve gained through [Case Itl] and be able to put yourself in...their shoes, and
be...more understanding. And do the empathetic thing and be there for them.”
Zoé echoed this sentiment saying, “...[Case Itl] helps me understand what the
person is going through." Alice said that, “... the personal lives of these real

people...[make Case Itl] relevant,” demonstrating that using real individuals, not

made-up characters, led some students to find greater relevance and importance

71

in the material. Emma said the same feeling was true for her because, “...when
we got to the actual personal cases with it, you wanted to do it more because you
want to find out for those people. . .”

Students also made comments to the effect that Case It! either stimulated
their interest in health, or that it made them eager to learn more. Most student
comments echoed those of Olivia who said, “I found [Case Itl] really interesting,”
or Maggie who said, “I just thought it was cool!” However, some students were
more specific as to what had stimulated their interest, like Carrie who said that
the personal connection to the material, “... just makes a lot more real. It just
makes it more interesting.” Maggie was very excited about the project, telling me
at another point during the focus group interview that she was, “. . .definitely more
interested in HIV and AIDS than I was before—just ‘cause there’s so much to
learn.” Leah was perhaps the most specific when she said, “... actually being
able to do [ELISAs and Western Blots]...helped me understand it better, and I
became more interested...Being able to do it made me appreciate it more.”

Functional science (related to future work). Many students said that
they found the Case It! experience to be directly relatable to their future
professional lives whether that be in healthcare, research, biotechnology,
education, or any other of myriad options. Overall, health related career paths

were the most popular choices for student overall, and by gender. There was

significant agreement by students (X2 = 46.05; p = 0.000) that Case It! helped

prepare them for future classes or careers.

72

As a category, functional science is defined as that knowledge needed for
specific, vocational purposes, and so it is not surprising that given the
disproportionate number of upper division classes in this study about 10.0% (n =
116) of all student comments were coded here (see Table 7). Some students
reported that the experience helped them better envision or prepare for their
futures, like José who said, “... you [see] how you can relate...life on the outside
with what you are going to do in your job,” and Olivia’s comment that, “[Case Itl]
actually did help a lot...it helped me realize that I want to go into the medical
aspect of biotechnology and science.” Kathy said, “...it helps you when you think
about a career and what you want to do.” Autumn was more direct, simply
averring that, “I definitely think [Case Itl] helped prepare me for a career,” and
that she thought, “...more than anything else, the counseling and role-playing
really help prepare for a lot of future careers that some of us are planning on
having...” Others reported that Case It! provided them with a real-world
environment in which to practice applying theoretical knowledge acquired in this
and other classes. This is exemplified by Eli’s comment that,

l...have to say that [Case Itl] helped with future careers, or future classes,

because not only does it emphasize new things that researchers, or even

just biology majors, might go through later on, but you can use this
knowledge in different classes that come up...
Neil reinforced this perspective saying that, “...it's like some practice if you will for
future life, kind of a real-life situation...”

Other students reported that a real benefit of Case It! was that it served to

reinforce decisions students already made, but may have questioned. This

73

sentiment is illustrated by comments from Noah who said, “I definitely think it was
a good introduction to research...” and “...l’m also going to be doing research, so
this was definitely a reinforcement for me.” Emma said that Case It! had,
“...reinforced my career choice...” while Kim simple stated that, “This will help me
in the future.”

Role-playing. Of student comments in focus group interviews, 8.5% (n =
99) were coded as role-playing (see Table 7). Overall, students moderately
agreed on a Likert scale of 1-5 that role-playing helped them learn (M=3.526).
Several students said that participating in role-playing forced them to look at
problems from multiple angles and engage in analytical thinking, like Katie who
said that,

...role-playing and conferencing...really forced me to think critically about

the results that we had from our cases, and forced me to think about them

in a different light so I’d be able to explain them to whomever was asking

us questions...
Autumn seconded this position saying she, “...enjoyed the aspect of role-playing
a lot, and seeing from a different perspective. It made me more interested in
looking at the different groups of people that it affects and how it affects their
families as well.” Kim cross-referenced role-playing with empathy when she said,
“...role playing is another good [part of Case Itl] because you really got to go into
the mindset of the person going though this.” Other students enjoyed the ability

to step into another person’s life, such as Neil who said that role-playing was,

“. . .like getting into someone else’s shoes, or at least trying,” and Lisa who

74

reported that, ...the role-playing was really cool for me because I can really get
into somebody else’s shoes, and think like I think they would think.”

Over 20 students said that they enjoyed the dialogue of questions and
answer that arose from being required to role-play as both doctor and family
member. Students said that this discourse caused them to be more
contemplative, like Winnie who said that, “...its good to just sit down and think
about [HIV] and ask more questions.” Others, like Jarred, said it caused them to
consider the questions they were asking from new or different perspectives,
stating, “Some times when you were role-playing, and you’re asking the
questions, you had to think, ‘Well, if I really had this, what would I want to know.
What would be my questions?” This connection with codes in the bigger picture
category is reinforced by Leah’s comment that she was,

asked questions that I didn’t even think about. And then the way how we

had to ask questions like if we didn’t have a biological background, I think

that helped, and it also made me aware of the information that I knew
because I was able to answer the questions.

Pupils also identified the need to answer very specific and directed
questions during role-playing as a reason for conducting deeper research, like
Autumn who said, “I think it helped to learn because if they asked question that
you actually didn't know, well then you had to go and look for the information and
learn it that way...” Kira reiterated this perspective stating, “...[we] had a

question that we hadn’t thought about in that way, or it was about one of the tests

that we didn’t cover, so we had to figure it out.”

75

Other students reported that the best part of the role-playing experience
for them was the opportunity to teach others in the role of either physician or
genetics counselor. Sometimes these comments were linked to additional
research, like Gavin who said, “I liked also the role-playing, more so being the
one answering the questions because it made you go into more depth because
you thought well if they asked this question but then what about this...?” Ashley
said that,

I think I learned more because I was able to break it down, to make it

simple, to say "T his is this, and that is that." For me at least, I’ve always

been able to learn more when I teach, so I think I did learn more when I

had to break it down.

A vocal number of students were adamant in their support of conferencing
between peers as a useful component of Case It! A number of students said that
questions asked in conferencing helped them view questions and issues from
different perspectives, like Tanisha who said,

I just think its always interesting to see what other people think, because

you could give us all the same book and we’d all say different things about

it, so I think its pretty cool to just see how they thought about their case...
Associated with this idea was Leah’s comment that, “...[Other students] asked
questions that I didn’t even think about.” One student, Kevin, was expressive
when he cautioned others on the difference between role-playing and
conferencing, telling me,

Role-playing was useless. I know that’s very blunt and frank, but I think

that a lot of people are confusing the conferencing with a role-playing.

Conferencing, very beneficial—scientists talking to each other, discussing
the disease—great way to learn. Me pretending to be Lisa’s husband, and

76

asking, ‘What do these results mean?’ when I know the answer is not
useful.

Earlier in the discussion, Kevin expressed his favor for peer-conferencing when
he said, “I really like the conferencing —just anytime you have discussion it leads
to more knowledge than to somebody telling you something.” At least one other
student, Jarred, was thankful for the opportunity to conference with his peers
because,

You can also maybe act like a person that has the virus, and so maybe if

there's something you're not too sure of, and you don‘t really want to ask it

in front of the class, that you can kind of like be, "Hey! I'm Maria. I was
just wondering this. Do you have an answer?" Then people wouldn't
know that you really don't know stuff.

Building self-efficacy. An appealing component of Case It! for some
students (n = 60, 5.2%; see Table 7) was the opportunity to demonstrate the
depth of their knowledge, or to be the expert in a pseudo-professional situation.
This is borne out by the fact that overall, students said they felt confident in their
knowledge of science content (M=3.925; scale of 1-5), and could apply that
knowledge autonomously. Greg said, “...its kind of cool that you get to be
somebody else, and you get to act like you know what you’re doing—you get to
act like the smartest one.” Katie seconded this cpinion stating, “...you can think
to yourself, ‘Oh, I would be the expert in this situation.’ And, it’s a little strange,
but pretty cool at the same time.” Other students focused their comments more
on their own knowledge acquisition and personal development, like Neil, who

said, “...[before] I knew of [HIV], but not about it. Now I feel like I can field

general questions about it, and point someone in the right direction to get an

77

answer.” Comments such as Greg’s when he said, “[The material is] going to
stick now. After the end of the semester, I’m still going to be able to remember
this.” illustrate that some students felt participating in Case It! cemented
knowledge beyond what they felt was typical for class.

Feeling like a scientist (Community/integrated into science). One of
the benefits of participating in Case It! that students cited was that it made them
feel either like members of a community of scientific scholars, or integrated into
the culture of science and scientific inquiry. A total of 23 comments (~2.0%; see
Table 7) were coded into this subcategory. These included opinions about
feeling like a “real doctor” as evidenced by Caesar’s statement that, “[Case Itl]
lets you see what is happening, and it makes you feel like you are a doctor,”
Tanisha’s belief that, “...I think that part of the case made it more like you were
actually a doctor...” and Greg’s laughing remark that, “...I kind of felt like I was
House [a popular television doctor] curing people.” Other comments indicated
that students felt the encounter gave them virtual experience as a professional in
the field, like Catherine who said that, “...we were able to basically be the doctor,
or the lab technician, and say, ‘Yes this person has it. Or no, this isn't. Or, you
might need to retest. ’”

Student beliefs. Students overwhelmingly thought that Case Itl was a
good learning experience for them, with 95% responding positively to the
question on the student survey. The most frequent reason given for this was that

the project made the material “real” to participants instead of just abstract or

78

esoteric facts shot at them in a lecture. Students made personal connections
with the material. For some, this manifested as altruism where participants felt a
sense of duty to the individuals portrayed in the case studies and obligated to
help them, even though the situation was constructed. Other students said that
they developed a sense of empathy for the patients as the project progressed,
and because of this felt more connected and that the information was more
relevant to them.

The majority of students (59%) found the project to be relevant to their
lives, and as a group thought their experiences had made them more confident in
their knowledge (M=3.808). Participants also reported a significant increase in
interest from before to after Case It! (t(106)=9.894, ps0.001). Figure 8 shows
that the two most popular aspects of the project overall were the virtual lab and
conferencing aspects, although Opinions varied by gender and site.

As with the previous section on persistence, codes and themes related to
student beliefs were identified prior to conducting the study. These were
combined with emergent themes to yield 8 categories of student beliefs about the
project (see Table 7). Comments in these categories accounted for roughly 53%
(n = 612) of all student statements.

Diagnostic testing procedures. As shown in Table 4, a large number of
comments (n = 160; 13.8%) indicate that students said the speed at which results
were returned, and the number of different tests available contributed significantly

to both their enjoyment of the Case ltl environment and their learning. Tanira

79

 

 

‘9//

e e ’\ e o
0‘ 7“ ‘<’ v” <2~' 9
0* $8 59“ e0 o" 35“

 

Most useful components of Case It!

I Virtual lab

' Biotechnology
‘I Conferencing
I Webposters

' Internet
research

 

Figure 8. Student ratings of most useful Case It! components.

80

 

demonstrated this attitude when she said, “I enjoyed how easy [the virtual lab]
was to learn...and how fast and easy it was. I liked that I could see the process
in the virtual lab...” Other students like Kira thought that the virtual lab was a
good focal point because, “...having to go through process of...figuring
everything out helped a lot...” while Gavin said that “...the virtual |ab...was quick
and easy, and this is how it all goes together, and here are your results, and here
you analyze it...”

The concept of bioinformatics, the employment of technology to inform life
sciences, was new to most students in this study. Jarred typified many students’
opinions on the topic, “Bioinformatics? I didn't really know a lot about that. This
is the first time that I‘ve heard about it, so I've actually learned quite a bit about
that.” Overall, students appear to have felt that Case It! provided a good
environment in which to explore bioinformatics, as demonstrated by comments
from Nicole that, “...Case It! made it easier to do bioinformatics...” and Maggie
that, “...I just thought it was really interesting that someone could create a
phylogenetic tree and say, ‘Well, this is how your virus is related. This is how you
got it.”’

Several students said that they appreciated not only the ability to quickly
develop results from various molecular tests, such as ELISA, Western Blot, and
Southern Blot, but also to accurately analyze those results. Kevin exemplified
this position when he observed that, “...[Case It! gave us] the experience and the

results part—where we got the results—we know how to analyze the results. I

81

think it was a lot more beneficial than doing the physical experiments.” Catherine
added her voice, stating that she, “...definitely felt the most beneficial part was
understanding the results...” Other students like Aaron were less specific but still
adamant on the usefulness of Case It! in providing and interpreting results when
he said, “I liked being able to look at the lab results. Most people don’t take the
time to explain it, and I think that’s really important.”

Learning. Comments that made either broad reference to scholarship, or
described specific techniques were coded into the learning category (n = 132,
11.4%, see Table 7). Many students had specific opinions on how Case It!
impacted their knowledge base in relation to application, conducting additional
research, and critical thinking. However, others expressed themselves more
generally, saying that Case ltl, “...helps you visualize what you need to do,”
(Caesar), or “...[Case Itl] did a lot of reinforcing...” (Rachel).

Some students said that Case Itl created a hands-on learning situation
where they were able to apply theoretical knowledge in practical situations, which
was more interesting and engaging to them. Daniel said that, “You got to apply
the theory. It was like a hands-on training—a lot of understanding, not just ‘
reading and reading,” while Kira said tha , “...it helps to actually apply what
you’re learning in class, like we did with Case Itl and be able to understand it
more...” Several students said they enjoyed working with Case It! because it
was based in practice, like Tanisha who said, “...when you read it in a book, you

can’t really get the hands-on feeling, so Case It! allowed you to do that,” and

82

Aaron’s statement that he, . .got to take theoretical information and turn it into
applicable knowledge...which you don’t get to do very much in classes...”
Margerie was emphatic when she said that, “When you practice it is not the same
as in the books—the experience is completely different.” Greg appreciated the
chance to, “. . .apply my knowledge...”

Other students said that the hands-on nature allowed them to make
connections between different aspects of the learning environment, like Jarred
who emphasized his enjoyment of being able to put theory to practical use when
he said, “...[I] see real life application of the ELISA, and the viral load, and
bioinformatics being put into application.” Greg’s comment that, “...it’s gonna
stick now. After the end of the semester, I’m still going to be able to remember
this,” demonstrates that students also felt that what they learned from Case It!
would persist beyond just the end of the class.

A frequent comment was that Case It! encouraged autonomous learning
and stimulated personal discovery and interest. Conducting additional,
independent research was linked by some students, like Kevin, to a deeper
connection with the material when he told us that, “...once you start reading
people's questions...you have to start looking up stuff and that makes you learn
more about the disease, and you find out things that are interesting.” The idea
that additional research can act as a catalyst to generate interest is further
supported by Rachel’s comment that she, “...think[s] that was beneficial because

then it just has sparked your interest in you to do further research,” and Kathy’s

83

statement that, “...[Case Itl] helps me out with other diseases and it might
encourage me to go out and do more research not necessarily on AIDS, but
maybe on other types of infectious diseases...” Greg liked the fact that he had

the opportunity to conduct further research, telling me that Case Itl, ...gave me
time to remember things and look stuff up on the internet.”

A few students thought that Case It! helped stimulate analytical processes.
Ashley is a good example of one of these students. She said, “I think I learned
more because I was able to break it down-to make it simple—to [be able to]
say, ‘This is this, and that is tha Other students like Katie said that,

...role-playing and conferencing. . .really forced me to think critically about

the results that we had from our cases, and forced me to think about them

in a different light so I’d be able to explain them to whomever was asking
us questions,
while Catherine commented that, “...this experience gives us the analytical
aspects of biology, so we’re more able, and prepared...”

Science content. Just over 10% of all student comments were coded as
science content items (n = 116; see Table 7). Many students expressed their
experiences with Case Itl through the lens of content specific to a disease. Neil’s
statement that, “[Case Itl] helped get some more insight on HIV, the virus itself...”
is typical of this perspective.

Students mentioned the treatment of disease on several occasions in the
focus group interviews. These comments appear to have come predominantly

from those pupils intending to pursue careers in health related fields like nursing,

medical technology. and primary care, and are typically associated with some

84

form of surprise or developing interest on the student’s part. Eli’s comment is a
good example of this. He stated that, “...I think I am more interested in the
pharmaceutical control regimen of HIV. I didn’t know anything about that, or how
it worked—anti-retroviral medication.” Many females students expressed
empathetic undertones to treatment, like Ashley, who said that, “...I really had no
idea about the treatments and the drugs that they had out there that were, not
actually curing it, but giving some hope and a potential for a brighter future,” and
Heather, who said, “...the treatment options were really interesting...l saw the
different combinations, and you’re not just taking one thing. You’re kind of hitting
it [HIV] at different angles.”

The transmission of HIV or how genetic disorders develop were not
subjects that arose frequently; however, some students were detailed in their
appreciation of how Case It! helped them better understand this aspect of a
disorder. An example is Leah’s comment that, “...it was interesting to know that
just because some of the cases were in the US, and some were in Africa, they
all contracted the same way, no matter what you’re doing, or who you’re with. . .”
which also alludes to the codes, misconceptions and learning. Another student
comment that evidences interactions with other codes is Eli’s when he said,
“Because of having to research everything, we actually had to learn how it infects
and what can actually go on during the infection—the infection cycle and

everything.”

85

Communication. As shown in Table 7, a number of student comments (n
= 70; 6.0%) indicated that students found Case Itl engaging, useful, or relevant
because it required them to develop the skills to communicate effectively with
both patients and scientists. Some of these comments dealt directly with the
ability to convey ideas and converse with specialists on a professional level. This
was demonstrated by Catherine’s commentthat, “...we’re more able and
prepared to go out and be in the lab situation or doctor’s office, and be able to
know what’s being presented in tests...” Another student, Kevin, said, “I think
that the overall goal was to learn how to communicate, and [to] learn how to
interpret the test results. . .”

