mun-vumgw'mwvu «mtfimmnun-(w

r: “W“ .5»

-r rmfl"

A
u
n
u
6

\pr... . .u

 

 

-Lr rt

 

Al? 5 W“ LlBRAR‘r/

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Narrowing the Gap Between Classroom Science and
Research Science: What are the Benefits for Students and
Teachers?

presented by

Angela Lynn Forte

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS degree in Interdepartmental Biological
Science

/Z44/W

fessor’s Signature
£1421“? 03

Date

 

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

Michigan Sta“:
Universitx__

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

NARROWING THE GAP BETWEEN CLASSROOM SCIENCE AND
RESEARCH SCIENCE: WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS
AND TEACHERS?

By

Angela Lynn Forte

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Division of Science and Mathematics Education

2003

ABSTRACT
NARROWING THE GAP BETWEEN CLASSROOM SCIENCE AND
RESEARCH SCIENCE: WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS
AND TEACHERS?
By

Angela Lynn Forte

This project documents the meaningful outcomes that arise from
pairing secondary, science students and teachers with mentoring
scientists in a research environment. It dissects the experiences of nine
teachers and ten students along their journey through an intensive
summer research experience called STARS. The objectives of this paper
are to 1) identify the authentic elements of science that are missing from
classroom science, 2) evaluate the Changes in scientific perception of
participants from the STARS Summer Research Program, and 3) discuss
how to bring authentic science into the classroom. A pre-inquiry
questionnaire measuring subjects’ prior scientific attitudes and beliefs was
compared with journal entries, discussion group comments and interview
responses, measuring new scientific attitudes and beliefs as a result of
STARS. Students and teachers participating in the STARS Program
Showed enhanced awareness for the authentic culture that surrounds
research science. Students expressed new desires to Choose a career in
the scientific field. Teachers rekindled their passion for science teaching.

All subjects were engaged in true scientific inquiry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to the STARS coordinators, Dr. George Ordway, Jeannie
Han and Pat Bleigh, for allowing me to study their program at the UT
Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas. Jeannie Han, in particular,
helped me coordinate the logistics of data collection from her STARS
participants. Also, my appreciation goes to Dr. Merle Heidemann and Dr.
Kenneth Nadler of the Division of Mathematics and Science Education at
Michigan State University. Merle Heidemann, especially, gave wonderful
guidance and feedback on this thesis project. Their Master of Science

Program allowed me to grow both as a teacher and researcher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Study Objective ................................................. 1
Rational for Study Objective ................................................... 4
The STARS Program ............................................................ 8
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center ................ 9
Pedagogical Literature Review .............................................. 1O

Examining My Previous Teaching Methodologies for True Inquiry

(Part 1) ............................................................................ 14
METHODOLOGY

Recruitment of Subjects ....................................................... 22

Demographics of Subjects ................................................... 23

Data Collection .................................................................. 24

Data Analysis .................................................................... 27
RESULTS

Before STARS — Impressions of Science and School (Part 2).. . ...35

During STARS — Impressions of Science and School

(Part 3) ............................................................................ 40
After STARS — Impressions of Science and School as a Result of
STARS ........................................................................... 44
Constraints of Bringing Authentic Science into the Classroom
(Part 4) ............................................................................. 59
CONCLUSION

Suggestions for Bringing Authentic Science into Classrooms

(Part 5) ............................................................................ 62
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................... 67

General References ............................................................ 68
APPENDICES

A. A Chemical Reaction of Living Systems .............................. 69

B. Data Collection

1. Student Pre-Inquiry ................................................. 72

2. Teacher Pre-lnquiry .............................................. 80

3. Journal Questions ................................................. 89

4. Student Post Inquiry .............................................. 91

5. Teacher Post—Inquiry ......................................... 100

C. Clustered Journal, Discussion Group, Interview and Inquiry
Quotes

1. Student Quotes ....................................................... 108

2. Teacher Quotes ....................................................... 128

D. UCRIHS and IRB Approvals ............................................ 149

E. UCRIHS and IRB Approved Consent Forms ...................... 154

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Student’s Triangulation Rubric — The Culture of Science. ........31

Figure 2: Teacher’s Triangulation Rubric - The Culture of
Science ..................................................................................... 32

Figure 3: Student and Teacher’s Triangulation Rubric — True
Scientific Inquiry .......................................................................... 33

Figure 4: Student Triangulation Results Graph — The Culture
of Science .................................................................................. 47

Figure 5: Teacher Triangulation Results Graph - The Culture
of Science .................................................................................. 53

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Student Triangulation Results - The Culture
of Science .................................................................................. 45

Table 2: Teacher Triangulation Results — The Culture
of Science ................................................................................. 51

Table 3: Student and Teacher’s Triangulation Results - True
Scientific Inquiry .......................................................................... 58

vii

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF STUDY OBJECTIVE

After three years of teaching biology and biochemistry at a high school
outside of Detroit, I felt the itch to go into the scientific field. For two years I
worked as a biological research assistant with a coalition of scientists led by
Noble Laureate, Dr. Alfred Gilman. The project, called the Alliance for Cellular
Signaling, is a worldwide effort to map the entire cellular signaling network of a
mammalian cell. l was fortunate enough to work within the Alliance’s
headquarters at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas
(UTSW).

My job doing experiments was a precursor step in a complicated chain
reaction of Alliance objectives. I helped establish a protocol for obtaining large
quantities of pure Primary B Lymphocytes from mice. Every morning for a year I
extracted a dozen mouse spleens, magnetically separated the B cells from other
spleen cells, counted the B cells, and used antibody staining to test the purity of
my extraction. To my surprise, tweaking this protocol to perfection took the
Alliance more than a year. Things never ran smoothly - like they had in my
college labs and even in my own classroom labs.

Every day at 12:30 pm I handed off my purified B Cells to a symphony of local
Alliance laboratories (our Antibody Lab and Protein Lab), outside university
laboratories (Cal Tech, UCSF and Cornell) and pharmaceutical companies - all

working in harmony on pieces of the project. At 1:30 pm my local coworkers

would stimulate the cells by adding ligands (molecules or compounds that initiate
cellular responses) at specific time intervals. The cells were handed back to me.
I finished my day by extracting RNA from the stimulated B Cells for microarray
chip analysis (a technique that allows researchers to see which genes are turned
on or off in a cell).

The highlight of researching with the Alliance did not come from the
Opportunity to purify B Cells or extract RNA. It came from my encounters with a
Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Gilman, and his well-published team of scientists. The
best scientists — such as Dr. Gilman himself — had to look up subject matter
(content) like the rest of us. They, therefore, were not walking encyclopedias as I
had previously thought. Their brilliance came from their foresight, heedfulness,
creativity and problem solving abilities - all things I consider to be true scientific
inquiry Skills.

While working on the Medical Center’s campus and observing the inquiry
Skills of my mentors, I began sensing a “culture” surrounding science that I had
not previously known as a science teacher. It consisted of the manner in which
researchers carried out “true scientific inquiry.” On the surface, it appeared to be
different than the scientific inquiry (hands-on activities) being performed by my
students. For example, the scientific method did not flow into neat fifty-five
minute time packages as it did in my classroom. Scientists navigated their way
through conflicting constraints (unanticipated problems solved by utilizing high-
Ievel thinking skills) and setbacks in nearly every experiment. Students did not —

the textbook company and teachers already did the debugging for them.

Scientists relied on repeated trials, peer review and statistical Significance to
determine the accuracy of their data. Again, students did not. They relied on the
teacher’s knowledge of a cut-and—dry, right answer (refer to “Part 1” for an
analysis of “true scientific inquiry” versus “classroom scientific inquiry").
Fortunately, I had the Chance to further test my ideas about "the culture
surrounding authentic science” and “true scientific inquiry” verses “classroom
scientific inquiry.” A program called Science Teacher Access to Resources at
Southwestern (STARS) operated downstairs from my laboratory. It is a summer
science program that pairs Dallas area students and science teachers with
UTSW researchers and medical professionals. Volunteering my summer as a
STARS assistant coordinator, I set out to accomplish the following objectives:
1) identify the authentic elements of science that are missing from my
own teaching (PART 1), from the STARS teachers’ teaching, and
from the STARS students’ learning (PART 2);
2) evaluate the changes in perception of participants from the STARS
Summer Research Program (PART 3) with specific relation to
o the authentic culture of science
. the nature of true scientific inquiry;
3) discuss the constraints of bringing these authentic elements of
science into the Classroom (PART 4); and
4) seek to create an educator’s guide for connecting authentic science to

Classroom science (PART 5).

 

 

 

 

RATIONALE FOR STUDY OBJECTIVE

“Leaders in research intensive, high-technology industries increasingly
complain that the graduates they recruit lack vital knowledge and skills they will
need in the workplace” (National Research Council, 1996). This problem may be
blamed on the evolution of formal schooling over the past century. “One of the
most common features of relegating education to schools is that skills and
knowledge have become abstracted from their uses in the world” (qtd. in Barab 8.
Hay, 2001 ). In other words, teaching “skills and knowledge as abstract entities”
exposes children to the "culture of schools” but not to the “cultures outside of
schools” (qtd. in Barab & Hay, 2001).

Over the last twenty-five years, most of the programs funded by the
United States Government for developing modern instruction for the
elementary and secondary schools have stressed student
involvement in discovery — or inquiry — oriented activities
(Trowbridge & Bybee, 1990).
However, “95% of professional development of science teachers remains
workshop-based rather than being based on scientific research experience” (qtd.
in Westerlund et al., 2002).

Programs attempting to bridge the gap between real science and
classroom science are popping up all over the country. One such program in
North Carolina called itself, VISION (Vision of Industry and Schools Initiating an
Ongoing Network). It was developed to help secondary teachers “experience the

real-world applications of science and mathematics in an industrial setting" and

“get a better understanding of the type of skills necessary for a technologically
oriented workforce” (Carter et al., 1998). Teachers engaged in twenty-five days
of guided tours through industry facilities. They observed cutting-edge, technical
processes, witnessed presentations from management about the importance of
coordination and team building, and visited research and development sites.
Although teachers did not directly perform science with industry personnel, they
were lead through follow-up lessons (i.e. circuit-building activities) by a university
science educator. The university science educator then helped teachers digest
their industry experiences into Classroom lesson plans (Carter et al., 1998).
Programs like the one mentioned above may provide teachers with an
exposure to the culture surrounding industry (among other benefits), but they fail
to engage teachers in their own true inquiry experience. One may argue that the
follow-up, Circuit-building activities did allow the teachers to have their own tme
inquiry experience. Such activities, however, neglect the nuances involved in
real research such as generating an idea for a problem that needs to be studied,
or solving a problem in which there is no presently known answer to refer to.
“Teachers who have learned science facts from textbooks and lectures, but lack
scientific research experiences, may have difficulty teaching science by inquiry
methods” (qtd. in Westerlund et al., 2002). Another approach is to have students
actively participate in scientific investigations directly guided by real scientists.
The National Science and Education Standards state that, “For students to
develop the abilities that characterize science as inquiry, they must actively

participate in scientific investigations, and they must actually use the cognitive

and manipulative Skills associated with the formulation of scientific explanations’
(2002). In 2000 Barab and Hay published a paper called, Doing Science at the
Elbows of Experts: Issues Related to the Science Apprenticeship Camp. During
this two-week camp, middle school students worked with scientists for two hours
each day. For these two hours, campers engaged in discussions with scientists,
collected data, and eventually handed over the data for analysis. For the rest of
the day, campers discussed their data with peers, e-mailed questions to their
scientist, searched the World Wide Web for relevant data and prepared for their
final presentations. Evaluators of the two-week camp studied its effectiveness by
videotaping and interviewing the campers, and collecting field notes. The data
was kept in its natural, qualitative form for analysis (2001).

This study suggests that its participants were doing, “domain-related
practices” and “engaging in authentic scientific discourse [...] along with expert
scientists who modeled scientific practices and valued the outcomes” (Barab &
Hay, 2001). Additionally, its participants perceived “themselves as doing
legitimate science and as contributing in meaningful ways to the work of the
scientist” (Barab & Hay, 2001). The Barab and Hay paper admits, however, that
the Short, two-week duration only allowed students to work within a pre-defined
structure “supporting someone else’s research” (Barab 8. Hay, 2001). Had the
campers’ interactions with scientists been longer, students may have had
“opportunities to develop and advance their own research agenda” (Barab & Hay,
2001). The paper goes on to suggest that in order to “experience the work that

contributes to the creation of a research question” and engage in “long-tenn, and

open-ended investigations” participants should be given longer time frames to
work with scientists (Barab 8 Hay, 2001).

The third example encourages students to engage in their own long-term,
“spin-off” investigations. A program in New England called Forest Watch
involved students as “active participants in a scientific research collaboration
between students, teachers and research scientists” (Evans et al., 2002).
Students from one hundred schools used Forest Watch protocols to collect
annual growth data from white pines. Data were sent to the University of New
Hampshire for analysis. Throughout the research, real-time interaction between
classrooms and scientists was encouraged through classroom visits, field trips,
or teleconferencing. This leads to one of the program’s strengths - leaving
students feeling empowered and excited about science (Evans et al., 2002).

In Field Watch, students gain confidence knowing that the data they are
providing scientists will be of scientific value. It, however, may leave students
“with the perception that science consists only of data collection or that the role of
the students is only one of ‘data collector’” (qtd. in Evans et al., 2002). Although
the program Claims to be inquiry-based, it does not allow for students to observe
a problem to solve, synthesize a hypothesis, design a protocol, decide what
measurements to take, pick proper controls or acquire the correct tools to
perform the analysis. If the teacher is highly motivated, he/she can encourage
students to conduct their own spin-off projects that may have some value.
However, most teachers - including myself - do not have room in their curriculum

for such deviation, nor the knowledge and confidence to pull it off.

THE STARS PROGRAM

The STARS (Science Teacher Access to Resources at Southwestern)
program seeks to promote sustained reform in science education by linking the
educational community of North Central Texas with the scientific community of
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Introduced in

1991, its goals include (www.utsouthwestem.edu/stars):

increasing science awareness

. stimulating an appreciation of health related careers

. providing ongoing support for science teachers and students

. improving science education by broadening the knowledge base of

teachers, and

. assisting science education by providing instructional aids.

Reaching out to 850 schools in the Dallas / Forth Worth area, STARS
offers several free programs. It invites teachers to participate in hands-on,
inquiry-based workshops encompassing topics such as gel electrophoresis and
exercise physiology. It disseminates current biomedical developments through
symposia presented by UTSW faculty encompassing topics such as surgery and
epidemiology. STARS also offers UTSW faculty and staff for science fair judges,
tours of UTSW medical and research facilities, and video-conferencing between
practicing scientists and secondary classrooms. The heart of STARS, however,

remains their summer program for teachers and students — the focus of this

study.

This study, in particular, centers on two programs: The Summer Research
Program for Teachers, and Summer Research Program for Students. Open to
all secondary Texas teachers, Dallas Independent School District juniors and
Dallas County Community College District students, these programs seek to
immerse participants in real scientific research. Their objective is to offer
opportunities to work one-on-one with UTSW faculty researchers on an
investigative project in a laboratory setting (STARS, 2002). Every summer nearly
twenty different labs agree to mentor a STARS participant. The eight-week
programs run Simultaneously from June to July. Participants present their
research at the end of the summer and are paid a stipend. Major funding for
STARS is provided by the state of Texas. Teachers receive $4000 plus a $500
grant for Classroom supplies. Students receive $2000. In addition, teachers are
asked to write an exclusive, inquiry-based, action plan based on their research.
Students are asked to present a power point presentation at their school based
on their research (STARS, 2002). Enrollment in other programs [similar to
STARS] continues to increase across the country. These programs have been
discussed as being “a paradigm for systemic change” in science education (qtd.

in Johnson, 2002).

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas (UTSW)
contains three degree-granting schools (The Southwestern Medical School,

Southwestern Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Southwestern Allied

Health Sciences), three hospitals, and one children’s medical center. Since all of
these institutions are within walking distance of one another, the UTSW
atmosphere is congenial to the cooperative links that exist among medical
professionals, research scientists and graduate students. Study participants
were encouraged to explore this unique relationship.

UTSW also prides itself on being congenial to local area K-12 schools. Its
STARS program continues to be a dynamic bridge connecting students and
teachers to real-world science. This project attempts to clarify and document the

benefits of building that bridge.

PEDAGOGICAL LITERATURE REVIEW

Before attempting to clarify the benefits of the STARS program, it is first
necessary to clarify the terminology that will be used throughout this study. The
first two definitions are taken from Gott, Duggan and Johnson’s 1999 paper
entitled, “What do Practicing Applied Scientists do and What are the Implications
for Science Education?" They make the distinction between “conceptual
understanding" and “procedural understanding.” Conceptual understanding
iS “a knowledge base of substantive concepts such as the laws of motion,
solubility or photosynthesis which are underpinned by scientific facts, eg. that
distance can be measured in centimeters.” Procedural understanding is “the
thinking behind the doing of science and includes concepts such as deciding how
many measurements to take, over what range, how to interpret the pattern in the

resulting data and how to evaluate the whole task” (Gott et al., 1999). In this

10

study, the “culture of science” is heavily rooted in and influenced by scientists’
procedural understanding of their research.

The third and fourth definitions aim to unscramble the misinterpretations of
inquiry teaching. In their book, Becoming a Secondary School Science Teacher.
Trowbridge and Bybee distinguish between discovery teaching and inquiry
teaching. In their terminology, “discovery” occurs when an individual is mainly
involved in using his mental processes to mediate (or discover) some concept or
principle. It can include observing, classifying, measuring, predicting, describing
and inferring (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1990). Grade school students, for example,
could use a thermometer, measuring skills and graphing Skills to discover the
boiling point of water. The scientific community already knows the boiling point
of water. These students, however, do not and can discover it rather than being
told it by their teacher. Notice the teacher supplied the original problem. The
students Should run into few logistical difficulties Since the teacher has already
supplied the materials and pre-tested the lab ahead of time.

On the other hand, Trowbridge & Bybee define “inquiry" as the process of
defining and investigating problems, formulating hypotheses, designing
experiments, gathering data, and drawing conclusions about problems. It can
include originating problems, formulating hypotheses, designing investigative
approaches, testing out ideas, synthesizing knowledge and developing certain
attitudes (e.g., objective, curious, open-minded, desires and respects theoretical
models, responsible, suspends judgment until sufficient data is obtained, checks

results) (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1990). A Science Olympiad team (a team that

11

competes in extra-curricular science competitions), for example, could try to build

the most efficient model of a steam-propelled car. A blueprint of this car is not

available to them. The boiling point of water in this case is a known fact that the
team may need to incorporate into the design. Unlike the grade school students,
the Science Olympiad students will probably run into many logistical problems.

They may have to scrounge around for inexpensive materials, try many different

prototypes, and even go the library to research. The odds of building a functional

car on the first try are very slim and the students will need to problem solve their
way out of glitches. In this case, the teacher cannot give them a Clear answer,
only guide them with advice.

Now that “inquiry" has been defined, it is necessary to outline the steps of
inquiry as it relates to a scientific investigation. For these steps I turned to the
National Science Education Standards 9-12 grade, Abilities Necessary to do
Scientific Inquiry. The following were taken verbatim from part one of Content
Standard A.

1. Identifv questions and concepts t_hat ggide scientific invesflgations. Students
should formulate a testable hypothesis and demonstrate the logical
connections between the scientific concepts guiding a hypothesis and the
design on an experiment. They Should demonstrate appropriate procedures,
a knowledge base, and conceptual understandings of scientific investigations
(National Science Content Standards, 2002).

2. Desiqn and conduct scientific investigations. Designing and conducting a

scientific investigation requires introduction to the major concepts in the area

12

being investigated, proper equipment, safety precautions, assistance with
methodological problems, recommendations for use of technologies,
clarification of ideas that guide the inquiry, and scientific knowledge obtained
from sources other than the actual investigation. The investigation may also
require student Clarification of the question, method, controls, and variables;
student organization and display of data; student revision of methods and
explanations; and a public presentation of the results with a critical response
from peers. Regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students
must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed
explanations (National Science Content Standards, 2002).

. Use Technology and Mathematics to Improve Investigations and
Communications. A variety of technologies, such as hand tools, measuring
instruments, and calculators, should be an integral component of scientific
investigations. The use of computers for the collection, analysis, and display
of data is also a part of this standard. Mathematics plays an essential role in
all aspects of an inquiry. For example, measurement is used for posing
questions, formulas are used for developing explanations, and charts and
graphs are used for communicating results (National Science Content
Standards, 2002).

. Formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logic and
evidence. Student inquiries should culminate in formulating an explanation or
model. Models should be physical, conceptual, or mathematical. In the

process of answering the questions, the students Should engage in

13

discussions and arguments that result in the revision of their explanations.
These discussions should be based on scientific knowledge, the use of logic,
and evidence from their investigation (National Science Content Standards,
2002).

5. Recognize and analyze alternative extganajtions and models. This aspect of
the standard emphasizes the critical abilities of analyzing an argument by
reviewing current scientific understandings, weighing the evidence, and
examining the logic so as to decide which explanations and models are best.
In other words, although there may be several plausible explanations, they do
not all have equal weight. Students Should be able to use scientific criteria to
find the preferred explanations (National Science Content Standards, 2002).

6. Communicate and defend a scientific arqument. Students in school science
programs should develop the abilities associated with accurate and effective
communication. These involve writing and following procedures, expressing
concepts, reviewing information, summarizing data, using language
appropriately, developing diagrams and charts, explaining statistical analysis,
Speaking clearly and logically, constructing a reasoned argument, and
responding appropriately to critical comments (National Science Content

Standards, 2000).

EXAMINING MY PREVIOUS TEACHING METHODOLOGIES FOR TRUE
INQUIRY (PART 1)

By comparing my previous teaching methodologies to 1) my research

experience at The Alliance for Cellular Signaling, and 2). the steps of inquiry as

14

listed above, I began identifying the misconceptions I held about the nature of
“procedural science.” For example, the experiments in which I was engaged at
UT Southwestern could not be contained within neat fifty-five minute packages.
In fact, the Alliance for Cellular Signaling spent over a year determining the best
approach for their main procedure alone. At times it was hard to even decipher
what step of the scientific method was being performed at a given time. This is
why the “scientific method” we teach in schools feels artificial to many scientists.
As the project ran into constraints, new experiments with their own protocols
were being carried out within the framework of the original design.

To my surprise, the Alliance experienced more constraints than success. The
technology we needed to use lagged behind the science we were performing.
Alliance experiments often did not present Clear-cut results to the questions they
were designed to answer - unlike my classroom experiments. The Alliance
designed inquiries that had no “answer key” and no black and white explanation.
In some cases, we did not know how to interpret our data. Was it both accurate
and precise or just precise? To my bewilderment respected members of the
research team, many of whom had been hand picked by the Nobel Laureate
himself, didn’t know the answer to this question. This was not due to a lack of
intelligence on the part of my overseers, but merely due to the nature of a
scientific endeavor itself. Experiments usually had to be tweaked and repeated
several times, as well as attacked from different angles. The project is
successfully advancing, however, due to Dr. Gilman’s exceptional “procedural

understanding” of science — his ability to perform a true scientific inquiry.

15

Ninety-five percent of the biology labs I used as a Classroom teacher were
completed in a fifty-five minute class period. Equal time was spent on each
category of the scientific method (problem, observation, procedure, data
collection, data analysis, results and conclusions). There wasn’t time in the day,
nor room in the curriculum to experiment with “conflictive constraints” or failures.
All labs had been previously tested and known to work. Students knew that the
answer key (from which a grade would be awarded) had been written ahead of
time.

Students received lab equipment and supplies that were meticulously
prepared by the biology teaching staff. To ensure the students would finish their
lab before the bell rang, concentrations of solutions were already calculated.
Exact quantities of materials were presented neatly at students’ desks.

Students had the freedom to confer with other students and decipher if their
measurements were within an acceptable range. The following day, students
were asked to present their data on the overhead projector. We discussed some
results as a class. I stood by and watched the kids burn through their erasers
trying to enter the “correct” data. After all, I wouldn’t want students to
misinterpret the concept I was trying to teach. Then the class turned in their labs
for a grade. A lecture and/or homework assignment would further reinforce the
concept that was “discovered” by the students during their laboratory
invesfigafion.

