Developing and Supporting Students' Autonomy To Plan, Perform, and

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Developing and Supporting Students’ Autonomy To Plan, Perform, and Interpret Inquiry-Based Biochemistry Experiments Thanuci Silva* and Eduardo Galembeck Biology Institute, University of Campinas, São Paulo 13083-862, Brazil S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Laboratory sessions are designed to develop the experimental skills and the acquaintance with instruments that may contribute to a successful career in Biochemistry and associated fields. This study is a report on improving a traditional Biochemistry course by devising the laboratory sessions as an inquiry-based environment to develop the students’ autonomy to plan, perform, and interpret experiments. We reformulated our Biochemistry laboratory to have three activities that sequentially increase regarding autonomy. We used an autonomy support structure consisting of varying levels of engagement by the student in such aspects as Organizational, Procedural, and Cognitive, gradually transferring to students the responsibility for their decisions within the laboratory. Our results show that students performed better on the less instructed worksheet activities, characterized by a more complex autonomy support, as compared to the activities tightly controlled by worksheet directions. A review of the group lab reports suggests that students showed skills required to work with different levels of autonomy. Thus, this approach has positively supported the students’ autonomy, not only mapping their progress through the activities proposed but also encouraging them to make decisions during their experiments and stimulating their ability to think and to plan experiments themselves. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Biochemistry, Curriculum, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Amino Acids, Brönsted−Lowry Acids/Bases, Enzymes

■

INTRODUCTION

Several studies present and discuss novel inquiry-based approaches comparing them to cookbook-style laboratories.14,18−22 We structured our laboratory activities according to autonomy categories classified as Organizational, Procedural, and Cognitive,23,24 varying the activities in levels of autonomy (low, medium, and high) required from students. In our investigation, students performed the first, simpler activity equipped with all the information they needed to perform the experiment in the laboratory worksheet. Gradually, the students needed to make decisions themselves on how to proceed, choosing among the techniques available in the laboratory to solve the questions posed to them. This laboratory autonomy design was capable of encouraging learning and success and stimulating students to achieve independent capabilities, grow more confident to develop their experiments, and transfer the knowledge acquired.

Laboratory sessions in Biochemistry classes are an important part of curricula. They help to establish a connection between theoretical knowledge and the students’ practical experiences, while developing the instrumentation skills required for a successful career in Biochemistry and associated fields. Designing an experiment, teaching hands-on techniques, and understanding the limitations of the experimental approach are skills which are not commonly addressed in Biochemistry textbooks.1,2 The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB),3 in line with the “Vision and Change” report,4 refers to these experimentation skills as an essential part of the undergraduate learning experience.5 Students who are used to receiving detailed directions from their teachers may lack the confidence to transfer the learned skills to new situations.6 To be able to exert their skills, students need to develop autonomy in the laboratory environment. Then, they need to be encouraged to think, to act, and to learn in such a way that knowledge is acquired actively and the lab results attained are accurately reported.7 Inquiry-based learning is recognized as an effective science education tool, especially in enhancing autonomy.8−15 In that approach, instructors lead the students by providing little or even no direction at all on the experiment’s design,16,17 which is intended to allow students to deepen their theoretical understanding and experimental techniques, developing their procedures.14 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

■

CONTEXT ANALYSIS This research was conducted in a Biochemistry of Proteins course taught to freshmen Biology students. At this point in their program, students only had previous experience in the General Chemistry laboratory. The Biochemistry of Proteins course is their first Biochemistry laboratory. This is a 16 weeks course where students attend 4 h of teaching sessions per week, Received: May 9, 2016 Revised: September 21, 2016

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00326 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

according to course program provided in Table 1. Half of the course is dedicated to laboratory sessions, while the remaining

These assumptions led us to re-examine the purpose of the Biochemistry laboratory sessions and the experimental skills suggested by ASBMB. This motivated the faculty to design an inquiry-based environment conducive to enhancing the students’ autonomy. The new approach was adopted in 2007, and this work presents an analysis of the laboratory reports obtained from 30 groups composed of 6 students each, enrolled in 2014 and 2015.

