A research-based inquiry curriculum for the life sciences

Background/Question/Methods

We will describe a biology curriculum for non-majors. The curriculum is lab-based, inquiry-driven, and constructed using principles that reflect the latest research in science education. The curriculum covers: the flow of energy and matter through living systems, cell biology, genetics and evolution. Each topic within the curriculum was developed to first elicit student preconceptions then guide students through a series of activities specifically developed to address commonly held student ideas. Throughout the curriculum, students reflect on their own learning and make note of where their ideas have changed. The curriculum was developed such that it can be taught at institutions on the quarter system as well as the semester system. Instructor’s materials include learning goals, common student ideas, timing guides, teaching tips, and sample student responses. To investigate the effectiveness of the curriculum, student learning was evaluated using a content exam (developed by Horizon Research Institute) and an attitude survey (Views About Science Survey) given at the beginning of the course and again at the end. Both assessments were administered to a subset of students one year later. An inquiry-based course with a different format and structure taught by one of the instructors was used as a comparison. 

Results/Conclusions

There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to their understanding of biology content from pretest to posttest, and from posttest to delayed posttest. Students in both courses exhibited increased content knowledge at the end of the course and mean gain scores ranged from 32 to 43. However, on the attitude survey, students who experienced the new curriculum developed more sophisticated views about science from pretest to posttest, and from posttest to delayed posttest, compared to students in the control class. The profile distribution (% of students holding folk, low transitional, high transitional, or expert views) for the students experiencing the new curriculum was significantly shifted towards a more expert way of thinking about science at the end of the course and the shift remained significant a year later. This was not the case for students in the control course. Thus, while both courses effectively increased student content knowledge, students in our course left with a more sophisticated view of science that lasted for at least a year after the course.