We didn’t encourage students to perform an entire lab more than once to

solidify his/her findings. Students were too bogged down by after school sports,

16

clubs and jobs. We as teachers did not have space in an already overcrowded
curriculum to devote precious class time to the practice of tweaking and
repeating experiments for the sake of verifying results. On top of that, we didn’t
have enough consumable supplies.

While teaching, I became comfortable with the fact that the objective of the
lab was to teach a concept (respiration or photosynthesis, for example) that had
already been discovered by another scientist. Along the way - as a sub objective
— labs modeled a procedural understanding of science. Modeling the procedure
of science, however, is extremely different than being “submerged” in it. AS
shown in the analysis below, my labs never took inquiry science to the next level.

The new paradigm, gained from researching at the Alliance, allows me to
analyze my previous teaching methodologies from a scientist’s point of view —
instead of a teacher’s point of view. A lab I Chose to analyze is called, A
Chemical Reaction of Living Systems and can be found in Appendix A. It
represents the pedagogical style of Close to 95% of the laboratory exercises for
my sophomore Biology classes during the years of 1997-2000. The following is a
comparison of this lab with Content standard A of The National Science
Education Standards - Abilities Necessary to do Scientific Inquiry (2002).

In it’s Report of Convocation, the National Research Council states that,
“Many classes rely on textbooks heavy on “coverage” but weak on example, so
that students are exposed to encyclopedias of fact without ever engaging in the
process that is science” (1996). I was sure my biology classes didn’t fall into this

category. I did not rely on textbooks. In fact, our science department prided

l7

itself on stepping into the realm of “inquiry” learning by injecting more labs into
the curriculum. I had the misconception I was teaching a “procedural
understanding of science” through these labs. In reality, I was modeling the
process of science but not truly teaching it. For example, A Chemical Reaction
of Living Systems fails to engage students in the main process that is science -
true scientific inquiry.

First, this lab teaches “content” over “process.” Its main objective is to
teach about enzymes’ roles in regulating cell processes — an objective found on
most standardized high school tests. By nature of teaching “content” over
“process,” students are never requested to synthesize their own problem of
study. The curriculum itself initiates the problem to study — never the student.

In Procedure B, students are asked to Choose from three possible
hypotheses after observing the reaction between hydrogen peroxide and
Catalase enzyme solution. Again, students did not formulate their own
hypothesis — it was modeled for them. They did not get go to the library, read
journal reviews and engage in the investigative background research that a
scientist does before developing a hypothesis. In the interest of getting finished
before the bell rang, my students randomly circled one of the three.

Question four asks students to design an experiment to test if their
hypothesis is right. Although this question attempts to teach experimental
inquiry, my students may not take it seriously. They already know that no matter
what they write down, it will not be tested in class - unless their experiment

matches the upcoming experiment in Procedure D. Even if I emphasized the

18

importance of this question by assigning it for homework, I did not have the time
or equipment to have large classes of students all testing a different procedure.

Question four left my students feeling disempowered and, therefore, they didn’t

take it seriously.

In Procedure D, students are asked to follow a procedure that tests which
of the three proposed hypotheses is correct. Following an established procedure
prohibits students from engaging in the conflictive constraints that often plague
researchers. Students are prohibited from asking essential inquiry questions
such as: Does my experimental design actually test my hypothesis? What assay
Should I use? What is the proper equipment to use? What controls are
appropriate to use? What criteria should I select in order to accept or reject my
data?

Questions six and seven ask students to formulate a scientific explanation
using logic and evidence. They ask, “Does hydrogen peroxide, the enzyme, or
both change after the reaction?” and “What does this tell you about what an
enzyme does in a chemical reaction?” Both questions engage students in
formulating an explanation or model based on evidence from their investigation.
Most of my labs ask these types of questions. Students are very Skilled at
developing these types of explanations.

“Is there an alternative scientific explanation for the one we proposed?”
"Should we do the investigation over?” Again, students were disengaged from
questions like these. Even if they did come up with a brilliant answer, they know

we would never use valuable class time to further investigate an alternative. l

19

often shied away from this question for fear of complicating the original concept I
intended to convey. Finally, this lab does not ask students to defend a scientific
argument. Because this lab teaches a “concept,” students know there are
predetermined answers to the conclusion questions. Since the lab has been
revised several times by the textbook editors or previous teachers, there is
usually little to question. Had the students all synthesized and carried out their
own experimental design, a peer review (such as one preformed by scientists)
would be appropriate. Overall, this lab gave attention to, and modeled the
scientific method to students. However, it lacked efficient strategies for teaching
scientific problem solving in order for students to develop their own problem-
solving process.

In 2000 researchers in the Netherlands characterized the least and most
effective strategies for teaching scientific problem solving. The least effective
tactic was “merely giving attention to” knowledge of a problem solving strategy -
such as merely modeling the scientific method for students. The most effective
tactics were “providing the learners with guidelines and criteria they can use in
judging their own problem-solving process” and “providing immediate feedback”
(Taconis et al., 2000). Unlike the biology labs I had taught, the STARS program
appeared to give students the initiative to develop their own problem-solving
process. The student/scientist intimacy also appeared conducive for students to
receive both criteria for judging their own problem-solving process and immediate

feedback.

20

The following documents the outcome of student/scientist and
teacher/scientist pairings in the STARS Summer Research Program. Part 2
identifies the elements of authentic science that were missing from the STARS
teachers’ teaching, and from the STARS students’ learning before entering the
program. Part 3 evaluates the changes in perception of STARS participants as
they undenivent the program. Part 4 discusses the teachers’ constraints for
bringing their newly discovered elements of authentic science back to the
classroom. Finally, Part 5 offers educators a guide for overcoming the

constraints of bringing authentic science to students.

21

METHODOLOGY

RECRUITMENT OF SUBJECTS

The 2002 STARS Summer Research Program participants underwent an
intense selection process. High School Juniors from the Dallas area, Dallas ISD
and Dallas County Community College District submitted applications in
February Of 2002. Students were selected on the basis of their class rank,
standardized test scores, autobiographical essay, letters of recommendation and
personal interview (STARS, 2002). Students were also selected on their interest
in science, strong willingness to learn, and an enjoyment of the process of
discovery. A strong background in biological science was not emphasized in the
selection process (STARS, 2002).

Secondary Science Teachers (grades 7-12) employed in the state of
Texas also submitted applications in February of 2002. Teachers were selected
on the basis of their classroom performance, enthusiasm, and willingness to
develop and incorporate new ideas into the science curriculum (STARS, 2002).
A strong background of previous scientific research experience was not
emphasized in the selection process (STARS, 2002). Teachers with at least 2-3
years of classroom experience were favored. The selection process was
completely independent from this study.

Student and teacher STARS participants reported for an orientation on
June 3"d of 2002. After listening to a detailed presentation of this study, subjects

were recruited on a voluntary basis. Recruitment strictly followed both IRB

22

guidelines from The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas

and UCRIHS guidelines from Michigan State University (Appendix D).

DEMOGRAPHICS OF SUBJECTS

Of the fifteen 2002 STARS students participants, ten agreed to be part of
this study. The group was ethnically diverse with two African-Americans, one
African-Hispanic, three Asians, one Hispanic and three Caucasians. Seven were
female and three were male. Nine of the students were entering into their senior
year of high school. One had completed a year of community college. Four of
the ten students attended a science and engineering magnet school. Two
students attended inner city schools. Two attended prosperous suburban
schools. One student attended a small, rural school.

Of the ten 2002 STARS teacher participants, nine agreed to be a part of
this study. The group was not ethnically diverse, as all nine teachers were
Caucasians. Four were women and five were men. Although the program was
open to all Texas secondary teachers, all nine teachers taught in the Dallas / Fort
Worth area where the STARS program is based. Four taught middle school
science and five taught high school science. The range of professional teaching
experience varied from two to eighteen years with a group average of nine years.
The range of teaching subjects also varied among the study subjects. Three
taught middle school science (advanced, honors and/or regular), one taught
middle school earth science, three taught Chemistry (advanced placement,

and/or regular), three taught Anatomy/Physiology, two taught biology (advanced

23

placement, pre advanced placement and/or regular), and one taught physics. A
majority of the teachers (six of the nine) taught at least one advanced science
class (honors or advanced placement).

The STARS program selection committee preferred to pick teachers with
little or no previous scientific research experience. Two, however, had
participated in smaller programs Similar to STARS but less intense. Two others
had actually participated in the 2001 STARS program. The returnees were
allowed to come back for a second year, but they were required to work on new
research projects. Although this subject group was not ethnically or
geographically diverse, it appeared to contain a dynamic spectrum of teaching

philosophies and competencies.

DATA COLLECTION

In their book, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Michael, Quinn
and Patton discuss “Triangulation” as being a valid research approach. In this
study, “Triangulation of Qualitative Data Sources” was used. This includes, “(1)
comparing observational data with interview data; (2) comparing what people say
in public with what they say in private; (3) checking for the consistency of what
people say about the same thing over time [...] ” (Michael, Quinn, Patton, 467).
Multiple sources of information were collected in order to statically evaluate
qualitative data by triangulation.

Initially these data collection methods were designed to include the mentoring

scientists, in addition to students and teachers. However, because of their busy

24

schedules, most mentoring scientists were reluctant to become involved to the
degree necessary to collect sufficient data for this study. Any data that
references the mentoring scientists was obtained from student and teacher
comments. All data was collected from students and teachers using the following
multiple sources:

1) Pre- and Post-Inquiry Tests (Appendix C1, C2, C4 and C5)

The Pre- and Post-Inquiry Tests were designed to measure changes in
subjects’ perceptions of the culture of authentic science. Most of the questions
were centered on the misconceptions l maintained as a teacher, but that
dissolved after becoming a researcher. For example, one question asks, “How
do scientists conclude that their data is right or wrong, accurate or not accurate,
precise or not precise?” As a teacher I thought scientists used repeated
experimentation and statistical analysis. As a researcher I learned scientists also
rely heavily on peer review. Another question asks, “What Skills do you need to
have in order to set up and perform a scientifically sound experiment?” AS a
teacher I would have answered, “knowledge of the content.” As a researcher I
learned one also needs the abilities of synthesizing creative experiments and
problem solving around conflictive constraints (more inquiry related Skills). I used
The National Science Education Standards (excluding content standards) as a
tool to refine the questions. Most questions were repeated verbatim from the
Pre-lnquiry to the Post-Inquiry tests. Students and teachers completed Pre-
lnquiry tests during the first two days of the STARS program. The Post-Inquiry

tests were completed eight weeks later on the last day of the STARS program.

25

2) Weekly Journal Collections (Appendix C3)

I established a weekly dialogue with all nineteen subjects using journal
writing. Subjects handed in theirjournals each week at the beginning of their
mandatory STARS discussion group. Journals were copied and given back to
participants before the end of the meeting. Subjects were given a new journal
prompt to write about each week. Most journal prompts encouraged subjects to
reflect upon their feelings, surprises, misconceptions, etc. (see Appendix CS).

3) Weekly Discussion Groups

Weekly discussion groups were a mandatory component to the STARS
program. For two to three hours a week students and teachers met (in separate
groups) to discuss concerns or reflect upon their experiences. Participants
enjoyed mingling and hearing about others’ laboratories. The STARS program
coordinator and l facilitated the discussions.

4) One-on-One Interviews

Each participant had at least one interview with the STARS program
coordinator and myself. Subjects were asked to explain their project, and reflect
upon their experience thus far. Interviews were performed during the middle of
the program. Aside from formal interviews, I frequently ate lunch with subjects
and visited their laboratories. Most informal conversations were recorded after
the conversation took place. These informal conversations were also considered
interviews.

5) Presentation Evaluations

26

During the last day of the eight-week program, participants presented
research posters. The ten-minute presentations were similar to a mock, peer-
editing session. Scientists from each mentoring lab participated, and in some
cases, questioned participants on the validity of their research methodologies.
Subjects took this occasion seriously, as it was the culmination of their summer
experience. During these presentations, I recorded notes. These notes proved

helpful in later determining the level of inquiry in which the subject participated.

DATA ANALYSIS

Quotes of Significance from all subjects were extracted from all five data
collection methods. Each comment was entered into a computer. The quotes of
significance included comments from subjects pertaining to “the culture of
science” (including feelings about mentors, initial surprises, previous
misconceptions, impressions of scientific meetings, changes in attitudes, etc.).
They also included comments pertaining to “inquiry” (day-to-day events,
encountering problems, navigating around problems, performing steps of the
scientific method, questioning results, experiencing failures, the process of
coming to a conclusion, etc.). Comments pertaining to an explanation of
“content” (such as, “The film detects the amount of 8001 protein needed for
depression of an aggregate that causes FALS.”) were not included. Comments
irrelative to science (such as “I went to the cafeteria to get a turkey sandwich”)

were also not included.

27

The quotes of Significance used for data analysis totaled 384 (165 from
the students and 219 from the teachers). Quotes were then clustered into
patterns of significance. These patterns of significance can be found in Appendix
C (labeled as “Student Quotes” and “Teacher Quotes”). Student and teacher
quotes were kept separate from one another.

One may argue that these patterns of significance should have been
cross-examined by a second observer to avoid the interpreter effect. “The
interpreter effect occurs when two or more individuals observe the same
phenomenon, but evaluate the results differently depending on their prior
knowledge” (MCComaS & Moore, 2002). Including a second examiner into this
study was not possible. lntemal Review Board (IRB) standards regarding subject
confidentiality required me to keep all data private. Second observers within the
STARS program would easily figure out which participant wrote which quote.
Second observers outside the STARS program would introduce inaccuracy into
the study interpreting quotes out of their intended context.

The two goals of the data collection were to 1) determine whether the
STARS experience Changed students’ and teachers” perceptions about the
culture surrounding authentic science and 2) determine whether the STARS
experience engaged students and teachers in true scientific inquiry. To
determine the results of the goal 1, the students and teachers were asked the
following questions on the Pre-lnquiry test, Post-Inquiry test and randomly during
journal prompting, group discussions and interviews. Their responses (quotes of

significance and answers to Pre/Post Inquiries) were scored using a scoring

28

rubric (see Figures 1 & 2). A subject’s rubric score, therefore, represents a
blended composite of journal entries, interview responses, discussion group
comments and Post Inquiry answers.

What are your career aspirations after having experienced the STARS
Program? (for students only)

In your opinion, what are the most important things (tools, Skills, concepts,
habits, etc.) a scientist must have in order to do his/her job well?

How often do you keep up with the latest developments in science and
technology? What sources do you enjoy using?

Do you see yourself as a scientist as well as a student (or science
teacher)? If so, what things do the two disciplines have in common? If
not, what Skills or habits would you need to acquire in order to be a
scientist?

How do scientists conclude that their data is right or wrong, accurate or
not accurate, precise or not precise?

Describe the qualities of a good scientific notebook. Explain why these
qualities are important.

Do you think most scientists follow the scientific method? Do you think
most scientific knowledge was acquired by using the scientific method?

What is an experimental control? Is a control necessary in every scientific
experiment? What is an experimental standard?

How important are good communication skills to a scientist?

What skills do you need to have in order to set up and perform a
scientifically sound experiment?

From the previous question: Which of these Skills do you feel you
possess? Which of these skills do you need to work on?

What is the difference between science and technology?
Do you feel you now have new links to the scientific community? If so,

how will you utilize these new links in your classroom next year? (for
teachers only)

29

Will you feel more confident supervising independent, student research
projects or science fair projects? (for teachers only)

After having the STARS experience, do you feel it is more important to
incorporate disciplines other than science into your classroom? (for
teachers only)

To determine the results of goal 2, | used the following question:

To what degree did students and teachers participate in true scientific
inquiry?

To answer this question, subjects’ clusters of significance relating to “inquiry”
(see Appendix C) were scored using a third scoring rubric (see Figure 3).

The scoring rubrics (as shown in Figures 1,2 and 3) scored answers on a
scale of 1-5. A score of five indicates that the subject undenivent a change in
perception about the culture of science (Figures 1 & 2) or experienced true
inquiry science (Figure 3) as a result of their STARS experience. A score of one
indicates that the subject developed further misconceptions about the culture of
science (Figures 1 & 2) or the nature of true inquiry science (Figure 3) as a result
of their STARS experience. Because Pre-Inquiry questions did not have a right
or wrong answer, all Pre-lnquiry answers were scored at a baseline of two. A

score of two on the rubric scales represents no change.

30

Figure 1: Student’s Triangulation Rubric — The Culture of Science

Measuring Changes in Perception
Relating to “The Authentic Culture of Science”

 

Subject’s Pre- and Post-Inquiry test answers Changed
significantly.
And I or 5
Subject reflected upon the Change in journal, group
discussion, interview or final presentation twice or more.

 

Subject's Pre- and Post-Inquiry test answers changed
slightly.
And 4
Subject reflected upon the change in journal, group
discussion, interview or final presentation once.

 

Subject’s Pre— and Post-Inquiry test answers Changed
slightly. Subject did not, however, reflect upon the change
in journal, group discussion, interview or final presentation.

Or 3

Subject’s Pre- and Post-Inquiry test answers did not change.

Subject did, however, reflect upon the topic in journal, group
discussion, interview or final presentation.

 

Subject Showed no change in answer from Pre-lnquiry test
to Post-Inquiry test.

And 2
Subject did not reflect upon the topic in journal, group Base-
discussion, interview or final presentation. line

 

Subject Shows Change in answer from Pre-Inquiry test to
Post-Inquiry test, but the change further increases
misconceptions or confusion about the topic.
And I or 1
Subject reflects upon the topic in journal, group discussion,
interview or final presentation, but the reflection indicates
further misconception or confusion about the topic.

 

 

 

 

31

Figure 2: Teacher's Triangulation Rubric — The Culture of Science

Measuring Changes in Perception

Relating to “The Authentic Culture of Science”

 

Subject’s Pre— and Post-Inquiry test answers changed
Significantly.
And I or
Subject reflected upon the change in journal, group
discussion, interview or final presentation twice or more.
And I or
Subject made an attempt to bring this change into the
Classroom by creating or updating teaching materials.

 

Subject’s Pre- and Post-Inquiry test answers changed
Slightly.
And
Subject reflected upon the Change in journal, group
discussion, interview or final presentation once.
And I or
Subject discussed the necessity of bringing the Change into
their classrooms.

 

Subject’s Pre- and Post-Inquiry test answers Changed
slightly. Subject did not, however, reflect upon the Change in
journal, group discussion, interview or final presentation.

Or
Subject’s Pre- and Post-Inquiry test answers did not change.
Subject did, however, reflect upon the topic in journal, group
discussion, interview or final presentation.
And
Subject did not connect this topic to their teaching methods.

 

Subject showed no Change in answer from Pre- Inquiry to
Post-Inquiry test.
And
Subject did not reflect upon the topic in journal, group
discussion, interview or final presentation.
And
Subject did not connect this topic to their teaching methods.

Base-
line

 

Subject shows Change in answer from Pre-lnquiry test to
Post-Inquiry test, but the change further increases
misconceptions or confusion about the topic.
And I or
Subject reflects upon the topic in journal, group discussion,
interview or final presentation, but the reflection indicates
further misconception or confusion about the topic.

 

 

 

32

 

Figure 3: Student and Teacher’s Triangulation Rubric — True Scientific Inquiry

Measuring the Degree
to which True Scientific Inquiry was Experienced

 

Subject was able to develop and advance his/her own
research agenda. Subject self-directed their own inquiry
activities to further their research agenda. Scientist only

served to give advice and support subject’s research. 5

Scientist developed trust in subject’s ability to work on a self-
directed project. Subject experienced conflictive constraints,
but was able to problem solve around these constraints.
Subject was able to advance the research agenda of the
mentoring lab. Subject’s participation in inquiry activities was
half self-directed and half scientist-directed. Scientist
developed trust in subject. Subject experienced conflictive 4
constraints and was able to problem solve around these
constraints with the help of the scientist.

Subject was able to advance the research agenda of the
mentoring lab. Subject participated in or observed inquiry
activities that were mostly scientist-directed. Scientist did not
fully trust subject’s ability to self~direct experiments, however, 3
scientist and subject had a positive working relationship.
Subject was able to observe the scientist problem solving
around conflictive constraints.

Subject was not allowed to develop his/her own research
agenda. Subject was not allowed to develop or advance the
research agenda of mentoring laboratory. Subject was

 

 

 

scientist-directed. Subject mostly participated in 2
predetermined procedures that required the following of Base-
others’ directions. Subject was not able to witness or line

observe conflictive constraints because subject was mostly
unattached from the research problem.
Participation in research increased or created
misconceptions about the “process of science” and the 1
nature of an authentic inquiry investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

After qualitative data was transformed into quantitative data (using the scoring
rubrics), the mean of the student group and the mean of the teacher group was

determined for each question (see Tables 1, 2 & 3).

33

RESULTS

In line with what Michael, Quinn and Patton spoke of in their book,
Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Triangulation proved to be a
“powerful solution to the problem of relying too much on any single data source
or method, thereby undermining the validity and credibility of findings because of
the weakness of any Single method” (1990). Of the five data sources (put into
one of three rubrics), the subjects’ journal entries provided me with the most
intimate and detailed accounts. Teachers uninhibitedly wrote about their
feelings, struggles, day to day work and impressions of their mentors. Because I
couldn’t observe all nineteen labs at the same time, journal entries acted as a
substitute video camera recording day-to—day laboratory events as seen through
the lens of the participant.

Weekly discussion groups and oral interviews became the second most
valuable pieces of data. Accounts were often passionate and descriptive.
Topics, however, were often initiated by myself or the STARS Program
Coordinator. Some subjects preferred talking over journal writing, while others
felt intimidated by talking in front of people.

Pre- and Post-Inquiry test answers proved to be less beneficial. Although
I tried to ask open—ended questions, subjects still were obliged to comment only
about the topics being asked. Answers proved to be general in nature - unlike
journal entries, discussion groups and interviews. Subjects completed the Post-

lnquiry test after presenting their final presentations. Most subjects were

34

exhausted and eager to say one last goodbye to their laboratories.
Consequently, some subjects wrote quick and non-descriptive answers. Lastly,
the subject’s final presentations became useful reiterations and further

reinforcement of the previous four methods of data collection.

BEFORE STARS -IMPRESSIONS OF SCIENCE AND SCHOOL (PART 2)
Perhaps the most powerful rationale for this study can be found within the
voices of the STARS’ teacher and student participants. Two of the nine teachers
categorized their previous school labs as being cookbook in nature. Six teachers

categorized their previous school labs as being a mixture of cookbook and
inquiry. Seven teachers expressed the desire to bring more inquiry science into
their Classrooms. Five said their goal in STARS was to develop more inquiry
labs for school. Five said their goal in STARS was to Ieam new “real-world” or
“cutting-edge” science techniques.

Nine of the ten students participating in this study (90%) were critical of
their previous school science education. Students were eager to Share these
previous Classroom science experiences during all weeks of the study.

Teachers’ reflections of how they taught paralleled what the students were
saying (refer to the Clusters of Significance found in Appendix C).

Student One best summed up the laboratory experience of most students
in this study:

At school a lab was set up with everything. All I basically had to do

was fill in some basic blanks. The problem I hypothesis was

35

always started, the materials were set out on the table. The
procedures were already included. All I had to do was replicate the
experiment and get data. Even for the conclusion I was given
questions that would lead me to what was to be the accepted
outcome to get a 100% or to understand the outcome. Even
through it isn’t a very effective way to learn or to proceed in
research I believe that those experiments were not truly
experiments but ratherjust examples. Thanks to them I learned
such things as how different elements behave, about phase
changes. In a real experiment I feel I would be better prepared to
recognize such Characteristics that would allow me to distinguish

what is causing what in my data. (S1 — journal)

Above, Student One believed that her “experiments were not truly experiments
[involving inquiry] but rather just examples” from which important “concepts”
(element behaviors, phase changes) were learned.