Table 1. Biochemistry of Proteins Course Program Session Number 1 2 3

Topics Covered

8

Buffering Systems Buffering Systems, planning session Buffering Systems, experimental session Amino Acids and Proteins, structure, function, and methods of study Amino Acids and Proteins, planning session Amino Acids and Proteins, experimental session Amino Acids and Proteins, experimental session Assessment I

9 10 11 12 14 15 16

Thermodynamics Enzymes, kinetics Enzymes, regulation Enzymes, planning session Enzymes, experimental session Enzymes, experimental session Assessment II

4 5 6 7

Session Format

Time Spent (h)

Lecture Laboratory Laboratory

4 4 4

Lecture

8

Laboratory

4

Laboratory

4

Laboratory

4

Other activities Lecture Lecture Lecture Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Other activities

4

■

METHODOLOGY Students’ activity evolved from simple, instructed by worksheet experiments to multifaceted and self-directed activities. Each activity targets skills to be developed in a Biochemistry course,1−3,25 but they grow more intricate as the course develops, both considering the topics addressed (Figure 1) and the underlying reliance on the students’ autonomy. The students gradually progressed toward deciding for themselves how to do their experiments. In the planning session, each group of students produces its detailed working plans. At the end of a laboratory planning session, each group presents to instructors their list of techniques, schedule, and necessary reagents written in a laboratory notebook. These materials are provided to them in the subsequent sessions. The performance of experiments entails group data collection. Students can then interact with each other sharing, organizing laboratory tasks, and enjoying their autonomy to decide on the order of experiments. In this step, students are paying attention to the handling of reagents and materials while they follow the experimental plan previously created. After performing the experiments, the groups engage in data analysis, which consists of interpreting their results and relating them to the literature, in order to answer the research questions. At this point, the instructors are in class to stimulate student thinking, although not giving them ready answers for their questions. For this reason, all data collected during the laboratory sessions have to be treated in the laboratory, and then students can decide, in a timely fashion, about the need for

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

classes are devoted to lectures and other activities. This course is a mandatory class for Biology majors, taught for two cohorts of 45 students each year. For several years, activities were based on predefined experimental protocols that were a preset sequence of techniques and reactions. These activities were targeted at having students acquiring experimental data and checking if this was “right” or “wrong”. Such an approach helps students to achieve command of technical skills, but it lacks the opportunities for discovery, and it does not contribute to the understanding of the research process.2

Figure 1. Flowchart indicating the overlap in concepts between the activities presented to students and the length of each activity. The gradient color boxes above the activities description indicate overlapping concepts. B



Article

Table 2. Autonomy Support Adapted to Laboratory Activities Autonomy Level for Tasks by Activity

a

Laboratory Activities

Autonomy Categorya

Activity 1

Activity 2

Activity 3

Choosing group members Deciding on the need for preparing new reagents Deciding on the need for collecting further data Creating their own activity protocol Choosing the reagents and techniques to be used Choosing the way to present the strategy (flowcharts, tables, list of items) Handling reagents, equipment and laboratory materials Discussing different strategies to carry out the experiments with peers Finding multiple ways to solve the problem proposed Collecting experimental data in groups Reviewing literature to support data found Drafting a report

Organizational Organizational Organizational Procedural Procedural Procedural Procedural Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive

High Low Medium Low Low Low High Low Low High Low High

Not applicable Low Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Medium High