The vast majority of comments coded as communication dealt with how to
relate or interpret scientific results for the layman. These comments generally
hinged either upon the idea that one would be required to perform such duties
within the normal scope of one’s job (e.g. as a nurse), or upon the realization that
students may not have considered effective communication of complex ideas to
be an issue prior to participating in Case Itl The former idea was exemplified by
Carly’s comment,

I thought that...answering questions from each other, was the most

important because...on a professional level, as medical interpreter, I’m

sure I’m going to encounter patients who have tested positive, and I’m

going to have to know how to talk with them professionally...

Katie’s comment illustrated the latter idea when she said, “...roIe-playing and

conferencing...forced me to think about [cases/HIV] in a different light so I’d be

able to explain them to whomever was asking us questions—explain them in the

86

simplest forms so they would understand.” Another student, Rachel, bridged the
two ideas, telling me, “I think it like helped us with bedside manner, and being
able to show compassion for people who are...you know these are people
who've had their worlds turned upside down with some of these diagnoses...”

Multiple perspectives. Knowledge frequently has applications outside
the context in which it was learned, and several students commented on this fact
during the focus group interviews (n = 61, 5.3%; see Table 7). Comments in this
category link to an emerging branch of biology, called systems biology, that
seeks to emphasize and accentuate connections between subject areas,
promote the development of multiple perspectives on issues, and create
discourse around ethical dilemmas. Teresa’s comment illustrates the application
of this concept within Case It! almost verbatim when she said, “...it helped us
make connections between different areas of science that we maybe hadn’t
thought of before. .

A number of students said that participating in Case It! forced them to look
at issues from multiple perspectives that they otherwise might not have
considered, or even known about. Nifia gave voice to a common example
echoed across sample sites when she said,

I worked on the young African woman [Catrice] who was a young mother,

and I learned that not only was it her family that her HIV affected, but also

others [in her community] were affected by the results of the test. I’d

never really thought about either...

Jarred said that, “You definitely learn how to take others' perspectives on things,

meaning patients and also the counselor side of things, and how to talk with both

87

when you're doing the conferencing.” Gavin said that the autonomous nature of
the learning environment helped him see connections, stating that, “...you just go
off on tangents, and then you further your knowledge and understanding of AIDS,
and how it impacts the world around us...” Several other students made similar
comments about how unique an experience it was to view what they considered
to be a biological issue from sociological and cultural perspectives, and how that
helped them develop a more holistic lens with which to view the problem of HIV.
Neil summed up his experience with Case Itl saying,

...there’s so many people involved in studying a case like HIV, there

is...not one person who does it all. And for you to be able to get insight

into a little bit of what everyone involved in a case does was helpful. Just
an all-around picture...
Jarred reiterated this sentiment, stating that, “It was really nice to see [the
application of ideas] instead of just reading about it and kind of hearing about it. It
was good to kind of see it all happen.” A few were more succinct, like Tanisha,
who simply said, “...[Case Itl] allowed you to see the bigger picture.”

Turnedooff science. Some students said that their experience had
soured them on specific aspects of science (n = 27, 2.3%; see Table 7). It is
important to note though that none of these students expressed a desire to leave
the biological sciences as a result of this experience, but rather an intention to re-
direct their focus into areas more compatible with their personalities, such as
medical counseling. Three students made comments that their experience with

Case It! had confirmed to them their dislike of laboratory settings, tests, and

procedures. This attitude is demonstrated by Heather who said, “It kind of

88

reinforced that I know I don’t want to do research; as it’s kind of interesting, but I
don’t necessarily like doing it.”

A few students (n = 11) made comments about being uncomfortable with,
or disliking the use of, computers. Generally these comments were not
associated with specific biological principles of procedures, but fell more into the
category of technophobia, as illustrated by Rachel’s comment that, “...I wasn’t
too fond of having to work on computers ‘cause they are not my thing.”

Stigma/Denial/lllisconceptions. Few health subjects are as culturally
and socially charged, or as surrounded by misconceptions, as HIV/AIDS. As
such, it is not surprising that some student comments (n = 26, 2.2%; see Table 7)
were coded as stigma/denial and misconceptions. In general, comments were in
reference to (a) social stigma associated HIV, (b) personal denial that infection
could be a real possibility for collegiate students, or (c) myths and
misconceptions associated with HIV infection and transmission. Comments
falling into the first grouping are exemplified by Tom who said, “Right now it
doesn’t really affect me. I don’t know anyone with AIDS—at least no one’s said
anything about it...” Aaron, however, summed up many students’ attitudes
towards HIV while demonstrating he may be the exception to the rule when he
said, “It can’t happen to me. Its never going to happen to anyone I know, so why
should I worry about it? I mean, that’s the mentality.”

Kathy’s comment that, “. . .[Case It! was] not personally personally [sic]

[relevant], like ‘cause I don’t—at least I don’t think I know—anybody with HIV or

89

AIDS...” is a good example the second group, personal denial. Her attitude is
one that was repeated frequently where students acknowledged that HIV was in
fact a problem, but not one that they would ever realistically have to deal with, as
echoed by Greg when he said, “...it was kind of interesting to learn about where it
[HIV] is now, but it really didn’t have anything to do with me—has nothing to do
with my future. . Some students however recognized the fallacy of this position,
like Emma who said, “...I know we say that it’s not relevant to us, but I mean, you
could get it. You never know. You know, it could happen to us, and it’s nice to
know ‘cause now we know more about it...”

The third grouping of comments referencing myths and misconceptions
were less common than one might have expected; however, the majority of
students in question (~63%) were senior biology majors who probably have had
a greater exposure to information about HIV than the average citizen. The most
common myth that was cited by students was that HIV is an African problem, and
not really an issue in the industrialized world. This is evidenced by Jui-Fu’s
comment that, “I only know that there’s a lot of AIDS cases in Africa...” and Lisa’s
statement that,

I know that HIV is something that we should all be concerned about, and it

is a world problem but, as far as being on my radar, it’s probably one of

the most minor things that I would think about...

Need-to-know science. Prior to conducting the focus group interviews, I

expected a large number of students to make comments associated with Need-

to-Know science, which is information or knowledge gained in response to

90

specific or potential problems in a student’s life. In fact, only 20 student
comments were coded into the subcategory (1.7%; see Table 7). It surprised me
that so many of the students interviewed contextualized their experiences as
functional science, which applied to future vocational or professional need, rather
than in terms of personal application as had been noted in a previous study.
Comments coded here either referenced immediate applicability, or potential
future need. Examples of the former include Zoe’s statement that, “At first I
wasn’t real happy about doing it, but during the semester someone in my life has
been diagnosed with HIV, so it’s helped me understand the disease a lot,” and
Leah’s acknowledgement that, “. . .[Case Itl] just makes me more aware of what I
should and shouldn’t be doing.” Ashley illustrated future relevance when she
said, “...I also think it helps in personal life if it’s your friend or loved one that’s
going to have to deal with this disease...” as does Teresa’s comment that, . .if
you did have to go get tested, you’d be one step ahead of the average person...”

Level of application. Many students at both the majors and introductory
levels indicated that they felt Case It! had the potential to be a factor in helping
students decide on biology or science as a major—especially if presented at
lower level, such as high school and introductory courses. This perspective was
illustrated by Kira, who said that,

...Potentially [this is the kind of experience that might lead people to be

biology majors]. Maybe for like those Biology 150 classes that are just

going through it right now... They’re in their first or second year of college,
so maybe it’d be more useful doing it at that stage...

91

Nicole said that the earlier students were exposed to projects like Case It! the
better, saying, “If Case It! was brought to high school students, that would get
them more interested in science, and maybe more interested in taking science as
a major in college. Because that’s what really got me interested in my major...”
Overview of case studies B-F

The next five case studies are class-specific investigations of the research
questions. Included are case studies of all 5 classes tested at 4 study sites. Two
classes at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls were tested, BIOL 150 an
introductory biology course for majors, and BIOL 345 a majors level immunology
course. BIOL 401 at North Carolina State A&T was a majors level molecular
biology course, while MEDT 4531 at Interamerican University of Puerto Rico
(Metropolitan Campus) was a majors and post-baccalaureate clinical immunology
course, and BIOL 4600 at Interamerican University of Puerto Rico (San German
Campus) was a majors level histology course.
Case study B: University of Wisconsin-River Falls, BIOL 150 (UWRF-NM)

Overview. Of the 50 students enrolled in BIOL 150 at the UWRF in spring
semester 2009, 43 chose to participate in this study (86%). As Table 2 shows,
participating students reflected the norms of the class in terms of class standing
and gender. It is important to note that, although this is a major’s level course,
roughly 58% of all students were non-majors, primarily from the agricultural

sciences. The 5 most popular career choices were agriculture, other fields,

92

conservation, teaching, and veterinary medicine, and reveal this trend toward
non-STEM fields.

Student performance. As Figure 5 shows, students at UWRF-NM
significantly improved their performance from the pre- to post-test (t(41)=4.265,
ps.001). As with the overall dataset, time was the only significant factor
influencing performance. An item analysis of questions revealed that students
significantly improved on only questions 1 and 6 (see Table 8). Again, ceiling
effects may have limited results for question 2 as post-test means approach the
maximum possible (M=3.381, max=4). Similar to overall results, participants at
UWRF-NM significantly improved their confidence on all 6 test items, even when
there was no statistical improvement in score (see Table 8).

Student intentions to persist. Students at UWRF-NM made more
comments referencing persistence proxies than the overall average, accounting
for a little more than 51% (n = 208) of all statements (see Table 9). Descriptive
statistics indicate that while students generally agreed that Case Itl reinforced
their desires to be science majors (M=2.801, 1-5 Likert scale), they had slightly
lower opinions than overall, cross-site average (M=3.304, 1-5 Likert scale).
Nominally fewer students in this introductory class said the project was relevant
to their lives (56%) compared to the cross-site mean of 59% for all students
sampled, indicating a degree of universal relevancy. Of the 43 participating
students from BIOL 150, 77% agreed that the Case Itl project would help them

with either future classes or careers, a full 10% lower than the cross-site average,

93

5.0 w 0 .0 28:29.0 ..

 

 

8.0 w a a 58:65 . .082
:mmoé 3N; 5mm 0mm; m 9.300: EEEBEBB :0 5:50.925 m0
85.0 RN; 08.0 03.0 m 0.20 3
5000 9:00:28 :_ 9.300: :0 5:00:03.
:mmmd mm 2 mead «mam m 3:080 9:00:38 :_ $500: :0 5:00:03 v0
:mmoé vmmd vad mmvd m Em 52003 .m> <m_._m *0 :0w_._0:E00 m0
.5390 IN; mmm.m 3mm m 0:300: Em 59002, :0 5:30.925 «0
tmmmd N00; 055 mmmd m 0:000: <m_._w :0 5:90.925 5
8:002:00 < mm :mmE :09: .0000
-30: -05 .05
.8on mmoé mmnd mmvd m 9500: 8:952:65 :0 8:90.925 m0
08.0 08.0 003 003 v 220 no
5000 05.00500 :_ £500: :0 :0_~mo__aa<
08.0 mm: 000.. 80.: v 2:93 05.858 s 958. .6 88232 v0
oomd 0mm; mmoé mmmd n Em £2002, .w> <m3m :0 coacmano m0
05.0 Duo; 5mm {cm 0 9.500: Em £9003 *0 8:90.905. «0
2.80.0 mmmd momm «med v 0:300: <m_._m :0 5:90.902. 5
:002 < mm :09: :00E .0000
.200: -05 .05

 

.as u s 09:8 :05 90.0.5-6: « 32...:m33 :2 09m 90.: bemusmcooag :0 5.9022:

0.: E 200303 9 -03 E0: :00. EmEmmmmmm 02.2:me: :0 00:00:28 0:0 gemstotmq E0020 :mmE E 009:ch

.m 03m...

94

Table 9.

Categories of comments and their instances for the University of Wisconsin—
River Falls BIOL 150 (UWRF-NM) non-majors level course (n =405)

 

 

Category n %

Intentions to persist 208 51.34%
Instructional quality: 96 23.70%
Role-playing: 40 9.88%
Functional science: 35 8.64%
Self-efficacy: 29 7.1 6%
Community/Integrated into science: 8 1.98%

Beliefs: 197 48.64%
Learning: 42 10.37%
Diagnostic testing process: 39 9.63%
Science content: 37 9.14%
Communication: 23 5.68%
Multiple perspectives: 20 4.94%
Turned off science: 16 3.95%
Need-to-know: 1 1 2.72%
Stigma/Denial/Misconceptions: 9 2.22%

 

Note: Percentage calculated by [n(category) / total n}

95

but hardly surprising given the number of non-majors enrolled. When results
were sub-divided by majors and non-majors groupings, the results were
interesting, especially given that both non-majors and majors groups had roughly
equivalent ratios of men-to-women (44:66 vs. 39:61) and freshmen-to-
upperclassmen (28:72 vs. 22:78). Surprisingly, non-majors had slightly higher
opinions of the project’s future utility (79% vs. 75%) and relevance (60% vs. 50%)
than majors. However, majors were more positive about the project’s influence
on their choice of major (M=3.000 vs. M=2.654).

As shown in Table 9, students from UWRF-NM made comments in all 5
persistence proxy categories found across all sites. Compared to overall
averages, students in BIOL 150 equally valued instructional quality (23.7% vs.
21.6; see Tables 7 and 9) and feelings of community or integration (~2.0% vs.
1.8%; see Tables 7 and 9). Comments related to feelings of self-efficacy were
more common at UWRF-NM (7.2%; see Table 9). The importance of role-playing
and functional science was reversed at UWRF-NM. While still ranked 2 and 3 in
number of comments, students in BIOL 150 made more comments related to
role-playing (9.8% vs. 8.6%; see Tables 7 and 9) and fewer about functional
science (8.6% vs. 10.0%; see Tables 7 and 9) than the overall average.

While only 42% of participants had declared science as a major, many
said they thought Case It! would be useful in the future. Students like Noah and
Logan spoke to the project’s future application when they said that, “...[Case Itl]

definitely applies to my future career...and there are so many cases

96

where...genetics, or nutrition...and diseases...come into play,” and, “...I think
Case It! really helped for my future classes. . .” Other students like Jessica were
more direct about the influence of Case Itl when she said, “...[it] helped me pick a
major because it kind of helped me broaden my horizons as to what is out there
for the science aspect of everything...” Jane said that, “...[because of Case Itl]
and what we’ve done...l [have] decided to go into genetic counseling.”

Student beliefs. The vast majority of students at UWRF-NM agreed that
the project was a good learning experience (93%) and 56% said it was relevant
to their personal lives. As a group, students were confident in their knowledge of
infectious diseases and genetic disorders (M=3.652, Likert scale 1-5). Students
said that their interest in disorders had increased significantly as a result of
participating in Case Itl (t(45)=5.197, ps0.001). Figure 8 shows that unlike the
overall average, students in BIOL 150 thought the two most useful components
of the project were conferencing and internet research. When the class was
divided into majors and non-majors, the two groups disagreed on the projects
value and relevancy, but the only significant difference was that non-majors had
less confidence in their knowledge than majors students (t(44)=2.388, ps0.05).

Students at UWRF-NM made fewer comments about their beliefs than the
average (48.6% vs. 52.9%), but did comment on all 8 categories found overall
(see Tables 7 and 9). The number of comments made within each category
varied, with the majority falling into the learning (10.4%), diagnostic testing

process (9.6%), and science content (9.1%) categories (see Table 9). Logan

97

said, “...[I] like[d] the lab because you actually get to do it—the hands-on
experience—and you know the kind of tests you need to do, and how to do
them...” reflecting most students’ ideas about learning. However, others reported
one of the project’s main benefits was devel0ping analytical processes, like
Nerissa who said that, “...Case Itl helped me think a little bit more critically about
the questions being asked of me...” Many of the student comments regarding
diagnostic testing processes focused on the project’s ability to demonstrate
complex tests and procedures in a situation where it was okay to make mistakes,
and where those mistakes were not costly in terms of either money or time. This
belief was exemplified by Noah who said, “I felt like I learned a lot more, and it
really made me understand how tests are run...” and Jane,
...I like going on computers and knowing how to do it step by step
because I think it would make me really nervous to just go in there [wet
lab]. I’d probably do it [the test] and mess up. And then you’ve just
wasted an hour of your time. But on a computer if you mess up you can
just click “clear” and do it again, and you’ve only wasted like five minutes.
Many of the students at UWRF-NM expressed appreciation of the program’s
ability to connect content knowledge with application, which were coded as
science content. Andrew spoke to me about how the real-world situations in
Case It! helped prepare him, even though he’s not a biology major saying,
I’m in crop and soil science and I do a lot of sales and advising...and it’s
shocking what people don’t know. So as far as a conferencing goes,
[Case Itl] does relate to real life experiences—how you would answer

peOple—because I know these questions may be stupid, but believe me
people to ask them. And they mean it.

98

Other students like Aaron were more general, as when he said, . .its pretty cool
to learn all about the diseases,” while Jessica said “. . .it’s interesting to put all the
different elements together and find out the results.”

The remaining 5 categories of student beliefs were relatively similar to the
overall findings, except for “turned off science” («1.0% vs. 2.3%; see Tables 7
and 9). At UWRF-NM there were some students who were vocal in their dislike
of the project because of its heavy reliance upon computer simulations. William
said, “I felt removed from doing the actual scientific tests by just pointing and
clicking on a file...” while Charlie said, “I’m just not good with computers at
all...so it was just really, really [sic] confusing for me.” Another student, Casey,
said, “I’m a dairy science major, why do I need to know how to use computers?”
Several students were exasperated at the lack of “wet lab” time, like Kira who
said,

...we had maybe two days that we actually spent in a live laboratory, and I

feel like [for a biology class] it could have maybe hit home more if we had

spent actual time in the lab as well as online.
Others like Megan said, “...l’m good with computers and everything, but
honestly...l’m more of a hands-on person.”