Many other student quotes suggested their previous school labs were strong
on conveying concepts, but weak on conveying the abilities necessary to perform
true scientific inquiry. Under “The Abilities Necessary to do Scientific Inquiry
(Content Standard A)” the National Science Education Standards require
students to, “formulate a testable hypothesis.” For Student Three, formulating a
testable hypothesis was not emphasized in her previous science classes. She

wrote:

36

In my Chemistry and Biology classes when we were doing labs, the
procedure seemed to be the most important part to the students.
Even though the results and conclusion were what the teachers
actually cared about, the procedure was what the students worried
about. If you didn’t follow the right procedure, your results would
not be accurate which made a difference in the grades. (33 —
journal)
Student Three’s statements are backed up by Teacher Eight’s statement:
I suppose my students participate in the procedure portion more
than the other steps. Let’s face it - it’s easier. (T8 - journal)
Student Eight indicated that in his science class the experiments were assigned
for the week and he mainly participated in just data collection. This indicates that
the student does not use the opportunity to observe a problem, formulate a
hypothesis to that problem, or even make sure that the design of the experiment
fits the hypothesis. He wrote:
Last year at TAMS [a science and engineering magnet school], I
mainly participated in the “Experiment” part of the scientific method
(since the whole class was devoted to doing the experiments)...All
the lab time was devoted to performing the experiments assigned
for that week...So, much of the time, lab was just data collecting

and occasionally some minor math calculations. (88 -joumal)

37

Only allowing students to focus on data collection does not give students the
opportunity to initiate a problem to be tested, formulate their own hypothesis or
develop procedures to test the hypothesis. Teacher Six admitted:
Students - usually have trouble formulating the hypothesis, they
enjoy the experiment part the most. (T6 — journal)
Sadly, one student even wrote:
Last year in AP Biology, we did not do any labs. We just read the
book and took tests...We did nothing but read other individuals’
results. (S5 —journal)
Students also appeared to not have practice at designing and conducting
scientific investigations — another requirement of Content Standard A -, since the
procedures were already prepared for them.
In classes, science is often black and white. The teachers already
have a set way of performing the experiments. There is usually not
much (if any) room for questioning the way the procedure has to be
done. However, real life science is often full of surprises and that
way a researcher believes something should be is often different
from the way it actually is. ($3 — journal)
“In school the procedures are already there,” confirmed $6 in her interview.
Student Nine agreed as she stated, “Our teacher would tell you exactly what to
do and measure" (SQ — interview). It appears the study teachers are aware of

this problem and trying to fix it. Teacher Seven wrote, “I know I would like to

38

reach a point where my students are writing out the labs instead of these recipe
labs.”

Content Standard A also requires students to recognize and analyze
alternative explanations and models (NSES, 2002). This appears hard to
accomplish when the teacher grades lab results using a predetermined answer
key. For example Student Four wrote:

In school, I mainlyjust did experiments. We often did not analyze
the data answers or if we did we would often be wrong and the
teacher would have to tell us the correct answer anyway. (S4 —
journal)
Teacher Three’s students did not even really perform a data analysis, “Students
are usually involved in data collection the most. Most analysis is left out or done
independenflyf

Lastly, Content Standard A requires students to communicate and defend
a scientific argument (NSES, 2002). In Teacher One’s opinion, students are
never asked to defend the "whys” of how an experiment was run. In reality,
defending a scientific argument is a large part of a scientist’s job. She wrote:

I felt that my students participate in actually doing for the
experiment. The theoretically / logically system in which a scientist
goes through finding the answer - i.e. the set up of the experiment,
is lost on my students. I feel that they just see the results instead of
the whys (why did you pick this chemical instead of that chemical)

and how (why did you run a spec 20 instead of calorimeter). Here,

39

 

 

 

you did the actual set-up of the system to carry out your
experiment. Thus, this could answer the question: Why students
do not understand what they did in lab even though they performed
the experiment. (T1 — journal)
Overall, student and teacher comments consistently demonstrated that lab
experiences prior to STARS were slightly rooted in discovery learning but not

rooted in inquiry learning.

DURING STARS - IMPRESSIONS OF SCIENCE AND SCHOOL (PART 3)

Stepping into the culture of research lead to a mixture of initial surprises
for both students and teachers. Four of the ten students commented about the
scientists’ work ethic. For example, Student Five was shocked at the absence of
a Clock-in, or set time schedule. Four of the students were taken aback by the
amount of freedom they were given in the laboratory. Three of the nine teachers
were alarmed by the cost of doing research. Teacher Four couldn’t believe that
ten milliliters of a substance cost $280. Three students and three teachers held
misconceptions about the time-line of research. “I thought things progressed a
lot more smoothly and quicker — not the case in science,” said Teacher Three.
Finally, three of the ten students were surprised at the diversity of jobs within the
medical center. Several of them enjoyed reading the title plaques over each door
as we walked to lunch. Student Three wrote:

In hospitals you see doctors and nurses working on their patients.

Medications are prescribed and treatments are under-went. This is

40

what people expect to see in hospitals. However, since there are
many different kinds of doctors that work in the hospital, there are
many different kinds of jobs they do (besides signing for a
prescription). In the pathology department, doctors specialize in
many different kinds of treatment that a regular physician may not
ever have to worry about...(S3 - journal)

After the initial surprises wore off, subjects began interacting with the
laboratory personnel (including Ph.D.’s, M.D.’S, lead scientists, medical students,
graduate students and laboratory technicians). Students” impressions of
researchers began to change. Five of the ten students were able to dissolve
their previous misconceptions about scientists. As Student Seven bluntly put it,
“Research isn’t just a bunch of nerds who have no life, it’s just normal people.”
Student Four is reassured about the number of young people in research.
Students One and Three are surprised that their mentors don’t have all the
answers. “I thought before scientists came up with ideas miraculously,” said
Student Three. Teachers, on the other hand, did not hold these same previous
misconceptions.

Six of the students commented on having positive interactions with the
researchers. Student Eight wrote:

The people at the office labs and General Clinic Research Center
are very nice. They are very helpful and extremely patient with a
novice like myself. They laugh at mistakes more than I do. I am

very fortunate to work with all these nice yet sophisticated people.

41

On the same note, Student Ten wrote, “Everyone in the lab seems to be
extremely helpful and talkative. They seem to be people who would give me
advice on any issue.” Three of the nine teachers, on the other hand, fixated on
the fact that the researchers seemed almost too busy to help. Teacher Five
expressed the most extreme point of view:
When I visited with the Pl [Principal Investigator] before the
summer began, I thought he was going to be more hands on with
me than he is. He was to leave (go out of town) a couple of days
after I first began work and seemed very distracted and didn’t have
time to talk to me. He frankly seemed annoyed that l was there —
one more thing to deal with.
In this case, the teacher was able to befriend and learn from other laboratory
personnel. In fact, almost all subjects experienced a setting similar to Teacher
One. In her interview, Teacher One said she Ieamed two different perspectives
by working with both lab technicians [usually at the lower end of the hierarchy]
and doctors [at the higher end]. In her interview Teacher Eight said, “I didn’t
realize the techs were people that do the procedures...the techs know every
protocol but don’t know the “whys” to the problem.”

Subjects further observed the world of scientists’ at weekly meetings,
where they began to peek into the “culture of science”. Six of the students and
four of the teachers commented on their impressions of these meetings. Student
Six witnessed the value of peer review in science. She told me in her interview,

”There was a paper being published and I got to see them pick it apart.” Student

42

One also caught a glimpse of a peer review session. She wrote during a meeting

in her journal:
The data was controversial in the sense that the outcome had been
unexpected and there was speculation on why that followed. The
reasons that caused me to write that the data was a bit
controversial. The words that followed were “weird results”, “are
you sure?” and “how was your experiment carried out?” The last
question was asked several times and gone over in great detail.
[Her mentor] was asked to review the data and replicate the
experiment.

Teacher One was surprised by the “hush-hush attitude” at these meetings.

Teacher Four witnessed the devastation his lab felt when their paper was initially

rejected by the Journal of Neuroscience.

Observing the “culture of science” also included the viewing of surgeries
and other procedures involving patients. Three of the ten students commented
on this. Student Ten wrote, “One thing I did not expect to do this summer was
watch surgeries. My mentor allowed me to stand right behind him as he
operated. I got to experience the life of a surgeon...” Teachers had similar
experiences, but did not comment as extensively as the students did.

Observing the culture that surrounds science was not the only favorable
outcome of being involved in the STARS program. Subjects also found
themselves involved in “true scientific inquiry” (as discussed above, the standard

used to measure true inquiry was taken form The National Science and

43

 

Education Standards). The following paragraphs discuss how subjects used
inquiry skills to navigate their way through the scientific method.

The National Science Education Standards require Ieamers to be
engaged in scientifically oriented questions (NCR, 2000). At the highest level,
students would pose a question based on their previous observations of the
natural world. At the very least, students would sharpen, clarify or engage in a
question provided by the observations of a teacher, mentor or other source
(NCR, 2000). Only Student Three posed her own research problem to study.
She observed and felt impassioned by the lack of African American blood donors
for Sickle Cell Anemia patients and wanted to study the problem.

Most subjects adopted the research question of their assigned lab. For
this same reason, an equally low number of subjects developed their own
hypotheses (only one student and one teacher). For example, since her
laboratory was still in the beginning stages of their project, Teacher One was
able to advance her own hypothesis. She wrote, “At this point in the lab — I
expect from the articles that I am reading that my cells will convert to osteoblasts.
I also expect that once they achieve that level then they will not stay osteoblasts

long.”

AFTER STARS - IMPRESSIONS OF SCIENCE AND SCHOOL AS A RESULT
OF STARS

Table 1: Student Triangulation Results — The Culture of Science

 

 
  
 

 

 

 

Mean
Questions Sample Composite
(Corresponding with Figure 4 below) Number of
Triannnlafn

 

44

 

Triangulated
Data

 

1. What are your career aspirations
after having experienced the STARS
Program?

4.4

 

2. In your opinion, what are the most
important things (tools, Skills,
concepts, habits, etc.) a scientist must
have in order to do her/his job well?

3.1

 

3. How often do you keep up with the
latest developments in science and
technology? What sources do you
enjoy using?

3.6

 

4. Do you see yourself as a scientist
as well as a student? If so, what
things do the two disciplines have in
common? If not, what skills or habits
would you need to acquire in order to
be a scientist?

2.8

 

5. What percentage of scientific
endeavors and experiments are
failures or involve conflictive
constraints?

4.0

 

6. How do scientists conclude that
their data is right or wrong, accurate
or not accurate, precise or not
precise?

2.7

 

7. Describe the qualities of a good
scientific notebook. Explain why
these qualities are important.

2.6

 

8. Do you think most scientists follow
the scientific method? Do you think
most scientific knowledge was
acquired by using the scientific
method?

2.6

 

9. What is an experimental control?
Is a control necessary in every
scientific experiment? What is an
experimental standard?

2.9

 

 

10. How important are good
communication Skills to a scientist?

 

 

3.1

 

45

 

 

 

11. What Skills do you need to have
in order to set up and perform a
scientifically sound experiment?

3.6

 

12. From previous question: Which
of these skills do you feel you
possess? Which of these skills do
you need to work on?

3.6

 

13. What is the difference between
science and technology?

 

 

2.2

 

46

 

Figure 4: Student Triangulation Results Graph - The Culture of Science

Student Triangulation Results
The Culture of Science

 

 

 

 

 

Rubric Scale

<--Baseline

 

 

 

12345678910111213
Question Number

 

Ll Mean Composite Score from Triangulated Dataj

 

Figure 4 shows the extent to which students were affected by the culture
of science experienced at STARS. All composite mean scores were above the
baseline of 2. The baseline of 2 from the rubric scales represents no Change.
Question One demonstrates (with a mean composite of 4.4 out of 5) that the
STARS Program significantly affected students’ career aspirations. A mean of
4.4 indicates that students’ Pre- and Post-Inquiry answers Changed more than
slightly, and students reflected upon the change in theirjoumal entries, group
discussions, interview responses or final presentation comments between one to
two times (see Rubric, Figure 1). Student Seven stated the following in her Post
Inquiry:

STARS has really opened my eyes up to pursuing a career in

research. This program has reiterated to me the importance that

47

science has [working to find a cure for Multiple Sclerosis]. I will
most definitely be pursuing a career in the sciences, this program
has solidified that thought. (S7 — Post-Inquiry)

Student One echoed Student Seven’s thoughts:
There are lots of career paths and fields opened most that had it
not been for STARS I would never known existed. I mean a whole
lab concentrated on the study of how just one single protein
interacts. . .(S1 - Journal)

Question Five -— resulting in the second highest mean of 4.0 - shows that
students were surprised at the amount of conflictive constraints or failure
involved in real science. A mean of 4.0 indicates that students’ Pre- and Post-
lnquiry answers Changed slightly, and students reflected upon the Change in their
journal entries, group discussions, interview responses or final presentation
comments once. When asked what the most profound thing learned in STARS
was, Student Eight responded, “I learned that failure is an option, mistakes will
happen and are acceptable only if one learns from THEM!” Likewise, Student
Three wrote, “Things often go wrong in science and no one can do anything
about it but go on and learn form your mistakes.”

In a tie for third and fourth highest means are Question Three and
Question Eleven with a 3.6. A mean of 3.6 indicates that students’ Pre- and
Post-Inquiry answers Changed Slightly, but students probably did not reflect upon
the change in their journal entries, group discussions, interview responses or

final presentation comments (or vise-verse). Question Three demonstrated that

48

students will now be more likely to keep up with the latest developments in

science and technology as a result of being in the STARS program. Student

Nine wrote:
I have seen so many awesome developments in which science and
technology work hand in hand to make human life more
comfortable. This has sparked an interest in me and I am going to
keep up with more developments by watching the news and
discovery Channel, reading scientific journals and keeping in touch
with my lab people and doctor!. (89 - Post Inquiry)

Finally, Question Eleven indicates students changed their perspectives
concerning what skills are necessary in order to perform a scientifically sound
experiment. For example, students Cited careful handling of a substance,
meticulous and accurate measurements, knowledge of past related studies, a
background on the equipment and how it works, money management, being able
to write a grant, and being a logical person as the skills they now feel are
important to perform a sound experiment (Post-Inquiry answers from various
students).

The lowest student mean of 2.2 resulted from Question Thirteen, “What is
the difference between science and technology?” A mean of 2.2 indicates that
students showed little Change from their Pre- to Post-Inquiry answers, and didn’t
reflect upon the topic in their journal entries, group discussions, interview

responses or final presentation comments. As discussed below, the difference

49

between science and technology question also scored the lowest mean for

teachers (Table 2).

50

Table 2: Teacher Triangulation Results — The Culture of Science

 

Mean
Questions Sample Composite
(Corresponding to Figure 5) Number of
Triangulated
Data

 

1. In your opinion, what are the most
important things (tools, skills, concepts, 7 2.8
habits, etc.) a scientist must have in order
to do her/his job well?

 

2. How often do you keep up with the

 

latest developments In science and 6 3.3
technology? What sources do you enjoy

using?

3. Do you feel you now have new links to

the scientific community? Is so, how will 7 5.0

you utilize these new links in your
classroom next year?

 

4. Will you feel more confident

 

supervising independent, student, 6 3.6
research projects or science fair

projects?

5. After having this STARS experience,

do you feel it is more important to 6 3.3

incorporate disciplines other than science
into your classroom?

 

6. Do you see yourself as a scientist as
well as a science teacher? If so, what
things do the two disciplines have in 6 2.5
common? If not, what skills or habits
would you need to acquire in order to be
a scientist?

 

7. What percentage of scientific
endeavors and experiments are failures 9 4.3
or involve conflictive constraints?

 

8. How do scientists conclude that their
data is right or wrong, accurate or not 7 2.9
accurate, precise or not precise?

 

9. Describe the qualities of a good
scientific notebook. Explain why these 6 3.3
qualities are important.

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

10. Do you think most scientists follow
the scientific method? Do you think most
scientific knowledge was acquired by
using the scientific method?

2.3

 

11. What is an experimental control? Is
a control necessary in every scientific
experiment? What is an experimental
standard?

3.4

 

12. How important are good
communication Skills to a scientist?

2.6

 

13. What skills do you need to have in
order to set up and perform a
scientifically sound experiment?

3.4

 

14. From previous question: Which of
these skills do you feel you possess?
Which of these skills do you need to work
on?

2.4

 

 

15. What is the difference between
science and technology?

 

 

2.1

 

52

 

Figure 5: Teacher Triangulation Results Graph — The Culture of Science

Teacher Triangulation Results
The Culture of Science

 

5.0
4.5 up... 2, #. flzfl. .__D

 

 

4.0 ~
3.5 - —- _.

3.04 _D
2.5-.. - In... -_._

 

Rubric Scale

 

 

2.0~
IIIIIIIII “H
to. l

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415
Question Number

- <- Baseline

 

 

F? _I Mean Composite Scores from Triangulated Data

I
I
J

 

 

Figure 5 shows the extent to which teachers were affected by the culture

of science experienced at STARS. Like the students, all teacher composite

mean scores were above the baseline of 2. Again, the baseline of 2 from the

rubric scales represents no Change (Figure 2). All teachers felt they had new

links to the scientific community. This topic, Question Three, had the highest

teacher rubric score mean of 5 out of 5. A mean of 5.0 indicates that teachers’

Pre- and Post-Inquiry answers Changed significantly, and/or teachers reflected

upon the topic in their journal entries, group discussions, interview responses or

final presentation comments twice or more, and/or teachers made an attempt to

bring this change into the Classroom by creating or updating teaching materials

(Figure 2). Teacher Eight stated, “I will not hesitate to call for science fair info,

53

judges, etc. I also plan on becoming a regular fixture at the warehouse [where
teachers can take used UTSW equipment].” Teacher Seven stated, “I will take
my students here [UTSW] to show them the research world.”

Like the students, teachers were also surprised by the amount of
conflictive constraints or failures involved with scientific research. This question,
Question Seven, resulted in the second highest teacher rubric mean of 4.3. A
mean of 4.3 indicates that teachers” Pre- and Post-Inquiry answers Changed
slightly, and/or teachers reflected upon the topic in theirjoumal entries, group
discussions, interview responses or final presentation comments once or more,
and/or teachers discussed the necessity of bringing the change into their
classrooms (Figure 2). For example, when asked what the most profound things
Ieamed as a result of STARS were, Teacher One wrote, “failure is a
guarantee...my failure to gain results is amazing.” Teacher Eight wrote:

Yesterday we were reviewing some data on some double blind
dissections and cultures, but there was a big problem. Our data
consistently was the opposite of our hypothesis. If the data is
consistently wrong, it might mean that a previous research study
was wrong. That means starting over again (T8 — journal).
Teacher Six also voiced his labs’ concerns during the weekly discussion group,
“Everything came back wrong, probes not reading, [we] gathered RNA and it was
degraded, had a week of failure, we will re-grow the culture now to increase the

number of cells to use.”

54

The third highest rubric mean (3.6) resulted from Question Four, “Will you
feel more confident supervising research projects or science fair projects?” A
mean of 3.6 indicates that teachers’ Pre- and Post-Inquiry answers changed
slightly, or teachers reflected upon the topic in their journal entries, group
discussions, interview responses or final presentation comments once (or vise
versa), and teachers did not fully discuss the necessity of bringing the change
into their classroom (Figure 2). Teacher One wrote, “yes — more exposure to
science taught me that I can handle cutting edge research so I can handle
explaining the harder concepts better to my students.”

Tied for fourth and fifth with a mean of 3.4 (similar to Question Four) were
questions Eleven and Thirteen. Question Eleven indicates that teachers felt
differently about experimental controls after STARS. For example, Teacher Two
wrote, “I have also learned the importance of having both negative and positive
controls in an experiment...l have some good examples of what happens when
your negative control turns out to be positive after testing.” Teacher Nine agreed
with Teacher Two by saying, “I intend to take positive and negative controls into
my Classroom.” Finally, like the students, teachers had a change in perception
about defining the skills necessary to perform a scientifically sound experiment
(see Question Thirteen). They now cited patience, using good and clean
equipment, being precise and accurate, and paying attention to small details, etc
(Post-Inquiry answers from various teachers).

The lowest results for teachers, regarding the culture of science, were

from questions Ten (mean of 2.3) and Fifteen (mean of 2.1). Means of 2.3 and

55

2.1 indicate that there was little to no change in the teachers” Pre- and Post-
lnquiry answers, and teachers did not reflect upon the topic in their journal
entries, group discussions, interview responses or final presentation comments
(Figure 2). Question Ten asked teachers their thoughts regarding the scientific
method and the extent to which it is followed in a research laboratory. Question
Fifteen asked teachers to identify the difference between science and
technology.

The most overwhelming positive change occurring in teachers was not
directly asked on the Pre-lnquiry, but it is worth discussing. Journal Entries,
Discussion Group Comments and Interview Responses were flooded with
teachers” ideas for bringing the UTSW culture back into their classrooms. For
example, eight of the nine teachers stated they would increase the amount of
conflictive constraints or failures for students in lab. When asked what the
biggest student misconception was, Teacher Six responded, “Students don’t
realize the error and failure associated with science.” Teacher Four wrote, “I plan
on designing more open ended labs that do not work for the purpose of
increasing problem solving.” Teacher Two agreed:

We always set students up to make them successful. I’m Ieaming
that’s not the best way to go with my students. I’ve had to start
over with 250 samples 3 times...l Ieamed how to really sit down
and analyze data.

Three teachers confirmed they will now place more emphasis on the use

of student notebooks. Three teachers expressed the need for better student

56

accuracy in lab. Four teachers wanted to now emphasize new techniques (such
as micro pippeting and sterile procedure). Three teachers expressed the need
for more data analysis and interpretation in their classes (such as a focus on

statistics and graphing, and refraining form making faulty conclusions).

57

Table 3: Student and Teacher Triangulation Results — True Scientific Inquiry

 

 

 

Mean
Questions Sample Composite
Number Of
Triangulated

Data

1. To what degree did

students participate in true

scientific inquiry? 10 3.3

1. To what degree did

teachers participate in true

scientific inquiry? 9 4.1

 

 

 

 

 

The most encouraging data in this study centers on the subjects’
submersion within true scientific inquiry during their STARS experience. Table 3
demonstrate that most students either participated in or observed inquiry
activities. Their Rubric mean was 3.3. A mean of 3.3 indicates that the student
was able to advance the research agenda of the mentoring lab, participate in
inquiry activities that were mostly scientist-directed, and have a positive working
relationship with the scientist (Figure 3). Although most of these inquiry activities
were mentor-directed as opposed to self-directed, students benefited from seeing
and helping their mentors problem solve on a daily basis.

Teachers were submerged within inquiry to an even higher degree than
students. Their rubric mean was 4.1. A mean of 4.1 indicates that the teacher
was able to advance the research agenda of the mentoring lab, participate in
inquiry activities that were half self-directed and half scientist-directed, develop

trust with the scientist, and problem—solve around conflictive constraints (Figure

58

3). Many teachers acquired their own research projects from their mentors and,
therefore, engaged in more self-directed projects than the students.

Overall, the above results parallel the statements of a teacher, Milton
Johnson, who participated in a program similar to STARS at Arizona State
University. In his article, Teacher as Researcher, Johnson analyzes the benefits
of working for three summers in the Research Experience for Teachers (RET)
program. He stated:

Here I learned the process of actually doing science — truly using
inquiry and the scientific method. Researching literature, asking
questions, preparing the experiment, analyzing and interpreting
data, and peer review are all as critical to the experiment as the
actual test run. I was also reminded that in doing actual research,
failure is more common than success (Johnson, 41).
Johnson also states the program has helped him “become more confident in
managing students’ science fair projects” (Johnson, 42). Every year his students
tour the labs and meet the scientists. He also began to stress the importance of
measuring skills, teamwork and peer review with his students -- all similar to the

comments made by STARS participants.

CONSTRAINTS OF BRINGING AUTHENTIC SCIENCE INTO THE
CLASSROOMS (PART 4)

In their book, Becoming a Secondary School Science Teacher,
Trowbridge and Bybee point out the many reasons why a teacher might shy

away from bringing inquiry into their laboratories:

59

Among these include the necessity for a slower pace, more time
consumption, the need for large quantities of materials, a more
active and perhaps chaotic classroom, the urgency to “cover “
material to prepare for the next grade level, high emphasis of most
tests on factual memorization and other factors (208).
Many teachers in this study expressed Similar viewpoints during informal “off the
record” conversations. Their viewpoints became especially apparent as teachers
wrote their final, inquiry-based action plans (lesson plans). They cited time (both
teacher preparation time and classroom time), curriculum constraints (too many
“concepts” to teach) and large class sizes (can’t have everyone doing different
procedures at the same time). During his interview Teacher Three said, “The
hindrance is time, because we have so many objectives to teach.” Teacher Nine
expressed similar views, “...can’t teach inquiry-based because there is no
time...has to be a balance because they have no idea of the concepts.” Teacher
Four’s main goal in the STARS program was to learn how to carry out inquiry-
based labs with large Class sizes. He wrote, “With class sizes of 30 it is hard to

do labs that are inquiry based.”