Not applicable High High High High High High High High High High High

Autonomy categories proposed by Stefanou23 and Wu.24

between a titration simulated in a theoretical/computational model and the experimental results achieved in the laboratory. The full experiment consisted of two laboratory sessions, one session for planning the experiment and for simulating the titration in the computer and the second session for performing the experiment. This was the simplest activity proposed, mostly instructed by a worksheet. In the planning session, the students received information on all reagents necessary to simulate and to prepare a buffering solution and the information for a titration experiment, along with a computer sheet filled with all the formulas they needed for the calculations. The activity problem, its goals, and hypotheses were given to them. Then the groups simulated a titration, and they found the buffering range of their system, using the Henderson−Hasselbach model in the first session. In the second session, the groups prepared the buffering solutions and performed the titration, using real solutions, glassware, and pH-meter. By the end of the second session, students compared the data obtained in the simulation with those gathered in the experimental titration, and they were required to discuss the discrepancies encountered within the group, and to understand the implications and limitations introduced by experimental errors, unintended reagent behavior, and equipment handling. The second activity proposed to students was called Amino Acids and Proteins (Table 3). This activity was more complex and less instructed by worksheet than the first. In the previous activity, all groups carried out the same technique, whereas in the second there was a wider array of options and the students were left with the responsibility to choose among them. Thus, each group was provided with four unknown samples and a list of techniques commonly used to separate/identify amino acids and proteins. Then, they had to decide what techniques and in what order to use them, with the purpose of gathering the maximum amount of information about the composition of each unknown sample. The unknown samples could be composed of proteins only, amino acids only, a mixture of both proteins and amino acids, or none of them (water). This activity took three sessions, one session for planning the experiments and two sessions for carrying them out. In the planning session, the students received a worksheet filled with information about stock solutions and techniques available. At the end of this session, the groups had to hand in a list of materials and reagents that they needed, along with a flowchart

more data collection and whether to ask questions to instructors before leaving class. Data tables and plots are drawn to assess the quality of the data collected before moving on to the next steps and deciding on the need for more experiments. This process allows students to infer new questions and meanings of the relevant study contents. Finally, the groups are required to hand in a research report by the end of each activity. This stage is designed to develop their ability to structure knowledge and to report experimental findings according to research methodology standards and preset rules, which are desirable skills.5 Teaching personnel supply students with instructions to draft reports, as well as the items used in the grading of such reports (Supporting Information). In order to understand how students enhanced their autonomy through this inquiry-based approach, we analyzed scores from the groups’ scientific reports. The report sections scored were: Goals, Materials and Methods, Hypothesis, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, each one ranging from 0 to 100. Then, the average scores of each report categories were used to assess the evidence of enhancement of students’ autonomy. Because there was no control group to allow comparison of the previous traditional laboratory sessions and the present inquiry-based approach, this study is based on the analysis of the students’ autonomy enhancement from the first to the last activity within the Biochemistry of Proteins course. After they had completed an activity and before starting the next, students were informed of the research report scores achieved, including comments about report items expectations, to enhance their understanding of proposed activities. The autonomy approach used in the three activities was based on three categories of autonomy support applied to a learning context (Table 2) presented by Stefanou et. al,23 which were redefined to meet our class context.24 The autonomy category levels were classified as high, medium, or low, considering the level expected in each activity. The categories were peer-reviewed by the course’s Biochemistry faculty until a consensus was reached.

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Activities Presented to Students

The first activity proposed to students was called Buffering Systems (Table 3). This activity was based on the comparison C


Article

representing their strategy and the chosen sequence of tests and assays. In this activity, the problem, hypothesis, and the goals were provided to the students. In the laboratory sessions, the groups were expected to perform titrations, and to do experiments using electrophoresis, paper chromatography, and the Bradford method, to learn if the sample is mixed or pure, its concentration, molecular weight, pKa, and identity of the amino acids. At the end of the first laboratory session, the groups again handed in a list of reagents and materials necessary for the next session, in case they should need to repeat or to perform a new experiment. Depending on their lab results, the groups could repeat experiments until they were satisfied with the results. The third activity proposed to students was called Enzymes (Table 3). Activity 3 was the most complex and least instructed by worksheet activity proposed to students. In the previous activities, the hypothesis was provided, and the information about the available techniques was enough to answer the research question. In this activity, students were introduced to a problem and had to develop the hypothesis, the experimental strategy, and a mathematical data treatment that should be in keeping with their understanding of enzymatic concepts. The theoretical principles also stand as a challenge in this experiment, as students were expected to recall concepts covered in previous activities, such as pH, pKa, buffering functions, and protein structure. The activity worksheet presents protocols for the extraction and enzymatic assays for potato and yeast phosphatases, as well as the research question proposed. This activity consisted of three laboratory sessions: one session for planning the experiments and two sessions for performing the techniques in practice. In the planning session, the groups developed a sound experimental strategy on their own to discover both potato and yeast phosphatases affinity for para-nitrophenylphosphate (pNPP) and propose the mathematical calculations used. In the laboratory sessions, the groups of students carried out enzymatic assays, standardizing the amount of enzymes subsequently used. They devised a plot of “amount of enzymes versus time of reaction,” and, with this amount defined, they performed experiments varying the substrate concentration as per an “initial velocity versus substrate concentration” plot. In this respect, they applied the Lineweaver−Burk plot to determine binding dissociation constant and the maximum reaction speed, in order to calculate the binding constant for pNPP.