Level of application. While a few of the non-majors students (n = 7) at
UWRF—NM said the Case Itl project was too detailed and advanced, other
students (both majors and non-majors) reported it was appropriate and
beneficial. Jane said that Case Itl “...caused a real spark—l really like

genetics—it kind of has me rethinking my emphasis again. It was helpful, and l

99

might change my major...” This sentiment was echoed by Jessica who said,
“lt...helped me pick a major because it kind of helped me broaden my horizons
as to what is out there. . Other students like Jodi and Rebecca agreed that the
project had positive effects on their future academic careers saying, “. . .it’s
another aspect of what I could be getting into as a major. I’m only a freshman, so
I have time to change—maybe go a different way...” and “...it kind of has me
thinking about going in a different direction with my [biology] major...”

Case study C: University of Wisconsin-River Falls, BIOL 345 (UWRF-M)

Overview. Roughly 97% (n = 39) of the students enrolled in BIOL 345
during spring semester 2009 agreed to participate in this study. Participants
reflected the class averages in all ways with approximately a 25/75 split between
juniors and seniors, and a 40/60 split between men and women (see Table 2).
Students in this class were 95% biology majors. The five most popular career
choices were other healthcare, research, other fields, medical technology, and
biotechnology.

Student performance. Students’ performance at UWRF-M significantly
improved from the pre- to the post-test (t(25)=2.599, ps0.05; see Figure 5). As
with the aggregate dataset, gender did not influence performance, only time. An
item analysis of questions revealed that students significantly improved on
questions 3, 4, and 5, but significantly decreased on question 1 (see Table 10).
This decrease only occurred at this site, and may have been the result of

students’ confusion between different tests or‘errors in interpreting the tests.

100

0.0 w 0 .0 5000.000 ..

 

 

00.0 v. 0 .0 E00...:0.0 .. 0.02
....0000 000; 000.0 000.0 0 0.300. 00.005.02.05 .0 0000.05.25 00
...000. F 000. F 000.0 000.0 0 0.0.0 00
5000 m:..00::00 :_ 00.300: 00 :0..00..00<
..0000 00., 000.0 000.0 0 0000.00 05.000000 0. 0.300. .0 00000.02 00
0.0.0.0 000; 000.0 000.0 0 0.0 50.002, .9 <0...m .0 000000500 00
.1000 00; 000.0 000.0 0 0.300. .20 50.002, .0 0000.90.20. 00
..0000 .00; :2. 000.0 0 00.000. <0_._0 .0 0000.90.20. 5
00:00::00 4 mm :00E :00E .0000
-0000. -000. .05
000.0 .00.: 000.0 0000 0 00.000. 000050.50... .0 0000.05.20. 00
..0000 . . . 0.20
50 P 3.0 F 0: o v 5000 05.00500 :. 00.000. 00 5.00.390. 00
.0000 00.1 000.0 000.0 0 0.0000 05.000000 0. 0:000. ..0 00000.02 00
.0000 000.0 00.0 000.0 ... .20 50.002, .0> <0_._m. .0 000000500 00
000.0- 000.0 000.0 000.0 0 0.300. 0.0 50.002. .0 0000.05.02. 00
2.0000- 000.0 03.0 000.0 0 0.500. .030 .0 0000.00.20. 5
:005. 4 mm :00E :00E .0000
-0000. -0.n. .05

 

.«00 u 0. 00500 .00. 0.0.05 0......ka 000 00.0 0.0... 000015000000: ..0 0.00000:
05 .0 003000 0. -03 500 .00. E0E000000 05500. :0 000000000 000 0000050000 E0050 000:. 0.. 0000000

.2 0.90...

101

Again, ceiling effects may have limited results for question 2 as both pre- and
post-test means approach the maximum possible. Similar to overall results,
participants at UWRF-M significantly improved their confidence on all 6 test items
at ps0.01 level, even when they performed significantly worse on a question or
did not improve at all (see Table 10).

Student intentions to persist. The same themes and codes described
in the previous section were applied to the focus group interviews and student
surveys of pupils at UWRF-M. The overall picture presented was an intention to
persevere in program. Comments related either directly to student persistence or
persistence proxies accounted for just over 42% (n = 216) of all statements (see
Table 11), roughly 5% fewer than the aggregate average (see Table 7). Students
at UWRF-M had a slightly higher level of agreement that Case It! reinforced their
desires to be science majors than the average (M=3.405 vs. M=3.304).
Interestingly, more students in BIOL 345 (89% vs. 87% aggregate) thought Case
It! would be valuable to them in future classes or careers, but 13% fewer felt that
it was personally relevant to their lives (46% vs. 59%). Students like Sid said
that, “...[Case Itl] definitely reinforced my desire to go into bioinformatics,” while
others like Greg said, “...it’s [the content knowledge] going to stick now. After the
end of the semester, I’m still going to be able to remember this.”

As Table 11 shows, student comments about persistence from UWRF-M

reflect the same order as aggregate results, with slightly lower percentages.

102

Table 1 1.

Categories of comments and their instances for the University of Wisconsin—
Fiiver Falls BIOL 345 (U WRF-M) majors level course (n =509)

 

 

Category n %

Intentions to persist 216 42.44
Instructional quality: 101 19.84
Functional science: 44 8.64
Role-playing: 41 8.06
Self-efficacy: 24 4.72
Community/Integrated into science: 6 1.12

Beliefs: 293 57.56
Diagnostic testing process: 74 14.54
Science content: 63 12.38
Learning: 59 1 1.59
Multiple perspectives: 34 6.68
Communication: 34 6.68
Stigma/Denial/Misconceptions: 1 5 2.95
Turned off science: 10 1.96
Need-to-know: 4 0.79

 

Note: Percentage calculated by [n(category) / total n]

103

Clearly the way material was presented in Case Itl mattered to students, as the
greatest number of comments at UWRF-M were about instructional quality (n =
101; see Table 11), and were more than double the next category, functional
science (n = 44; see Table 11). Students reported that they appreciated the
novel way in which Case Itl introduced them to both material and procedures,
and the speed at which they were able to conduct genetic tests. Maggie said,
“...you see how [HIV] actually affects real people...And you see all sorts of
different aspects, like they show you a little video,” while Lisa said that, “...by
reading the case studies, it made it more applicable to me...reading about people
who actually... like this is their story, this is what happened to them... made it
more real to me.” Both Lisa and Olivia were positive about using the Case Itl
environment to conduct complex genetic assays when they said, “...doing [tests]
on Case Itl, it was giving us the results that it was supposed to be giving us,” and
“[With Case Itl] you actually get results, whereas our lab went horribly wrong—we
didn’t get very good results on our Western Blots.” Other students like Sid were
more general in their praise stating, “I really liked it. I kind of felt like I was House
curing people,” referring to the popular television series.

Students at UWRF-M also appreciated the learning environment’s ability
to present them with “real-world” situations in which they could both apply
theoretical knowledge and envision themselves in a professional context. Given
that this was an upper division course populated primarily by seniors (see Table

2) who expect to be shortly on the job market, it is unsurprising that many

104

students related this experience to needed occupational skills or translating
theory to application. Comments related to these feelings were coded as either
“functional science” or “role-playing” depending on the context, and aggregately
accounted for approximately 16.7% of all student statements (see Table 11).
Rachael wanted to be a nurse and said, “...I thought that [role-playing] gave me a
lot more opportunity to...practice [compassionl—like being the counselor and
stuff like that. So, I think that was probably the coolest part for me.” This
opportunity to practice professional skills was echoed by Maggie when she said,
“...it was...really neat to do the [role-playing] portion of [Case lt!]—we don’t really
get to do that a great deal in any other BIO courses, so that was also great.”
Autumn said, “I definitely think [Case Itl] helped prepare me for a career,” and
Neil said that, “. . .it’s like some practice if you will for future life, kind of a real-life
situation.”

Student beliefs. Roughly 92% of participants at UWRF-M thought that
Case It! was a good learning experience for them, which was slightly lower than
both UWRF-NM and the aggregate average, but not significantly so. It is
interesting to note that only 46% of students said the project was relevant to their
personal lives as compared to 56% with the introductory students at UWRF-NM
and 59% of students overall. This may be linked to the relatively large number of
comments made by students in this class related to stigma, denial, or
misconceptions about HIV (n=15; see Table 11). Roughly 55.6% of all

comments coded into this category were made by students at UWRF-M (see

105

Tables 7 and 11). Lisa’s comment seemed to sum up many students’ feelings

about the project’s relevancy,

I know that HIV is something that we should all be concerned about, and it

is a world problem, but as far as being on my radar, it’s probably one of

the most minor things that I would think about...
Aaron said flat out that HIV was not relevant to him, but amended that statement
when he said, “I suppose if you include career in there, maybe...but personally it
[HIV] isn’t [relevant].” Other students like Katie chose to speak for the group with
her denial of relevancy when she said,

I think its hard for us to find it relevant to our lives, just because none of us

are affected personally by AIDS or HIV. So, its hard for us to relate to this

project because none of us have [it]...
A few students at UWRF-M like Emma did acknowledge that while HIV and AIDS
might be relevant, there were social pressures to deny this saying,

I know we say that its not relevant to us, but I mean, you could get it. You

never know...lt could happen to us, and its nice to know because now we

know more about it so if someone we knew or we got it (God forbid!)...we
know what to do.

Despite over half the class feeling that Case It! lacked personal relevance,
participants at UWRF-M said the project increased their confidence in their
knowledge of HIV (M=3.660), and increased their interest in HIV (t(36)=5.097,
ps0.001). Figure 8 shows students in BIOL 345 most valued the same two
components of Case It! as the overall average, the virtual lab and conferencing.
Pupils at UWRF-M made more comments about their beliefs (57.6%; see Table

11) than either the average (52.9%; see Table 7) or UWRF-NM (48.6%; see

Table 9). While they made comments in all 8 categories, the majority of

106

observations (~67%) were about diagnostic testing, science content, and learning
(see Table 11).

Several students at UWRF-M found the Case Itl project’s ability to link
disparate ideas in biology and science together (n=34), and its facilitation of
communication techniques (n=34) especially useful (see Table 11 ). Noah said
that Case It! helped him make connections because it, “...[puts you] in that
perspective outside of learning the material, [where] you definitely have to learn
what the people are going through.” Ashley said that, .

[Case Itl] kind of helped me think outside the box—it made me think of

different things, different people are coming from different backgrounds,

and classes that they‘ve taken, so they ask different questions, and you're

like, "Hey! Wait a minute...l didn't really think about that over there."
This idea was seconded by Greg when he said, “...it helped you think outside of
how and what you would normally think.” The opportunity to practice
communicating with laymen appeared to be especially appreciated by those
students expecting to pursue careers in the health sciences. Autumn said Case
It! helped her by, “...being able to relate to your patients, and think on their
Ievel...l think sometimes people just get caught up thinking, ‘Oh well this sounds
more scientific...’ but you have to think about what’s going to be more
understandable.” This was echoed by both Eli and Catherine who said, “...you
have to know how to. . .explain terms that people might not understand so that
you can actually get your point across and tell them what they need to know,”

and “I definitely felt the most beneficial part was understanding the results, and

being able to put them into words that a patient can understand.” Tom was

107

perhaps more practical when he said, “...you actually had to explain it, so you
really had to know it.”

Level of application. Several students at UWRF-M suggested that Case
It! could significantly impact STEM program entrance and retention if offered at
lower levels, such as high school and introductory courses. Kelly said that, “..if
Case It! was brought to high school students, or intro classes, that would get
them more interested in science,” and Emma said that, “...this could definitely
affect freshmen looking to pick a major.” These comments echoed those of the
beginning students in BIOL 150 at UWRF-NM described above. Overall, while
most participants at UWRF-M said that the project had reinforced their desires to
be science majors, they were already so invested in their majors in terms of time
and money, almost nothing could convince them to switch.

Case study D: North Carolina State A&T University, BIOL 401 (NCA&T)
Overview. The class at NCA&T represented the greatest sampling
deviance. Of the 20 students enrolled in BIOL 401, only 6 chose to participate in

this study (30%), and all were women, whereas in the overall class 20% of
students were men. Participants did however reflect the class averages for
G.P.A. and class standing (see Table 2). The five most popular career choices
were physician, other fields, research, teaching, and other health care.
Student performance. Unlike the previous two classes and the overall
average, students at NCA&T did not demonstrate any significant performance

improvement from the pre- to the post-test (t(4)=1.500; see Figure 5); however,

108

this is likely due to the low number of participants that took both exams (n = 5) as
gain scores for this class are slightly higher than those recorded for both UWRF-
NM and UWRF-M (see Figure 6). An item analysis revealed that there was very
little significant movement for students at NCA&T in terms of either question
performance or question confidence (see Table 12). The only question to show
significant improvement was item 5, and only question 1 showed a significant
increase in confidence (see Table 12). Results from this class, however, must be
carefully examined for two reasons: (a) ceiling effects definitely influenced results
for question 2 as scores for both the pre- and post-tests were just 0.2 off the
maximum possible, and probably influences confidence scores on questions 1, 2,
and 4 as those means also approach the maximum value (see Table 12); and (b)
the low number of participants reduces the probability that even a large
difference would be statistically significant.

Student intentions to persist. A greater percentage of student
comments from NCA&T referenced persistence proxies (54.2%; see Table 13)
than the overall average (47.2%; see Table 7). All (100%) of the participating
students agreed that Case It! would help them with future classes or careers, and
they had a higher level of agreement that the project reinforced their desires to
be science majors than the average (M=4.167). Students at NCA&T also said
that the project was more relevant to their lives (66.7%) than the average (59%),
UWRF-NM (56%), or UWRF-M (46%). Students like Leah said the project,

“. . .helps you when you think about a career, and what you want to do,” and Alice

109

.00 00 .0 2000.000 ..

 

 

000 w 0 .0 .000_._..0_0 .. 0.0...
000.. R00 000.0 000.0 0 0....00. 000050.50... .0 :0..0.0.0.0.:. 00
00.0.0 . 80... 000.0 0....0
0.00 o 0 .0000 05.00500 5 0....00. .0 5:00:00... 00
0000 0000 00.0... 000... 0 0.00.00 05.00500 c. 0.300. .0 00:00:00.. 00
000.. 000.. 000... 000.0 0 Em :.0.00>> .0> <0...m. .0 50.00500 00
00.0.0 000... 000... 000... 0 0....00. Em :.0.00>> .0 5:00.005 00
.08.. 000.0 000... 000.0 0 0....00. .0.ij .0 :0..0.0.0.0.:. .0
00:05.50 4 mm 505 :00... .0000
-.000 0.0 0.0
000.0 00 ... 000.. 000.. 0 0....00. 05.05.0503 .0 :0..0.0.0.0.:. 00
.000. . . 000.0 000. . 0....0
00¢ 0 .0 .0000 05.00500 5 0500. .0 5:00:00... 00
000.0- 0000 000.. 000.0 0 0.00.00 0500.500 ... 0:000. .0 00000.00... 00
000.0 000.0 000... 000.0 0 Em :.0.00>> .0> <03m .0 50:00:50 00
000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 .0 0....00. Em :.0.00>> .0 5:00.005 00
000.. 000.. 000.0 000.0 .0 0500. <0...m. .0 5:00.005 .0
:00... .0 mm :00E c005 .0000
-.000 0.0 0.0

 

110

.0" 0. 00.000 .00. 0.0.0:. n 0.02. .00 00.0 . 0.. 00.0.00
.502 .0 002000 0. -05 50... .00. 505000000 0:..500. :0 00:00.58 0:0 00:05.0...00 5000.0 :005 :. 0005.5

.3. 0.20-r

Table 13.

Categories of comments and their instances for North Carolina A& T University
BIOL 401 (NCA&T) majors level course (n =120)

 

 

Category n %

Intentions to persist 64 53.33
Instructional quality: 27 22.50
Role-playing: 1 8 1 5.00
Functional science: 1 1 9.17
Self-efficacy: 5 4.1 7
Community/Integrated into science: 5 4.17

Beliefs: 54 45.00
Diagnostic testing process: 20 16.67
Communication: 9 7.50
Science content: 8 6.67
Learning: 8 6.67
Multiple perspectives: 3 2.50
Need-to-know: 3 2.50
StigmalDenial/Misconceptions: 2 1 .67
Turned off science: 1 0.83

 

Note: Percentage calculated by [n(category) / total n]

111

said, “...it’s given me more experience than I would have gotten with my other
classes, and it helped reinforce why I want to go to medical school.”

As Table 13 shows, students at NCA&T valued the overall instructional
quality of the project roughly equally to the average (see Table 7), but placed a
greater importance on role-playing (15.0%). Students said that role-playing
afforded them numerous experiences they had not had access to previously in
their education, such as the chance to act as a teacher, to practice asking and
answering questions in a real-world environment, and the opportunity to act as
professionals conferencing with peers. Winnie said, “...the role-playing was fun
for me...it was good to just sit down and think about it and ask more questions.”
Alice said the, “...conferencing was very important because [the other students]
asked me questions that I hadn’t, even thought about...so that helped me learn
about different—other—aspects of HIV that I wouldn’t have looked into before
then.” She followed up by saying that she, “...had to go back and get extra
information from [other resources] because the questions that I got asked—well,
they probably weren’t in the textbook.” Teresa spoke to the idea of bi-directional
learning as a product of role-playing when she said,

You’re both learning from each other because one of us is role-playing as

one person, and the other one is role-playing as the other, so you were

supposed to be a doctor and a family member and you would be equally
learning the same from each other.
This perspective was backed up by Kathy, who liked the role-playing aspect of

Case lt! because, “...its like I’m learning from them [the ‘patients’] and they’re

learning from me.”