60

CONCLUSIONS

It is Clear (from Tables 1, 2 and 3 above) that the STARS program exposed
students and teachers to the authentic culture surrounding science, and engaged
them in true scientific inquiry. Because of their STARS experience, students
understand the need to keep up with the latest developments in science and
technology. Teachers have new links to the scientific community. Teachers feel
more confident about supervising science fair and research projects. Teachers
acknowledge the need to distinguish between positive and negative controls
while discussing experimental design. Students and teachers, together,
understand the amount of conflictive constraints or failures experienced by
scientists. Both groups better comprehend the skills necessary to perform a
sound scientific experiment. Nearly all subjects feel a renewed confidence and
excitement towards science — whether it is enthusiasm about perspective career
paths, or passion about a rekindled love for science teaching. In his Post-Inquiry
Teacher Four wrote:

I can honestly say that this experience has given me the desire and
aptitude to be a great science teacher. I now understand, all too
well, the process of scientific discovery and how to start teaching
my students about its techniques.
Teaching students the process of scientific discovery and Its inquiry
techniques does not have to be a daunting assignment for teachers. In fact, it
can be an exhilarating challenge. The National Research Council’s book, Inquiry

and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and

61

Learning, is an excellent resource for teachers. It states that when implementing
inquiry into a lesson plan, there are “many types of teaching strategies that make
up an effective teacher’s repertoire” (2000). After teaching biology, researching
cellular signaling and analyzing the STARS program, I’ve formulated my own

hypotheses for implementing inquiry and authentic science into my classroom.

SUGGESTION FOR BRINGING AUTHENTIC SCIENCE INTO CLASSROOMS
(PART 5)

1) If the objective is to teach “the process of science” or “true scientific ingiry.”
do not include a “concept” obiective.

Teaching inquiry Should be unattached from teaching concepts. For example,
during a laboratory exercise a teacher may take her students through points A, B
and C to get to the final concept objective of D (photosynthesis, natural selection,
enzyme activation, etc.) The teacher's success depends on whether all students
reach point D (understanding the concept). Due to time constraints within the
curriculum, the teacher hopes all students reach D at approximately the same
time. Should the students inquire on their own and forgo points A, B and C,
(possible try points G, F and E) the teacher cannot guarantee the students will
reach the concept objective of D. Not worrying whether students reach point D
(disattaching the concept objective) leaves students with the freedom to navigate
to other letters in the alphabet. Students’ ability to navigate (inquire) is the
Objective, not whether they reach point D. In true scientific inquiry, D is

sometimes an unknown. Where D lies on the alphabet scale is also an unknown.

62

Teacher Nine, 3 second year STARS participant, suggested that animal
behavior studies may be ideal for teaching inquiry in classrooms. She insightfully
wrote:

I keep thinking it would be great to reinforce scientific method
and allow students to observe animal behavior and allow for open-
ended inquiry all at the same time. What if I provided them with
Planaria, egg yolks, batteries, ice, heating pad, dilute lemon juice,
dilute detergent, various colors of transparencies, black paper, flash
light, thermometers, and various other things (glassware,
scopes)...Then I told them to setup an investigation, using the
steps of the scientific method and delve into a behavior of Planaria?
Have them take it from start to finish with a free write up on their
methodology.

2) lf_the objective is to teach “the process of science” or “tr_ue scientjfic inggirv.”
assess on the process, not the resglts — gse performance-based
assessments.

If students construct labs Similar to the Planarian lab, the teacher should
assess students on their abilities to answer questions similar to the following
(NSES, 2002):

How do you know? How certain are you of those results? Is there
a better way to do the investigation? If you had to explain this to
someone who knew nothing about the project, how would you do

it? Is there an alternative scientific explanation for the one you

63

proposed? Should you do the investigation over? Do you need
more evidence? What are your sources of experimental error?
How do you account for an explanation that is different from yours?
3) flhe objective is to teach “the process of science” or “true sciegtfic inquiry.”
create a teacher — student (or scientist - student) journal dialogu_e.
Throughout this study, I found journal dialogue with students was critical.
Like the teacher who may undertake the Planarian experiments, I found I could
not be with each student throughout every point in time. Through journals, l was
able to ask questions like: How did you decide what measurements to take?
How do you know that your measurements are accurate? Why did you decide to
perform process A over process B? I also helped students steer around
conflictive constraints and calm fears. Although not always practical, pairing
students up with local scientists to journal dialogue would be ideal.
4) If the objective is to teach “the process of science” or “tLue scientific inquiry.”
assess students” ability to peer review.

After witnessing weekly peer review meetings, or as he called them “paper
shreds,” Teacher Four discusses the importance of peer review. He concludes
he needs to “[have] more constructive criticism on their papers, model with
students a ‘paper shred,’ evaluate each others’ work paper, [and] more peer
editing.” Since peer reviews are often scientists” system of checks and balances,
it may be useful to facilitate them in your Classroom.

Modeling proper behavior and appropriate questioning techniques for peer

review will be essential. This can be accomplished by bringing guest scientists

64

into your Classroom to help model correct behavior. Although local scientists

usually want to help, I have found them to be extremely busy and, in some

cases, intimidated by stepping into a Classroom. The principal, other teachers or

parents may be more available. Prepare them with questions such as the ones

found in “suggestion 2” above.

5) If the objective is to teach “the process of science” or “true scientific irmiry.”
get stgdents involved in Science Fair and Science Olympiad.

Science Fair allows students to formulate their own problem, hypothesis and
experimental approach — all skills shown to be lacking from traditional classroom
experiments. Science Olympiad also provides students the chance to become
involved in inquiry thinking. Events such as “Cow-A-Bungee (where students
design a bungee cord system for dropping a bottle without having it touch the
ground)” and “Write Stuff (where students design paper airplanes with specific
flying specifications)” force students to use problem solving skills.

6) lf_the objective is to teach “problem solving Skills” — incorporate an
experimental design class into the curricultfl.

This class would be the culmination of all science classes and taken in the
Senior year. Scientific concepts would not be taught, but used as a stepping
stone for further scientific investigation. The success of the class may depend on
the establishment of communication links between the school and a major
research facility (university, industry or medical center). To ensure scientific
authenticity, the teacher should have participated in a self-directed, scientific

research project in the past — such as the STARS program.

65

In conclusion, “Educators need evidence drawn from research to help them
implement and justify inquiry-based approaches to teaching and Ieaming
science” (NCR, 2000). This project - through its numerous participant comments
- documents the meaningful outcomes that arise from pairing secondary, science
students and teachers with mentoring scientists in a research environment. In
particular, it 1) demonstrates that a program like STARS enhances students and
teachers’ awareness for the authentic culture that surrounds science, and 2)

engages students and teachers in true scientific inquiry.

66

LITERATURE CITED

Barab, S., & Hay, KB (2001). Doing Science at the Elbows of Experts: Issues
Related to the Science Apprenticeship Camp. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, v. 38, n. 1, pp. 70-102.

Carter, 6., & Park, J. C., Copolo, C. F. (1998). Using Industry Experiences to
Promote Change in the Types of Instructional Strategies Used by Secondary
Science Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 143-
152.

Evans, C. A., & Abrams, E. D., & Rock, B. N., & Spencer, S. L. (2002).
Student/Scientist Partnerships. The American Biology Teacher, v. 62, n. 5, pp.
318-323.

Gott, R., & Duggan, S., & Johnson, P. (1999). What do Practicing Applied
Scientists do and What are the Implications for Science Education? Research in
Science & Technological Education, v. 17, n. 1, pp. 97-107.

Johnson, M. (2002). Teacher as Researcher: University Programs Help
Teachers Bring Modern Research into the Secondary Classroom. The Science
Teacher, March, pp. 40-42.

McComas, W. F., & Moore, L. S. (2002). The Expectancy Effect in Secondary
School Biology Laboratory Instruction. The American Biology Teacher, v. 63, n.
4, pp. 246-252.

National Science Education Standards, Science Content Standards 9-12.
Online. May 31, 2002 <http://www.nagedu/readingroom/books/nses/html/6e.htm1>.

NCR (National Research Council), Committee on Development of an Addendum
to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. Inquiry and the
National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

NCR (National Research Council). 1996. From Analysis to Action:
Understanding Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Patton, Michael Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Met_hods. Second
Edition. Newburry Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

STARS (Science Teacher Access to Resources at Southwestern). Summer

Research Program for Teachers & Student. lnforrnation Handout. Dallas, TX:
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 2002.

67

Taconis, R., 8 Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M., 8 Broekkamp, H. (2000). Teaching
Science Problem Solving: An Overview of Experimental Work. Joumal of
Research in Science Teaching, v. 38, n. 4, pp. 442-468.

Trowbridge, L. W., 8 Bybee, R. W. Becoming a Secondary School Science
Teacher. Fifth Edition. Colombus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

Westerlund, J., 8 Garcia, D., 8 Koke, J., 8 Taylor, T., 8 Mason, D. (2002).

Summer Scientific Research for Teachers: The Experience and its Effect.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1 ), pp. 63-83.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Hurd, PD. (2001). The Changing Image of Biology. The American Biology
Teacher, v. 63, n. 4, pp. 233-235.

McPherson, G. R. (2002). Teaching and Learning the Scientific Method. The
American Biology Teacher, v. 63, n. 4, pp. 242-245.

Spiece, K. 8 Colosi, J. (2002). Redefining the “Scientific Method”. The American
Biology Teacher, v. 62, n. 1, pp. 32-40.

Wivagg, D. (2002). We Teach Biology Backwards. The American Biology
Teacher, v. 63, n. 2, pp. 82-82.

68

APPENDIX A

ENZYME LAB Hour Name

 

A Chemical Reaction of Living Systems

ENZYMES: Enzymes are proteins that speed up Chemical reactions in living
cells. This speeding-up is necessary for the cell to live. Chemists could not
make some reactions happen in the laboratory until they could separate enzymes
from living organisms. You will now work with an enzyme in this lab.

Hydrogen Peroxide Reacts in the Presence
of Catalase (an Enzyme)

PROCEDURE A: Put 20 drops of Hydrogen Pereoxide in a small, clean test
tube. Put the tube in the rack. (CAUTION: If you spill any peroxide on you or
your clothes, wash it off immediately!) Add 5 drops of catalase enzyme
solution to the peroxide. Mix with a straw.

1. Record your observations:

Solution bubbled as soon as it touched the peroxide.
PROCEDURE B: Feel the bottom of the test tube.
2. What temperature changes do you feel?

An increase in heat.

Why do you think this happens?
Heat is liberated during the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide.

3. What are some possible explanations for the bubbles?
- The bubbles suggest that a gas (02) is released.
- The heat produced by the reaction might create the bubbles.

Hypotheses Which Might Explain the Chemical Reaction:

PROCEDURE C: The catalase solution was made by crushing a piece of liver in
a small amount of water. This released many molecules of the enzyme from liver
into the water. The reaction mixture in your test tube contained hydrogen

69

peroxide and the enzyme. The enzyme in this reaction is called catalase (CAT
ul lace). To explain the reaction, three hypotheses are possible:

Three Possible Phipotheses:

1. Catalase and hydrogen peroxide react together and are both changed to form
one or more new products;

2. The hydrogen peroxide is changed in the presence of the enzyme, but the
enzyme does not change;

3. The enzyme is Changed in the presence of hydrogen peroxide, which does
notchange.

Circle the hypothesis you think is correct.

4. How could you test your hypothesis to see if you are right? (Be specificl!
Design an experiment)
Answers will vary

Testing the Hypotheses:

PROCEDURE D: To test all three hypotheses, use raw liver instead of the
catalase solution. Use two test tubes in your rack. Put a small piece (about the
size of a grain of rice) of liver into one of the test tubes. Use a straw to push the
liver all the way to the bottom of the test tube. Put the tube in the rack and add
20 drops of hydrogen peroxide (should fill about “/4 inch of the test tube).

Allow the reaction to continue until all the bubbling stops. Stir gently with the
straw until the bubbles disappear. Pour this reaction liquid into the other test
tube. Put another piece of liver (about the same size) into this liquid. Observe.
Put 20 drops of hydrogen peroxide onto the liver in the first tube. Observe.

5. Record your observations about both tubes:
A) New liver and old hydrogen peroxide:
No reaction: the liquid is water now and not hydrogen peroxide.

B) Old liver and new hydrogen peroxide:
Bubbling and heat: the enzymes in the liver have not changed.

6. Does hydrogen peroxide, the enzyme, or both change after the reaction?
Explain the reason for your answer.
Hydrogen Peroxide: a reaction between the new liver and old solution
with hydrogen peroxide did not take place.

70

7. What does this tell you about what an enzyme does in a chemical reaction?
An enzyme may cause a change in the compounds with which it reacts,
but the enzyme is not changed or used up.

8. Which of the three hypotheses on page 1 is supported by these results?

The hydrogen peroxide changes in the presence of the enzyme, but the
enzyme does not change.

71

APPENDIX B

B1. STUDENT PRE - INQUIRY TEST

This survey is deigned to examine what you already know
about science and how you currently feel
about science.

Please do not ask anyone for help, or use any type
of reference material while answering these
questions. Doing so will create inaccurate data for this
research project.

You may relax because your answers will not be graded.
Your name will not be associated with your answers in any
way. Angela Alexander will be the
only person to read this survey once you have completed it.

Remember, participation in this study is voluntary.
There is no penalty for your withdrawal.

72

Student Pre-lnquiry

My identification number is (please do not write your
name).

 

Please draw a flow chart and/or describe the steps a scientist would go
through in order to conduct a thorough scientific investigation. Pretend
that this investigation will be published in the scientific journal Nature
when it is finished. Be as descriptive and detailed as possible. If it helps,
you can use an example of a scientific question you would like to
investigate. There is no right or wrong answer here.

73

. What are your career aspirations? What factors have influenced you
towards these aspirations?

. What grade will you be in next year?

What is your goal in this program? What do you hope to learn? How will
you utilize what you learned in the upcoming school year?

. Outside of the classroom, have you ever participated in a research project
before? A science fair? If so, briefly explain.

. In your opinion, what are the most important things (tools, skills, concepts,
habits, etc.) a scientist must have in order to do her/his job well? Please
elaborate as extensively as possible on this question.

74

7. How often do you keep up with the latest developments in science and
technology? What sources do you enjoy using?

8. Do you see yourself as a scientist as well as a student? If so, what things
do the two disciplines have in common? If not, what skills or habits would
you need to acquire in order to think like a scientist? (aside from a

degree)

9. What percentage of scientific endeavors and experiments are failures?
What information led you to write down your answer?

10. Do you like to participate in open-ended projects or more structured
projects? To what extent do you hope your mentor will tell you what to do
next as opposed to letting you decide what to do next?

75

11.How do scientists conclude that their data is right or wrong, accurate or
not accurate, precise or not precise?

12. Describe the qualities of a good scientific notebook. Explain why these
qualities are important.

13.Are you familiar with the scientific method? If so, do you think scientists
need to follow the scientific method? Why or why not? Do you think most
scientific knowledge was acquired by using the scientific method?

14.What is an experimental control? Is a control necessary in every scientific
experiment?

76

15. How important are good communication skills to a scientist? How did you
come to this conclusion?

16.What skills do you need to have in order to set up and perform a
scientifically sound experiment? Which of these skills do you feel you
possess? Which of these skills do you need to work on?

17.What is the difference between “science” and “technology”? Use an
example to explain your answer.

18. In your science Class, have you ever recorded data according to “what
you thought you should get” as opposed to “what you really observed” just
to get a good grade? How often does this occur?

77

PP’N.‘

S"

19. Read the following experiment and answer questions a. and b. on the
next page.

PROBLEM
Which beverage cooler is better for keeping drinks cold?

HYPOTHESIS
Styrofoam coolers keep drinks colder than plastic coolers.

MATERIALS
2 cans of soda pop
1 Styrofoam beverage cooler (containing small hole for thermometer)
1 plastic beverage cooler (containing small hole for thermometer)
2 thermometers

METHODS
Take the two cans of soda pop from refrigerator. Open cans.
Simultaneously place a thermometer into each can.
Simultaneously place a can with thermometer into each cooler.
Shut coolers allowing thermometers to stick through holes in coolers (this
allows experimenter to read the thermometer from the outside).
Seal thermometer holes to prevent heat from entering the coolers.

6. Record the beginning temperature and the temperature after every 5

minutes until the soda pop reaches at least 30° C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESULTS
Styrofoam Plastic
Container (’0) Container
(°C)
0 Minutes 10 10
5 Minutes 12 14
10 Minutes 13 18
15 Minutes 15 21
20 Minutes 18 25
25 Minutes 20 28
30 Minutes 22 32
35 Minutes 24 -
40 Minutes 26 -
45 Minutes 27 -
50 Minutes 29 -
55 Minutes 31 -
CONCLUSION

Styrofoam coolers keep drinks colder than plastic coolers.

78

a. Identify three weaknesses in the methods used for this experiment.

b. Describe how you would improve upon this experiment to obtain more
accurate results.

Thank you for your participation. Have a good day in the lab!!!

79

B2. TEACHER PRE - INQUIRY TEST

This survey is deigned to examine how you think about the
"process of science" and how you currently teach this in
your classroom.

Please do not ask anyone for help, or use any type of
reference material while answering these questions. Doing
so will create inaccurate data for this research project.

You may relax because your answers will not be graded.
Your name will not be associated with your answers in any
way. Angela Alexander will be the only person to read this

survey once you have completed it.

Remember, participation in this study is voluntary.
There is no penalty for your withdrawal.

80

Teacher Pre-lnquiry

My identification number is (please do not write your
name).

. Please draw a flow chart and/or describe the steps a scientist would go

through in order to conduct a thorough scientific investigation. Pretend
that this investigation will be published in the scientific journal Nature
when it is finished. Be as descriptive and detailed as possible. If it helps,
you can use an example of a scientific question you would like to
investigate. There is no right or wrong answer here.

81

2. What classes and grade levels do you currently teach?

3. How many years have you been teaching?

4. What is your goal in this program? What do you hope to learn? How will
you utilize what you learned in the upcoming school year?

5. Have you ever participated in scientific research before coming to UT
Southwestern? If so, how did this research change your teaching
methodologies?

6. How would you describe the nature of the labs that you taught during the
last school year (inquiry labs, cookbook labs, etc)? What would you
Change about the way you teach laboratory investigations?

82

7. In your opinion, what are the most important things (tools, skills, concepts,
habits, etc.) a scientist must have in order to do her/his job well? Please
elaborate as extensively as possible on this question.

8. How often do you keep up with the latest developments in science and
technology? What sources do you enjoy using?

9. During the last school year, did you have any links to the scientific
community? If so, how did you utilize these links in your classroom?

10. Do you feel confident supervising independent, student, research projects
or science fairs projects?

83

11.How often did you incorporate disciplines other than science into your
classroom last year? Please explain.

12. Do you see yourself as a scientist as well as a science teacher? If so,
what things do the two disciplines have in common? If not, what skills or
habits would you need to acquire in order to be a scientist?

13. What percentage of scientific endeavors and experiments are failures?
What information led you to write down your answer?

14. Do you like to participate in open-ended projects or more structured
projects? To what extent do you hope your mentor will tell you what to do
next, as opposed to, letting you decide what to do next?

84

15. How do scientists conclude that their data is right or wrong, accurate or
not accurate, precise or not precise?

16. Describe the qualities of a good scientific notebook. Explain why these
qualities are important.

17. Do you think scientists need to follow the scientific method? Why or why
not? Do you think most scientific knowledge was acquired by using the
scientific method?

18.What is an experimental control? IS a control necessary in every scientific
experiment? What is an experimental standard?

85

19. How important are good communication skills to a scientist? How did you
come to this conclusion?

20.What skills do you need to have in order to set up and perform a
scientifically sound experiment? Which of these skills do you feel you
possess? Which of these skills do you need to work on?

21 .What is the difference between “science” and “technology”? Use an
example to explain your answer.

86

22. Read the following experiment and answer questions a. and b. on the next

PERI"?

0.01

page.

PROBLEM
Which beverage cooler is better for keeping drinks cold?

HYPOTHESIS
Styrofoam coolers keep drinks colder than plastic coolers.

MATERIALS
2 cans of soda pop
1 Styrofoam beverage cooler (containing small hole for thermometer)
1 plastic beverage cooler (containing small hole for thermometer)
2 thermometers

METHODS
Take the two cans of soda pop from refrigerator. Open cans.
Simultaneously place a thermometer into each can.
Simultaneously place a can with thermometer into each cooler.
Shut coolers allowing thermometers to stick through holes in coolers (this
allows experimenter to read the thermometer from the outside).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seal thermometer holes to prevent heat from entering the coolers.
. Record the beginning temperature and the temperature after every 5
minutes until the soda pop reaches at least 30° C.
RESULTS
Styrofoam Plastic
Container (0C) Container

(°CJ

0 Minutes 10 10

5 Minutes 12 14

10 Minutes 13 18

15 Minutes 15 21

20 Minutes 18 25

25 Minutes 20 28

30 Minutes 22 32

35 Minutes 24 -

40 Minutes 26 -

45 Minutes 27 -

50 Minutes 29 -

55 Minutes 31 -

CONCLUSION

Styrofoam coolers keep drinks colder than plastic coolers.

87

a. Identify three weaknesses in the methods used for this experiment.

b. Describe how you would improve upon this experiment to obtain more
accurate results.

Thank you for your participation. Have a good day in the lab!!!

88

B3. JOURNAL QUESTIONS

Possible journal topics for week #1 (for Stgdents and Teachers):

Write about your first impressions of your laboratory and mentors. Explain
how your first impressions were different than what you had imagined
them to be.

Describe your feelings as you worked in the laboratory on the first day.

Write down the question that you would like to investigate for your
research project. Write down the question that your mentor would like you
to investigate. Do the two of you see eye-to-eye?

Outline what you need to do in order to start your project this week.

Possible journal topics for week #2 (for Sfldents):
Write about the things that you discovered this week, regarding your
learning style and the way you learn science the best.

Is there anything else that surprises you about science, scientists or the
way science is performed?

Possible journal topics for week #2 (for Teachers):
Write about the things that you learned this week, which you can directly
use in your Classroom this fall.

Is there anything else that surprises you about science, scientists or the
way science is performed?

Possible ioggaj topics for week #3 (for Students):

Identify the parts of the scientific method that you have participated in
during your experience here. Explain by giving examples of what you
have been doing.

Which part of the scientific method do you feel you participate in the most
during school labs last year?

How did you gain an adequate knowledge base to support the
investigation you are undertaking?

Possible journal topics for week #3 (for Teachers):

Identify the parts of the scientific method that you have participated in
during your experience here. Explain by giving examples of what you
have been doing.

89

Which part of the scientific method do you feel your students participate in
the most when they do labs in your classroom?

Possible journal topics for week #4 (for Students):
Free write!

Possible journal topics for week #4 (for Teachers):
Do you have time to ponder...What explanation do you expect to develop
from your data? Do your students have time to ask this question?

Were you surprised by your data this week?

How confident do you feel about the accuracy of the data you have
collected so far? Give an example of how you knew the data that you
collected might not have been accurate (if this happened to you)?

What “conflicting constraints” did you encounter when you tried to solve
your problem this week? How often do your students encounter a
“conflicting constraint” when they do a lab?

Possible ioumal topics for week #5 (for Students and Teachers):
No discussion group or journal pick-up because of 4th of July break.

Possible journal topics for week #6 (for Students):

If you could Clear up any misconceptions your high school (or college)
classmates have about “science” and “the way science is practiced,” what
would you say?

After having this STARS experience, would you Change anything about
the way science is taught in high school (college) today?

Possible journal topics for week #6 (for Teachers):
What difficulties did you face when preparing your action plan?

Are the teaching methodologies used in this action plan similar to the
teaching methodologies you have used in the past?

Possible journal topics for weeks #7 and #8 (for Students and Teachers):
Free write!

90

B4. STUDENT POST - INQUIRY TEST

This survey is deigned to examine what you know about
science and how you currently feel about science after
completing the STARS Program.

Please do not ask anyone for help, or use any type of
reference material while answering these questions. Doing
so will create inaccurate data for this research project.