Skills recommended by ASBMB as part of undergraduate Biochemistry curriculum.5

Ability to formulate an experiment and its hypothesis; awareness of the limitations of the scientific approach; ability to precisely and accurately prepare reagents; capacity to interpret experimental data and discuss them based on literaturea pH concept, pKa concept, buffering functions, protein structure, factors that alter protein functions.

Planning Session

The planning session allowed students to enhance their ability to create their experimental design, to choose the reagents and techniques to use, and to know beforehand how to handle them, thus exercising the procedural aspect of autonomy.23 All data provided below represents actual groups’ data. When planning activity 1, students needed to mentally simulate the experiment in a still unknown environment, the laboratory. Within the groups, they needed to think how they would perform the experiments over the next session and how they would combine the following items: theoretical principles, electronic titration simulation, and laboratory worksheet information. The following points comprise an introductory overview of a group’s plan to perform the Buffering Systems activity.

a

Awareness of the limitations of the scientific approach; capacity to interpret experimental data and discuss them grounded on literaturea Acid ionization, Henderson−Hasselbach equilibrium, pKa, and biological buffers

#2 Amino Acids and Proteins #3 Enzymes

Which factors may have been responsible for the differences between a simulated titration and an experimental titration? What is the composition of the samples provided? Determine the concentration, the molecular weight, and the pKa of the samples. Is there any difference between the yeast and potato phosphatase enzymatic affinity for pNPP?

Expected Skills

Awareness of the scientific practice, focusing on the limitations of the scientific approach; capacity to precisely and accurately prepare reagentsa

Prerequisites

Principles of acid and base dissociation, acid− base equilibria, dilution calculations

Activities

#1 Buffering Systems

Table 3. Overview of Activities Presented to Students

Question Proposed


D



Article

Figure 2. Example of a strategic planning flowchart provided by a group of students in the final report of activity 2. The purpose of this flowchart is not to show correct groups’ plans, but to exemplify students’ strategy concerning the techniques and procedures chosen. The labels mentioned by the students (A1, B1, C1, and D1) refer to the four unknown samples provided in activity 2 (p 9). Retardation factor (Rf) is calculated on the basis of paper chromatography results.

• Preparing a buffering solution composed of Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. • Performing in the laboratory the titration of the buffering solution with HCl and NaOH to compare the experimental results with the theory, based on a computer simulation. • Evaluating any discrepancies between the titration simulation and the actual titration and pointing its possible causes out. In activity 2, the planning session led the students beyond merely designing the execution of experiments; it provided a higher abstraction level whereby the students needed to know different techniques and developed strategies to use them in order to obtain answers to the research question. To illustrate the groups’ plan of an experiment for activity 2, Figure 2 presents a flowchart strategy submitted by them in the activity report. The flowchart presents a group’s mental scheme concerning the order of techniques and procedures chosen. It represents the students’ thoughts and the experimental logic strategy. This level of abstraction, which is more complex, foresees analyzing the theoretical principles and the practical experience in concert

entailing the preparation of their experimental design to solve the problem. Activity 3 was the most complex activity proposed. In this activity, groups needed to design their experiment and develop their hypotheses: they were left free to present the experiment plan the way they deemed fit. Some groups presented it in a flowchart (Figure 3), while other groups preferred to list the procedures desired. By the end of each planning session, the groups of students submitted their plans to instructors. This way, the instructors were able to trace the groups’ line of thought regarding the execution of experiments and to intervene if necessary before the students started performing the experiments. Regarding autonomy support, planning sessions were the first environment to permit autonomous behavior. Students were allowed plenty of time to think within the group and discuss among them how to prepare the reagents, create their activity protocol, and find multiple solutions to solve the problem proposed. They were allowed to ask questions, although the instructors’ role was to discuss and encourage students to think about their inquiries and solve them within the group, instead of to give them ready answers. E