112

Some students (n = 5; see Table 13) at NCA&T liked that the project made
them feel like they were an active member of, or professionally integrated into,
the scientific community. While not accounting for a large percentage of
comments, students in BIOL 401 did mention it more than twice as often (4.2%;
see Table 13) as the overall average (~2.0%; see Table 7). These statements
are important because they indicate that the Case It! project has the potential to
help students transition from thinking of themselves as passive learners to active
and capable agents of inquiry. Tanisha said that, “...[Case Itl] made it more like
you were actually a doctor,” and “I think the cases linked to [the virtual labs]
made you feel like you were actually working with somebody—doing someone
good.” Leah spoke about bridging the gap between her social and professional
communities when she said, “...HIV affects African-American females the most
now I believe in our age group, so [Case Itl] really made me feel like I could do
something to help. You know, make a difference.” Alice’s commented simply
that, “. . .it felt good to think of myself as a doctor.”

Student beliefs. All (100%) of participants at NCA&T thought that Case
ltl was a good learning experience for them, which was slightly higher than the
aggregate average of 95%. The majority of students (67%) found the project to
be relevant to their lives, and as a group NCA&T students were very confident in
their knowledge of HIV (M=4.500). Participants also reported a significant
increase in interest from before to after Case Itl (t(5)=3.953, ps0.05). Figure 8

shows that students at NCA&T agreed with the overall average that the virtual lab

113

was the most important and useful component of Case Itl; however, they said the
next most useful aspect was creating online webposters. They made fewer
comments about their beliefs (45%; see Table 13) than the aggregate average
(52.9%; see Table 7) or students at UWRF-NM (48.6%; see Table 9) or UWRF-M
(57.6%; see Table 11). Of the 54 comments made about beliefs, over 83% were
in four categories (a) diagnostic testing; (b) communication; (c) science content;
and (d) learning.

As with both UWRF-NM and UWRF-M, students at NCA&T liked the fact
that Case It! allowed them to quickly and accurately conduct complex genetic
tests without the huge investment of time that a wet lab would require. Several
students noted that because of the speed at which Case It! runs tests, mistakes
were learning experiences rather than frustrating wastes of time. This
perspective is typified by Tanisha who said,

...I liked the lab because...in the lab [Case Itl], plenty of times I messed up

on the loading [DNA samples] part, but in the lab [wet lab] if you do that,

its going to be hours before you can redo the test.
Alice immediately followed with the comment that one could, “...just press
‘clear’...” and start again without hours of prep work. Other students appreciated
the range of tests and information available, like Leah who said, “...I thought it
was interesting that we could use the bioinformatics [tools] and show who you
[sic] got the disease from, and who that person actually got the disease from.”
Tanisha liked that she could engage in discovery learning telling me that, “. ..I

didn’t know that you can actually track [viral loads], like over months, and see

114

how the virus has increased." Alice thought, “...[Case ltI] was a good simulation
of actually using infectious diseases, because we'd probably never be able to
work with these sorts of infectious diseases othenlvise.”

A number of comments referenced specific science content that the
project helped students learn (n = 8; see Table 13). Some students liked that
Case It! allowed them to practice running and reading several types of genetic
tests, such as Teresa who said, “...sometimes interpreting tests is hard, but
[Case Itl] makes it easy,” and Tanisha who said, “...it allows you to see the
process that someone actually goes through to get the results.” Other students
like Kathy enjoyed the fact that the project was not formulaic with locked in
results stating, “I thought it was cool that you could get a false positive with [Case
Itl] just like in real life...” Transmission and treatment of HIV were the subject of
other comments. Leah said, “...it was interesting to know that just because some
of the cases were in the US. and some were in Africa, they all contracted [HIV]
the same way.” Teresa said, “...it was interesting to see how long it takes for the
medicines to start working against the virus.”

A few students (n = 3; see Table 13) at NCA&T related the information
they were learning either to current or potential personal use in the category
“need-to-know science.” Leah said that,

[Case Itl] informed me more, and it is going to make me be more careful

that I was being before because of all the different cases and the different

background of each person, and how they actually contracted the virus. It
just made me more aware of what I should and shouldn't be doing.

115

Teresa talked about more specific application of her knowledge when she said,
“...if you did have to get tested, you’d be one step ahead of the average person,”
while Winnie simply said, “...you could get it. You just never know, so I’m glad I
did [Case ltl].”

Level of application. As with UWRF-M, students at NCA&T reported that
the project did reinforce their desires to be scientists, but that they were unlikely
to have switched programs because they were so heavily invested. They did
think though that Case It! had the potential to positively influence entrance and
retention of students into STEM fields if offered earlier.

Case study E: Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, MetrOpolitan
Campus, MEDT 4531 (lUPR—M)

Overview. Only 23% (n = 6) of the students enrolled in MEDT 4531
agreed to be part of this study. Participation was affected by the timing of testing
and interviews, which had to be scheduled after 4:30pm on a day when students
had taken a final exam for another course. As Table 2 shows, study participants
closely mirrored overall averages for their class in every way except for the ratio
of men to women. Men and women were equally represented in the focus group
interviews, but men accounted for only about 17% of the overall class. All
students in MEDT 4531 were either seniors or post-baccalaureate. The five most
popular career choices for lUPR-M were medical technology, other healthcare,

research, biotechnology, and physician.

116

Student performance. Like NCA&T, students at lUPR-M did not
demonstrate any significant performance improvement from the pre- to the post-
test (t(4)=1.677; see Figure 5); however, this is again likely due to the low
number of participants who took both the pre- and post-tests (n = 5). Figure 6
shows that students at lUPFl-M in fact posted the largest gain scores for all five
classes tested, but not significantly so. An item analysis of questions showed
that there was significant improvement only on question 4 (see Table 14). Just
like every other previous site and the overall average, it appears that ceiling
effects may have influenced gain scores on question 2 where both pre- and post-
test scores approach the maximum value. Student confidence in their answers at
lUPR-M improved significantly on questions 1-4 at the ps0.05 level or better (see
Table 14), which is similar to both the overall averages, and results from UWRF-
NM and UWRF-M. As with results from NCA&T, the small sample size requires
that all results be carefully assessed.

Student intentions to persist. Participants at lUPR-M only mentioned
four of the five categories identified as persistence proxies, with roughly 61.5% of
all their comments falling into these groupings (see Table 15). As with the other
sites, student comments from IUPFl-M present the impression of intending to
persist. As with NCA&T, all of the students at lUPR-M agreed that the Case It!
project would help them with future classes and careers. These students also
had a higher opinion that the project reinforced their desires to be science majors

than the overall average (M=4.000 vs. M=3.304). Unlike all other sites, all

117

55 v. a a 285:3 ..

 

 

mod w a a .58:ng . .682
com; Nona oom.v coed m 9.3.0.9 moszhohEoE So co_§m§2c_ m0
mm 2 . mama. nopd 230

use r m Scam 958.58 E $.89 u_o :o_fio__aa< mo
.83 «85 come 83 m 9:23 8:858 s 958. co 85232 3
Rmod 0 Ed coed «mod m SE 5933 .m> <m_._m ho cowtmanO m0
Rm: mmnd Ewe oomd m 9.39 SE 5933 Co 552992;. NO
toov; mwmd cové 806 m $.39 <w_._m “.0 8:92925 PO
85350 < ow cmoE came .38
-fioa -Sn. 9n.
com; mac; com; oomd m 2.28. woszLoEBB co 529992;. m0
mood . com. F mmwd 230
com F v. Scam mc=omc=oo E wzamo. “o cosmo=aQ< m0
...we; mmnd mmmN E: v 9:93 9.63:8 5 93mm. .6 828:2? v0
oood 3.1 086 oooé n Em Sofie; .m> <m_._m So comzmano m0
Etc 8: $3.” oomd v 9.32 Em 5282, .o cozfleefic. «O
med ammo wand no flu v 9.39 <m_._w __o c0:£2&2c_ F0
:35. < om cmoE cmmE .wmoa
amen. -mi .wE

 

«m n 5 @238 3%: 20me 3&12 V “may .51”: cmfioqobmélooi cream Lo 5.229.223 :motmEchE
hm Being 9 .mi Eat ES EmEmmmmmm mEEmE :o mocmbacoo bcm outmELotmq ”totem 585 E 89ch

.3. 2an

118

Table 15.

Categories of comments and their instances for the lnterAmerican University of
Puerto Rico-Metropolitan MEDT 4531 (IUPFi-M) majors level course (n =39)

 

 

Category n %

Intentions to persist 24 61.54
Instructional quality: 13 33.33
Functional science: 8 20.51
Community/Integrated into science: 2 5.13
Self-efficacy: 1 2.56

Beliefs: 15 38.46
Learning: 8 20.51
Diagnostic testing process: 5 12.82
Need-to-know: 1 2.56
Communication: 1 2.56

 

Note: Percentage calculated by [n(category) / total n]

119

participants (100%) found the learning experience to be relevant to their lives.
Students like José said, “...you can really relate what’s happening in Case It! to
real life and with what you are going to do in your job." Tanira said that, “We’ve
had a really good experience with [Case lt!],” and Caesar said that, “It really
helps you visualize what you need to do.”

Participants spoke about persistence proxies far more often than previous
sites or the aggregate average (see Table 7 and 15); however, the vast majority
(87.5%) of these comments were either about instructional quality (n = 13) or
functional science (n = 8; see Table 15). Most of the students I spoke with at
lUPR-M appreciated that the project provided them with real-world situations, like
Tanira who reported that she said personally engaged because, “It was real
cases of real people.” Caesar said it had gotten him excited to learn because,
“...it got me thinking so much!” and because he, “...liked the HIV cases and
found the topic interesting.”

Other students liked that they were able to apply knowledge they gained in
Case It! directly to their future careers. José said, “...now we have the basic
knowledge of what we will do in our jobs.” Caesar liked Case Itl because, “It lets
you see what is happening, and it makes you feel like you are a doctor.” Margerie
liked the level of fidelity between the virtual environment and wet labs, telling me,
“It’s the same in the lab as in the program...You get to know what you have to

do—you get to see it.” This sentiment was echoed by Daniel when he said,

120

“...we understand because we’re practicing what we’ve learned. So, it’s very
helpful.”

Student bellefs. All (100%) of participants at lUPR-M thought that Case
It! was a good learning experience, and that it was relevant to their lives. These
are the highest levels of agreement recorded for the study. Only NCA&T and
lUPR-SG shared such high opinions of the project being a good learning
experience. lUPR-M was the only site where all students reported the project
was relevant to their personal lives. Students here were also very confident in
their knowledge of HIV (M=4.167, Likert scale 1-5). Students said they
significantly increased their interest in HIV from before to after the Case Itl
experience (t(5)=4.472, p50.01), and found the virtual lab and biotechnology to
be the most valuable components (see Figure 8).

Only 38.5% (n = 15) of all student comments from lUPFl-M were related to
beliefs about Case Itl (see Table 15). Of these, the vast majority (n = 13, 86.7%;
see Table 15) were about either learning or diagnostic testing processes. Daniel
spoke about the learning opportunities Case Itl affords when he said, “You got to
apply the theory—it was like a hands-on training [sic]. A lot of understanding, not
just reading and reading,” and “...with Case ltl we got to practice [lab
techniquesj.” José went on to explain that, “Our culture, we’re more visual. We
learn more when we see things, and that is one way that [Case ltl] helps. You
can learn.” Omyra said that, “[Case Itl] helps you apply knowledge from books,

and that’ll stick with me longer.”

121

Tanira talked about how much she liked the virtual lab saying, “I enjoyed
how easy it was to learn it, how fast and easy it was. I liked that you could see
the whole process too.” Omyra thought the bioinformatics portion of the project
was the best aspect for her saying, “I enjoyed learning the genetic [history] of the
virus HIV.” She went on to tell me that, “[Case Itl] helps me to understand the
process and how it goes on. And the function of each test, and the results of that
test.” José liked that he could, “. . .choose how to do a test, and how you interpret
the results.”

Level of application. There were no student comments from lUPR-M
related to at what level Case Itl should be applied.

Case study F: Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, San German
Campus, BIOL 4600 (lUPR-SG)

Overview. Approximately 55% (n = 12) of the students enrolled in BIOL
4600 during spring semester 2009 agreed to participate in this study. As Table 2
shows, participants reflected the class averages in all ways with 3 exceptions: (a)
participant GPA was slightly higher than average; (b) participant age is slighter
lower; and (o) no juniors or post-baccalaureate students enrolled chose to
participate. All students taking BIOL 4600 were biology majors. The most
popular career choices for participants were physician and other health care
fields.

Student performance. As with NCA&T and lUPR-M, students at IUPR-

SG did not demonstrate any significant performance improvement from pre- to

122

post-test (t(10)=1.576; see Figure 5), although scores did increase. Figure 6
shows that lUPR-SG reported the lowest gain score; however, none of the gain
scores shown are statistically different. Therefore, it is possible that low
participation numbers again influenced the results, as with lUPR-M and NCA&T.
An item analysis of questions showed that there was significant improvement
only on question 6 (see Table 16). It is interesting to note though that unlike all
other study sites, there is no evidence of ceiling effect limiting results for question
2 (see Table 16). The only significant increase in confidence reported by
students at lUPR-SG was on question 1. While the number of participants (n =
12) at this site is larger than either NCA&T or lUPFl-M, it is still likely that there
are not enough data points to convey statistical importance. Given that none of
the gain scores from the five sites tested are statistically different, and that both
UWRF-NM and UWRF-M recorded significant increases in performance from
pre- to post-test, a logical extrapolation of results suggests a larger sample size
at NCA&T, lUPR-M, and lUPR-SG might yield significant gains.

Student intentions to persist. Comments related either directly to
student persistence or persistence proxies accounted for just over 40% (n = 35)
of all statements (see Table 17), roughly 7% fewer than the aggregate average
(see Table 7). Students at lUPR-SG were the most positive that Case Itl
reinforced their desires to be science majors (M=4.333). The vast majority of
students (92%) at lUPR-SG reported the project was relevant to their lives, and

all (100%) agreed that it would help them with future classes or careers.

123

5.0 w a a. 28.555 ..

 

 

124

mod w u a 28.555 . ..soz
oood vmmd no mm no Cm m $.52 8.555555 5 5.55.225 o0
oomd . oomé coed 5.5
vmm F m 505 5.5558 5 $.52 5 5.50.5a< mo
85 :5; 83 8.5 m 9:98 252:8 :_ 23$: 6 8:852 :0
80$ 5.: oom.m oomd m 5.m c5525 .w> <95. 5 55.5950 m0
wand was; «Re mvmd m $.52 5_m c5525 5 5.5.2225 «G
:50; 534 no EV oomN m $.52 <m.._m 5 5.55.225 5
855500 < am 52: 52: .555
50:. -2n. .$d
Lewd mwmd no 3 oomd m $.52 8.555555 5 5.55555. m0
Sod . mad and 5.5
So P v 50.5 955558 5 $.52 5 5.5.2.54. m0
«mod $4.. 5m... «5., e 9:22 252:8 :_ $3.8: .0 85232 3
mmmd mam; oomd EQN \. 5_m c5525 .m> <m...m. 5 55.23500 m0
59.? mp E 805 ommd .V $.52 5.m Ew5m>> 5 5.5.2225 «0
ommd mmoé omnd coma v $.52 <w...m 5 5.5.2225 5
522 < cm 59: cmmE 5on
50¢ -2n. .$n.

 

.«NF .1. 5 52:8 .25. 555E «Swims: 55v 405 5556 285.5. otmzm 5 5.22.5: 50522225
5 52.55. 2 -05 ES“ 52 5225555 5552 5 85.856 55 .8555th 5255 52.: 5 5%:ch

.9 2an

Table 17.

Categories of comments and their instances for lnterAmerican University of
Puerto Rico—San German BIOL 4600 (IUPFi-SG) majors level course (n :87)

 

 

Category n %

Intentions to persist 35 40.23
Functional science: 18 20.69
Instructional quality: 14 16.09
Community/Integrated into science: 2 2.30
Self-efficacy: 1 1 .15

Beliefs: 52 59.77
Diagnostic testing process: 22 25.29
Learning: 15 17.24
Science content: 8 9.20
Multiple perspectives: 3 3.45
Communication: 3 3.45
Need-to-know: 1 1 .15

 

Note: Percentage calculated by [n(category) / total n]

125

Of the 35 comments made by students about persistence proxies, 91.4%
referred to either functional science or instructional quality (see Table 17). Many
of the students at lUPR-SG linked what they were learning in Case It! to future
jobs or careers, like Carla who said, “I want to be a doctor in the future, and I
understand from the program that l have to examine each case as carefully and
as thoroughly as doctors really must.” Eva expressed this same perspective
when she said, “I got the experience of being the doctor, and doing the tests, and
giving the patient the results.” Miguel said,

Its important to learn about different areas, even though you’re going to be

a professional, so if something else happens, or a different case, or if

someone else comes in with a different illness that’s not common, you will

know [what to do].
Ferdinand and Tanya were more general in their comments, “...my knowledge
built from Case It! [will] help me in a future job,” and “...the hands-on training...is
going to be helpful in the future.”

Students at IUPR-SG appear to have especially appreciated the
autonomous learning functions of the Case It! project, Myra said, “I liked that I
could get a certain disease, and know the results afterward by myself,” and Juan
said, “I liked it because in this college, we don't have that many opportunities to
do research, and I don’t have to leave my desk to do my research.” Other
students particularly said the project served as a mental springboard for them to

satisfy their curiosities about other diseases and disorders. Jorge exemplified

this attitude when he said,

126

It increased my curiosity for other diseases that are not found in Puerto

Rico, but are in other parts of the world. I know now the diseases and the

tests, and if you put [an unknown] disease in front of me, I am more able

to figure it out, even though I’m not from those places. And I know how to

[deal with] the diseases [when they] come up.

Maritza echoed this idea stating, “I can learn about diseases that l have never
seen or never heard about. Now I can understand more about them because of
the program.” Still other students just enjoyed the novelty of an alternate
instructional approach, like Stephan who said, “I enjoyed the virtual lab, even
though we used normal methods in the laboratory, this is different—out-of—the-
box—and I enjoyed working with them. It was very interesting for me.”