Angela Alexander will be the only person to read this survey
once you have completed it.

Remember, participation in this study is voluntary.
There is no penalty for your withdrawal.

91

Student Post-Inquiry

My identification number is (please do not write your
name).

. Please draw a flow chart and/or describe the steps a scientist would go
through in order to conduct a thorough scientific investigation. Pretend
that this investigation will be published in the scientific journal Nature
when it is finished. Be as descriptive and detailed as possible. If it helps,
you can use an example of a scientific question you would like to
investigate. There is no right or wrong answer here.

92

2. What are your career aspirations after having experienced the STARS
Program? What factors have influenced you towards these aspirations?

3. What were the most profound things you learned in the STARS program?
How will you utilize what you learned in the upcoming school year?

4. In your opinion, what are the most important things (tools, skills, concepts,
habits, etc.) a scientist must have in order to do her/his job well? Please
elaborate as extensively as possible on this question.

5. How often will you keep up with the latest developments in science and
technology in the future? What sources will you use?

93

6. Do you see yourself as a scientist as well as a student? If so, what things
do the two disciplines have in common? If not, what skills or habits would
you need to acquire in order to think like a scientist? (aside from a
degree)

7. What percentage of scientific endeavors and experiments are failures?
What information led you to write down your answer?

8. To what extent did your mentor tell you what to do next as opposed to
letting you decide what to do next? You can give examples to help
explain your answer.

9. How do scientists conclude that their data is right or wrong, accurate or
not accurate, precise or not precise?

94

10. Describe the qualities of a good scientific notebook. Explain why these
qualities are important.

11.00 you think scientists need to follow the scientific method? Why or why
not? Do you think most scientific knowledge was acquired by using the
scientific method?

12.What is an experimental control? IS a control necessary in every scientific
experiment?

13. How important are good communication skills to a scientist? How did you
come to this conclusion?

95

14.What Skills do you need to have in order to setup and perform a
scientifically sound experiment? Which of these Skills do you feel you
possess? Which of these Skills do you need to work on?

15.What is the difference between “science” and “technology”? Use an
example to explain your answer.

16. Describe the part(s) of the scientific method that you got to participate in
while you were in STARS. What parts were preformed by another
scientist beside yourself?

17.Compare and contrast learning science in a situation like the STARS
program with learning science in school. Which one is more effective?
Why?

96

18. Has this program increased your confidence in doing science? How about
your interest in science? Please explain.

19. Read the following experiment and answer questions a. and b. on the next
page.

97

PROBLEM
Which beverage cooler is better for keeping drinks cold?

HYPOTHESIS
Styrofoam coolers keep drinks colder than plastic coolers.

MATERIALS
2 cans of soda pop
1 Styrofoam beverage cooler (containing small hole for thermometer)
1 plastic beverage cooler (containing small hole for thermometer)
2 thermometers

METHODS

7. Take the two cans of soda pop from refrigerator. Open cans.

8. Simultaneously place a thermometer into each can.

9. Simultaneously place a can with thermometer into each cooler.

10.Shut coolers allowing thermometers to stick through holes in coolers (this
allows experimenter to read the thermometer from the outside).

11.Sea| thermometer holes to prevent heat from entering the coolers.

12. Record the beginning temperature and the temperature after every 5
minutes until the soda pop reaches at least 30° C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESULTS
Styrofoam Plastic
Container (°C) Container (”0)
0 Minutes 10 10
5 Minutes 12 14
10 Minutes 13 18
15 Minutes 15 21
20 Minutes 18 25
25 Minutes 20 28
30 Minutes 22 32
35 Minutes 24 -
40 Minutes 26 -
45 Minutes 27 -
50 Minutes 29 -
55 Minutes 31 -
CONCLUSION

Styrofoam coolers keep drinks colder than plastic coolers.

98

3. Identify three weaknesses in the methods used for this experiment.

b. Describe how you would improve upon this experiment to obtain more
accurate results.

Thank you for your participation.

99

B5. TEACHER POST - INQUIRY

This survey is deigned to examine how you think about the
“process of science" and how you will teach this in your
classroom after going through the STARS Program
experience.

Please do not ask anyone for help, or use any type of
reference material while answering these questions. Doing
so will create inaccurate data for this research project.

Angela Alexander will be the only person to read this survey
once you have completed it.

Remember, participation in this study is voluntary.
There is no penalty for your withdrawal.

100

Teacher Post-Inquiry

My identification number is (please do not write your
name).

. Please draw a flow chart and/or describe the steps a scientist would go

through in order to conduct a thorough scientific investigation. Pretend
that this investigation will be published in the scientific journal Nature
when it is finished. Be as descriptive and detailed as possible. If it helps,
you can use an example of a scientific question you would like to
investigate. There is no right or wrong answer here.

101

2. What were the most profound things you learned in the STARS Program?

3. How will you utilize what you Ieamed in the upcoming school year? Is
there any factor that would inhibit you from utilizing what you Ieamed in
the upcoming school year?

4. After having this STARS experience, what will you Change about the way
you teach laboratory investigations this year?

102

5. In your opinion, what are the most important things (tools, skills, concepts,
habits, etc.) a scientist must have in order to do her/his job well? Please
elaborate as extensively as possible on this question.

6. How often will you keep up with the latest developments in science and
technology in the future? What sources will you use?

7. Do you feel you now have new links to the scientific community? If so,
how will you utilize these links in your Classroom next year?

8. Will you feel more confident supervising independent, student, research
projects or science fairs projects?

103

9. After having this STARS experience, do you feel it is more important to
incorporate disciplines other than science into your Classroom? Please
explain.

10. Do you see yourself as a scientist as well as a science teacher? If so,
what things do the two disciplines have in common? If not, what Skills or
habits would you need to acquire in order to be a scientist?

11. What percentage of scientific endeavors and experiments are failures?
What information led you to write down your answer?

12.To what extent did your mentor tell you what to do next, as opposed to,
letting you decide what to do next?

104

13. How do scientists conclude that their data is right or wrong, accurate or
not accurate, precise or not precise?

14. Describe the qualities of a good scientific notebook. Explain why these
qualities are important.

15. Do you think scientists need to follow the scientific method? Why or why
not? DO you think most scientific knowledge was acquired by using the
scientific method?

16.What is an experimental control? Is a control necessary in every scientific
experiment? What is an experimental standard?

105

17. How important are good communication skills to a scientist? How did you
come to this conclusion?

18.What skills do you need to have in order to set up and perform a
scientifically sound experiment? Which of these skills do you feel you
possess? Which of these skills do you need to work on?

19.What is the difference between “science” and “technology”? Use an
example to explain your answer.

106

20.What parts of your Action Plan were directly inspired by things you have
Ieamed in the STARS Program? (Remember I have read your Action
Plans twice. You can use shorthand when referring to your plan. I Should
be able to follow what you are explaining.)

21 . Has this program increased your confidence as a science teacher? If so,
how?

Thank you for your participation!!!

107

APPENDIX C

C1. Student Quotes

On students being surprised at the time line of doing research
84 — journal What surprises me about science is how Slow everything is.

It takes a whole day or even several days just to get one result that
contributes to a bigger picture. I know that each individual process takes
time but when put all together, I didn’t realize just how long everything
takes.

810 — final presentation I thought this was an experiment in itself
[finding a positive control group]. You could do that the whole summer.

On students being surprised at the advanced termonology used in
the lab

S1 — weekly discussion surprised at advanced terminology

 

On students being surprised at the research work ethic
S1 — interview more cooperative work here

S4 — weekly discussion at how much they work all day

85 — weekly discussion shocked at how there is no clock-in, no time
schedule

88 - weekly discussion they are always busy

On students being surprised at the amount of fregom given to them
S3 — weekly discussion they asked me what I wanted to do

85 — weekly discussion freedom to do what you want to do, too much
freedom

S7 — weekly discussion surprised they let me do stuff

S10 -journal Before coming here, I had expected not really to have a
project but more doing random things in the lab. But contrary to my belief,
I did have an excellent project which actually interested me...My mentor
has allowed me to stay on through high school to finish my project.

On students being surprised at the ammflt cidifferent cultures in

thelab
$6 — weekly discussion how many ethnics are in my lab

108

S10 — final presentation I got to learn about many different cultures...

On students being surprisetLthat the diversity of each deptment

S3 — journal Surprises — In hospitals you see doctors and nurses working
on their patients. Medications are often prescribed and treatments are
under-went. This is what people expect to see in hospitals. However,
since there are many different kinds of doctors that work in the hospital,
there are many different kinds of jobs they do (besides signing for a
prescription). In the pathology department, doctors specialize in many
different kinds of treatment that a regular physician may not ever have to
worry about. In transfusion services (where I’m stationed at), the doctors
attend many lectures and are able to visit many different patients. They
Specialize in the lab work running tests to uncover what may be wrong
with a particular patient. This part surprised me very much because these
doctors can be all over the place.

85 — weekly discussion whole floor is the urology department

On dissolving previous misconceptions - about scientists
S1 - journal I disagree with the way science or research is portrayed in

the movies. The rooms are all white and sterile. The people working
inside have not seen the light of day for many weeks/years (Independence
Day). I mean you do find people very dedicated to their work here but not
to that great extent.

 

S1 - interview I thought before scientists came up with ideas
miraculously.

S3 - interview I thought they were already doctors and they would
already know.

S4 — journal Its really interesting how as I walk down the halls of the
buildings, there are so many young people! Tons! That made me feel a
little more at ease I think.

87 - post test Research isn’t just a bunch of nerds who have no life, its
just normal regular people.

89 — journal My first impression of the laboratory and my mentors was
completely opposite to the picture I had in my mind. I expected them to be
too serious to smile, too busy to explain, too absorbed in their research to
explain to me anything. I was completely wrong! My mentors are fun and
nice and smart. They really care if I Ieam and understand everything that
is going on around me.

109

$9 — interview I thought scientists were serious but they are funny, smart
and fun.

On dissolving previous misconceptions - about science being
ge_tached and boring

S4 — journal I know that I had the misconceptions that science was too
detached from life. I used to think science was just a boring continuous
cycle of some procedure after procedure that never really applied to us.
But after having worked here, I see that what they are doing is really
making advances in MSUD, small but worthwhile. It, in actually, is not
detached from real life at all.

85 —journal I would say science is not as boring as it may seem. I know
in school since the labs are done over and over again, they get dull and
boring. However, when you are continuously working in a lab, and you
feel like you’re actually contributing something you gain a whole new
outlook on exactly what science is.

On dissolving previous misconceptions - about science being
h_arder than ireviously thought

88 - journal If I could clear up misconceptions, l ‘d say, “Be more careful,
it’s not as easy as it looks.” Science experiments sometimes look very
easy when they’re not! Take for instance, pipetting a sample into a
container — sounds easy but actually isn’t Since you need strength,
stamina, and especially concentration.

On the benefits of student su_bmersion - insfltion to keep up with
scientific developments

$9 — post test I have seen so many awesome developments in which
science and technology work hand in hand to make human life more
comfortable. This has sparked an interest in me and I am going to keep
up with more developments by watching the news and discovery channel,
reading scientific journals and keeping touch with my lab people and
doctor!

Oppositive interactions with mentors and other Iaboratogy personnel
S3 - journal While working in Transfusion Services, I have felt open to
the assistance of many wonderful doctors and nurses. Any question I may
have is easily answered for me...l have discovered that being one on one
with a doctor is the best approach to Ieaming about something new to me.
This way I can feel as though a question is really being answered.

S3 — journal What also surprises me is the fact that these scientists are

very open to helping me. Despite their very busy schedules, they make
time to Check up on me and make sure I am doing well.

110

55 —journal Today I sat and talked with my Pl (principal investigator). I
assumed he would be very busy because he was out of town the first two
days. However, after I ate lunch he attempted to just welcome me to the
lab but he talked to me for an hour and a half. My thoughts were very
incorrect. He took the time to explain all areas of research in the lab and
asked me questions.

87 - journal I met Sarah the graduate student and [her mentoring
doctor]. She is really nice and cool too. She seems like she will be really
helpful and I expect that I will have a lot of fun n the coming weeks.

87 — final presentation “I concluded that”, she thanked her mentors for
treating her as an equal

88 —journal I hung out with the graduate student and chatted about
school, hobbies, movies, music and the usual...The people at the office
labs and General Clinic Research Center are very nice. They are very
helpful and extremely patient with a novice like myself. They laugh at
mistakes more than I do. I am very fortunate to work with all these nice
yet sophisticated people.

88 - journal ...I met Dr. Peter Snell, a researcher who conducts the
testing. Through conversation, I found out that he was a 3-time Olympic
Gold MedallistI! I had a great time with him. He showed me several of is
computer programs that can calculate body fat percentages through non-
invasive procedures. He also showed me several high-tech equipment,
including a mass spectrometer, capable of measuring the percentage of a
certain gas. I was inspired just by standing next to this living legend. I
hope to get more chances to word with him and get his autograph.

S9 — journal The doctor I worked with and all of the lab techs I worked
with didn’t just explain a procedure to me, they showed me how to do it.

810 — journal I am extremely lucky to have such a diverse lab. There are
four research fellows from different countries as well as four students, one
STARS teacher, and a lab technician...

S10 - journal Everyone in the lab seems to be extremely helpful and
talkative. They seem to be people who would give me advice on any
issue. My immediate mentor is extremely helpful but the only downfall is
he is very busy...

9n the most important toolsI skillsI conceptsI habits a scientist must
h_ave in order to do his/her job well.

S7 - post test (what are the most important skills a scientist must
posses) patience - projects are long and often reach an unwanted

 

111

conclusion, knowledge — to come up with ideas for experiments, thinking
outside of the box - to overcome hurdles in experiments

9n the communication skills of mentors and lab personnel

S3 - post test ...doctors need plenty of communication Skills...to give
lectures, talk to patients, to talk to other colleagues. I found this out by
observing the behaviors of all the doctors I’ve met recently. For the most
part they are all very clear and concise speakers.

87 - post test (how important are communication skills?) Important —
scientists must be able to get along with their peers in the field, as well as,
give presentations about their work, grants, etc., you just can't be a
recluse.

On learning about brainstonning,_peer review. journal publications
and obtaining_grants by observing mentors at weekly meeting

81 - journal Last week, on Wednesday a meeting was held with all of the
orthopedic staff. . .Well, this past Wednesday everyone was telling about
their projects, progresses and research. During this meeting one person
who works in the same lab I do presented his research on a project he did.
The response from the group was that of excitement. The data was a bit
controversial because those results were not expected. Someone
mentioned that it was publishing material and another that it was a
breakthrough. There I was sitting in what was obviously something very
important, important enough to publish... The experiment is to be
repeated. So, yes, I think this qualifies as something that is surprising
regarding the way science is performed.

81 - journal Today I attended Cancer Center Thoracic Malignancy
Conference case presentations...lt gave me a peak of how doctors
discuss their topics...The presenter would discuss how the patients were
being treated and their progress or ask suggestions for diagnosis. After a
brief summary the presenter would ask for suggestions regarding further
treatment or diagnosis. Sometimes the suggestions were agreed upon by
the group. Other times controversy was sparked about the way the
person had been treated and the suggestions were disagreed Upon.

S1 - journal The data was controversial in the sense that the outcome
had been unexpected and there was speculation on why that followed.
The comments and the suggestions after the data were the main reasons
that caused me to write that the data was a bit controversial. The words
that followed were “weird results”, “are you sure?” and “how was your
experiment carried out?” The last question was asked several times and
gone over in great detail. Herman was asked to review the data and
replicate the experiment. My guess is that he is to repeat it and do more
background research on it until he is sure that the data obtained is correct

112

and that the chemical used is the cause of the changes in bone marrow
cell growth.

S1 - interview Meetings are different — I asked them how they decide
what research to do.

S3 - journal I attended a weekly meeting at Children’s that gave doctors,
nurses, social workers, etc. the chance to discuss the needs of certain
Sickle cell patients.

S5 - interview I have a journal club meeting that I am going to in which
people present papers

85 — interview They publish papers and do tests a million times...if you
get results one time, then it’s good...but they repeat it.

86 - interview There was a paper published, she got to see a meeting
where they picked it apart.

S7 -journal This morning we had our first lab meeting since I have been
here. Dr. [X’s] was about the grant he already turned in. I didn’t really
understand it that much...We had a MS unit lab meeting today in the
Neurology library.

88 - journal Today was the first weekly lab meeting! All the lab
members were present and discussed the ongoing studies and any
concerns or problems we have.

On stupents wit_nessing_proced_ures and surgeries
$2 - interview He got to see a breast augmentation.

$2 - journal I was able to follow the UT med. Students around Parkland
and Zale Lipshy... On Friday I got to see 3 surgeries. 2 which were
gastric bonding using laproscopic technology. The third was the best
since I got to see a breast augmentation which was absolutely
spectacular.

S3 - journal I’ve been able to observe a couple of procedures done on
patients with Sickle-cell anemia. . .The first time I actually got to see where
the donated blood was being stored was pretty exciting. I did not expect
to see so much work being done to make sure the blood gets to the right
patient at the right time.

S3 —journal When I got the opportunity to observe Red Cell Exchange

being done, I was pretty nervous. I didn’t know whether or not to speak to
the patient or not.

113

S10 - journal One thing I did not expect to do this summer was watch
surgeries. My mentor allowed me to stand right behind him as he
operated. I got to experience the life of a surgeon shortly while being in
the OR.

On followingthe scientific method straight through

S1 — post test ...many times it is not needed [the scientific method] I
guess because some Situations don’t follow the problem,
hypothesis...straight through. One may go in Circles at a time (hypothesis,
procedures, refined hypothesis, refined procedures, head in another
direction) and sometimes in one’s mind one doesn’t say “okay" I am going
to use the V step of the scientific method: but does it unconsciously with
the knowledge already in one’S head.

87 — post lab (what profound things did you learn in STARS) What really
goes on in a lab...how to work in a Clean lab environment and to manage
all the procedures and equipment in the lab

87 - post test Maybe not exactly “THE” scientific method, but the same
thought process

On being put into a situation where inguiry is reguired to determinefia

problem to be solved
S3 - interview I picked my own project.

 

On being put into a situation where inguigy is reguired to develop or
rework a hypothesis

S3 — journal Hypothesis — If an effective campaign is planed out that
includes the cooperation of churches, schools, organizations and any
other black communities then more African American donors will be
available to help with sickle cell treatments... I set up meetings with
churches/organizations where we can speak about the safety of blood
donation and answer any questions...My hypothesis is that education is
the best solution to solving the minority blood donation problem.

 

On being put into a situation where inguigy is reguired to develop or
rework a protocol I experimental design

S1 — interview Here most decisions are yours — like when to record data.
Here it’s your own initiative to do it.

 

S3 — journal I spoke to (name of speaker), who is a national speaker of
sickle cell disease... It’s hard enough to get into contact with people and
once you do it’s even harder to get them to really listen to what you have
to say. I told her that I will defiantly keep trying. This is something I plan
on doing for a long time...l have been trying to schedule drives at different

114

areas around Dallas. I made out minority blood donation surveys and
passed them out at the 11:00 am service at my Church. Only 17 people
were interested in filling it out...

89 - post test A control is the source you change. Many times you need
a control to test different experiments. (89 - pretest) An experimental
control is a section of the group that is not given the essential element.
Like we did nerve injuries on rats. On our control, we cut them open, but
did nothing, so that they would experience the same exact things.

S10 — journal To outline my project, I basically am receiving all my
information form articles. — determine exactly what protocols to use —
practice with the protocols before starting...

S10 - interview to develop protocol by reading articles

On being put into a situation where inguigy is reguired to conclude
that their data is mm or wrong, accurate or not accurate, precise or

not precise

S1 — post test One needs to know what one is dong and ask oneself if
the experiment will satisfy what it is intended to perform...see if the
experiment needs to be replicated or tuned

S1 —journal The bone marrow I obtained is in 5 flasks. Surprisingly I
gathered a lot this time. It really surprised me and I think the data is
incorrect but the marrow has already been “watered down.” There’s
nothing to do but hope that there might be a chance the data was
correct...When I was going to count the cells I shook the tube to get the
cells diluted but then I went ahead and gathered a sample from the
bottom. My guess is that the cells settled down and that’s why I got a
higher concentration of cells than I should have.

On being put into a situation where inguigy is reguired to conclude
results form data

S3 - journal If students are taught about sickle cell disease and other
illnesses such as cancers, that require constant blood transfusions, then
when they are older they’ll come to realize the importance...Conclusion —
The best approach to increasing the number of minority blood donors in
the community is through education.

On experiencing a mistake, road block or constraint in the research
S1-journal Recently just yesterday I had a terrible encounter with
contamination. . ..there are many reasons why flasks get contaminated and
I spent all last night trying to trace where | make an error. I think I traced it
to the handling of one of the apparatus which I use to suck out the

115

medium. I am still worried about my other flasks on all of them. This
morning nothing was evident but I will check later again.

S3 — post test Things often go wrong in science and no one can do
anything about it but go on and Ieam from your mistakes

85 —journal What surprises me about science is that it’s just like math.
Meaning if you mess up on one step, our whole product is different and
may be wrong. You have to carefully do each step and check to make
sure it is right.

S7 - journal The reason we were doing the sort AGAIN is because the
last sort didn’t work out.

S7 - post test 90% or more you don’t find the answer you are looking for,
but you may discover something unintentionally. If anything, you discover
what NOT to do.

S8 - journal With my clumsy hands, I spilled a bit of the serum onto the
counter (arrrgl). I cleaned the mess with some tissues. Luckily, I didn’t
spill it on myself or anyone else. This is the first major mistake I made.

88 - post test (when asked what is the most profound thing Ieamed) I
learned that “failure is an option,” mistakes will happen and are acceptable
only if one learns from THEM!!!

On what part of the scientific method the student participated in
S1 -journal The parts of the scientific method in which I have taken part

in I believe constitute of just the procedures. The problem had already
been established by [her mentor] and so had the materials to use. I now
mostly carry out the same procedures on different subjects, record and
observe data, and maintain previous cell cultures. I think I will be taking
part of the data analysis and conclusions (since I will have to compare
these), but I believe my ability in these areas is a bit weak.

S1 — final presentation SI examined the difference between two
mediums, sacrificed 5 rats, removed bone marrow, tibia and fibula, was
trying to determine if the way in which the rats were sacrificed (002 or
injection) affected the cells, one day she got contamination, had to go
back and figure out why she got it and what it was, said it was very spore
like, wasn’t able to draw conclusion form data but speculated that MEM
medium was better, I learned a lot of techniques

82- journal During these two weeks, I basically did paper work in the

DACU at Zale (a hospital). This is by far the tedious task I have done yet.
I have to get all the patients that we first tracked in the year 2001 I still

116

do data entry. It seems that my hands and fingers hurt every day. But I
know that my job is really important to the research going on. The last
part of this study depends on me. It is up to me if it gets published or not.

82 - final presentation 82 said he has seven studies going on in his lab
- he is a part of one, explained the purpose of the study was to reduce the
amount of drugs given to patients and minimize the side effects, his study
had a control group, really important in this study to keep everything the
same (age).

S3 - final presentation S3 wanted to increase African-American
donation, she gathered information, observed treatments, visited Carter
Blood, contacted churches, contacted Sickle Cell Anemia Association,
contacted people in media, did a survey, conclusion: education is the
most important way to get African-Americans to donate blood, people
should be taught early on, media should be involved, included n=10 and
pie graph in results

84 —journal Here, mainly I have been involved in the experiment part
and basically perform the experiment and collect data. All this I do by

myself, however, my mentor often analyzes the data and allows me to

listen in and know what’s going on. I also prepare materials for future

experiments (ex. prepare media).

S4 - interview I have been following my mentor growing the tissues.

S4 - final presentation S4 got fibroblasts cells from patients, grew them,
did a Western Blot, got cDNA, sequenced the DNA, confirmed the
mutation, found 5 new unpublished mutations, spoke in terms of “we”.

SS - journal I have participated in all parts of the scientific method. My
Pl first explained our problem. Then, my immediate supervisor explains
what I do to contribute to the purpose / problem. Right now I mostly view
my/our written protocol to do/redo my experiment. I really make LB broth
and add a bacterial clone. l harvest the DNA, remove cells and eventually
get the DNA to test the pH. I do the scientific method for “procedure.” My
protocol really helps me to know what steps come next because no matter
how many times I do the process I sometimes forget what comes next. I
have also made graphs and results but I believe at the end of the program
I will write my conclusion.