Article

Figure 3. Example of a strategic planning flowchart provided by a group of students in the final report of activity 3. The purpose of presenting students’ flowchart is not to show correct groups’ plans, but to exemplify students’ strategy concerning the techniques and procedures chosen. When students aimed to calculate enzymes specificity they meant to calculate enzymes binding dissociation constant (Km). PnP is the abbreviation for paranitrophenol.

Performing Experiments

Table 4. Results of Friedman’s Test Post Hoc Comparisons

The groups’ reports were analyzed at the end of each session to assess student autonomy enhancement. The report sections scored were the following: Goals, Materials and Methods, Hypothesis, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. All reports were assessed using the Shapiro−Wilk test.26 With a significance level of 0.05, the results showed that none of them have normal distributions (p < 0.05). Given this, the samples were subjected to the Friedman’s Test and Friedman’s post hoc test. Friedman’s test is a nonparametric test that compares three or more data sets showing if at least one of them is statistically different.27 Friedman’s post hoc test is performed when the distributions do not follow random sampling (p < 0.05), showing which groups stand out (Table 4). The scored sections Hypothesis, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions showed significant differences at least between two activities among the three data sets analyzed: activities 1, 2, and 3. These results and post hoc comparisons for these items are shown in Table 4. The Goals section was the only item analyzed that did not show a statistical difference between any of the report samples. In general, the students performed better in activities 2 and 3 than in activity 1, even though they received less support from the worksheet. Similar results were found in many studies,18−20 where teams that designed their experiments achieved higher scores than the groups that followed only worksheet protocols. The studies also showed that students subjected to an inquirybased laboratory enhanced reasoning skills compared to groups taught in a traditional way. Despite this, the lower scores of activity 1 may also be due to multiple other factors, such as the students being unsure about what the instructors are expecting

p Values of Post Hoc Comparisons by Activity, N = 30 Scored Items on Lab Reports Goals (p = 3.4 × 10−1) Hypothesis (p = 4.0 × 10−3) Material and Methods (p = 3.2 × 10−5) Results (p = 3.9 × 10−2) Discussion (p = 9.7 × 10−3) Conclusions (p = 2.4 × 10−6) Overall grade performance (p = 2.6 × 10−5)

Activity 2  Activity 1



Not applicable 3.9 × 10−3



2.9 × 10−5

1.4 × 10−4

9.3 × 10−1

4.4 × 10−1 9.7 × 10−3 4.4 × 10−4

3.9 × 10−2 1.1 × 10−1 2.4 × 10−6

4.4 × 10−1 6.4 × 10−1 5.0 × 10−1

9.6 × 10−1

5.0 × 10−5

1.6 × 10−5

in reports, even though the rubrics used to assess the reports (Supporting Information) are provided to them. This occurs initially because the students may not carefully read it in the first sessions and also because these students are not used to have classes supported by inquiry-based methods. Then, there is a significant improvement after students receive feedback on the first assignment. For the report sections analyzed in activities 1 and 2, hypotheses were given to students, while in activity 3, the last and more complex activity, they had to formulate their hypothesis. According to the data collected, students performed better on activity 2 compared to activity 1 (Figure 4). At the same time, although they formulated their hypothesis in activity 3, they had greater development compared to the first activity provided. This means that they achieved a better performance F



Article

Figure 4. Mean and standard deviations of reports’ scores (%) handed in by the end of each activity. Each color represents an activity, and each set of three different colors represents a report section analyzed. For each report section analyzed, if p < 0.05, we conclude that at least one of the performance comparisons differs from the other activities. In this case, Friedman’s post hoc test was performed to show which activities’ scores stand out (Table 4). In the case of the Goals section (p > 0.05), the differences among the performances comparisons are due random sampling.