Feeling personally or emotionally involved with the characters of the cases
was a common sentiment across all sites, but was especially noticeable amongst
students in BIOL 4600. Students like Luisa said,

I felt emotionally involved with the case of Jennifer. Actually the case

Jennifer is close to my age, and as typical young adults—we are careless

sometimes, and we do things that we should probably not be doing, but

we still do them—and the case opened my eyes to be more careful about
what I do in my life.
Maritza said, “It really opened my eyes,” and Cruz said, “...it helped to research
just one specific case study...to see how [HIV] affects people on this sort of
level— just to get a personal aspec

Student beliefs. All (100%) of the participants from lUPR-SG thought

Case It! provided them with a good learning environment, and 92% agreed that it

was relevant to their personal lives. Interestingly, even though only question 1

demonstrated any significant increase in confidence (see Table 16), students at

127

lUPR-SG were the most confident in their knowledge of HIV (M=4.333) of all the
sites. Students also reported that the project significantly helped them increase
their interest in HIV (t(11)=7.091, ps0.001). Unlike at other sites tested, Figure 8
shows that students at lUPFl-SG liked the internet research component of Case
It! the best, followed by both the virtual lab and biotechnology tools.

Almost 60% of all student comments from lUPR-SG were coded as
pertaining to student beliefs (see Table 17). Different from the overall results, no
student comments were coded as either “turned off science” or
“stigma/denlei/misconceptions” (see Tables 7 and 17). The two most common
categories were diagnostic testing procedures and learning. Students like Myra
said they particularly liked the bioinformatics portion of Case Itl, “. . .because in
every aspect [of biology] today, we use technology, internet, and labs, and it is
going to be very useful for me.” Other students like Carla appreciated the virtual
lab because, “...I could use a lot of techniques and I could see the difference in
results in the virtual lab.” Another perspective was expressed by Cruz who said,
“I enjoyed [the virtual lab] because I don’t need the human part—where we could
like, ruin it, or break it, or not get the test result as they are supposed to come
out.” Still others focused on the virtual lab’s ability to inform treatment, like Kira
who said,

It is good to know the way the treatment is going to go, or the sequence of

the tests, for when I start working, or the statistics of how long a person

may live with that condition, or how long they are going to work with me, or
medicines and all types of treatments.

128

Miguel was more general in his praise when he said, “I liked it because I now
know what each test is, and how to interpret the results.”

Many of the students at lUPR-SG said they appreciated the different
learning opportunities Case It! afforded them, like Jorge who said, “...now I can
apply [bioinformatics] research to the knowledge for myself [sic]" or Camilla who
said, “...it was a real hands-on experience that we could learn from.” Others like
José said, “For me it was a very good experience. It helped me with my
knowledge and basis in biology.” Myra expanded her learning beyond physiology
saying, “...even though HIV affects the immunology of the body, I could see how
it affects the feelings and psychology as well,” and, “This project helped me, and
it would help other people build their knowledge—it can help normal people
understand diseases.”

Level of application. There were no student comments from lUPR-SG

regarding at what level Case Itl should be applied.

129

CHAPTER 5: Discussion

In this section I will first summarize the instructional efficacy of the Case It!
learning environment, itemizing 5 key pedagogical components. Second, I will
illustrate some interesting site differences worth noting. Innovations that make
the Case Itl project unique in undergraduate STEM reform will be presented third.
Fourth, I will describe how the project motivates students to learn, and fifth,
describe some limitations of the study. Sixth, I will present ideas for future
research. Seventh, key implications for instructors, future instructors, and
agencies will be described. Finally, I will present my conclusions.

Overall, the Case It! Ieaming environment appears to be an effective
pedagogical tool in stimulating student engagement, interest, and intentions to
persist in their declared major. Students overwhelmingly told me in focus group
interviews that the project was a good learning experience, fun, engaging,
empathetic, and reinforced their intentions to be science majors. The multimedia,
case-based learning environment created an overall context for material from
multiple classes that allowed students to fit all the pieces of their previous
academic instruction together into a single, comprehensive picture—and to place
themselves within that picture. These findings were in sync with previous
research that demonstrated both case studies and multimedia learning
environments may aid students by developing analytical reflection processes
(Callahan, et al., 2008; Dori, et al., 2003; Lundeberg, et al., 1999; Ft. A. Smith 8.

Murphy, 1998), the ability to interact with material via multiple avenues of thought

130

(Herreid, 2006; Kumar & Sherwood, 2007; Walter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009), and

by creating linkages between superficially disparate content areas (Bergland, et

al., 2006; Rybarczyk, et al., 2007; Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009).

Specifically, five aspects of the Case It! program may be singled out as

especially effective pedagogically by both the literature and student comments.

1.

It offers dynamic, high quality instruction that is well received and
reviewed by students. Over 26% of all student comments were related
to instructional quality, and the vast majority of these were positive.
Students enjoyed the autonomy and personal connections that using
case studies and multimedia content offered.

Case Itl actively engages students in their own learning, creating deep
links to content. Participants noted role-playing, peer conferencing,
and developing a personal relationship with the content and case as
especially effective tools for engagement and motivation (Wolter,
Lundeberg, et al., 2009).

Engaged students are more likely to be retained because material is
more relevant and enduring, and they are able to translate theoretical
knowledge in application scenarios. This in turn leads to perceptions
of self-efficacy and the ability to envision themselves as science
practitioners, both of which are proven effective pedagogical tools

(Astin & Astin, 1993; Rybarczyk, et al., 2007; Savery, 2006; Seymour 8.

131

Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990). Case It! is very effective in helping
students imagine themselves as scientists.

4. Case It! provides students with practical, real-world experience with
content and lab processes. It also exposes them to the humanistic
side of science, which is uncommon, demonstrating the effect of their
work. Focus group interview comments indicate that students were
both enthusiastic and surprised by this. The traditional science lecture
is typically very analytical and factual, rarely illustrating connections
between science and society (Aikenhead, 2007), so many students
found the project’s ability to do so illuminating.

5. The project stimulates student curiosity and interest. Many participants
expressed a desire to know more than what instruction provided, and
many are driven to conduct independent research to answer their own
questions. These questions were not just about content, but also
included such topics as advanced lab procedures, empathetic and
interpersonal connections, and the application of their knowledge in
diverse situations. All of these scenarios created a unique and
enduring bond between the material, the experience, and the student
that can potentially increase retention.

Site differences
Individual class analysis identified differences between and within sites.

For example, underclassmen at UWRF found more validity and relevance in the

132

project by projecting its potential use to them personally while upperclassmen
from all other classes predominantly viewed it as a professional resource. The
introductory biology course at UWRF provided an interesting contrast to the
upper division courses, especially in comparing opinions between non-majors
and majors. One might expect non-majors to have a lower overall opinion of a
project that required such deep analysis and aggregation of knowledge; however,
this was not borne by the data. Even though Case It! is a involved project that
deals in depth with complex ideas, this study has shown that it is equally
applicable and effective at both the introductory and upper division levels. This is
probably a result of the scalable nature of learning within Case It! where students
can be engaged at multiple levels and autonomously direct their own learning.

Another interesting difference identified between sites was the stark
contrast in socio-cultural stigma or denial associated with HIV/AIDS in both
classes at UWRF versus the other 3 sites. Over 92% of the student comments
coded as stigma, denial, or misconceptions about HIV came from students
enrolled at UWRF; however, students at lUPR-M and lUPR-SG did not once
mention stigma related issues. Whereas students in Puerto Rico and at NCA&T
noted they were in some of the highest risk categories for contracting HIV, many
students at UWRF were adamant that the disease was irrelevant to them
because they thought they could never get it.

Overall, students in Puerto Rico appeared more positive and enthusiastic

about Case It! than those from either UWRF or NCA&T, although 95% of all

133

students found the project to be a good learning experience. Puerto Rican
students also emphasized the flexibility that the learning environment offered
them in terms of the number of disorders they could potentially study, and the
costs of doing so. In this respect they took perhaps a more practical view of the
project’s application and potential than students at other sites who appreciated
the experience but also wanted more wet labs.
Instructional innovation

An effective pedagogy. Student participants in this study identified the
unique and high quality of instruction as a successful component of the Case It!
learning environment. Learning climate clearly affects students' intentions to
persist in program (Tobias, 1990; Wright, Sunal, 8. Bland Day, 2004). Seymour
and Hewitt (1997) found that perceptions of environment, such as poor teaching
and being turned off science by bad experiences, are important influences on
students’ decisions to leave STEM fields. O'Neal, Wright, Cook, Perorazio, and
Purkiss (2007) found that both instructor and student engagement, interest, and
interaction can have a positive effect on student persistence in STEM programs,
and research by other scholars substantiate these finding (e.g. Astin 8. Astin,
1993; Bonous-Hammarth, 2000; Felder, 1995; Tobias, 1990). Studies
investigating how instruction impacts retention have found that sympathetic,
student-centered learning environments are positive proxies of student

persistence in program (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000; Grandy, 1998).

134

Tinto (1993) states that one of the most important ways to reduced student
attrition in general is to generate social integration among students. Previous
studies focused primarily on student-to-student or student-to-faculty connections
(e.g. Baird, 2000; Braxton 8. Lien, 2000; Stage 8. Hossler, 2000; Tinto, 2000;
Tinto, 2007); however, emerging research has also demonstrated the importance
of student-to-content connections (Wolter, Kang, Lundeberg, Herreid, et al.,
2009; Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). These studies along with others (e.g.
Savery, 2006) have demonstrated that case-based instruction has the potential to
create personal connections between students and the material. Wolter,
Lundeberg, and Bergland (2009) found that content mattered to students and had
the potential to both motivate and engage students. Projects like Case It! can
stimulate student integration with the material by engaging on multiple academic,
personal, and emotional levels.

One of the project aspects on which students commented most frequently
was that it cultivated links between the material and their lives—a development
that students said they appreciated. Case Itl personalized content and made it
“more real” to students, and because of this many believed they would retain the
information longer. It also inspired many students to learn more than required
because they wanted to, “...find out for those maple...” and they felt emotionally
involved. Research has shown that when students feel personally engaged in
their own instruction and have a tangible connection with material, they are less

likely to drop out of program (Seymour 8. Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990).

135

The creation of active engagement learning environments in STEM
classes has been proven to improve student performance (Callahan, et al., 2008;
Felder, 1995) and can increase student interest (Herreid, 2006; Prince 8. Felder,
2006; Walter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). A previous study of the Case Itl learning
environment found that it engages students on multiple academic, personal, and
emotional levels, and can create perceptions of relevancy (Wolter, Lundeberg, et
al., 2009). Koballa and Glynn (2007) state that, “Science learning experiences
that are fun and personally fulfilling are likely to foster positive attitudes and
heightened motivation toward science learning and lead to improved
achievement” (p. 94). Participants repeatedly reported across study sites that
Case It! was both fun and interesting, so the project appears to have
accomplished this goal. Because students were having fun with in the learning
environment, they not only significantly increased their topic interest, but also
their desire to learn. Actively engaging students in material caused them to take
a more dynamic role in their own education. This is borne out by the fact that
several students chose to conduct autonomous, additional research on their case
because it had piqued their interest, stimulated their curiosity, or involved them in
such a way that they felt it incumbent upon themselves to dig deeper to find
answers. Engaged students are more likely to persist in program because they
feel like active participants in their own education, feel incorporated into the

community of scholars in the sciences, and develop perceptions of self-efficacy

136

Aikenhead (2006) noted that personal curiosity was one of the most
significant driving factors for students in science education. This study and
others have shown that Case It! project is extremely good at piquing students
curiosity, empathy, and engagement (Bergland, et al., 2006; Walter, Lundeberg,
et al., 2009). The personal connection that students develop with individuals in
the cases frequently drives them to delve deeper into the project than is required.
Responding to this stimulus, students conducted autonomous research either to
answer questions that other students asked of them in peer conferencing,
because they felt a sense of responsibility to the patients, or simply because they
wanted to know more.

Students cited role-playing and peer conferencing as two of the most
engaging components of Case It! Role-playing can increase student
engagement, allowing students to be more active in developing their own topic
interests (Kofoed, 2006), and can making science more meaningful to students
(Cronin-Jones, 2000). It can also help students understand how classroom
knowledge translates into “real-world” knowledge useful to them in their daily
lives (Kalumuck 8. Doss, 2004). By immersing students in a contextualized
environment, the addition of role-playing can aid in understanding concepts that
might otherwise be abstract and difficult to comprehend (Hokanson, et al., 2008).
By situating the role-playing in the context of real cases, affecting real individuals,
this project helped students apply the relatively abstract facts and information

they learned in the classroom in authentic and tangible scenarios.

137

The use of role-playing in Case It! not only allowed students to view issues
from multiple perspectives, but also provided an alternate dimension to the
learning environment that allows students to learn in safe and non-judged
interaction with the professor and other students (Kang 8. Lundeberg, 2008;
Walter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). Research from Europe suggests that these
informal learning contexts can also reduce student performance anxiety and
subsequently increase desire to participate (Glaser-Zikuda, Ful3, Laukenmann,
Metz, 8. Handler, 2005). Previous research on role-playing within the Case Itl
environment demonstrated that students respond positively to its inclusion, and
frequently become so involved in the role-play that they “lose themselves” in the
context (Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). In the same study, students said they
liked the ability to take on the persona of an scientist, to “be the expert” (Wolter,
Lundeberg, et al., 2009). Kang and Lundeberg (2008) followed selected students
in Case It! through all of their conferencing for a semester, and found that
participation in role-playing led to a development of both student identity and a
deeper understanding of the subject.

Discussion generated within cases or via role-playing interactions was
pedagogically useful because it can trigger cognitive conflict and lead students to
critically analyze topics in an effort to resolve the conflict (Levin, 1999). It was
interesting to note that opinion was divided on the utility of role-playing and
conferencing, especially amongst upperclassmen. Some students, especially

women, appreciated the opportunity to help laymen understand science via role-

138

playing, whereas a few (especially men) found validity only in conferencing as
peers.

A scalable pedagogy. Results from this study show that unlike a
preponderance of other pedagogical tools used in undergraduate STEM reform
(e.g. Fairweather, 2008; P. Fisher, et al., 2005), successful implementation of the
Case ltl Ieaming environment is not instructor dependent. The program is
effective regardless of who is teaching it, where it is taught, in what language it is
taught, and to whom it is taught. Even though the performance data collected in
this study was potentially influenced by multiple distracting factors like: (a)
teacher, (b) length of instruction, (c) time-on-task, ((1) site, (e) language variation,
and (f) specific content beyond the cases used; all students, across all sites
demonstrated a significant increase in pre-lpost-test gain score.

In the realm of undergraduate STEM education reform, this finding is
important because even though there are a host of studies demonstrating the
efficacy of a particular pedagogical reform in a singular setting, the tools often are
not effective across multiple sites or with multiple instructors (Fairweather 8.
Paulson, 2008). Previous research has shown that the such successes are
usually isolated to a single instructor, with little institutional or inter-institutional
dissemination, or are the result of specific institutional commitments who’s effects
are transitory and localized (Eiseman 8. Fairweather, 1996; D. Fisher,
Fairweather, 8. Amey, 2003). Pedagogical innovations often die out because of

the extra time investment they require in preparation and training over traditional

139

methods such as lecture (Labov, et al., 2009). However, Fairweather (2008)
notes that, “The key to improving STEM undergraduate education lies in getting
the majority of STEM faculty members to use more effective pedagogical
techniques than in now the norm in these disciplines” (p. 13). Because of it’s
ease of use and implementation, and it’s scalable applicability, the Case It!
project has the potential to bridge this gap.

The finding of instructor independent efficacy also reinforces Pascarellea
and Terenzini’s assertion that the most effective pedagogical strategies in
pedagogical reform are not discipline dependent (2005). Recent research has
shown that active and collaborative learning environments that motivate and
engage students will result in increased performance regardless of discipline
(Kuh, et al., 2007; Kuh, et al., 2005). This suggests that the Case It! program, or
a derivative of it could be usefully and successfully applied in across a wide
spectrum of STEM fields.

An updateable pedagogy. Textbooks and publisher provided ancillary
materials have an inherent lag time associated with the information they provide
because of the speed of publishing paper-based products (e.g. Knight, 2007;
Yore, 1991). With the ever-increasing rate of discovery within STEM fields, and
the rapid incorporation and implementation of new techniques and methods,
instructors require learning environments that are capable of keeping up with the
pace of innovation—and textbooks just cannot do that. Because the Case It!

learning environment is digital, updating both the information and data contained

140

within it is a relatively simple process. It is also possible to modify the existing
lab methodology to incorporate emergent tools in the field such as bioinformatics.
In this study, students were motivated to learn because they were using cutting-
edge techniques and material that wasn’t incorporated into their texts. The end
result of using Case it! is a much shorter time-to-learner gap in information,
enabling both students and instructors to learn on the leading edge of their fields,
rather than 2-3 years behind as is the case with most texts.

Motivation inherent in Case It!

The Case Itl program is a case-based, virtual learning environment used
to investigate infectious and genetic disorders, and designed to stimulate student
interest in science. The program utilized a mixture of epistemological
approaches that engaged students on multiple personal, professional, ethical,
and social levels. This study of the learning environment demonstrated that it
can have a significant impact on student motivation by engaging students at all 4
levels of Keller’s ARCS model of motivation (Keller, 1987, 2010) and because it
results in high products for the Expectancy x Value model (Brophy, 2004;
Wigfield 8. Eccles, 2000). In motivating students, the Case Itl project
demonstrated significant ability to influence student performance, learner
attitudes, and programmatic retention.