$5 - final presentation S5 felt like she didn’t contribute a lot but enough
to where it would make an advancement in science, said she cloned a
gene, she did an agarose gel, Ieamed how to amplify DNA, incubated
centrifuged, started to test concentration, read a lot of articles

117

$6 - interview In procedure part on the method

86 - final presentation S6 told what she did in the methods section,

appeared to have been guided through this experiment by her mentor,
“We were actually in the laboratory, we Ieamed a lot of techniques and
had a good time”

S7 — journal We also did a PCR...Today I made Check-gels and Ieamed
about heavy and light chains in a protein...We ran a sequence today that
consists of coding our antibodies — it puts out a different color for each
ATGC and ultimately will lead us to which gene that antibody is derived
from...l cleaned check gel combs and put tips into empty tip boxes. Then
I labeled each box with autoclave tape. At the end of the day I made wax
pellets. . .I got to resuspend some cells as well...We got liquid Nitrogen to
“flash freeze” the cells so they don’t die...Nancy had me enter data into
the computer after organizing and numbering the gene folder an MS
patient...l organized by plate numbers, stapled and separated into
possible clone pairs. Then we checked to see if they were actually clones.
Again I did paperwork all day... Oh, I Ieamed to wax plates today...Today
I did my first PCR. Not just watching, I’ve come along way from just
watching Sarah do one...Sarah showed me how to isolate the DNA by
putting it in little square, hollow containers and then cutting off the extra
agarose...We were preparing the DNA to be sequenced...We came back
downstairs to resuspend the DNA — which is invisible to the human eye. It
is nerve-racking to do this because sometimes there is a little dye that
won’t go back out of my pipet and I always worry that the DNA might be
inside the pipet...l added all the DNA into the gel by myself...Then I took
our isolated DNA and after spinning it took out all of the DNA in each tube
and transferred it to the ones I had just labeled...l labeled all the extra
primers we have so that we can find them easier...Today I did a special
PCR that Nancy wanted me to do because another one that was done
turned out bad. In it I tested 2 different magnesium concentrations using
one set of primers...ln the morning I was Ieaming how to analyze the DNA
that we sequenced...Sarah taught me how to read the CDR3
chain...basically I just analyzed data all day...This morning I was given
the assignment of doing mutational analysis on my repertoire.

S8 — journal. . .they had to get blood drawn from their arms in intervals of
30 minutes...l visited the technician to do the technical part of the study
(primarily consists of pipetting, labeling, and centrifuging). But this part is
only the beginning step in creating data. Results of today’s study will not
be revealed for a week or two. These experiments are very fascinating
and the methods very cleverly formulated...ln the afternoon, I visited the
lab tech and performed some experiments on the results from the past 4
patients. The main experiment was the “Free Fatty Acid Assay Test”...
Setting up the experiment took a tedious 3 hours...Two patients came in

118

this morning. The usual things happened...drawing blood, centrifuging,
processing, freezing. All except for the analyzing part. The tech was busy
and could not accommodate me...l also spent some time with the
technician and tried to Ieam the basis of some of the procedures...This
time, however, I got to do more stuff, such ans taking care of the blood
and centrifuging without too much supervision...l’m curious about how the
tech processes the blood afterwards. I have only seen two things: FFA
counting and cell pelleting. l was allowed to do most of these steps, so
that’s why I actually recalled them. I’m so proud. Haha...This time, I
really got to see how the study patients were booked...For next week I’m
hoping to analyze some of the results and hopefully sit down with one of
the Pl’s (if possible). As for the research, I have finished just about
everything — I’m missing the analyzing of the data, which I will do with my
mentor/supervisor tomorrow...

88 - journal Problem - l have done some digging and inquiring abut the
research on hand, including reading up on insulin and diabetes, and
asking my co-workers with question that I have. . .Hypothesis - The Pl’s for
this experiment had already decided on the hypothesis, which is: People
of Asian decent are more insulin resistant than people of Caucasian
decent. . .Experiment — I have been chatting with the patient while they get
their blood drawn, and l have done some lab work with the tech. Some
lab work includes: cell pelleting. FFA Assay test, Insulin Assay Test, and
DNA test, which I’m so familiar with yet...ConcIusion -l have not
personally looked at the results yet, since the Pl’s have been quite busy
lately. However, they did promise one-on-one time with them to discuss
the results and their meaning.

$8 - final presentation 88 weighed patients underwater, processed the
blood tests (glucose and insulin), did a statistical analysis (error bars and
p value)

89 - journal Well, the only part of the scientific method that l have
participated in is the experiment part. But I have Ieamed so much from
that. I have been running gels, homogenizing tissue samples...

89 - weekly discussion I Ieamed how to organize data. I did a standard
curve!

89 - post test They conclude this information from the data they get.
They can test the theories until they receive the information they want.
(S9 —pre test) Through experiments

S10 — final presentation $10 ordered medium that was being tested,

went to operating room and got tissue, had positive and negative control
groups, went to library and found chemicals needed to turn fat cells into

119

bone cells, showed what he wanted to do in the future (inspired by the
model of another doctor)

On how students are inspired by trying to find a “real” cure solving

“real” problems
85 — weekly discussion researchers have the power to find a cure

89 —journal | feel very fortunate to have had a hand in research that
someday may help millions of women (and I’m only 17).

$9 — interview I see science at work and how it helps people

39 - interview I never thought about science as helping people, I thought
oh cool a DVD player.

School Science - On how students do not participate in inguigy
involving developing experimental desigp

S3 — journal In classes science is often black and white. The teachers
already have a set way of performing the experiments. There is usually
not much (if any) room for questioning the way the procedure has to be
done. However, real life science is often full of surprises and that way a
researcher believes something that should be is often different from the
way it actually is.

$4 — weekly discussion school — can just do the procedure and don’t
have to know what’s going on

$6 — interview In school the procedures are already there, at the end the
teacher puts up the numbers...ln school you follow the procedures.

School Science - On how students do not participate in inguigy
involving data analysis

S1-journal Data analysis, I believe, is not an area I am very strong in
because I have not really been involved in true actual data analysis. In
school the labs I participated in I was only expected to write my outcome.
From observation and recent orientation in scientific writing I have found
that one has to practice a higher level of analysis rather than writing an
expected conclusion and leaving a teacher to guide one through the what,
why and where. I believe I have been taught techniques and background
that have make the procedures in STARS very easy. Maybe due to the
fact that I don’t have a strong background or practice in cell culture or real
research knowledge I feel this way.

83 — journal Mistakes are made and any questions a scientist has must
always be answered for the sake of his/her research. In school, you may

120

have times when you doubt what is going on, but you may not always
have time to start over.
$3 - interview The teacher knows the answer already

84 —journal In school, I mainly just did experiments. We often did not
analyze the data answers or if we did we would often be wrong and the
teacher would have to tell us the correct answer anyway.

S4 — journal In school, | despised doing labs, like many other people in
my AP Bio ll Class. It would seem like we would be Ieaming something
and then all of a sudden some lab that’s supposed to fit in with the lesson
shows up. But the teacher wouldn’t really point how the lab fitted in. We
would end up spending a couple days doing the lab, which basically
disrupted what we were originally Ieaming, and have the teacher spoon
feed us the results and analysis because we would be too confused to get
it.

School Science - how students are NOT participating in inguigy labs
81 —journal At school a lab was set up with everything. All I basically

had to do was fill in some basic blanks. The problem / hypothesis was
always started, the materials were set out on the table. The procedures
were already included. All I had to do was replicate the experiment and
get data. Even for the conclusion I was given questions that would lead
me to what was to be the accepted outcome to get a 100% or to
understand the outcome. Even through it isn’t a very effective way to
Ieam or to proceed in research I believe that those experiments were not
truly experiments but rather just examples. Thanks to them I Ieamed such
things as how different elements behave, about phase changes. In a real
experiment I feel I would be better prepared to recognize such
characteristics that would allow me to distinguish what is causing what in
my data.

83 - journal In my Chemistry and Biology classes when we were doing
labs, the procedure seemed to be the most important part to the students.
Even though the results and conclusion were what the teachers actually
cared about, the procedure was what the students worried about. If you
didn’t follow the right procedure, your results would not be accurate which
make a difference in the grades.

S3 —journal If I could change high school science I’d make it more
experiencing science rather than just reading about it.

83 - interview Our teacher would tell you exactly what to do and

measure. . .Labs at school — we would just write down answers of other
kids or what the teacher said. (89 - interview)

121

 

When I’m doing labs in school, I’m scared I’m going to mess up and have
a bad grade.

85 -journal Last year in AP Biology, we did not do any labs. We just
read the book and took tests...We did nothing but read other individual’s
results.

85 - weekly discussion school — write it down, teacher knows outcome
86 — weekly discussion school — just looking in books

88 —journal Last year at TAMS, I mainly participated in the “Experiment”
part of the scientific method (since the whole class devoted to doing the
experiments). . .All the lab time was devoted to performing the experiments
assigned for that week. With an immediate supervisor (usually 1 per 30
students), little help was available to answer questions. So, must of the
time, lab was just data collecting and occasionally some minor math U"

 

calculations.

S9 - journal In all of my science classes at school, I have always had
pen and plenty of paper ready for class because I know tht my teacher is
about to spit out 30 letter long words for 55 minutes and I am going to
have to memorize these words for my test. I never really Ieamed science
in that way. I passed my tests and got my homework done, but I never
understood. This past summer, while working in the lab, I have developed
an appreciation for science and all of the wonderful capabilities it
possesses.

T10 - interview In school the outcome is already determined.

_S_chool Science - Positive comments

82 — journal Actually I thought that science Ieamed in school is almost
the same as it is at the medical center, except that here science is
explored more than finding canned answers. But much like college, you
still do research, form hypothesis, and of course record the observations
and data.

88 — journal I must admit that the classes I took (Biology I Chemistry)
both in high school and TAMS helped build a broad knowledge base for
the understanding of the research I’m currently working on.

School Science — Miscellaneous comments

S3 —journal We may learn the concept in school, but there is not real
time to master it. That’s what may be the real problem along with a
shortage of lab equipment due to the lack of funds provided for the district.

122

Anyhow, it’s okay the way science is taught now, but unless you have real
great, enthusiastic teachers you won’t gain much from your classes.

86 — interview In school my teacher makes a mistake in lab procedure
and we have to figure out that he did wrong.

88 -journal If I was a science teacher, I would spend more time one-on-
one with my lab students to make sure that they understand the concepts
behind the experiments and what the results mean. In other words, I
would spend more time teaching the methods/explaining the results than
done in today’s class.

On how STARS is different than school
S1 - weekly discussion here — they show you once, you do it next

S1 - weekly discussion school — more structured, teachers hovering
around

S1 — post test ...there is a chance that one may just get stuck Ieaming
and practicing one area of study, in school one has to study and Ieam
about various subjects...

82 - journal I think some of the misconceptions of my classmates would
be just to find an answer. In school there is always an answer, nothing is
left blank. At UT Southwestern I found that even my case lasted longer
than a year. This would be unthinkable in school. Many of my Classmates
rush to a conclusion or expect to find one. In the research facility it is
really different.

82 - weekly discussion here — things are more long term, mentor has
been working for two years just on first step

83 — weekly discussion here - more hands on and free

S3 — weekly discussion school -just doing a lab (here more hands on
and free)

S4 - interview In school you’re doing it just cause. Labs in school don’t
connect. The school attitude — you just want to get a grade.

85 — weekly discussion here - there is no room for mistakes, more
caufions

$5 — interview here — more sterile than at school

86 — weekly discussion here - more hands on research

123

 

$6 - Interview here - getting data is different — in order to even start
something you have to do background research — like medicine you have
to do research on which one to order

87 - interview We do fake science in school — helps you understand
subject matter but doesn’t serve a purpose.

S8 — weekly discussion here - more one on one
89 - weekly discussion | used to protest dissecting as school [student

goes on to say she now sees a purpose in testing animals — it helps find
cures]

”J

S9 - weekly discussion here — more one on one, not afraid to ask
questions because no competition [with peers], school — didn’t want to
ask questions, too much competition :'

 

S10 — weekly discussion here - pay attention to sterile tech, don’t reuse
pipets here

How STARS changed or inspired career aspirations
81- journal There are lots of career paths and fields opened most that

had it not been for STARS I would have never known existed. I mean a
whole lab concentrated on the study of how just one single protein
interacts, lives and dies was something new to me. Teachers do try to
encourage students, because lets face it, they are teachers its their job
and passion, but I think it is also hard for them to get students really
interested.

S1 - post test The bus that I ride in the morning to get to Southwestern
facilitated many conversations with an electronic engineer... She and this
environment made me realize many opportunities

82 — Interview Got to go with med student to see how researchers get
patient’s consent...Leaming a lot of ways to get into med school.

82 — interview. I see I don’t want to do research...l wanted to see doctors
and nurses — if they are coming from where I’m coming form. Is their road
similar?

83 - post test I still plan to become a pediatric physician when I’m older,
so STARS gave me one more reason why I should become a doctor...

S4 - interview This has heightened my interest in the medical field.

124

$5 — journal I also realized with medical school or graduate school, it’s
not as hard as everyone makes it out to be, but its no walk in the park. I
know I’ll be missing a lot of sleep, and I know that it will make me decide
whether this is something I want to do.

S5 - interview I wanted to be a doctor and never thought about research

S7 - journal Then we ordered pizza as a unit. People from all the
surrounding labs came and ate in Nancy’s office — its quite a popular
hangout. It was a lot of fun getting to eat with the group. Plus, most of
them are fairly young like Judy... I also talked to Judy again about
California and she was telling me about some other research
opportunities.

S7 - interview Research seems more relaxed than the medical
field...People underestimate research... they say, “I want to be a doctor.”
Why can’t it be a PhD, not a medical doctor?

S7 - post test STARS has really opened my eyes up to pursuing a career
in research.

This program has reiterated to me the importance that science has
(subject was working to find a cure for MS). I will most definitely be
pursuing a career in the sciences, this program has solidified that thought.

89 — interview For the longest time I wanted to be a pediatrician, but
from working here I want to be an OBGYN.

$9 - post test Before starting this program, I wanted to be a pediatrician,
working with teens in low income neighborhoods. After working in an
OB/GYN lab, I have realized that I can accomplish my dream of reaching
young ladies better by becoming an OB/GYN. This summer was very
encouraging.

S10 - journal On the whole this summer was a great experience for
exposure to the medical field and to the process of being a doctor. I hope
to do something similar next year.

S10 — interview Wants to apply to a medical school (maybe UT), talks to
med. students in his lab.

S10 - final presentation SIO expressed how he got exposure to the

medical field and research. It reconfirmed his desire to be a medical
doctor.

125

 

On how STARS helped to develop interpersonal skills
S1 - journal I was thinking what I could do to strike up a conversation

that didn’t have the rat or the cells I am working with mainly as a topic.
Most of the conversation ranges from “Where is so and so?” or “May I
attend this?” But then I realized that I myself also make things harder in
the sense that, I hate to admit this, but I prefer working alone rather than
being strongly supervised.

S4 — journal I really agree with what [the STARS coordinator] said at the
last meeting about asking questions. At the beginning I had absolutely no
questions, everything was new. But now, I actually have a feel for what’s
going on and ask hopefully intelligent questions.

86 - interview Now in school I will question or do something my own
way.

On gpining confidence about doing science
S5 - post test I loved the lab experience. Hopefully, I’ll get to do labs at
school now. I’m more excited about my science class this year.

S7 - journal I felt like I was in on a big secret — like only we know about
this process and how we were searching for such an awesome goal -
discovering why MS occurs and how.

S7 -journal It is fun to be accepted by all these doctors and students
(grad, med.).

87 -journal It is kind of heat knowing you can do stuff better than
college kids...l also showed Eddy (a new lab assistant) how to locate the
CRB regions (the site where the antigen attaches). It is a neat experience
showing older people how to do stuff when you are only in high school.

89 - post test I now see myself as a scientist as well as a student
because this experience has made me begin to think about many different
things like how diseases can be prevented or cured or how something can
be improved or what can be invented to help this out.

S9 — post test I am definitely more confident in doing science. I really
have struggled with science in the past and I thought it was interesting but
I was never successful. My interest in science has now grown because I
have personally seen all of the cool things science can do.

S9 - journal I am really excited about Ieaming science now. Before it
was a bit of a chore, something I had to do to pass. Being here in this
program has shown me to “real world” of science and how very crucial
scientific Ieaming and understanding is.

126

 

On how a student may NOT have gained an accurate portrayal of
science

85 - post test Science is simply progressed by trial and error. Science
does not require as much knowledge about electronics or the world
around you. Anyone can more so Ieam a protocol and perform an
experiment. Everyone can’t build and make a computer.

127

 

 

C2. Teacher Quotes

On teachers being surprised at the cost of doing research
T4 — journal The most amazing thing about watching these experiments

is the cost of all of the equipment, chemicals, disposable materials. A
sterile environment must be maintained at all times. This necessitates the
use of a great deal of disposable pipet tips, plastic well plates, test tubes,
vials, centrifuge tubes. The cost of the chemicals was staggering.
FuGene costs almost $300 for a vial 1 ml in size. The cost to run each
test of a given experiment is exceptional.

T4 - weekly discussion the money that is spent ($280 for 10 ml of
substance), the waste generated, the error that takes place, the
competition within the department (rush to beat people to publish paper)

T7 - weekly discussion the cost of the equipment
T9 - weekly discussion the total cost of the grant was a surprise

On teachers being surprised at the time line of doing research
T3 — interview I thought things progressed a lot more smoothly and
quicker — not the case in science.

T8 —journal I suppose one thing that surprised me was the length of time
experiments take. 5 blood samples might take a tech all day to process.
There are no fast or pad answers in science - it’s a process.

T9 - interview I learned the time factor is totally different. I didn’t know
science was that way.

On learning scientific acronyms
T2 — weekly discussion Last year I needed time to learn acronyms.

T6 - weekly discussion many acronyms

On how problem solving occurs in the lab
T2 - weekly discussion these people sit around and figure out the next

step — amazing

T4 — journal The “journal club,” as our weekly meeting has now been
nicknamed, is an open discussion of techniques, errors, and problem
solving performed by other labs. This generates discussions concerning
lab techniques performed in lab as well as forces researchers to keep and
open mind about hypothesis and conclusions.

128

 

T4 -journal The most amazing thing to witness is a philosophical
scientific argument. There are many different hypothesis that can be
presented for a single problem and well as many techniques used to prove
or disprove a hypothesis.

T4 - post test [on analyzing data] In a new field and new techniques it is
difficult. Normally it is based upon negative controls. New techniques,
however, present lntemal control issues often skewing results.

T4 — post test The scientific process is complex with lots of gray area. . .I
thought data would point specifically to a yes or no answer but science fi
doesn’t seem to work that way. '

T8 - interview I didn’t realize the techs were people that do the
procedures. . .the techs know every protocol but don’t know the “whys” to
the problem.

 

T9 - post test [surprised at] the way scientists do so much “thinking”! J
They do the experiments over and over again in their heads trouble
shooting the experiment before they actually begin bench work.

On the most important tools, skjlls, concepts, habits a scientist must
l_1_a_ve in order to go his/her job well. Question from Pre and Post
lnguir_'y

T1 - journal The broad picture that I am seeing is that knowledge;
planning and determination are keys to success in what we do in life. Dr.
X’s weekly meeting discussed that as a surgeon that 50% of his surgery is
completed when he washes his hands going into surgery. At first it did not
seem correct. But as l ponder his words of advice I found that they were
true...Hopefully I will be able to pass along the information that planning is
key to success.

T1 — post test [what part of action plan was directly inspired by STARS?]
other labs working together

T5 - weekly discussion Surprised at how much technical skill is required
- homogenizing tissues!

T8 — post test Scientists had better be patient — big time. Sometimes,
you might work on an experiment for days and use old primer and it
wrecks your results.

On learning about peer review. ioumal publicatjon and obtaining
grants by observiqu mentors aft weekly meetings

129

T1 — interview [surprised at] the number of meetings and the “hush-hush”
attitude

T3 - post test I had 3 meetings a week.

T4 -journal Several things must happen to maintain a successful
program. One, the Pl must be able to write and receive research

grants. . .The number of people with the disease or number of contributors
plays an integral part in success at UT Southwestern. Second, the lab
has to produce quantifiable results in a given time period. People in the
US are into instant gratification and want science to move at light speed.
However, cell research takes time and since this is where everything is
taking place, it is often difficult for research groups to work.

T4 - weekly discussion Got to see major break through — see a paper
being published.

T4 — weekly discussion writing up a conclusion, sit in meeting to publish
a paper, send it to the Journal of Neuroscience, shoot it to editors, the
data came back “skewed”, how do you insert data in a paper discussion

T8 - post test You also better be ready for serious peer review - in the
scientific community, peer review is tough stuff. You had better have
concrete data and measurable results or you will regret it.

On impressions pertaining to the personalities of scientjsts

T3 - journal I had once thought that most researchers were quiet,
“stuffy”, sort of characters, but from a previous research experience I have
found differently.

T4 - journal ...the people do not seem too eager to bond, work between
teams, and to share information, space and even their time...For instance
the department seems to have a real rift between research labs. Space is
at a premium and if you don’t bring in the research grants (i.e. money)
your space is taken.

On mentors being too busy to help the teachers
T2 - interview I feel like my mentor has projects going on and I don’t
want to interrupt them.

T5 - journal When I visited with the Pl before the summer began. I
thought he was going to be more hands on with me than he is. He was to
leave (go out of town) a couple of days after I first began work and
seemed very distracted and didn’t have time to talk to me. He frankly
seemed annoyed that I was there — one more thing to deal with.

130

 

 

T8 — journal My mentor is incredibly nice, but like most Pl’s, he’s
extremely busy.

T8 — post test My mentor was busy. I petty much had to take charge of
my own Ieaming.

On being able to work with grad students, medical students, etc.
T1 - interview is working with Ph.D. and MD. so she gets two different

perspectives...gets to be around techs, MD. and Ph.D...

T2 - weekly discussion I am working with one med. student who came .-
from a family of educators.

T6 — weekly discussion SURF student in there, observe, then let him do
it, very comfortable

On being in a situation where inguigy is reguired to develop or
rework a hypothesis

T1 - journal At this point in the lab — I expect from the articles that I am
reading that my cells will convert to osteoblasts. I also expect that once
they achieve that level then they will not stay osteoblasts long.

 

In

On being in a situation where inguipy is reguired to develop or
rework a protocol l experimental design

T1 - journal My project was to start figuring out a protocol. My project
does not have a set protocol, but instead a lot of theoretical knowledge but
no previously documented cases. Thus, I was feeling frustrated. Then
today the frustration gave way to understand and appreciating how and
why cells grow. At this time in my life, I did not except to feel that way
about a concept that I have understood for so long.

T1 -journal My cell flasks became majority contaminated. I thought that
l was doing a sterile procedure currently but I’m not. I do not feel
confident at all. My cell #’s are all over the place and do not correspond to
the visual results — do not understand why...

T3 -journal Trial and error (or restart the design). I think the biggest part
of the scientific method I have experienced has been the most important
and most left out step, Retry! My apparatus has had difficulty and we
keep making modifications.

T3 — final presentation was able to design procedure himself and
problem solve conflictive constraints

T5 -journal 2 possibilities — 1) Treatments work but are quickly
degraded so stored tissue treatments are no good 2) the treatment

131

process itself isn’t reliable...ThiS shows an interesting principle in scientific
research. Science research often proceeds 2 steps fonivard and 1 step
back. . .(if we are lucky).

T6 -joumal Southern blot results were poor using the SAC-1. Possible
reasons 1. Improper temp during prep of membrane 68° instead of 42°...2.
Radioactive marker did not appear to have been taken in by the
membrane.

T7 — journal I have spent 3 weeks trying to get my restriction enzyme to
cut the DNA bands. Every time I do a new test and a new PCR or gel I
need to write down all the steps.

On being in a situation where imiry is regired to conclude thgt
their data is right or wrong, accurate or not accurate, precise or not
precise (on Pre and Post Ingtfly)

T3 — journal I am not confident in my cell prep or the VSS [machine] to
be confident in my data yet but we are improving all the time. Most of my
error that would yield problems in my data comes form cell prep. My
freshman attempts may be causing problems.