ization and veracity of the data presented. Thus, the students were not required to accomplish the major autonomy support referred to in this paper. When diminishing the control of students, there was not as much opportunity to reflect about these items, leading to less independent thinking and engagement in the activity. This may reflect the lack of a significant difference found when comparing the average scores of activity 1 to activity 2 and activity 2 to activity 3 (Table 4).23 Despite this, as courses progress, students were provided with feedback regarding the Results presentation; thus, with a comparison of the average scores of activity 1 to activity 3, students significantly improved the ability to structure knowledge and report experimental findings. The students’ performances on discussing experiments were enhanced from activity 1 to activity 2 (Figure 4). Thus, some abilities connected to this section may also have been enhanced, such as critical thinking skills, the capability to interpret data and discuss it with reliable literature references without any aid, as well as identification of consistent and inconsistent components of the experiment. These abilities are connected to the exercise of the cognitive support of autonomy, which is connected to the handling of information by students and theoretical development.10,23 In activity 3, scores slightly decreased compared to those of activity 2, not showing a significant difference between these two activities (Table 4). Although there was a higher difference between the average scores of activity 1 and activity 3, the data did not show a statistical difference, mostly due to the higher standard deviation encountered. Besides the complexity of establishing the experiments’ hypothesis and research questions, students were expected to work with mathematical models connected to the topic to treat the data used in their discussion. In the previous activities, they also had to deal with mathematical calculations, but in activity 3 they had to independently find the most appropriate treatment to be used. Additionally, the theoretical background necessary to perform this experiment may be a factor responsible for the observations since activity 3 covered both new concepts and those connected to the previous experiments. Despite the improvement from activity 1 to activity 2, the data collected for the Discussion section of the activities showed the smallest grade average among the items analyzed in this work. According to the literature, freshman students find writing this section of a scientific report more challenging, which is also true for scientists,24 as it requires a dialogue between the scientific review and the results experimentally found.

when requested to formulate and report on their hypotheses, rather than just to report them. In this section, we observed that some groups had an incomplete presentation or just omitted their hypothesis from the reports. Over time, with the feedback provided by instructors before the next activity starts, they enhanced their scores. Controlled activities contributed to low achievement as well as led students to choose easier ways to have their work done.23 On the other hand, conceiving their hypotheses is a cognitive autonomy choice that encouraged students to attain ownership of the learning and deep-level thinking. This approach allowed students to autonomously reflect about the rationale underlying the problems and develop their explanations for such problems. Such skills, combined with the autonomy support in which the activities were developed, are recognized as effective in engaging students in several fields,28,29 as well as in molecular biology practices.12,22,30 From activity 2 to activity 3 the average scores decreased, although the data did not show significant differences (Table 4). The Material and Methods section refers to the capability to accurately prepare reagents and to provide a detailed description of the experimental design, the choice, and order of techniques used, exercising a procedural aspect of autonomy.23 Results show that students performed significantly better in enhancing these abilities achieving higher scores in activity 2 than in activity 1 (Figure 4). The second activity was the first opportunity for the students to decide how to organize the techniques available without any aid, while in activity 1 they only followed the laboratory worksheet (Figure 4). Although there was a slight decrease in performance on activity 3, the average scores were still high and significantly different compared to the first activity proposed, showing both evidence of procedural autonomy enhancement and the complexity of the activity proposal. At this point, students were expected to prepare and describe an experiment strategy and also conceive mathematical models to process data. From activity 2 to activity 3 the average scores decreased, but there were no significant differences between these two data sets (Table 4). The planning sessions before the activities, which stood as opportunities for students to reflect about the reagents to be used, and discuss the techniques and strategies before their execution, may be seen as a contributor to the Material and Methods scores. Concerning the data collected for the Results section of the activities (Figure 4), according to the rubrics31 provided (Supporting Information), instructors scored only the organG



