Using In-Class Learning Activities to Promote Integration Strategy Use

Students preparing for health science careers must develop a deep understanding regarding how biological systems work together to maintain homeostasis in the body. In their undergraduate coursework, these students must read and integrate content learned across multiple physiological systems in order to acquire this deep level of understanding and adequately prepare them for their careers. However, students often struggle with integrating course content, as systems are often taught in isolation. The present study explores how students’ self-reported integration strategies and their enacted integration capabilities are associated with end-of-semester biology knowledge. Participants (n = 213) completed a survey at the beginning of the semester measuring self-reported integration strategy use (pre), participated in four in-class learning activities (ILAs) as part of their course, and completed a survey at the end of the semester measuring integration capability (post). In order to gather a more detailed understanding of how participants engaged in the ILAs, a sample of participants (n = 5) with high and low integration strategy use scores were invited to participate in an interview after the end of the semester. Their responses to the ILAs were also coded to explore the degree to which they exhibited cross-system integration during the ILAs. Findings revealed that after accounting for prior knowledge, students’ integration capability mediated the relationship between self-reported integration strategy use and both course grade and exam score. Students exhibited modest levels of integration across all four ILAs with some questions eliciting more integration than others. In the interviews, students noted completing ILAs independently, without collaborating with peers or seeking guidance from the instructor. They predominantly used class slides/notes and Google as resources to identify the answers to the questions, and they reported using strategies such as summarizing or elaborating as they completed them. Some students said the ILAs were helpful study aids for exams, but one noted a preference for lecture. The key contribution of this study is that it offers evidence of the association between self-reported integration strategy use, integration capability, and two measures of biology knowledge (e.g., exam/grade) for a diverse sample (~50% white) of student participants engaged in an authentic learning experience. Future research will explore how these ILAs can be revised and refined to bolster integration further for all students (e.g., by promoting collaboration). In addition, coding will be expanded to examine responses to the ILAs in full sample as well as other courses. Finally, as a result of the impact of COVID-19 on transitioning in person courses to online, future research will also explore students’ completion of the ILAs in online, small-group discussions. Cite as: Firetto, C. M., Hyatt, J.-P. K., Kingsbury, J., & Penkrot, T. A. (2020, August 6-8). Using in-class learning activities to promote integration strategy use. Presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/K2DH

Exploring supports or incentives to promote undergraduate students’ use of cooperative study groups

Collaborative study groups provide crucial learning opportunities for undergraduate students in STEM learning contexts. In this paper, we use a concurrent, nested mixed method design toward two primary aims: (a) to examine whether an instructional module about study groups could increase undergraduate students’ use of study groups and (b) to identify supports or incentives that could be used in future research to better encourage students’ use of study groups. Participating undergraduate students (n = 220), who were enrolled in an introductory anatomy and physiology course, were randomly assigned to an instructional module, either about the use of collaborative study groups (i.e., treatment condition) or about how to study effectively on their own (i.e., independent studying comparison condition). All students reported the extent to which they studied collaboratively before and after completing the randomly assigned module (i.e., at pretest and posttest). At the end of the study, students responded to an open-ended prompt asking what could encourage them to use study groups. Quantitative analysis of pretest to posttest changes on the extent to which students reported using study groups revealed no statistically significant condition differences between the two instructional modules. Qualitative thematic analysis of students’ open-ended prompt responses revealed a set of seven themes that emerged from the data about the supports or incentives students wanted that could be leveraged to design future innovations to promote students’ use of collaborative study groups. Follow-up analyses were also conducted to delineate patterns across the supports or incentives requested and further guide recommendations for future research

Comparison of a Blood Self-Collection System with Routine Phlebotomy for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced researchers to reconsider in-person assessments due to transmission risk. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of using the Tasso-SST (Tasso, Inc, Seattle, Washington) device for blood self-collection for use in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in an ongoing COVID-19 prevalence and immunity research study. 100 participants were recruited between January and March 2021 from a previously identified sub-cohort of the Cabarrus County COVID-19 Prevalence and Immunity (C3PI) Study who were under-going bimonthly COVID-19 antibody testing. Participants were given a Tasso-SST kit and asked to self-collect blood during a scheduled visit where trained laboratory personnel performed routine phlebotomy. All participants completed an after-visit survey about their experience. Overall, 70.0% of participants were able to collect an adequate sample for testing using the device. Among those with an adequate sample, there was a high concordance in results between the Tasso-SST and phlebotomy blood collection methods (Cohen’s kappa coefficient = 0.88, Interclass correlation coefficient 0.98 [0.97, 0.99], p < 0.0001). The device received a high-level (90.0%) of acceptance among all participants. Overall, the Tasso-SST could prove to be a valuable tool for seroprevalence testing. However, future studies in larger, diverse populations over longer periods may provide a better understanding of device usability and acceptance among older participants and those with comorbidities in various use scenarios