Attention. Case It! captures students’ attention in several ways. One of
the primary methods is via the case studies, especially the video cases, which

represent a novel method of introduction to material for most students, and

141

provide sensory stimuli. A common comment from students was that the cases
piqued their curiosity about a disorder by providing concrete references to real
individuals, and creating a sense of mystery by providing incomplete snapshots
of stories that leave the endings up to the students' investigation (Keller, 2010).
By presenting “real-world” situations that were inherently problematic, Case It!
encouraged students to probe deeper into the material, ask questions, and
satisfy a desire for further inquiry. Additionally, the project created cognitive
dissonance for some students by contrasting their perceptions of reality against
actually demonstrations of reality—especially with HIV cases. Comments
demonstrate that by constantly varying the learning situations for students (e.g.
case to virtual lab to creation of a poster, etc. . .), attention was maintained.
Relevance. As was noted earlier, relevance is of vital importance in
maintaining student attention, motivation, and persistence (Aikenhead, 2006,
2007; Walter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009), and was an area where students reported
Case It! excelled. Comments show that the overall worth of the project was
demonstrated by relating it to society, personal application, and professional
ambitions. Case It! connected content knowledge learning scenarios with
students’ salient life experiences, both past and present, devel0ping a degree of
personal relevance. Many students noted this, stating that they developed a
personal connection with the characters in the cases, and by extension the
material. Others described a feeling of moral obligation to demonstrate

competence because cases were base on real pe0ple and the students wanted

142

to provide accurate information for these individuals. These personal
connections and altruistic feelings were indicators that the project developed
psychological relevance for many students, which included the codes of “need-to-
know science” (information for potential personal use) and “functional science”
(information for potential vocational use). Case It! also engaged students in
situations where they could envision themselves as practitioners of science, and
where they reported feeling integrated into the overall scientific community.

The autonomous nature of the project allowed students to individualize
their experience, exercising self-determination to make the encounter relevant,
personal, and wholly their own. This ability to direct their own paths of Ieaming
piqued some students’ curiosity about tangential issues and knowledge. Keller
(2010) calls this desire for independent exploration “situated intrinsic motivation”
(p. 118) in which students develop interests along several avenues of thought
divergent to that of content mastery. Also related to the issue of autonomous
learning in Case It! were a few student comments (n = 3) about relevance
created by the flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) of the learning environment. Keller
describes this as, “...being completely absorbed in an activity to the point that
you are not conscious of distractions...” (Keller, 2010, p. 120). This phenomenon
manifested itself most often during role-playing.

Confidence. Case It! contributed to student perceptions of self-efficacy
by providing students with a forum in which to demonstrate their knowledge to

others and to themselves (Bandura, 1997; Schunk 8. Pajares, 2009). By doing

143

so, the project intrinsically boosts students’ confidence in both their skills and
their ability to apply theoretical knowledge (e.g. Brophy, 2004; Glynn, et al.,
2005). This same forum afforded students the opportunity to develop
communication skills and content mastery by serving as translators of information
between communities with frequently disparate cognitive perspectives and
priorities (i.e. physicians and family members). Other opportunities for success
developed for students because the project allowed them to practice complex
and time consuming lab procedures in a “safe” environment, where making
mistakes and time were not negative factors. Finally, the project built student
confidence because it allowed students to take personal responsibility for
content, and by extension ownership of the project (Keller, 2010; Keller 8. Suzuki,
1988).

In general, student confidence is desirable since it builds perceptions of
self-efficacy and situational control. However, because students become so
immersed in the project it is also possible for them to become overconfident in
their knowledge, leading to content arrogance and reduced performance. This is
exemplified by the across the board increase in student answer confidence from
pre- to post-test, even though they demonstrated significant improvement on only
4 of the 6 questions. Class specific results demonstrate an even more stark
result, such as at UWRF-M where there was actually a significant decrease in

performance on question 1 from pre- to post-test, even though student

144

confidence rose significantly. Instructors utilizing Case Itl need to keep in mind
the potential for student overconfidence and adapt.

Satisfaction. Students overwhelmingly stated that they thought the Case
It! project was a worthwhile learning endeavor (95%), indicating a high level of
satisfaction. This level of approval was the product of several fundamental
tenets. First, Case Itl provided students with a quality instructional environment
where the value of content was readily evident (Aikenhead, 2007; Keller, 2010).
Second, the project provided intrinsic reinforcement in the form of feedback from
peers in conferencing that developed perceptions of accomplishment and desire
to learn more (Keller, 2010; Keller 8. Suzuki, 2004; Renchler, 1992). Third, it
allowed students to apply theoretical knowledge gained over years of study under
realistic conditions where their actions mattered to the outcome for real
individuals (Brophy, 2004; Koper 8. Tattersall, 2005; Merrill, 2002). Fourth, in
association with learning under realistic conditions, the project provided a forum
for students to begin to develop a sense of scientific identity, and to place
themselves within the context of the overall scientific community (Brown, 2004;
Brown, Reveles, 8. Kelly, 2005; Reveles, Cordova, & Kelly, 2004).

Expectancy x Value. While the vast majority of students in this study
found value in the project, student expectations were somewhat muddier and
influenced by important external factors. Expectancy values were variable
depending on the student population sampled. Some students reported the use

of computer modeling made the project unnecessarily difficult, lowering their

145

expectancy; other students said the virtual environment was beneficial, resulting
in higher expectancy values. Expectancy also appears to have been affected by
student level, with upper division students anticipating greater gains from the
project than those in introductory courses. The value of rewards and
engagement provided by the Case It! project were high according to interviews,
with students referencing both personal and professional significance in the
exercise. In general, students appear to have engaged (Brophy, 2004; Hansen,
1989) with the project; in this context meaning that they recognized the overall
value and were reasonably expectant of success. Thus, one can conclude that
the Expectancy x Value product of the Cast Itl project is relatively high.

Both the ARCS and Expectancy x Value models of student motivation may
be applied to the Case It! project; however, it also embodied aspects not
identified by either model. Case It! was more than just case-based instruction
environment that developed attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. It
allowed students to develop ideas from theory through analytical application and
into social application.

Limitations

This study can begin to draw some conclusions about how students
interact with a multimedia case study learning environment, and how the
experience may impact pedagogical reform in STEM programs, but one must be
careful not to extrapolate the findings too far. One of the main concerns with

research that relies on self-reporting is that students may not be aware of

146

changes in their perspective, of learning more, or decisions relating to remaining
in STEM fields. Such changes are often subtle, and difficult to attribute to any
single experience. A thorough examination of students’ answers on each test
item was not conducted, so no specific knowledge of what they do or do not
understand was generated. I can only say that they did poorly on some items in
relation to others.

While the students who participated in this study were demographically
representative of their respective institutions, there is no way to be sure that their
opinions and performance represent the actual central tendency. As with any
other mainly qualitative study, these results are not generalizable to American
higher education population as a whole; however, they form a useful starting
point from which further investigation may be launched. While this is a relatively
large-scale qualitative study, it only accesses three ethnic populations in
postsecondary education. Further research incorporating other population
subgroups such as western Latinos, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Native
Hawaiians, and/or Asians to name a few, is necessary to further investigate the
efficacy of multimedia, case-based instruction as an instrument for increasing
STEM retention in these minority groups. Additionally, although the author hoped
to triangulate findings by using multiple methods, some methods such as
member-checking and in-depth personal interviews could not be utilized due to

both time constraints and logistical considerations.

147

The overall sample size and participation rates are limitations. It was
hoped that the majority of students in each class tested would participate in the
study, yielding a sample size of over 100 students; however, participation rates
were extremely variable, ranging from 23-95%. Future studies would benefit
from sampling courses in heterogeneous environments, hopefully resulting in
demographics comparable to the general higher education population structure.
Future research

The current study investigated how a multimedia, case-based Ieaming
environment influenced student retention in both introductory and upper division
biology classes. Several avenues for future research in retention are possible.
Many junior and senior level participants in this study answered that while Case
It! did reinforce their desires to be science majors, very little could influence them
to change majors at this time point because they were already so invested.
Students at all levels commented that they thought the project would be effective
in boosting enrollment and persistence in science programs if applied either in
high school or introductory courses. Studies have shown that freshman
decisions and the first year in STEM programs is critical to retention (Daempfle,
2003-2004; National Science Foundation, 2002; National science Foundation,
2007). To test the upper division students’ perceptions, I believe it would be
fruitful to conduct further studies of the Case It! learning environment across a
broad spectrum of introductory level biology classes. Ideally these studies would

include both majors and non-majors level courses in order to access the largest

148

sample of potential STEM students. A large number of study sites (10+)
representing a cross-section of modern American higher education institutions
(e.g. community college, liberal arts, comprehensive, etc...) and student
population structures would also be desirable, but such breadth would likely be
hindered by funding issues. In this study, intentions to persist might be
measured using surveys administered at strategic times throughout the freshman
year, (a) arrival on campus, (b) at the end of fall semester, and (c) at the end of
spring semester, to present a limited longitudinal picture of retention in program.
The student survey used in this study could be modified to do this.

This study corroborated that context matters to students (Lundeberg, et
al., Under revision). How information is presented is at least as important as
what information is. The connections students said they made with the content
are worthy of further consideration, especially how they influence motivation.
Developing a study that more deeply assesses the roles of student relevance and
satisfaction in Case It! might be able to further this discussion.

Exploring the Case Itl project’s potential to access and motivate students
of different cultures should also be considered. More than 115 colleges and
universities from 39 countries have downloaded this program, so there is obvious
cross-cultural appeal to the idea of using cases in multimedia environments.
Students in this study sometimes had very different perspectives on what aspects
of Case It! were relevant to them and how they were. Based on this, I believe a

cross-cultural study of student perceptions of relevance would be useful in

149

understanding how to make science more appealing to students of diverse
backgrounds. Such a study would likely start by exploring the perceptions
different cultural groups represented within North America (e.g. Native American,
Asian-American, Pacific Islanders, western Latino, etc...) using methods similar
to this study, and could potentially be expanded to international sites.

Student motivation has an effect on both comprehension and program
retention (Allen, 1999; Theall 8. Franklin, 1999). In an era when student bodies
are becoming increasingly diverse and complex (Duderstadt, 2000; Pryor, et al.,
2008), it is worthwhile for STEM programs to ask what motivates students of
diverse backgrounds to choose science as a course of study, and how can
programs use this information to attract a more heterogeneous student body?

The differences in performance and perception noted in this study
between sites may be artifacts of small sample populations. Future studies
interested in examining these relationships should select sites that are
heterogeneous and that can either offer high participation rates or class sizes
large enough to ensure adequate sampling. For example, many California
universities have highly diverse student bodies, large overall enrollments, and
several currently use the Case It! learning environment. Targeted studies of
specific populations, like Native Americans, could be coordinated by cross-
referencing statistics from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(lPEDS) with schools currently using Case Itl Examining the effects of Case It!

on student retention in STEM fields outside of biology could contribute salient and

150

interesting comparisons; however, this would require a significant amount of work
by the developers to expand the program.
Implications for practice

This study is significant because it explores and establishes the efficacy of
a scalable, case-based, multimedia learning environment on student
performance, persistence, and opinions in undergraduate STEM education.

Agencies. The Case Itl learning environment is an especially effective
way to distribute and familiarize students with complex content and lab
processes. Because it is a digital forum, it can easily be updated by both
developers and practitioners to incorporate cutting-edge techniques and content.
Unlike many pedagogical tools developed to improve undergraduate STEM
education, the Case It! project is effective regardless of teacher, student level,
institution, gender, and language. It is a tool that can be easily adopted for use
from secondary through postsecondary and even graduate education. The Case
It! project is also applicable in a wide-array of courses and subject matters,
demonstrating both its flexibility and pedagogical strength. Because the learning
environment develops student perceptions of self-efficacy, emotionally involves
students, and establishes the relevancy of content to students, it also has the
potential to positively influence student persistence in STEM programs.

Faculty who teach undergraduate science. A common statement from
students was that Case Itl is an easy program to use, and this holds true for both

learners and instructors. The project easily lends itself to use in multiple courses,

151

at several grade levels, and with an array of subject matter, making it an effective
and useful tool for instructors. Student comments demonstrate that Case It! is
both an engaging and motivating learning environment for students. Over 95% of
students said they found the experience to be worthwhile, demonstrating that it
establishes relevancy and interest for learners across a broad spectrum of
cultural, social, linguistic, and preparation levels. Another benefit of Case It! is
that it allows students to incorporate and apply knowledge from multiple sources
and multiple classes in a single, real-world experience, allowing them to
understand connections between subject areas they had perhaps considered
unrelated. An example of this would be that when creating their webposters,
many students pulled together information about immunology, ecology, nutrition,
health care, and socio-cultural issues. Again, Case It! is applicable with multiple
learning levels and in many different classes.
Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to explore one potential method to reform
poor pedagogical practice in undergraduate STEM education nationally (e.g.
Seymour 8. Hewitt, 1997). I sought to answer one main question: Does using a
case-based multimedia project affect postsecondary students’ performance or
motivation to learn biology?; and two sub-questions about this intervention’s
utility: (a) Does participation affect persistence? and (b) Is Case It! a beneficial

learning experience?

152

Not enough students are entering postsecondary STEM programs in the
United States today (Augustine, et al., 2006). Aikenhead (2007, p. 885) notes
that science education at the collegiate level is experiencing a “. . .chronic decline
in student enrollment due to students’ disenchantment with school science,” a
fact that has been acknowledged for decades (Dekkers 8. Delaeter, 2001; Hurd,
1989; Welch & Walberg, 1967). While there are any number of conclusions as to
why this may be, research on humanistic perspectives asserts that this is
because students do not feel connected to the science they learn and view it as
sterile and impersonal. Numerous studies have shown that how material is
taught impacts both student interest and perceptions of relevancy (Herreid,
2005b, 2006a; Lundeberg, et al., 2002; Sokolove, et al., 2003; Wolter, Kang,
Lundeberg, & Herreid, 2009; Wolter, Lundeberg, et al., 2009). The multimedia,
active-engagement pedagogy used by the Case lt! project appears to not only
increase student performance, perceptions of relevancy, and overall topic
interest, but also have a positive influence on student motivation and therefore
STEM student retention.

The Case Itl project does not, and cannot, independently solve the issues
of student performance in STEM programs, but it does provide useful insight into
one method to beneficially impact both performance and retention. Data
presented here indicate that the use of such pedagogical techniques might be
best employed at the introductory level when students are first making decisions

about major programs, although projects like Case It! may exert limited influence

153

on persistence at the upper division level. Seymour and Hewitt (1997) noted that
one of the biggest factors affecting student decisions to leave STEM programs
was poor instructional quality, and student responses to questions in this study
reinforce that. Participants overwhelmingly liked Case Itl, and repeatedly said
that they appreciated the dynamic and interactive approach to instruction that it
employs. This study informs the discussion on the role of instructional method on
student retention in STEM fields, demonstrating that students appreciate
contextualized, “real-world” scenarios where they can envision themselves as
practitioners and gain applied experience. Students also like being able to see
the “bigger picture,” and how all the material they are learning fits together in a

real-world environment.

154

Appendix A

 

Case It! Performance Test
Student ID:
Gender: Male / Female
Ethnicity: Latino African-American Caucasian Asian Other
Section:

 

 

After recording your answer, please indicate how confident you are that your
answer is correct on a scale of 1-5, with 1 = very uncertain and 5 = very confident.

Kanya is a 24—year-old woman in Bangkok, Thailand, who just gave birth to her first
child. She and the baby's father, Sunan, had been tested for HIV several weeks before she
became pregnant. She had a second HIV test as part of the routine blood work during her
fifth week of pregnancy. The infant was tested three weeks after her birth. The ELISA
results for all of these tests are shown below.

 

l. ‘ 4..--
‘_)( ( ) ‘ X. .
“cit-t) <)©()_ '. ..>(. :0:
0%)) )
”(XXNXX ( () ._
FKQXX )(XX 0‘ 'QQ

(,1 E i‘ +', @340

 
  
 
    

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. How would you interpret these results? Check the appropriate box for each test
sam le:

 

HIV positive HIV negative Indeterminate

 

Kanya, first test
(before mane”

 

 

Kanya, second test

 

Sunan

 

 

Baby

 

 

 

 

How confident are you n your answer? 1 2 3 4 5
l = very uncertain and 5 = very confident.

155

 

A Western Blot was run as a follow-up after each of the above tests. A composite of the
Western blot results is shown below:

 

5 E ‘; g
u | . '-

1 -‘ I t 5
; 1 _.

2% II I? l I
I ‘ '. I

3‘ I I I? 3 ; I
§ 3 .-

4 ? t l r l

w '4 0‘ (fl
-1
m
—
“

 

 

 

i

10% polyacr. 1.Kanyai 2. KanyaZ
mtirm I 60 4. Baby 5: nogoontrol

cw

3 control

B

 

 

 

2. Based on both the ELISA and western blot test results, put checkmarks in the table
below to indicate the HIV status of each person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIV positive HIV negative Indeterminate
Kanya, first test
(before pregnancy)
Kanya, second test
Sunan
Baby
How confident are you in your answer? 1 2 3 4 5

Very uncertain Very Confident

156

 

3. Why run both an ELISA and a Western Blot to test for HIV?
Put checkmarks in the table below indicating to which test each feature applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feature of test Western Blot ELISA Both Neither

WB and
ELISA

A first screening test for HIV

To isolate a specific HIV gene

Tests for HIV antibodies

The bands between Ribosomes

and DNA

The more definitive test for HIV

Amount of virus in blood

HIV proteins separated by size on

gel

How confident are you in your answer? 1 2 3 4 5
Very uncertain Very Confident

157

 

For these next 2 questions, put yourself in the role of an HIV counselor in Thailand. How
would you explain the test results? What advice would you give them? Include social,
medical and ethical advice. Do not try to write complete sentences; just list the main
points you would include.

4. What would you say to Kanya and Sunan about their test results?

How confident are you in your answer? 1 2 3 4 5
Very uncertain Very Confident

5. What would you say to Kanya and Sunan about the baby's test results?

How confident are you in your answer? 1 2 3 4 5
Very uncertain Very Confident

158

6. Study the tree below that shows HIV sequence comparisons for these individuals:
Kanya, Sunan, their baby, Kanya’s one night stand, the blood donor from a transfusion
Sunan had, Sunan’s former partner, and HIV sequences from India, Nigeria, and
Vietnam. How do you interpret these results? What would you tell Kanya and Sunan
about how they contracted the HIV virus?