■

On the basis of the data collected, we could conclude that students improved the score of the Conclusions item from activity 1 to activity 2 and from activity 1 to activity 3 (Figure 4). These results may point to the assumption that students were able not only to enhance their ability to describe and report experimental findings, as shown by other results above, but also to develop the ability to establish connections and relate results and discussion within the conclusions, as desired to exercise the cognitive autonomy aspect.23 Furthermore, other studies also showed that students subjected to inquirybased activities achieved significantly improved self-confidence to perform these different steps of scientific routines.21 Also, it can be seen that students experienced an increase in scores from activity 2 to activity 3, although this difference has not been significant (Table 4). The overall average students’ scores (Figure 4) significantly increased from activity 2 to activity 3 and from activity 1 to activity 3, showing that, despite the fact that students had varying weaknesses on different report items, in general, they performed better over this inquiry-based approach. The Goals section was an analyzed report section (Figure 4) that did not show statistical differences among the three data sets collected (Figure 4). This may have occurred because the goals of each experiment were provided to students for all activities proposed (Figure 3). Given this, the scores reflected only the students’ capability to report what was given in the laboratory worksheet in their own words.

■

CONCLUSIONS

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

Article

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for financially supporting this work and Espaço da EscritaUNICAMP for the English revision.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Caldwell, B.; Rohlman, C.; Benore-parsons, M. A Curriculum Skills Matrix for Development and Assessment of Undergraduate Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Laboratory Programs. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2004, 32 (1), 11−16. (2) Boyer, R. Concepts and Skills in the Biochemistry/Molecular Biology Lab. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2003, 31 (2), 102−105. (3) Voet, J. G.; Bell, E.; Boyer, R.; Boyle, J.; O'Leary, M. O.; Zimmerman, J. K. Mini-Series: The ASBMB Recommended Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Undergraduate Curriculum and Its Implementation Recommended Curriculum for a Program in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2003, 31 (3), 161−162. (4) Anderson, C. W.; Bauerle, C.; DePass, A.; Donovan, S.; Drew, S.; Ebert-May, D.; Gross, L.; Hoskins, S. G.; Labov, J.; Lopatto, D.; et al. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education. A Call to Action; Brewer, C. A., Smith, D., Eds.; American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): Washington, DC, 2009. (5) White, H. B.; Benore, M. A.; Sumter, T. F.; Caldwell, B. D.; Bell, E. What Skills Should Students of Undergraduate Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Programs Have Upon Graduation? Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2013, 41 (5), 297−301. (6) Chan, V. Readiness for Learner Autonomy: What Do Our Learners Tell Us? Teach. High. Educ. 2010, 6 (4), 37−41. (7) Littlewood, W. Defining and Developing Autonomy in East Asian Contexts. Appl. Linguist. 1999, 20 (1), 71−94. (8) Sierens, E.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Goossens, L.; Soenens, B.; Dochy, F. The Synergistic Relationship of Perceived Autonomy Support and Structure in the Prediction of Self-Segulated Learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 79 (1), 57−68. (9) Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R. The Laboratory in Science Education: The State of the Art. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2), 105−107. (10) Howard, D. R.; Miskowski, J. A. Using a Module-Based Laboratory To Incorporate Inquiry into a Large Cell Biology Course. Cell Biol. Educ. 2005, 4 (3), 249−260. (11) Bugarcic, A.; Zimbardi, K.; Macaranas, J.; Thorn, P. An InquiryBased Practical for a Large, Foundation-Level Undergraduate Laboratory That Enhances Student Understanding of Basic Cellular Concepts and Scientific Experimental Design. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2012, 40 (3), 174−180. (12) Adams, D. Current Trends in Laboratory Class Teaching in University Bioscience Programmes. Biosci. Educ. e-Journal 2009, 13, 1. (13) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (1), 28−54. (14) Domin, D. S. A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 109−112. (15) Hartings, M. R.; Fox, D. M.; Miller, A. E.; Muratore, K. E. A Hybrid Integrated Laboratory and Inquiry-Based Research Experience: Replacing Traditional Laboratory Instruction with a Sustainable Student-Led Research Project. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (6), 1016− 1023. (16) Cunningham, S. C.; McNear, B.; Pearlman, R. S.; Kern, S. E. Beverage-Agarose Gel Electrophoresis: An Inquiry-Based Laboratory