T4 — journal My data this week proved to be an error on my part. I was
given a sample on Monday to restrict and examine. Either I picked up the
wrong sample or it was handed to me. I assumed (along with my mentor)
that the ligation had failed, so I reset the entire process and reran the
ligation and transformation. This took three extra days to perform...As
many samples and the level of organization present, I am sure this is a
normal occurrence, and my mentor didn’t seemed too upset.

T6 - journal [Identify the parts of the scientific method that you have
participated in.] gather data, test, test, retest and test again, examine data
(answers) and usually see where we went wrong

T6 - journal Ponder — (time) — why things do not go according to plan
and where did I go wrong in the process and how can I correct it...when
things work the data is probably accurate, when it doesn’t something or
someone (me) didn’t do something right.

T6 - weekly discussion everything came back wrong, probes not
reading, gathered RNA and it was degraded, had a week of failure, will re-
grow culture now to increase the number of cells to use

T7 — weekly discussion Friday, accuracy in pipeting, mistake in pipeting
0.1 ul instead of 1 ul, be patient

132

 

T8 - post test Yesterday we were reviewing some data on some double
blind dissections and cultures, but there was a big problem. Our data
consistently was the opposite of our hypothesis. If the data is consistently
wrong, it might mean that a previous research study was wrong. That
means starting over again.

On experiencing a mistake. road—block or constraint in the research
T1 — post test [What were the most profound things you learned?]
patience, failure is a guarantee...my failures to gain results is amazing

T2 — weekly discussion Failure surprises me. I go home and feel bad.
Things don’t always go cookbook.

T4 - journal So much was made of mistakes we will make. I witnessed
professionals make an error. Of course it wasn’t their fault, but an error
interjected somewhere in the protocol. The technician was having to
return the set again to find out what gave her the false positive in her
control in the banding.

T4 - post test most of ours [experiments] failed

T6 - final presentation Failure is abundant...failure can lead to
something else.

T6 - weekly discussion the amount of failure you go through...

T7 - final presentation Failure became a good friend of mine. I became
frustrated but will take away do much

T7 - weekly discussion I didn’t think that making a mistake would upset
me as much.

T8 - post test Science doesn’t care how smart you are, if you can’t “stay
in the moment” and keep a clean technique, you won’t get consistent
results.

T8 — post test If your project lasts 8 years, you might work a month with
non-stop failure because someone made the TBE [buffer] incorrectly. Or
the research to date may be wrong. If your failure is constant, you might
have to rethink your hypothesis.

T9 — weekly discussion Meeting with my Pl, he said more scientists
have failure because they didn’t have the dexterity to do it.

T9 - pretest My Pl told me that 60% of what you do in the lab is just
preparation to what your intended experiment is, then that over half of

133

 

what you complete doesn’t work, so you have to trouble shoot. But this is
how more is Ieamed so it might not be true failure.

On what parts of the scientific method the teacher participated in
T1 —journa| So far in my own personal research at UT Southwestern, I

feel that l have looked at the problem. Lists of factors and key concepts
that will apply to my problem have been listed as well as the justification of
how and why there are controls. At this point, I am examining which
enzymes, markers, etc. to be used in my project. I have also experienced
some problem solving with techniques that will be used in the project.

T1 - interview the thought process to come up with the protocol...she is
going through the experience of developing the protocol and can now
explain this “fork in the road” to students

T2 -journal I feel like I have been able to use most of the scientific
method steps during my lab experience. I have been given a project that
includes an overall question to be answered through research, and
gathering data. I have had to follow a certain protocol or procedure step-
by-step for each test run. I have used both positive and negative controls
in my tests and have Ieamed the value of having both in the test design. I
have had to research to find out more information on my topic to help me
better understand the research problem and the hypothesis developed by
the researcher. I have had to gather certain materials and use specific
equipment in performing the tests. I have collected data in the form of
both qualitative and quantitative data. I have had to analyze the data to
determine the next step in the testing. I have had t retest when the
negative control had a positive reaction. I have had to problem solve in a
systematic way to find out why the negative control showed a positive
result. I have spent the majority of my time researching, collecting data
and analyzing the results.

T2 - post test After initial discussion [with PI], I had more of the
responsibility for my project...

T2 - post test The positive/negative controls helped me look at I analyze
my data more accurately.

T3 - journal What are the effects of variable wavelength and intensities
of light on epidermal cells? This is my mentor‘s question that l have
adopted... The development of a good procedure will soon come into play.
I am Ieaming how to set up my samples and test them properly...At first
my parameters were set by Joe. As time has past and after a few runs I
have been making changes. Good or Bad?

134

 

T4 — journal Most of the hypothesis was developed before I arrived and l
have just been participating in the conducting of the experiment. In fact, I
do not believe I will even finish the experiment by the end of the summer.
The process is quite tedious and time consuming. On the other hand, I
have participated in evaluations of others’ research including
contemplating hypothesis, experimental design, error evaluation, and
examining conclusions.

T4 - final presentation Went to clinicals, experienced patients with ALS,
Ieamed how important the research was [because of visiting with these
patients]

T5 - journal Tuesday — poured gradient gel for CDK5 assay...lt seems
that the plan is for me to learn techniques so I can help others some what
like a tech... it might be possible to set up a project for me later but we
have to wait on that for a while...The lab tech left me a large portion of the
analysis on my own...l spent most of the morning going over film and the
article, trying to make connections, draw conclusions, etc...lt was
rewarding to take part in this planning process and to understand what
was happening...followed standard lab protocol for all blots...followed
standard protocol to avoid cross contamination of samples
(hopefully)....followed protocol for Trizol isolation of RNA, used RNeasy to
clean...

T5 - interview is coming up with his own protocol and has found it
frustrating

T7 - journal Began making gel, mixed DNA samples with dye, used gel
electrophoresis...ran PCR results from previous gel...

T7 — final presentation T7 learned to accurately pipet, did PCR, did DNA
sequencing, had a picture of expected results and compared it to those
observed results (they did not Show a correlation), did the statistics to
back up conclusions

T8 - journal I have found that writing every detail of the procedure down
is important...l made solutions for the lab and did PCR. They also
realized that I am the pipet queen...By Friday, I was doing a Parent of
Origin DNA extraction by myself...

T8 -journal The problem I’m facing is that I’m not proficient enough to
formulate conclusions...On a lighter note, I do know the problem,
materials, procedure and observation. I’ll probably get Dr. X to help me
interpret the results of the genotyping before I formulate my conclusion.
I’ve been doing all the DNA and buccal smear extraction for our lab. I’ve
been doing half of the PCR prep work - making gels, loading dye. I’ve

135

also been running the bio-imaging machine...l do blood extractions, take
care of the mice, make gels — general “lab rat” tasks.

T8 — interview Interpreting results is what I need help with ...She is on
the procedure part and some of the observations

T9 - journal Pl wants me to go to another lab, be trained on INSITU and
then come back and train his lab personnel. He also would like me to
produce a 60-90 min CDRom on how to use the cryo.

T9 — post test My mentor didn’t tell me very much about what to do. This :-
year was a little too free.

On Ieaming about a new discipline that is not a subject the teacher
teaches

T3 — journal We are going to meet some day next week with [another
doctor] to discuss the cell lines and proteins. (subject is a physics
teacher)

 

im—w- .-

T8 - post test Reading and writing are crucial for science. Publish or
perish is no joke. Scientists have to read — a l_o_t! Every time a new article
is published, scientists have an obligation to review it.

On teJachingscience before STARS - how students do not participate
in inquiry involving developing hypotheses

T1 - journal My students probably do not ask this question [What
explanation do you expect to develop form your data?]. It probably does
not occur to them to ask or come up with the question. If they think of the
question — they probably push it aside to finish the lab’s lab write up.

T3 — journal [On if students think about what explanations they expect to
develop from their data] Do my student have time? Rarely, but hopefully I
can work on more Pre lab and Post lab with them.

T6 - journal Students - usually have trouble formulating the hypothesis,
they enjoy the experiment part the most.

On teaching science before STARS - how students do not participate
in inquiry involving developing experimental desigp

T1 -journal I felt that my students participate in actually doing for the
experiment. The theoretically/ logically system In which a scientist goes
through finding the answer i.e. To set up the experiment is lost on my
students. I feel that they just see the results instead of the whys (why did
you pick this chemical instead of that chemical) and how (why did you run
a spec 20 instead of calorimeter) you did the actually setup of the system
to carry out your experiment. Thus, this could answer the question: why

136

students do not understand what they did in lab even though they
performed the experiment.

T4 —journal It is almost impossible to get ahead and understand the
direction of such complex problems and applications. I wonder if my
students feel this same way. I have always assumed that we are building
upon previous knowledge and we limit the complexities of the problems,
that they do have time to develop ideas before data presentation. Of
course, I know this is not always the case and some students struggle with
the purpose of any lab.

 

 

 

ya.
T8 —journal I suppose my students participate in the procedure portion
more than the other steps. Let’s face it — it’s easier.
On teachinflcience before STA_RS - how students do not participate
in inguiry involving data analysis
T3 — journal Most analysis is left out or done independently. EI

T6 — weekly discussion graphing is bad
T8 — weekly discussion Students expect me to tell them how to do it,
kids don’t know the difference between independent and dependent

variables, graphing, I had kids that ended up with square root problems,
identify what variables to graph, bad at

On tearching science before STARS - how students most_ly
articipate in (tail collection I cookbook lag

T3 -journal Students are usually involved in data collection the most.
T3 - pretest Most labs l have are cookbook.

T4 - pretest Some labs are cookbook labs. With class Sizes of 30 it is
hard to do labs that are inquiry based.

T5 - pretest Superficial data gathering, cookbook observation labs.

T6 - pretest [before STARS, T6’s labs were] about 1/2 inquiry and 1/2
cookbook

T7 - weekly discussion Gave students directions, had students read
directions. . .read protocols, gives students a list of directions

T7 - post test most are cookbook labs

137

On teaching science before STA_RS — how students most_ly
participate in inguigy labs

T1 - journal My students hit conflicting restraints quite often. They have
physical restraints like limited lab space; limited shared equipment i.e. hot
water baths, centrifuges, etc. On the mental end, they have some idea of
mental errors in lab, but it needs to be developed more (I am working on
that).

T2 — pretest At the beginning of the year I use more cookbook labs.
This is when we are Ieaming the scientific method and how to use the
tools safely. We also focus on writing a hypothesis and drawing
conclusions (specific skills). Then I expand to inquiry based labs. I use
those to engage the students and to challenge their problem solving skills.

T2 —journal I think that the students in my class participated in different
parts of the scientific method based on the type of lab that they are doing.
At the beginning of the school year the students are given more of the lab
steps in the form of the scientific method (cook book form to practice
different skills). Then as the students become more skilled they are
responsible for more of the lab write up (are given less of the lab paper).
These labs are more inquiry based and help the student apply their
science process skills and knowledge of the scientific method. My goal is
going to be to have the students have a more authentic lab experience
and make them more responsible at an earlier stage for using the
scientific method / science process skills.

 

T4 - pretest However, we are moving in that direction [doing more
inquiry based labs]. Our district has pushed for performance based
grading of labs with free open procedures, setups, and conclusions.

T4 — journal The methodology in which to implement the action plan was
the easiest part . We use Bloom’s taxonomy starting with an introductory
level and more to an evaluative level.

T7 -journal Most of my students at school participate in s Science Fair
and I grade them according to the scientific method. I also teach this to all
my students as they are expected to know the steps of the scientific
method and we use this in most of our labs.

T8 - pretest I teach in a variety of ways. In the beginning (August) since
most of my students have never before been exposed to science, I use
some cookbook labs, but in conjunction with these, I begin to teach
scientific methodology. As the year progresses, students begin
constructing their own solutions to problems eg. - Catapults with a
purpose, Junkbag Wars, etc. Student also begin Science Fair.

138

T8 - weekly discussion in April every group in all classes did a
performance-based lab

On teaching science before STA_RS — what teachers would change
flout the way they teach laboratonr investigations

T1 — pretest I would change the method I do inquiry based labs. I
would build up to the big inquiry projects that we do by conducting smaller
inquiry based labs to teach hands on techniques of the scientific method.

T3 - pretest I hope to change that [having mostly cookbook labs] soon. I
want to have more inquiry based labs.

T5 - pretest Change to be open ended so kids have to draw their own
conclusions.

T9 — pretest Most of my labs are inquiry based or their purpose is to
review concepts. I only see a need for continued improvement in my labs,
no drastic changes are needed.

On what teachers hope to gain from STARS
T1 - pretest T1 is hoping to gain keys to assist her students through
their own projects and research.

T4 — pre test T4 wanted to develop new laboratory techniques, to
practice complex problem solving, and T4 plans to develop curriculum for
students to create long term science projects, science fair programs and
to develop lab activities for large classes [to do inquiry].

T5 - pretest I hope to reconnect with “real world” science, so that I can
better model my classroom to reflect the scientific paradigm, with great
emphasis on inquiry based Ieaming.

T6 - pre test My goal is to become familiar with the latest research
techniques in the area of molecular biology.

T6 - pretest [T6 wants to] increase the number of inquiry based labs.

T7 -journal I know I would like to reach a point where my students are
writing out the labs instead of these recipe labs.

T8 - pretest I am at UT to Ieam cutting edge techniques to take back to
my classroom.

139

T8 - pretest I am firmly entrenched in scientific methodology. My
weakness clearly lies in the use of scientific technology and up-to-date lab
techniques.

T9 - pretest My goal is to Ieam more “real” science. I hope to
incorporate what I learned into application examples and better inquiry
science In my classroom.

On teaching differently after STARS - understanding true inguigy
better

T2 - post test T2 Ieamed of the need to focus more on the “questioning”
aspect and problem solving skills - having students ask more questions I
analyze their data...

T3 - weekly discussion What if I want to make it [the action plan] inquiry
and make a planning lab? Do I skip the “data” sections? Can I just give
general instructions?

T3 — post test I am going to make labs a little more open-ended and
allow more time for reports.

T4 — interview It has changed my philosophy about how I’m going to do
lab, spend more time on scientific method analyzing data, the thought
process of how to write a good conclusion, evaluating other people’s work,
how do you know weather to through out data...

T5 — interview Get kids to ask more questions, their assignment would
be to ask more questions

T7 - weekly discussion trying to get inquiry based labs

T8 - journal This experience has been illuminating. I see things now
more clearly. I knew that inquiry — based Ieaming was important — now I
know why. It’s real science.

T8 — post test I want to do research side by side with my students. I
want them to know what interests me and howl plan to approach the
problem and conduct the research.

T8 — post test We are also going to “overwhelm and devastate” at the
science fair - I cannot wait.

T9 -journal But I keep thinking it would be great to reinforce scientific
method and allow students to observe animal behavior and allow for open-
ended inquiry all at the same time. What if I provided them with planaria,
egg yolks, butteries, ice, heating pad, dilute lemon juice, dilute detergent,

140

 

various colors of transparencies, black paper, flash light, thermometers,
and various other things (glassware, scopes). Then I told them to set up
an investigation, using the scopes. Then I told them to setup an
investigation, using the steps of the scientific method and delve into a
behavior of planaria? Have them take it from start to finish with a free
write up on their methodology. Is that too much independence?

T9 - interview My students don’t get answers to the questions. This
experience has reinforced the need to not tell kids answers

T9 - post test I’ve become more convinced that my students need more —-
independence in lab and more feed back on their “processing skills”.

On teachinggifferently after STARS - on having students experience
conflictive constraints Ifailur_e_

T1 — weekly discussion Your students are set up to succeed, they don’t
except to fail

 

T1 - post test try to give the students some failure in lab, better picture of
research

T2 — final presentation We always set students up to make them
successful. I’m learning that’s not the best way to go with my students.
I’ve had to start over with 250 samples 3 times...l Ieamed how to really sit
down and analyze data.

T3 - weekly discussion Failure is summed up with “patience.” You
Ieam there are other factors here.

T4 — post test I plan on designing more open ended labs and labs that
do not work for the purpose of increasing problem solving.

T4 - final presentation I will tell my students to be patient, expect failure.

T5 — weekly discussion I don’t think I’ve given my students the chance
to fumble. I will try to now.

T6 — interview [Any student misconceptions?] yes, students don’t realize
error and failure associated with science. Students don’t know how to fix it
if it doesn’t go wrong. [T 6 pondered how to change this - but didn’t come
up with answer during our interview]

T7 - weekly discussion If we can teach our kids to accept the failure
and then go on...

141

T9 - weekly discussion We come from a situation were it takes an effort
to fail

On teaching differently after STARS - on timing in science
T7 —journal They will learn Rome wasn’t built in a day. Research takes

time.

On teaching differently after STARS — on giving students more “rea_l
world” situations

T2 - interview Now I will ask, “What am I doing? Am I doing this to get
them ready for the real world?” a.

 

 

T5 — interview I want to frame problems with more practical applications
in science, seek more real life applications

On teaching differently after STARS - safety in the lab
T8 - journal Another application that I’ll do this weekend is to make

digital-picture posters (a lab safety poster, a lab equipment poster, a J
proper lab protocol poster). '5

 

On teachinggifferendy after STARS — the need to read journal
articles
T1 — post test How to read and understand science journal articles

T8 —journal Each time I read a technical article, I understand a bit more.
Even if the article is fraught with DNA vocabulary, I can still Ieam from it.

I’m going to have my students read more scientific journals when they are
in my class. Just like me, the more they read, the more they understand.

T8 - weekly discussion will have students keep up with a science journal
(even if you don’t understand it, write it down anyway),

T8 — post test I am going to subscribe to Nature. It is the “bible” of
scientific journals.

On teaching differently after STARS — changing the use of notebooks
T2 - journal ...why it is important to document each step of the testing

process (including both qualitative observations and quantitative data).

T4 - journal The amount of notes taken concerning their experiments is
overwhelming. Volumes upon volumes of research studies fill the book
shelves. This is one area that I plan to impress upon my students in the
future.

T4 - journal The number one item to change this fall is a notebook.
Research is predicted on knowing what, when, where, how, and why an

142

experiment was performed. I currently use a notebook for labs but do not
place much emphasis on its use. Next year I plan on doing a better job of
managing its uses.

T8 - weekly discussion have students rewrite protocols

T8 - post test I’m going to make my students keep lab notebooks like an
actual lab does.

On teaching_differently after STARS - having students develop their

own problem F'-
T8 - weekly discussion will help her students think of problems [to

study]

On teaching differently after STARS - having students develop their
own groced_ures

T3 - interview I’m going to develop a lab that makes students develop a
procedure.

 

FJ‘ . __ .

T7 - interview Wants to get to the point where students will not be
graded on the answer, but the process.

T9 — final presentation What I wanted was to assess them on the
process not the results. Learning is not from results.

On teaching differently after STARS - the use of controls in
classroom

T1 - post test more positive and negative controls

T2 - journal I have some good examples of what happens when your
negative control turns out to be positive after the testing.

T2 — weekly discussion Negative controls are important.

T2 — journal I have also Ieamed the importance of having both negative
and positive controls in an experiment.

T5 — weekly discussion because my control didn’t work on gel, can
Show this example to my students

T9 — journal Dr.[her mentor] has 3 lab rules: First - do it on a small scale
first, second - don’t trust anyone, even yourself (validate everything), and
always run a positive and negative control. I intend to take positive and
negative controls into my classroom.

143

 

T9 - weekly discussion will teach positive and negative controls in
classroom

On teaching differently after STARS - the need for more accuracy
T2 - interview Learned why accuracy is important for students, if not,

grant money is wasted.

T2 - journal ...how being accurate and patient are important skills of a
research scientist.

T6 - journal The need for accuracy - even if the results are right or not I...
we must be certain that each protocol was followed to the letter. Any
mistake will always affect the outcome.

T8 - interview Needs to work on with students - the accuracy of
techniques and precision

 

On teaching differently after STARS - preforrning technigues
T1 - weekly discussion will take back [to classroom] contamination, .-

sterile procedure

T2 -journal I can give examples in a lab situation of why it is important
to read and follow directions (the protocol / procedure) when doing any
type of lab I test...

T4 - weekly discussion [On what skills teachers should emphasize
more in classroom] pipetting micoliters is hard

T8 - journal With the money that I receive from STARS, I’ll setup a “bio-
tech kids” comer in my room...For example, one box might contain
various types of small-cheap pipets and four containers of colored water.
Students could Ieam pipeting techniques by mixing the correct amounts to
form colors eg. green, etc. Another box might contain a plastic graduated
cylinder, some non-hazardous powders and instructions on making
solutions.

On teaching differently after STARS - math problem solving
T2 - post test Will focus more on math, problem solving math, find the

concentration, calculate metric conversions to the micro and nano level
On teaching differently after STARS - data analysis

T2 - interview Students need more emphasis on graphing, statistics, data
analysis

T4 — interview being wrong doesn’t make a difference...lt’s Okay to be
wrong as long as you can document

144

T8 - journal He [mentor] told me of a study conducted by a scientist in
1997 that had caused some problems in the field. The scientists had
overstated his conclusions and leapt to unjustified conclusions. The lab is
conducting research in a more methodical manner to test his
conclusions...Secondly, the whole notion of holding faulty conclusions ”to
“he light" for inspection is such a valuable project for my students to see

On teaching differently after STARS — peer review
T4 - interview more constructive criticism on their papers, model with

students a “paper shred”, evaluate each others work paper, more peer )—
editing

 

Qnflchingfifferently after STARS - exposing students to cutting
edge science

T2 - journal I also feel I can expose the students to cutting edge science
practices and more technology related to science research.

 

T8 - post test I’m not going to hesitate to use more advanced equipment

On teaching differently after STARS - having empathy for what
students are going throuLh

T2 - interview Is now putting herself in her student’s shoes.

T3 - interview Learned how difficult the apparatus is...he is going
through what students are going through...kids walk in and see Bunsen
burners and don’t know what that is...this experience is humbling

T4 - final presentation I know how my kids feel — the amount of
information that’s given to them.

T8 - weekly discussion feels like students feel - ovenivhelmed

T8 — weekly discussion frustration — I know how they feel, I am going
through it

On teaching differently after STARS - on using resources found at

UTSW during school year
T2 - post test T2 learned all of the resources available at STARS and

UTSW, learned the types of research being done in the labs today.

 

T7 — weekly discussion I will take my students here to Show them the
research worId.

T7 — interview He will bring his advanced students here [his UTSW lab]
next.

145

T8 — post test I got a centrifuge from the warehouse today.

T8 - post test I will not hesitate to call for science fair info., judges, etc. I
also plan on becoming a regular fixture at the warehouse [where teachers
can get used supplies].

T9 - post test I intend to request the medical examiner and [her mentor]
for presenters to my students during next year’s field trip.

to tell students
T1 - post test T1 now has guest speakers for her Class tours and will
attend the STARS symposiums

On tegching differently after STARS - on having first hand examples :-

T2 - journal Almost everything that I have learned this week can be used
in one form or another in the classroom. On of the most important things I
can bring the students is “real world” application of the scientific method .5,
and science process skills. ‘

 

T5 — interview I find little examples of small things that fit into
experiments

T7 - interview Has another experience [story] to talk about in school.

9n teachers discussing how many of their mentors have a problem
with English as a second language

T1 - weekly discussion English — we argue over what the doctor is
trying to say

T2 - weekly discussion The language barrier creates problems. My
mentor can’t get past it. In journal clubs I cannot understand the talk - its
not English.

T4 - post test [on qualities of good scientific notebook] in English for us
Americans

T9 - weekly discussion There is a language barrier in my lab, the doctor
cannot communicate in English for his papers

On limitations of replicating STARS in the classroom
T1 - weekly discussion difficult to take back to Classroom

 

T2 — post test Inhibiting factors — time, curriculum constraints, money for
needed equipment and supplies

146

T3 — interview The hindrance is time, because we have so many
objectives to teach.

T4 - journal The most difficult aspect was cost effectiveness of the
experiment. To be able to replicate or even simulate activities currently
being used in my research lab is extremely expensive and very difficult in
terms of expertise required. I had to spend a great deal of time
researching a means of making a cost effective, low maintenance, and
lower level technique.

T4 — pre test With class Sizes of 30 it is hard to do labs that are inquiry
based.

T4 - pretest Time is the biggest problem. When you have 160 students
it is hard to find time to do anything but teach, grade papers and write
lessons.