 

 

I
L

- Vietnam
.~ India

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nigeria

~ 15mm:

 

... Blood donor

f.”— Kanva
L— Babv

 

 

H‘"

1! Local control

 

How confident are you in your answer? 1 2

Very uncertain

159

J Kanva's one-night stand

 

1m

.. Sunan‘s formcroartner
. Local control

- Local control

4 5
Very Confident

Appendix B

 

Student name:

Case It! Student Survey

 

Please answer the following questions briefly. You will have the opportunity to expand
upon your responses during the focus group interview.

We appreciate your participation and cooperation in improving the Case It! experience.

 

1. What do you plan to do in your future career? Please check on or more...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Physician Other healthcare Teacher Food science
Biotechnology Research Conservation Forestry
Medical technology Forensics Veterinary Other (please list)
medicine
Nurse Agriculture

 

2. Do you think your experiences with Case It have helped prepare you for future
classes or a future career?

Please explain.

YES NO

3. My experiences with Case It! have reinforced my desire to continue to be a

science major

I
(not at all)

2 3
(somewhat)

Please explain your answer.

5

(quite a lot)

4. How interested were you in your case topic before starting the project?

1
(not at all)

2 3
(somewhat)

4

5

(quite a lot)

How interested were you in your case topic after completing the project?

1
(not at all)
Please explain.

2 3
(somewhat)

160

4

5

(quite a lot)

 

. Was this project relevant to your life? ‘ YES NO
Please explain.

. How confident are you in your knowledge of the disease you studied for your
case?

1 2 3 4 5
(not at all) (somewhat) (quite a lot)
Please explain your answer.

. Please rank the 2 most valuable learning components of Case It! for you.

 

Virtual lab Bioinformatics Webposter creation

 

 

 

 

 

Role-playing Conferencing Internet research

 

 

Please explain.

. How useful did you find the role-playing aspect of Case It! in helping you learn

the material?

1 2 3 4 5
(not at all) (somewhat) (quite a lot)
Please explain your answer.

. Please rate your experience with role-playing as a family member

1 2 3 4 5
(disliked it) (neutral) (enjoyed it)
Please rate your experience with role-playing as an HIV councilor.
1 2 3 4 5
(disliked it) (neutral) (enjoyed it)
Please rate your experience with role-playing as a bioinformatics researcher
l 2 3 4 5
(disliked it) (neutral) (enjoyed it)
Please rate how much you learned from role-playing
1 2 3 4 5
(nothing) (neutral) (quite a bit)

Please elaborate on your answers.

161

 

10. Was this project a good learning experience for you?
Please explain.

11. Please share any additional thoughts about Case It.

162

YES

NO

Appendix C

 

10.

FGI QUESTIONS

Do you think your experiences with Case It! have helped prepare you for future
classes or a future career?

How so?

Has your experience with Case It! affected your desire to continue to be a science
major?

In what ways?

Did participating in Case It! increase your interest in the topic?

Was this project relevant to your life?

How?

How confident are you in your knowledge of the disease you studied for your case?
Why?

What was the most valuable component of Case It! to you?

How useful did you find the role-playing aspect of Case It! in helping you learn the
material? ’

Did you enjoy the role-playing?

Why or why not?

Was this project a good Ieaming experience for you?
How did it help you learn science?

Do you have any additional thoughts or comments about case it! that you’d like to
share?

163

Appendix D

 

Participant Consent Form
This study investigates the impact of multimedia case-based learning on university students' perceptions,
understandings, and confidence in their knowledge of infectious diseases and genetic disorders using the
Case-It! software. The cases will consist of narratives regarding individuals with infectious diseases and
genetic disorders. As part of the Case-It! multimedia environment, students will be involved in using an
simulations, creating and presenting web posters, and role playing, all as part of their coursework. A pre-
and post— assessment with information from the simulation will be used to gather information about
students’ knowledge about infectious diseases and genetic disorders as well as their ability to interpret data
from ELISA, Southern and Western-blot, and bioinformatics simulations. Participants will be interviewed
regarding their perceptions about cases after they complete their work.

Your participation in the study will consist of giving us permission to use your coursework. Your
permission to use your coursework would include items such as the web page you create with your results
from the Case-It! simulation, the electronic transcripts from computer conferences you engage in about the
web page, and written responses to in-class assignments on molecular diagnostic testing before and after
the use of the Case-It! software. We also have a short survey we would like you to complete about your
knowledge and perceptions of infectious diseases that will be completed in class, and we will also invite
you to be part of a focus-group interview. Please note that we will not use student names or other
identifying information in any reports of this research.

All data will be treated with strict confidence and your name will not be used in any report of the research
findings. Your responses to questions are confidential (not anonymous). Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law. If you would want to know the results of the study (within these
restrictions) you should leave your name with us. Your decision to participate or not participate in the
research will have no effect on your grade or any future recommendation your instructor may make.

Participation is voluntary. You have complete freedom to discontinue the study at any time without penalty.
You have the freedom to not respond to certain items. If at any point you feel any discomfort with the

materials or questions please do not hesitate to stop us.

If you have any questions about this study feel free to contact:

Bjorn Wolter Dr. Mary Lundeberg
517.507.5896 517.353.5091
bwolter@msu.edu mlunde@m su.edu

 

 

If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to
register a complaint about this research study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, Michigan State
University Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail
irba'r‘rmsuedu, or regular mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Name: (printed)

 

Signature: Date:

 

I agree to be video-recorded in this study if I consent to an interview.

Signature Date:

 

164

Appendix E

 

Rubric for Performance HIV Assessment (Pre/Post - 26 pts)

(Put 1 or 0 for each person)

1. Give the HIV status of each person based on the ELISA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kanyal (First Test): HIV Negative
Kanya2 (Second Test): HIV Positive
Sunan HIV Positive

Baby Indeterminate

 

 

 

Correct Interpretation = 1 point each; Incorrect = 0; Total possible = 4

Student’s score =

Confidence =

. Give the HIV status of each person based on both the ELISA & Western Blot

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kanya] (First Test): HIV Negative
Kanya2 (Second Test): HIV Positive
Sunan HIV Positive

Baby Indeterminate

 

 

 

Correct Interpretation = 1 point each ; Incorrect = 0; Total possible = 4

Student’s score =

Confidence =

 

Feature of test

Western Blot

ELISA

Both WB
& ELISA

Neither

 

A first screening test for HIV

X

 

To isolate a specific HIV
gene

 

Tests for HIV antibodies

 

The bands between
Ribosomes and DNA

 

The more definitive test for
HIV

 

Amount of virus in blood

 

HIV proteins separated by
size on gel

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total points possible = 7
Student’s score =

Confidence =

165

 

4. HIV Counseling

Model advice for 4 pts
This questions aims to examine students understanding of the medical as well as ethical
implications of giving advice to people who have HIV.

For 4points — Model response includes information about all three family members and
information regarding medical treatment, ethical implications, and resources to family

For 3 points — Model response includes information about 2 family members and either a
medical and/or ethical advice/resources to family.

For 2 points — Model response includes 1 family member and either medical and/or
ethical advice/resources to family

For 1 point - model response is a general explanation of medical treatment and ethical
advice

For 0 points — No advice, no explanation, general lack of understanding

Model Response: For both Kanya and Sunan, their results are positive which means they
have the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), which causes AIDS. This virus is
transmitted through contact with body fluids. With HIV, almost all infected people
eventually develop disease symptoms, but it may take several years. However there are
medications that can help reduce virus multiplication in the body and hence can prolong
your life. It is advisable that they immediately see the doctor and get to know what
treatment options are available. There is also need for the couple to stay healthy by eating
foods that are rich in nutrients in order to boost their immunity and to exercise regularly.
They should also avoid sharing needles and practice safe sex to avoid infecting others and
to avoid re-infections.

Score:
Confidence :
5. HIV Counseling

Model advice for 4pts.
This questions aims to examine students understanding of the medical as well as ethical
implications of giving advice to people who have HIV.

 

For 4points - Model response includes information about all three family members and
information regarding medical treatment, ethical implications, and resources to family

For 3 points — Model response includes information about 2 family members and either a
medical and/or ethical advice/resources to family.

For 2 points — Model response includes 1 family member and either medical and/or
ethical advice/resources to family

For 1 point — model response is a general explanation of medical treatment and ethical
advice

For 0 points — No advice, no explanation, general lack of understanding

166

Model Response: The Baby’s results are indeterminate, which means they are not
conclusive. This may be due to the fact that baby still has antibodies from the mother.
Baby needs to be tested again in order to determine its status. For now there is need to
ensure that baby 5 not infected through breast-milk or the parents’ body fluids.

6. Bioinformatic interpretation (3 Pts)

This question is intended to determine how well students can interpret a bioinformatics
tree.

How do you interpret these results? The infection source is the blood donor (1 pt)
What would you tell Kanya and Sunan about how they contracted the HIV virus?

For 2 points — includes an explanation of the infection source, how infection occurred,
and what this means for them.

For 1 point — simple cites the infection source without explanation.
For 0 points — no explanation, general lack of understanding.
Score:

Confidence :

 

167

References

References

.),

Acker, J. 0., Hughes, W., & Fendley Jr., W. R. (2002, 2-5 June). Implementing a
recursive retention assessment system for engineering programs. Paper
presented at the 42nd Annual Forum for the Association for Institutional
Research, Toronto, Canada.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Bulletin of
Science, Technology, & Society, 12(3), 149-159.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2002). Cross-cultural science teaching: "Rekindling traditions"
for Aboriginal students. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and
Technology Education, 2(3), 287-304.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S.
K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds), Handbook of research on science
education (pp. 881 -91 O). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (5th
ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation
and persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461 -485.

Anonymous (1999). Review of the book Talking about leaving: Why
undergraduates leave the sciences Retrieved 5 October, 2008, from
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1VBVNR7RBDRQZ/ref=cm cr rdp per
m

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (1993). Undergraduate science education: The impact
of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the
sciences. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, Higher
Education Research Institute.

Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree attainment rates at American
colleges and universities: Effects of race, gender, and institutional type.
Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

168

 

Astleitner, H., 8 Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning
and motivation. Joumal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1),
3-21.

Augustine, N., Barrett, 0., Cassell, G., Chu, 8., Gates, R., Grasmick, N., et al.
(2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing
America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National
Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering, and The
Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press.

Bailek, W., 8 Botstain, D. (2004). Introductory science and mathematics
education for 21 st century biologists. Science, 303(5659), 788-790.

Baird, L. L. (2000). College Climate and the Tinto Model. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),
Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle (pp. 62-80). Nashville,
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.

Baldi, P., & Brunak, S. (2001). Bioinformatics: The machine learning approach
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bandura, A. L. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Worth
Publishers.

Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching
teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478-488.

Bell, P. (2004). The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in
science. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds), Internet environments
for science education (pp. 233-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.

Bergland, M., Lundeberg, M. A., Klyczek, K., Sweet, J., Emmons, J., Martin, C.,
et al. (2006). Exploring biotechnology using case based multimedia. The
American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 81 -86.

Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role strain in university research centers.
The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 430-463.

Boldt, A. (2005). The transmission perspective: Effective delivery of content. In D.
D. Pratt (Ed.), Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education
(pp. 57-82). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for
science, mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro
Education, 69(1-2), 92-11 1.

169

 

Bovina, l. B., 8 Dragul'skaia, L. I. (2008). College students' representations of
science and the scientist. Russian Education 8 Society, 50(1), 44-64.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis
and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Braxton, J. M., & Lien, L. A. (2000). The Viability of Academic Integration as a
Central Construct in "I”Into's Interactionalist Theory of College Student
Departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed), Reworking the Student Departure
Puzzle (pp. 11-28). Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, 8. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science
and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41(8), 810-834.

Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and
discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science
learning. Science Education, 89(5), 779-802.

Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology
that really works: Lord's contructivist model put to the test. The American
Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491 -502.

Bush, G. (2009). Thinking around the corner: The power of information literacy.
Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6), 446-447.

Cain, J., Black, E. P., 8. Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy
to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal
of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2), 1-7.

Callahan, C., Hertberg-Davis, H., Hockett, J., & Reed, C. (2008). Using on-Iine
case-based lessons to supplement instruction for diverse learners in
advanced placement courses World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 332-336).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, 8. P. (2006). Student engagement and student
learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.

170

 

Chambers, J. A., & Sprecher, J. W. (1984). Computer-assisted instruction: Its use
in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Choi, l., Lee, S. J., & Jung, J. W. (2008). Designing multimedia case-based
instruction accommodating students' diverse learning styles. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 5-25.

Clark, D., Nelson, 3., Sengupta, P., & D'Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking science
learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples and
evidence. Board on Science Education, The National Academies.

Cole, D., 8 Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino
students in science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM)
majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.

Cornell, R., 8 Martin, B. L. (1997). The role of motivation in web-based
instruction. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based Instruction (pp. 93-100).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2007a). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. W. (2007b). Qualitative inquiry 8 research design: Choosing among
five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cristianini, N., & Hahn, M. (2006). Introduction to Computational Genomics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cronin-Jones, L. (2000). Science scenarios: Using role-playing to make science
more meaningful. The Science Teacher, 67(4 ), 48-52.

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and
results. The Physics Teacher, 69(9), 970-977.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass.

Daempfle, P. A. (2003-2004). An analysis of the high attrition rates among first
year college science, math, and engineering majors. Journal of College
Student Retention, 5(1), 37-52.

Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching. New York: Dryden Press.

171

Dancy, M. H., & Henderson, C. (2008). Barriers and promises in STEM reform.
the Board on Science Education.

Deimann, M., & Keller, J. M. (2006). Volitional aspects of multimedia learning.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(2), 137-158.

Dekkers, J., & Delaeter, J. (2001). Enrolment trends in school science education
in Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 487-500.

Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill Jr., P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and
measurement of change. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and
Rehabilitation, 20(2), 159-165.

Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsausu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case
studies—Can we improve higher order thinking skills of non-science
majors? Science Education, 87(6), 767-793.

Druger, M. (2000). Creating a motivational learning environment in science.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(4), 222-224.

Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 215t century. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.

Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996).
A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 7(2), 3-47.

Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching
using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson
Education/Addison-Wesley/Benjamin Cummings.

Eiseman, J., & Fairweather, J. (1996). Evaluation of the National Science
Foundation undergraduate course and curriculum development program:
Final Report. Washington, DC: SRI International.

Emmott, S., & Rison, S. (Eds). (2006). Toward 2020 science (pp. 86). Retrieved
from
http://research.microsoft.com/towardsZOZOscience/downloads/1' 20208 Re

portA4pdf.

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students' responses and
approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-
regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719-752.

172

Fainrveather, J. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of
teaching and research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher
Education, 76(4), 401-422.

Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate
education (pp. 31). Washington, DC: Board of Science Education,
National Research Council, The National Academies.

Fairweather, J., & Beach, A. (2002). Variation in faculty work within research
universities: Implications for state and institutional policy. Review of Higher
Education, 26(1), 97-1 15.

Fainrveather, J., & Paulson, K. (2008). The evolution of scientific fields in
American universities: Disciplinary differences, institutional isomorphism.
In J. Valimaa & O. Ylijoki (Eds), Cultural perspectives in higher education
(pp. 197-212). Dordrecht: Springer.

Feather, N. (Ed). (1982). Expectations and actions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Felder, R. M. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance
and retention. IV. Instructional methods and student response to them.
Journal of Engineering Education, 84(4), 361 -367.

Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A longitudinal study of
engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with
traditionally taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469-
480.

Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., Mauney, M., Hamrin Jr., C. E., & Dietz, E. J. (1995).
A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. Ill.
Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of
Engineering Education, 84(2), 151-163.

Fisher, D., Fairweather, J., 8 Amey, M. (2003). Systemic reform in undergraduate
engineering education: The role of collective responsibility. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 768-776.

Fisher, P., Zeligman, D., & Fairweather, J. (2005). Self-assessed student learning
outcomes in an engineering service course. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 21(3), 446-456.

Fortenberry, N. L., Sullivan, J. F., Jordan, P. N., & Knight, D. W. (2007).
Engineering education research aids instruction. Science, 317(5842),
1175-1176.

173

 

Foster, A., Wolter, B. H. K., Lundeberg, M. A., 8 Kang, H. (2008). What makes
science learning relevant to students? Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association 85th Annual Conference, New York,
New York.

Froyd, J. E. (2008). White paper on promising practices in undergraduate STEM
education. the Board on Science Education, National Academy of
Sciences.

Froyd, J. E., 8 Ohland, M. W. (2005). Integrated engineering curricula. Journal of
Engineering Education, 94(1), 147-164.

Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., 8 Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher
education's strategic imperative (1 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., 8 Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A
research and practice model. Simulation 8 Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and
literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMilan.

Glaser-Zikuda, M., Full, 8., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K., 8 Randler, C. (2005).
Promoting students' emotions and achievement—Instructional design and
evaluation of the ECOLE-approach. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 481-
495.

Glynn, S. M., Aultman, L. P., 8 Owens, A. M. (2005). Motivation to learn in
general education programs. The Journal of General Education, 54(2),
150-170.

Grandy, J. (1998). Persistence in science of high-ability minority students:
Results of a longitudinal study. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 589-
620.

Gregerman, S. R. (2008). The role of undergraduate research in student
retention, academic engagement, and the pursuit of graduate education.
the Board on Science Education, National Academy of Sciences.

Guthrie, R. W., 8 Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive
technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom Proceedings of
the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems Retrieved from
htt ://www.mhh .com/c / 00 I P WP WakindDeadO 2 3. f

Hackett, G., 8 Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-
efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal of Research
in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 261 -273.

174

 

Hansen, D. (1989). Lesson evading and lesson dissembling: Ego strategies in
the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 184-208.

Herreid, C. F. (1994). Case Studies in Science—A Novel Method of Science
Education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 221 -229.

Herreid, C. F. (2001). The Maiden and the Witch: The Crippling Undergraduate
Experience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(2), 87-88.