The inquiry-based approach and the autonomy support adapted to the Biochemistry of Proteins laboratory activities enhanced students’ autonomy, not only by engaging them to make decisions concerning their experiments but also by building their capability to think for themselves. The autonomy encouragement also provided to the students a sense of active participation in the experimental process, from the first steps of choosing reagents and instruments to the reporting and discussion steps, stimulating students’ learning and success. The results showed that students developed abilities expected from a Biochemistry major: formulation of hypotheses, choice of an experimental strategy, choice of experimental ware and reagents, protocol design, data analysis including information from the literature, and scientific reporting. There was a significant improvement in the students’ scores as the course progressed. Despite that, this study had one limitation, which is associated with the lack of individual analysis of the levels of categories of autonomy to identify the lacking ones. This stands as a possibility for further research, which may help instructors to promptly intervene concerning a specific aspect of student autonomy while the laboratory activities are refined.

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00326. Table indicating the scoring rubrics for the report items analyzed in this work (PDF, DOCX) H



Article

Exercise with Virtual Adaptation. CBE - Life Sci. Educ. 2006, 5 (3), 281−286. (17) Kuldell, N. H. How Golden Is Silence? Teaching Undergraduates the Power and Limits of RNA Interference. CBE - Life Sci. Educ. 2006, 5 (3), 247−254. (18) Lord, T.; Orkwiszewski, T. Moving from Didactic to InquiryBased Instruction in a Science Laboratory. Am. Biol. Teach. 2006, 68 (6), 342−345. (19) Rodenbaugh, D. W.; Failing, C. J.; Fuentes, E.; Wagner, A. A.; Yard, B. R. Having Students Design and Develop Laboratory Exercises Improves Student Learning Outcomes in Undergraduate Physiology. FASEB J. 2007, 21, 478.21. (20) Hall, D. A.; McCurdy, D. W. A Comparison of a Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) Laboratory and a Traditional Laboratory on Student-Achievement at 2 Private Liberal-Arts Colleges. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1990, 27 (7), 625−636. (21) Brownell, S. E.; Kloser, M. J.; Fukami, T.; Shavelson, R. Undergraduate Biology Lab Courses: Comparing the Impact of Traditionally Based “Cookbook” and Authentic Research-Based Courses on Student Lab Experiences. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2012, 41 (4), 18−27. (22) Handelsman, J.; Ebert-may, D.; Beichner, R.; Bruns, P.; Chang, A.; Dehaan, R.; Gentile, J.; Lauffer, S.; Stewart, J.; Tilghman, S. M.; et al. Scientific Teaching. Science 2004, 304 (5670), 521−522. (23) Stefanou, C. R.; Perencevich, K. C.; DiCintio, M.; Turner, J. C. Supporting Autonomy in the Classroom: Ways Teachers Encourage Student Decision Making and Ownership. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 39 (2), 97−110. (24) Wu, J. Mutation-Based Learning to Improve Student Autonomy and Scientific Inquiry Skills in a Large Genetics Laboratory Course. CBE - Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12 (3), 460−470. (25) McKee, E.; Williamson, V. M.; Ruebush, L. E. Effects of a Demonstration Laboratory on Student Learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16 (5), 395−400. (26) Shapiro, S. S.; Wilk, M. B. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika 1965, 52 (3), 591−611. (27) Friedman, M. The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1937, 32 (200), 675−701. (28) Miserandino, M. Children Who Do Well in School: Individual Differences in Perceived Competence and Autonomy in AboveAverage Children. J. Educ. Psychol. 1996, 88 (2), 203−214. (29) Deci, E. L.; Nezlek, J.; Sheinman, L. Characteristics of the Rewarder and Intrinsic Motivation of the Rewardee. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 40 (1), 1−10. (30) Wood, E. Laboratory Practical Work. Biosci. Educ. e-Journal 2008, 11, 1. (31) Allen, D.; Tanner, K. Feature Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning Rubrics: Tools for Making Learning Goals and Evaluation Criteria Explicit for Both Teachers and Learners. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2006, 5, 197−203.

I


Developing and Supporting Students' Autonomy To Plan, Perform, and

Recommend Documents