What motivates students to work their hearts out? Insights and reflections from an upper-level biology lab.

Motivation can be described as someone’s impetus to do something. (Ryan and Deci, 2000). For students in an academic context this “something” would typically include engaging in actions and behaviours that will help them learn, develop their skills, or even simply complete their school work. Differences in students’ level and type of motivation can often be used to explain differences in performance, in study strategies, and even in attitudes toward learning in a particular subject (Chiou, Liang, & Tsai, 2012; Johnson, 2014; Lazowski & Hulleman, 2015). Thus, identifying factors that enhance student motivation in specific contexts can help us maximize learning by then deliberately incorporating such factors into future course design. To get an insight on what some of these factors might be, I collected and analyzed anonymous self-reported data (in the form of open-ended survey answers) from students who displayed behaviours generally conducive to learning. I will present the five main themes that emerged form the students’ responses, and invite participants to engage in a discussion about what motivates students in their own courses and contexts.But is motivation to devote time and effort to a course always beneficial? Is there a point after which it can become counter-productive? Can we, to some degree, “regulate” students’ motivation by employing carefully selected teaching strategies and course structures? Chiou, G.-L., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Undergraduate Students’ Conceptions of and Approaches to Learning in Biology: A study of their structural models and gender differences. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.558131 Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Motivation interventions in education: A meta- analytic review. Review of Educational Research 86(2), 602-640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832 Johnson, M. L. (2014). Achievement motivation for introductory college biology. Journal of Studies in Education, 4(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v4i1.4306 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.102

Profile of common misconceptions and retention of genetics concepts in undergraduate biology students

Students often enter a course with a lack of knowledge in a particular area and potentially with misconceptions about the concepts necessary to develop a fundamental understanding of the discipline. A lack of knowledge can be remediated by engaging in learning the course material, but misconceptions can inhibit learning if they are not corrected. In the biology program at the University of British Columbia we have used questions from validated genetics concept assessment tools (1,2) to measure conceptual understanding of students at all levels of the biology program. Our results show that first and second year students hold very similar misconceptions, suggesting that the correction of some of these misconceptions during first year biology is somewhat temporary. Additionally, we report post-course retention of conceptual knowledge in genetics after students complete a second year genetics course in relation to common initial misconceptions. The information collected in this study suggests that students enter first year biology with several, significant misconceptions and that in most cases, at least the equivalent of two semesters of genetics are necessary to replace these misconceptions with correct conceptual understanding. We will discuss our data as well as strategies used to dislodge some misconceptions, and how we are using this information to inform curriculum decisions. Participants will be invited to engage in a discussion on their experiences with misconceptions that are difficult to dislodge in their own fields, as well as approaches used to correct the situation. 1 Smith, M., Knight, J, and Wood, W. 2008. The Genetics Concept Assessment: A New Concept Inventory for Gauging Student Understanding of Genetics. CBE-Life Sciences Education 7(4): 422-430. 2 Kalas, P., O’Neill, A., Pollock, C., and Birol, G. 2012. Development and Application of a Meiosis Concept Inventory. Submitted for review to Cell Biology Education, Oct 2012

Determining Real Learning Gains: Measuring retention of factual, procedural and conceptual knowledge after a first year biology class

At our institution, the use of (validated) pre- and post-tests to assess the effectiveness of teaching and learning activities is becoming increasingly common in Biology as well as in some of the physical science (e.g. Physics, Earth and Ocean Sciences). Students typically complete the pre-test at the start of the course (or prior to being exposed to the tested material) and an identical post-test at the very end, before the start of final examinations. The pre-/post-tests usually comprise validated concept inventory questions as well as some in-house questions. While the data obtained by comparing pre- to post-test scores only inform us about student learning that occurred during the course, as instructors we are usually interested in implementing practices that support longer term knowledge retention. To investigate knowledge retention among students in a large, First Year, Biology course we recruited over 100 students three months after they completed the course final examination, and invited them to write the pre-/post-test for a third time and/or to re-write a subset of questions from their final examination. Ninety-eight students from three different course sections (two “active”, one more “traditional”) completed all of the pre-, post-, and retention tests, and over sixty re-wrote part of their final examination. We will discuss changes in student performance between (pre-), post- and retention testing, and highlight differences in patterns in relation to test item topics, type of knowledge necessary to successfully answer the question (factual, conceptual, procedural) and teaching strategies that students were exposed to (“active” vs. “traditional”). Similarities and differences between our findings and other knowledge retention studies outside of Biology will also be discussed

Insights and contradictions from student surveys in a 1st year biology lab course

We implemented several active learning strategies in a first-year laboratory biology course across a 4 year period and assessed effectiveness and student satisfaction. These changes included self-inquiry for experiments, interactive discussions in class, guided videos, group work, and field work. Through quantitative and open-ended survey questions, we assessed students’ overall satisfaction, student workload, and how student learning could further be supported. We analyzed online course surveys and focus groups from students in a 100 level biology laboratory course across 7 semesters from September 2015 through to April 2018. Field work and hands-on experiments were rated as the most liked activities across all semesters. Results indicate that students viewed statistics, data analysis, and writing as most useful in future studies, but these were also described as activities that students liked least overall and wanted more learning support on. Results also showed that both current students in 2015-2018 and alumni of the course have a strong perception that the course workload is too high for a 2-credit course. In contrast, self-reported mean hours worked per week outside of class was 3.5 hours, and 92% of all students reported spending less than 6 hours per week outside of class on this course. There is a clear disconnect between student workload perception and actual workload that merits further investigation. Applications across other disciplines include methods of standardization and analysis of open-ended survey questions in a large enrollment course and exploration of workload perception verses actual workload