Herreid, C. F. (2003). Why a "case-based" course failed. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 33(3), 8-11.

Herreid, C. F. (2005a). Using Case Studies to Teach Science. Education:
Classroom Methodology. Washington, DC: American Inst. of Biological
Sciences.

Herreid, C. F. (2005b). Using novels as bases for case studies: Michael
Crichton's state of fear and global warming. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 34(7), 10.

Herreid, C. F. (Ed). (2006). Start with a story: The case study method of teaching
college science. Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press.

Herzog, S. (2007). The ecology of learning: The impact of classroom features
and utilization on student academic success. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2007(135), 81 -106.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students
learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

Hokanson, G., Borchert, 0., Slator, B. M., Terpstra, J., Clark, J. T., Daniels, L.
M., et al. (2008). Studying Native American culture in an immersive virtual
environment Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies, 2008. (pp. 788-792). New York: IEEE.

Holzinger, A., Kickmeier-Rust, M., 8 Albert, D. (2008). Dynamic media in
computer science education; Content complexity and learning
performance: ls less more? Educational Technology 8 Society, 11(1),
279-290.

Horowitz, H. M. (1988). Student response systems: Interactivity in a classroom
environment. Paper presented at the Sixth Conference of Interactive
Instruction Delivery for the Society of Applied Learning Technology
(SALT).
http://www.einstruction.com/Newsfrndex.cfm?fuseaction=News.displavfi8M
enu=newsroom8content=FormalPaper8id=210

175

 

Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis, or,
Dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.

Huang, G., Taddese, N., 8 Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women
and minorities in college science and engineering education. (NCES 2000-
601). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., 8 Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The
role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal, and
professional development. Science Education, 91 (1 ), 36-74.

Hurd, P. (1989). Science education and the nation's economy. In A. B.
Champagne, B. E. Lovitts 8 B. J. Calinger (Eds), Scientific literacy (pp.
15-40). Washington, DC: AAAS.

Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Cabrera, N. L., Lin, M. H., Park, J., 8 Lopez, M.
(2008). Training future scientists: Predicting first-year minority student
participation in health science research. Research in Higher Education,
49(2), 126-152.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2008). College navigator.
Retrieved 22 September 2008, from National Center for Educational

Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/cgllegenavigator/

Irwin, A. R. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise, and sustainable
development. New York: Routledge.

Jackson, J. (2009). Game-based teaching: What educators can learn from
videogames. Teaching Education, 20(3), 291 -304.

Johnson, R. B., 8 Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A
research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7),
14-26.

Jones, R. A. (1977). Self-fulfilling prophecies: Social psychological and
physiological effects of expectancies. New York: Halsted Press.

Kagen, D. M. (1993). Context for the use of classroom cases. American
Educational Research Journal, 62(4), 129-169.

Kalumuck, K. E., 8 Doss, K. (2004). Review of: National Institutes of Health
curriculum supplements: Human Genetic Variation and Cell Biology and
Cancer, by Biological Sciences Curriculum Study and Videodiscovery. Cell
Biology Education, 3(3), 152-154.

176

Kang, H., 8 Lundeberg, M. A. (2008). Role playing and female students’ identity.
construction in multimedia case based learning environment. Manuscript
under review.

Kardash, C. M., 8 Wallace, M. L. (2001). The perceptions of science classes
survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 93(1), 199-210.

Kaya, O. N., Kilic, Z., 8 Akdeniz, A. R. (2004). University students'perceptions of
their science classrooms. Paper presented at the 18th International
Conference on Chemical Education, "Chemistry Education for the Modern
World", Istanbul, Turkey.

Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical
perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26-34.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed),
Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current
status. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional
design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

Keller, J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based
instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 78(Summer), 39-47.

Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning.
Distance Education, 29(2), 175-185.

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The
ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.

Keller, J. M., 8 Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS motivation model in
courseware design. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed), Instructional designs for
microcomputer courseware (pp. 401-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Keller, J. M., 8 Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-Iearning design: A
multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3),
229-239.

Knight, P. G. (2007). Physical geography: Learning and teaching in a discipline
so dynamic that textbooks can‘t keep up! Geography, 92(1), 57-61.

177

Ko, 8., 8 Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide (3rd ed.). New
York: Routledge.

Koballa, T. R., Jr., 8 Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs
in science learning. In S. K. Abell 8 N. G. Lederman (Eds), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 75-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kofoed, M. H. (2006). Competences, interest and role-pla y in science education.
Paper presented at the Danish Research center on Education and
Advanced Media Materials conference, University of Southern Denmark,
Odense.

Koper, R., 8 Tattersall, C. (Eds). (2005). Learning design: A handbook on
modelling and delivering networked education and training. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., 8 Kayek, J. (2007). Piecing together
the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and
recommendations. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher
Education.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., 8 Witt, E. (2005). Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter. Washington, DC: Association for the
Study of Higher Education.

Kulik, J. A. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from
instructional technology. (NSF03-301). Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundafion.

Kumar, D. D., 8 Chubin, D. E. (Eds). (2000). Science, technology, 8 society: A
sourcebook on research and practice. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Kumar, D. D., 8 Sherwood, R. D. (2007). Effect of a problem based simulation on
the conceptual understandings of undergraduate science education
students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 239-246.

Labov, J. 8., Singer, S. R., George, M. D., Schweingruber, H. A., 8 Hilton, M. L.
(2009). Effective practices in undergraduate STEM education, Part 1:
Examining the evidence. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 157-161.

Lai-Chong Law, E., Kickmeier-Rust, M., Albert, D., 8 Holzinger, A. (2008).
Challenges in the development and evaluation of immersive digital
educational games. In A. Holzinger (Ed), HCI and usability for education
and work (pp. 19-30). Berlin: Springer.

178

Lee, K. (2007). Online Collaborative Case Study Learning. Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 37(2), 82-100.

Leslie, D. (2002). Resolving the dispute: Teaching is academe’s core value. The
Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 49-73.

Levin, B. B. (1999). The role of discussion in case pedagogy: Who learns what?
And how? In M. A. Lundeberg, B. B. Levin 8 H. L. Harrington (Eds), Who
learns what from cases and how ?: The research basis for teaching and
learning with cases (pp. 139-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.

Llado, J., 8 Sanchez, B. (2009). A computer-based tool to foster engineering
students' interest in dynamics. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education. Retrieved from
htt ://www3.inter cienc .wil .0 ml urnal/1222 7 lab tr ct? RETRY
=18SRETRY=O

Lord, T. (2007). Society for college science teachers: Revisiting the cone of
learninguls it a reliable way to link instruction method with knowledge
recall? Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 14-17.

Lord, T. (2008). We know how to improve Science understanding in students, so
why are college professors embracing it? Journal of College Science
Teaching, 38(1), 66-70.

Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., Brown, A. C., 8 Elbedour, S. (2000). Cultural
Influences on confidence: Country and gender. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92(1 ), 152-159.

Lundeberg, M. A., Levin, B. B., 8 Harrington, H. (Eds). (1999). Who Ieams what
from cases and how: The research base for teaching and learning with
cases. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lundeberg, M. A., Mogen, K., Bergland, M., Klyczek, K., Johnson, D., 8
MacDonald, E. (2002). Case It or else!: Fostering ethical awareness about
human genetics through multimedia-based cases. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 32(1), 64-69.

Lundeberg, M. A., Wolter, B. H. K., Kang, H., Armstrong, N., Borsari, B., Boury,
N., et al. (Under revision). Context matters: Increasing understanding with
interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and
Development.

179

Lundeberg, M. A., 8 Yadav, A. (2006a). Assessment of case study teaching:
Where do we go from here? Part 1. Journal of College Science Teaching,
35(5), 1 2-1 5.

Lundeberg, M. A., 8 Yadav, A. (2006b). Assessment of case study teaching:
Where do we go from here? Part II. Journal of College Science Teaching,
35(6), 8-13.

Maehr, M. L., 8 Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor: A theory of
personal investment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Malone, T. W. (1981 a). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction.
Cognitive Science, 4(5), 333-369.

Malone, T. W. (1981b). What makes computer games fun? Byte, 6(12), 258-277.

Massy, W., 8 Zemsky, R. (1994). Faculty discretionary time: Departments and
the "academic ratchet". Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 1-22.

Matthews, P. (2007). The relevance of science education in Ireland. Dublin:
Royal Irish Academy.

Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., et al.
(2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning
methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
34(1), 51 -57.

Mayer, R. E., 8 Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander 8 P.
H. Winne (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287-
304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayo, M. J. (2009). Video games: A route to large-scale STEM education?
Science, 323(5910), 79-82.

McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D., 8 Knight, C. C. (2005). How
students think: Implications for learning in introductory geoscience
courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 462-470.

McDonald, J., 8 Dominguez, L. (2005). Moving from content knowledge to
engagement. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(3), 18-22.

Means, T. B., Jonassen, D. H., 8 Dwyer, F. M. (1997). Enhancing relevance:
Embedded ARCS strategies versus purpose. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 45(1), 5-18.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

180

Moriarty, M. A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach
diverse learners in science instruction. Equity 8 Excellence in Education,
40(3), 252-265.

National Science Foundation. (1998). lnfusing equity in systematic reform: An
implementation scheme. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation. (2002). Women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. (NSF 00-327). Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.

National science Foundation. (2007). Women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities in science and engineering: 2007. In SRS Publication (Ed.)).
Arlington, VA.

Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., 8 Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring
accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom.
Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7-28.

O'Neal, 0., Wright, M., Cook, C., Perorazio, T., 8 Purkiss, J. (2007). The impact
of teaching assistants on student retention in the sciences: Lessons for TA
training. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 24-29.

Oblinger, D. G., 8 Oblinger, J. L. (Eds). (2005). Educating the net generation.
Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 8 Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic
researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative
research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology. 8(5), 375-387.

Osborne, J., 8 Collins, S. (2000). Pupils' and parents' views of the school science
curriculum. London: King's College London.

Parker, J. (2008). Comparing research and teaching in university promotion
criteria. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 237-251.

Pascarella, E. T., 8 Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey—Bass.

Peck, A. C., 8 Detweiler, M. C. (2000). Training concurrent multistep procedural
tasks. Human Factors, 42(3), 379-389.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.

181

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based Ieaming. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Prince, M. J. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research.
Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Prince, M. J., 8 Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods:
Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering
Education, 95(2), 123-138.

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., DeAngelo, L., Sharkness, J., Romero, L. C., Korn, W.
S., et al. (2008). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2008. Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Renchler, R. (1992). Student motivation, school culture, and academici
achievement: What scth leaders can do. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Reveles, J. M., Cordova, R., 8 Kelly, G. J. (2004). Science literacy and academic
identity formulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10),
1111-1144.

Richardson, V. (1993). Use of cases in considering methods for motivating
students. In H. Harrington 8 M. Thompson (Eds), Student motivation and
case study manual. Boone, NC: Appalachian State University.

Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., 8 Abrahamson, L. (2004, 12-16 April). Classroom
response and communication systems: Research review and theory.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 81 st
Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., 8 Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video
games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion,
30(4), 344-360.

Rybarczyk, B. J., Baines, A. T., McVey, M., Thompson, J. T., 8 Wilkins, H.
(2007). A case-based approach increases student learning outcomes and
comprehension of cellular respiration concepts. Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 181-186.

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and
distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1),
9-20.

Schreiner, C., 8 Sjoberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background,
rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The
Relevance of Science Education) - a comparative study of students' views

182

of science and science education). Oslo: Department. of Teacher
Education and School Development.

Schunk, D. H., 8 Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel 8 A.
Wigfield (Eds), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35-54). New York:
Routledge.

Sechrest, L., 8 Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there
an alternative? Educational Program and Planning, 18(1), 77-87.

Seymour, E. (1995). Revisiting the "problem iceberg": Science, mathematics, and
engineering students still chilled out. Journal of College Science Teaching,
24(6), 392-400.

Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in US. undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science
Education, 85(6), 79-105.

Seymour, E., 8 Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates
leave science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Shellnut, B., Knowltan, A., 8 Savage, T. (1999). Applying the ARCS model to the
design and development of computer-based modules for manufacturing
engineering courses. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 47(2), 100-1 10.

Sjoberg, S., 8 Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to
science and technology? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and
Teaching, 6(2), 1-17.

Sleeman, K. A., 8 Sorby, S. A. (2007, September 3-7). Effective retention
strategies for engineering students. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE), Coimbra, Portugal.

Small, R. V., 8 Gluck, M. (1994). The relationship of motivational conditions to
effective instructional attributes: A magnitude scaling approach.
Educational Technology 34(8), 33-40.

Smith, R. A., 8 Murphy, S. K. (1998). Using case studies to increase learning and
interest in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 60(4), 265-268.

Smith, T. M., 8 Emmeluth, D. S. (2002). Introducing Bioinformatics into the
Biology Curriculum: Exploring the National Center for Biotechnology
Information. American Biology Teacher, 64(2), 93-99.

183

Sokolove, P. G., Marbach-Ad, G., 8 Fusco, J. (2003). Student use of internet
study rooms for out-of-class group study in introductory biology. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 12(2), 105-113.

Song, 8. H., 8 Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive
computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 5-22.

Stage, F. K., 8 Hossler, D. (2000). Where Is the Student? Linking Student
Behaviors, College Choice, and College Persistence. In J. M. Braxton
(Ed), Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle (pp. 170-195). Nashville,
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.

Stoker, A., 8 Thompson, P. (1969). Science and ethics: A radical approach to
high school science. Science Education, 53(3), 203-209.

Strenta, A. 0., Elliot, R., Adair, R., Matier, M., 8 Scott, J. (1994). Choosing and
leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher
Education, 35(5), 513-547.

Taraban, R., 8 Blanton, R. (Eds). (2008). To think and act like a scientist:
Undergraduate research experiences and their effects. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Tarhan, L., 8 Acar, B. (2007). Problem-based learning in an eleventh grade
chemistry class: 'factors affecting cell potential'. Research in Science 8
Technological Education, 25(3), 351 -369.

Theall, M., 8 Franklin, J. (1999). What have we learned? A sysnthesis and some
guidelines for effective motivation in higher education. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 78(Summer), 99-109.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2 ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2000). Linking Learning and Leaving: Exploring the Role of the College
Classroom in Student Departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed), Reworking the
Student Departure Puzzle (pp. 81-94). Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt
University Press.

Tinto, V. (2007). Taking student retention seriously. Retrieved from
htt :ll . r. u/ ca mic / r d/hi h r uc ti n/ %2 f°/o2 Vtint

Files/Taking RetentiQnSeriQuslypdf

Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different: Stalking the second tier.
Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.

184

Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate science. Tucson, AZ: Research
Corporation.

Trees, A. R., 8 Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker
classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large
university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media,
and Technology, 32(1), 21 -40.

Trey, L., 8 Khan, S. (2008). How science students can learn about unobservable
phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers 8 Education,
51(2), 519-529.

Tsang, E., 8 Halderson, C. (2008). Create learning communities to enhance
success for students with diverse academic preparation background.
Paper presented at the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., 8 Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and
persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high
school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5),
1 1 61 -1 1 76.

Visser, J., 8 Keller, J. M. (1990). The clinical use of motivational messages: An
inquiry into the validity of the ARCS model of motivational design.
Instructional Science, 19(6), 467-500.

Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., 8 Wright,
M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229-
243.

Vollmeyer, R., 8 Rheinberg, F. (2000). Does motivation affect performance via
persistence? Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 293-309.

Walczyk, J. J., Ramsey, L. L., 8 Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional
innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 85-106.

Wallis, C., 8 Steptoe, S. (2006). How to bring our schools out of the 20th century.
Time. Retrieved from

http:l/www.timecom/time/magazine/articIe/Q,9171 ,1 568480.00html

Wan kat, P. (2002). The effective, efficient professor: Teaching scholarship and
service. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon.

185

Wefer, S. H., 8 Sheppard, K. (2008). Bioinformatics in high school biology
curricula: A study of state science standards. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 7(1 ), 155-162.

Welch, W. W., 8 Walberg, H. J. (1967). Are the attitudes of teachers related to
declining percentages of enrollments in physics? Science Education,
51(5), 422-436.

Wigfield, A., 8 Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.

Wolter, B. H. K., Kang, H., Lundeberg, M. A., 8 Herreid, C. F. (2009, 13-17 April).
Using personal response systems (“clickers ”) with case studies in large
lecture classes to impact student assessment performance. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association 86th Annual
Conference, San Diego, CA.

Walter, B. H. K., Kang, H., Lundeberg, M. A., Herreid, C. F., 8 Zhang, T. (2009).
Students’perceptions of using personal response systems ("clickers") with
cases in science. Paper presented at the European Science Education
Research Association 8th Biannual Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.

Walter, B. H. K., Lundeberg, M. A., 8 Bergland, M. (2009, 13-17 April). What
makes science relevant?: Student perceptions of experiences with
multimedia case Ieaming experiences in ecology and health. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association 86th Annual
Conference, San Diego, CA.

Wright, E. L., Sunal, D. W., 8 Bland Day, J. (2004). Improving undergraduate
science teaching through educational research. In D. W. Sunal, E. L.
Wright 8 J. Bland Day (Eds), Reform in undergraduate science teaching
for the 21st century (pp. 1-11). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.

Wuensch, K. L. (2007). Inter-rater agreement Retrieved 3 October, 2009, from
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/docs30/lnterRater.doc

Wullf, D., 8 Austin, A. (2004). Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching
the preparation of future faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yadav, A., Lundeberg, M. A., DeSchryver, M., Dirkin, K., Schiller, N. A., Maier,
K., et al. (2007). Teaching science with case studies: A national survey of
faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using cases. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 37(1), 34-38.

186

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers' attitudes toward and beliefs
about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 28(1), 55-72.

Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., 8 Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with
immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 75-88.

Zvelebil, M., 8 Baum, J. (2007). Understanding bioinformatics. New York:
Garland Science, Taylor 8 Francis Group L.L.C.

187

melllllllllllllllll11111111111111lllllllllEs
3 1293 03063 4426