T7 - weekly discussion hard to find how what I’m doing fits into my
classroom

T7 - weekly discussion What I’m finding is the stuff that I’m doing is so
advanced, I don’t know what I’m going to do. I will probable end up
copying a DNA lab that others have done

T8 - weekly discussion safety is a constraint

T9 - weekly discussion all I can really take back to the Classroom is
concepts, can’t take back his [Mentor’s] research

T9 - interview Can’t teach inquiry-based because there is no time...Has
to be a balance because they have no idea of the concepts.

On how STA_RS has increased confidence

T1 -- post test Yes — more exposure to science taught me that I can
handle cutting edge research so I can handle explaining the harder
concepts bettert my students.

T3 - post test I feel more comfortable asking for any help from the lab.
T4 — post test I can honestly say that this experience has given me the
desire and aptitude to be a great science teacher. I now understand (all

too well) the process of scientific discovery and how to start teaching my
students about the techniques.

147

 

T8 — post test I’m not scared of “smart” people anymore. Not that I know
how they can help me, I will call and ask...l’m not afraid to try just about
any procedure.

Thoughts from two teaphers who are participating in STARS for the
second summer

T2 — weekly discussion never used my action plan [from STARS
program last year]

T2 — interview Gets in trouble with other teachers because she now has
different ideas than them. -:_..

T2 - interview Last year, students respected her for being on her project
last year.

T9 - pre test This is my second summer at UTSW. The previous
experience enhanced my teaching methodologies, but didn’t really change #
them.

 

T9 — pretest T9 went to STARS symposium and took a field trip to
UTSW. l incorporated what I Ieamed into my classroom activity labs.

T9 — interview I have always encouraged careers, but students didn’t

really believe her — now they know she has been through it and they are
hooked.

148

APPENDIX D

UCRIHS and IRB Approvals

149

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

‘1 May 30, 2002
TO: Merle HEIDEMANN
. 118 North Kedzie Hall
MSU

RE: IRB# 02-325 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-2

APPROVAL DATE: May 30, 2002

TITLE: THE SCIENCE TEACHER VERSUS THE SCIENTIST: WILL PARTICIPATING
IN LABORATORY FIELD EXPERIENCE LEAD TO INCREASED
PROCEDURAL UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC.
PROBLEM SOLVING?

The University Committee on_Research Involving Human Stbjects' (UCRIHS) review of this

projedbcanpbteandlampleasedmadmematmeflghtsmdwdfa'edfliemm

subjectsappea'mbeadequatelyprotededmdmemodsbobtahhfamedcmsaflae
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHSapprovdlsvdldformemlmdaryearmegWMgwlmmeappwvddate
shownabove. Projectsconmuhgbeyondmeyearmustberenewedwflhmegremrenewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
projectbeyondthattimeneedtosubmititagainforacompleterevlew.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS mustrevlewany changesin procedures involvinghuman subjects, prior
toinitiationoflhechange. lfthisisdoneatthetimeofmnewal,pleaseusethegreenrenewal
form. Toreviseanapprovedprotocolatanyolhertimedurhgtheyear,sendyourwritten
requesttotheUCRlHSChalr,requesthgrevisedapprovalandreferencingtheproject'isM'
mdtitle. lndudehymxmquestadescrbfionoffiaedmgeandanymvisedhstmments,
consentiormsoradvertisementsttntareapplimble.

PROBLEISICHANGES: Shouldeillnrotthefolowingaflseduingthecouseofthework,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) Involving
hunmsubjedsu2)dtangeshflnmseautenvronmentunewhfomaflonhdbethg
greatarlskmmehmnmsubjedsmmexisbdmmmwaspmbuslymmd

approved.

.' If we cen‘be of further assistance, please contact usat (517) 355-2180'orvla emal:

UCRII-lSQmsuedu. Pleasenotethatall UCRIHSfounsarelocetedontheweb:
htthlwmesueduluser/ucrits

 

.AK'kI
00: NigelaLmAlexander

' 14501 Monfort Dr.. #1327
Ddas. TX 75254

150

 

MICHIGAN STATE
U N I v E R s I T ,Y

 

April 9. 2003

' TO: Merle HEIDEMANN
118 North Kedzie Hall
MSU

RE: IRB # 02.325 CATEGORY: 1.2 EXEMPT

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: April 8, 2003
EXPIRATION DATE: March 8, 2004

THE SCIENCE TEACHER VERSUS THE SCIENTIST: WILL PARTICIPATING IN
LABORATORY FIELD EXPERIENCE LEAD TO INCREASED PROCEDURAL
UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM SOLVING?

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘ (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS RENEWAL -

TITLE:

This letter also notes approwl for data analysis only and change in co—lnvostigator's
last name and contact information.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
. renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5-year renewal application for cemplete review. '
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and
referencing the project's IRB# and title. include in your request a description of the change and any
,. , revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notin
UCRIHS promptly. 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
OFFICE 0‘ or 2) changes in the research environment or new inforrnation indicating greater risk to the human
CH subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.
- ETHICS AND
mumps lfwe can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. ‘

 

517555.21” ASI'III' Kumar, MD.
‘ mar/1324503 UCRIHS Chair
Mohammedan/wits '
Buzwimm
‘ AK kb_

00: Angela Lynn Alexander-Forte
5510 Lafayette Dr.

magma». 151
mm

 

THBUNIVERSITYW'IEXAS
WWW
ATDALLAS

WWW

TO: Angela Alexander
i450l Moniort Dr. #i327

  

FROM:
Institutional Review Board I Chairman
IRB - 9007
DAiE: I7 April 2002
RE: Expedited Approval of Protocol and Subject Consent Form
IRB it 919.2123
Th in T V.th ’ " at" into I II rien t
I _ - Pr - . 1 - ._ ; . . _ .

 

The Institutional Review Bocwd determined that this reseach was eligible for expedited review in accordance with
45 CFR 46.I I0(a)-(b)(l). 63 FR 60364. and 63 FR 60353. The Bard approved the protocol and informed consent
documentjs) dated I6 April 2002. IRB approval of this research lasts untl mm. It the research continues
beyond twelve months. you must apply for updated approval of the protocol and informed consent document one
month before the date of expiration noted above.

Please note that this protocol has been approved for 30 subjects.

Please note that the lit! wfl need to approve the translated consent form before enrolling non-English speaking
subjects.

The IRB requires that you report to the Board any unexpected adverse events that occur during the study. In the
future. if you require a modification to the protocol. obta‘n review and approval by the Boad prior to implementing
any changes except when prompt changes are necessay to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to a subject.

The IRB requires that al personnel who interact with research subjects or who have access to research data
identified with the names of subjects receive a copy of the Multiple Project Assurance on tile with the Department
of Health and Human Services. Document the'r agreement to comply with the statements therein. Such
documentation should be kept with other records of the research. which (re subject to review by the IRB. Copies of
the Multiple Project Assurance and the Federal regulations governing the participation of human subjects in
research (45 CFR 46) are avaiabie on the IRB website (http://wwWstmededu/irb) or from Patrick Fisher at

irb@utsouthwestem.edu.

Approval by the appfOptIOte authority at a collaborating facfity is required before subjects may be enroled on this
study.

Reminder: fleaseputthelolowhgflonnaflononthebotaoimpagedhrecomemlorm: l)litllllenurnber.
2) comentfonnapprovddate(daleotihismemo)mdconseriform eprdiondatflseellrslparagqsh).

If you have any questions related to this approval or the IRB. you may telephone Andrea logue at 2i 4.648.3691 .

DWI d

MMMMR‘SIMM MWIOIMM

152

 

SOUTHWESTERN
THE UNIVERSlTY or TEXAS
SOUTHWESTERN MEDICALCBTTER
AT DALLAS
W rum and
TO: Angela Alexander-Forte
STARS Program
5510 Lafayette Dr.
F risco. TX 75035
FROM: John Sadler, MDJ" ‘
Institutional Review Board 3 — Chairperson
IRB - 8843
DATE: 27 March 2003

SUBJECT: Continuing IRB Review- Expedited Approval
IRB File Numben 9_4__02-223
Project Title: The Science Teacher vs. the Scientist. Will Participatimin

Laboratog Field Exggrience Lead to increased Procedural Understandigg of
Science and Scientific Problem Solving?

The Institutional Review Board reviewed this research activity on an expedited basis. Your
protocol was approved for continuation for the period beginning 16 April 2003 and expiring
on 15 April 2004. The consent form was not considered for re-approval because
enrollment is closed to new subjects.

Please report to the IRB any unexpected or serious adverse events that occur during the
study. Any proposed changes in this research must be submitted to the IRB for review and
approval prior to implementation, except for immediate changes necessary to assure
research subject safety, which must be reported to the IRB within two days.

This study will require continuing review from the IRB and a reminder will be mailed to you
60 days prior to the expiration date of 15 April 2004.

Should you have any questions. please telephone Reda Hall in the IRB office at
214.648.3378.

JSfrw

5323 Hay Hines Baum ems/oars. 1h. 753mm Iarrmm Fl! (ZIMZITI

153

 

APPENDIX E

UCRIHS and IRB Approved Consent Forms

 

154

 

 

Date: June 3". 2002
To: Participants in the STARS Research Program, Parents and Guardians
RE: Requesting permission to use participants” work in master's thesis paper.

 

Dew STARS Research Program Participants, Parents and Guardians:

Michigan State University has a masters degree progmm through the Division of Science and
Mathematics Education that is available to high school teachers. As a student in this program, I will
be writing a thesis pertaining to science edumtion. The purpose of this letter is to seek your child’s
confidential responses in my study.

I have been a high school biology teacher for thme years at Crestwood High School in Dearborn
Heights, MI and a Research Assistant for almost two years in The Alliance for Cellular Signaling at
UT Southwestern. I am interested in analyzing how field research (such as the STARS program)
increases students' procedural understanding of science.

The collection of data will be brief and will not interfere with your child’s work in the STARS program,
i alone will analyze all data, and in full confidentiality. Your child’s name writ in no way be associated
with their written or oral responses. Your child’s privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

WW

For participating in this study your child will receive a $10 gift certificate to Bams and Noble upon
handing in this fully signed consent form to the STARS ofiice (L4-140) on June 4". If your chrid
chooses to withdraw at any time throughout this study, his/her data will be destroyed and the $10 gift
certificate may still be kept Thank you for considering to be a participant in this study.

. rely,
AngeIE Alexaké

Master's of Biological Sciences Student
Michigan State University

 

 

High schoolstudentswhowlshto participate in thisstudywill receiVea8109iitcertiiicateto Barns
and Noble (curtsey ofArwseIa Alexander) if their consent form is turned in fully signed to the STARS
office (L4-140) on June 4 . 2002.

 

Pagelofs lRBfilc:0402-223(UT) memos-325w!»
Conscatformapprovedam MAY 29 m ConscntformepprovchU)
Conscntformexpireeam m I5 m Oomtformexpirce(MSU)

155

 

 

 

 

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
(in conjunction with Michigan State University)

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Title of Research: The Science Teacher vs. the Scientist Will participating in Laboratory Field
Experience lead to Increased Procedural Understanding of Science and Scientific Problem Solving?

Sponsor. Dr. George Ordway (UT Southwestern) & Dr. Merle Heidemann (Michigan State University)
Investigator. Angela Alexander, Masters of Biological

 

Science Student. Division on Science and Mathematics Telephone No. Fax N0-

Education. Michigan State University (972) 233-8761 (972) 233-3281

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research is to help high school students and science teachers gain

an increased awareness of how to learn and teach the procedural understanding involved in “the

doing of science’.

Thisresearchisbeingdonebecause previous research inthefield ofscienceeducetion suggests

that some high school students lack recognition of the pmdural understanding involved in scientific

experimentation and problem solving. ‘_-
PROCEDURES. Your cth will be askedto... [LI

Fill out a pre and post survey detariing their perceptions about science and the process of how
science is done (30 minutes each).

- Volunteer to keep a journal about their Ieaming experiences in the STARS program (variable time
commitment).

- Volunteer to participate in a brief interview with the project’s investigator detailing what they are
Ieaming in the STARS program (30 minutes).

- Agree to have their spoken words confidentially and anonymously quoted for this project’s
research paper (no extra time commitment).

POSSIBLE RISK(S): There are no risks involved in this study.

POSSIBLE BENEFITS: Participants will engage in a systematic inquiry into their own learning styles.
The self-reflective surveys and interviews in this study are designed to have the subject analyze
hisiher learning experience in a real laboratory setting. Participants may gain insight into how one
generates ideas. uses theoretical models. conducts experiments, evaluates data and comes to
conclusions about science.

PageZofS lRBFrlezom-mw'f) lRBFrIe: 02-325(MSU)
Coascatt'ormapprovedwl') ”AV 9 9 m Conscnti’ormepprovedOASU)
Consent form cxpiree run APR | 5 m Consent form expires (MSU)

156

Benefit to others: This study may help future high school students and teachers sharpen their
scientific processing and problem solving skills.

ALTERNATTVES TO PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH: One alternative is not to participate in
this study.

PAYMENT TO TAKE PART IN THIS RESEARCH: Your child (for high school student participants
only) will be given a $10 Bams and Noble gift certificate for participating in this research. The gift is
courtesy of. Angela Alexander, the investigator of this project lfyour child does not complete all
study procedures. helshe will still be able to keep the certificate.

COSTS TO YOU OR YOUR CHILD: None.

VOLUNTARY PARTTCIPATION lN RESEARCH: You and your child have the right to agree or
refuse to participate in this research. Ifyou and your child decide to participate and later change your
mind. your child is free to discontinue participation in the research at any time.

Refusal to participatewill involve nopenaltyoriossofbenefitstowhich you andyourchild are
otherwise entitled. Refusal to participate will not atfect you and your child's legal rights or the quality
of health care that you receive at this center.

RECORDS OF YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH

information kept at UT Southwestern: You and your child have the right to privacy. All information
obtained from this research that can be identified with you or your child will remain confidential within
the limits of the law.

lnforrnation available to other people: An Institutional Review Board (lRB) is a group of people
who are responsible for assuring the community that the rights of participants in research are
respected. Members and staff of the IRB at this medical center (and Michigan State University) may
review the records of your participation in this research. A representative of the Board may contact
you and your child for information about your child's experience with this research. If you wish, you
and your child may refuse to answer any questions the representative of the Board may ask

Publication of the results of the research: The results of this research may appear in scientific
publications without identifying you and your child in any way.

Page3of$ IRB filc:0402-223(Ul') me are: ozszsmsw
Cooscatfonncpprovedafl') MAY 7. 9 m CoascatforncpprovedmlSU)
Conscatl'ormcxpirech) PPR I5 am Cmrrauexpimmsu)

157

 

 

 

YOUR QUESTIONS: Angela Alexander is available to answer you or your child’s questions about
this research at 972-233-8761. The Chairman of the UT Southwestern IRB is available to answer
questions about your child’s rights as a participant in research. You may telephone the UT
Southwestem Chairman of the IRB during regular office hours at 214-648-3060. You may also
contact the Chairman of Michigan State University's IRB ifyou have any questions regarding your
child’s rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect this study -
anonymously, if you wish. His contact information is...

Ashir Kumar, M.D.

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Michigan State University

Phone: (517) 355-2180 I Fax (517) 432-450319-mail: mm

Mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing. MI 48824

Pagetiofs [Renew-2230:) MAY 2 9 m lRBFrle: 02-325mm
Consent ormcpprov ComformcpprovedOWSU)
Ouncntfamupimanqh 15 m Ccmcatfcrmexpirum

158

 

 

YOU WILL HAVE A COPY OF TT-IS CONSENT FORM TO KEEP.
Your (and you cher's) signature below certifies the following:

. Youandyourchidhaveread(orbeenread)dreirionndmprovidedabove.
. Youandyourchildhavereceivedanswerstodlofyourquestions.
.0 Yourchldhasfreelydecidcdtoparficipateinthisreseaoh.
. Youandyowdtidmderstandthatyouarenotdvingupanydmlegdfights.

 

Participant’s Name (printed)
Paticipant’s Signature . 03°

Legdly responsible mpresentative’s name n
(Printed) (it amicable)

Legdly responsible representative’s Dds
Swarm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm'namerpdmw) U

Wltriess signdure Date 4"

 

 

 

Name (printed) of person obtaining
Consent

 

 

Signature of person obtdning consent Dde
ASSENT OF A MINOR: (If applicable)

Ihavediscuwedmyparfidpdimindismseardrwithmynmafathuubgdguarfim,mdlagreeb
participateinthisresearch. -

 

 

Signature (participantsfrom10to 18 Due
Tm dd)
‘ PageScfS IRBFrIe:0402-223(tm UCRIHSAPPFIOVAL‘FOR
Conscotform approved (UT) "AY 2 9 m THIS PijBCI EXPIRES:

Comanformcxpirec(Ul‘) APR l5 am ,
NAY'3 0 2003

StagEEIIENEWAI-,IIPPIJcru'rou
Aaovrs DATE 10%

159

 

 

Date: June 3", 2002
To: Teacher and Mentor participants in the STARS Research Program
RE: Requesting permission to use participants’ work in master's thesis paper.

 

Dear STARS Research Program Participants:

Michigan State University has a masters degree program through the Division of Science and
Mathematics Education that is available to high school teachers. As a student in this program, I will
be writing a thesis pertaining to science education. The purpose ofthis letter is to seek your
confidential responses in my study.

Ihavebeena high school biologyteacterforthmeyearsatCrestwood High School in Dearborn
Heights, MI and a Research Assistant for almost two years in The Alliance for Cellular Signaling at
UT Southwestern. I am interested in analyzing how field research (such as the STARS program)
increases students' procedural understanding of science.

Thecollectionofdatawillbebriefandwill notinterferewithyourworkintheSTARS program. Ialone
will analyze all data, and in full confidentialrty. Your name will in no way be associated with your
written or oral responses. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Thankyouforconsideringtobeaparticipantinthisstudy.

Sincerely,

W

Angela Alexande
Master‘s of Biological Sciences Stu®nt
Michigan State University

 

 

Ifyouagreetoparticipateinthisresearcl‘r, pleasetuminyouriullysignedconsentionntotheSTARS
office (L4-140) on June 4". 2002.

 

Placid!) IRBfikom-ZZSGJT) IRBFilc: 02-325(MSU)

Conccatfomcpprorcdw'l') 29 m CementfamapprovedMSU)
Consentl‘omexpirecwl') m '5 m Coascatfomcxpircs(MSU)

160

 

 

 

 

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
(in conjunction with Michigan State University)

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Title of Research: The Science Teacher vs. the Scientist WI participating in Laboratory Field
Experience Ieadto Increased Procedural UnderstandingofScience and ScientificProbIem Solving?

Sponsor. Dr. George Ordway (UT Southwestern) & Dr. Merle Heidemann (Michigan State University)

Investigator: Angela Alexander. Masters of Biologicd
Science Student. Division on Science and Mathematics Telephone No. Fax NO-
Education. Michigan State University (972) 233-8761 (972) 233—3281

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research' rs to help high school students and science teachers gain
an increased awareness of how to hem and teach the procedural understanding involved rn “the
doing of science’.

Wsmseamhhbeingdmebemusepmbmmseardiinflnfieudsdenceeducafionsuggesm
that some high school students lack recognition of the procedural understanding involved in scientific
experimentation and problem solving.

PROCEDURES: You will be asked 10..
Fill out a pre and post survey detailing your perceptions about science and the process of how
science is done (30 minutes each).

- Volunteer to keep a journal about your learning experiences in the STARS program (variable time
commitment).

. Volunteer to participate in a brief interview with the project’s investigator detailing what you are
Ieaming in the STARS program (30 minutes).

- Agree to have your spoken words confidentially and anonymously quoted for this project's
research paper (no extra time commitment).

POSSIBLE RISK(S): There are no risks involved in this study.

POSSIBLE BENEFITS: Participants will engage in a systematic inquiry into their own Ieaming and/or
teaching styles. The self-reflective surveys and interviews in this study are designed to have the
subject analyze his/her Ieaming experience in a real laboratory setting. Participants may gain insight
into how one generates ideas, uses theoretical models. conducts experiments. evaluates data and
comes to conclusions about science.

PageZofS IRBFrIezom-meT) lRBFrle: 023250680)
Concentformcpprovedflfl') MAY 29 m ConsentfcrmapprovedOJSU)
Consentformexpirecam Am '5 m ConcenfarmexpiresQJSU)

161

 

 

 

Benefit to others: This study may help future high school students and teachers sharpen their
scientific processing and problem solving skills.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH: One alternative is not to participate in
this study.

PAYMENT TO TAKE PART IN THIS RESEARCH: You (for high school student participants only)
will be given a S10 Barns and Noble gift certificate for participating in this research. The gift is
courtesy of. Angela Alexander. the investigator of this project Ifyou do not complete all study
procedures. you will still be able to keep the certificate.

COSTS TO YOU: None.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH: You have the rightto agree or refuse to participate m
in this research. If you decide to participate and later change your mind. you are free to discontinue
participation in the research at any time.

Refusaltoparticipatewill involve nopenaltyoriossofbenefitstowhichyouareotherwiseentitled.
Refusal to participate will not affect your legal fights or the quality of health care that you receive at
this center.

 

RECORDS OF YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH L1

Information keptat UTSouthwectsm: You have the right to privacy. All information obtained from
thisresearchthatcanbeidentifiedwithyouwill remainconfidentialwithintt'relimitsoftl'relaw.

Information available to other people: An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a group of people
who are responsible for assuring the community that the rights of participants in research are
respected. Members and staff of the IRB at this medical center (and Michigan State University) may
review the records of your participation in this research. A representative of the Board may contact
you for information about your experience with this research. Ifyou wish. you may refuse to answer
any questions the representative of the Board may ask

Publication of the results of the research: The results of this research may appear in scientific
publications without identifying you in any way.

Page3al'5 inseam-mm [RBI-Tie: 02-325mm)
Consentibnncpprovedafl') MAY 2 9 2002 Concentl’ormapprovedMSU)
Comeatfcrmexpiresflfl’) APR I 5 m ComeatformcrtpirccmSU)

162

YOUR QUESTIONS: AngelaAlexandericavailebIetoansweryourquestions about this research at
972-233-8761. The Chairman of the UT Southwestern IRB is avarIabIe to answer questions about
your rights as a participant In research. You may telephone the UT Southwestern Chalnnan of the
IRB during regular office hours at 214-648-3060. You may also contact the Chairman of Michigan
State University’s IRB ifyou have anyquesflons regarding yourrights as a study participant. orare
dissatisfiedatanytimewithanyaspectthisstudy-anonymously. ifyou wish. Hiscontact
inionnation Is...

Ashlr Kumar. M.D.

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Michigan State University

Phone: (517) 355-21801Fax (517) 432-4503 I e-rnail: W

Mail: 202 Olds Hall. East Lansing. MI 48824

M4d’5 meteoric-223M) IRBfiIc: 02-325mm

Consefll’orncpprowdw'l') m 29 m CmfamcppwedMSU)
APR '5 am ComeatformexpirecMU)

163

 

 

YOUWILLHAVEACOPYOFTI-IISOONSENTFORMTOKEEP.
Your signature belowmrtifiesthefoliowlng:

. YouhavereM(orbeenread)theIriormatIonprovidedab0ve.

- Youhavcreceivedanswerctoalofyorlquestionc.

. Youhavcireclydeddedtopartidpatelnthlsrecearch.

. Youunderctandti'rdyouarenotgivlngupmyafyoulcgairights.

 

Participant’s Nana (printed)
Participant's Signature . Date

Legdly responsible representative’s name
(Printed) (if applicable)

Legdly responsible representative's Due
W

 

 

 

 

 

 

WItnesc’nane(printed)

 

 

Vtfitness’signature Due

Nane(printed)ofpersonobtaining
Consent

 

 

 

Signatureofpersonobtdningconsent Due
ASSENT OFA MINOR: (licpplicale)

ImmumypaddpwmlntflsmmmymumabgdguardanmmIagreeto
patidpeteinthlcrecearch.

 

 

Signature (participants from 10 to 18 Due
Year! old)
UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
Page s as IRB File: 0402.223 (rm THIS project EXPIRES:
Ooaceatl’ approved
Coasentfgupirecw [259$ MAY 3 0 2003
RENEWALAPPUCATION
PRONTO

AWEDATE OONTIMJE

164

 

R

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIILIIIIII