Quantitative reasoning, although included in most science courses, can be challenging to teach. In this article, we explore whether cooperative learning may help instructors teach quantitative reasoning and enhance students’ understanding and learning experience. Our lesson was taught in a large introductory geoscience course. The lesson required the undergraduate students to process geological data, represent the processed data graphically in a ternary diagram, and interpret the results in terms of geological environments. Students were assigned to groups in which they were asked to either work in pairs (experimental group) or individually (control group) on the tasks. Students’ performance on questions related to ternary diagrams on the test and their feedback in the evaluation survey indicate that the cooperative approach enhances the ability of freshmen and sophomores to apply the quantitative reasoning they learned to new problems. Most participants prefer learning in a cooperative setting rather than the individual approach. We suggest that cooperative learning can help develop quantitative reasoning in undergraduate science classes.

This qualitative study compares the views about nature of science (NOS) between students enrolled in a traditional lecture and laboratory course and students in an inquiry-based class to the view of the scientists who taught the course. We administered the Views of Nature of Science Form C (VNOS-C) to identify students’ views after partaking in two different pedagogical-style courses (either the traditional course or inquiry-based course). We report on two aspects of VNOS-C: definition and explanation of science and role of creativity and imagination within the scientific process. The data showed that the students in the inquiry-based section held slightly more concrete views of creativity and imagination in science and more informed views of science and that they held similar NOS views to the scientist. This study shows that even if you teach inquiry as means, students tend to form transitional or even informed views of the roles of imagination and creativity in the scientific endeavor. 

The Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) program at Sacramento State was established in 2012 with one section supporting introductory chemistry. The program now serves 17 courses with high rates of students who receive a D or an F or withdraw (DFW) from the course in biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, and statistics; the program enrolls approximately 1,400 students annually. Adapting the Peer-Led Team Learning model, PAL facilitators do not teach, tutor, or even confirm answers; they ask scaffolding questions, provide encouragement, and ensure that all group members participate in problem-solving. Each PAL section is an optional credit-bearing course that supplements the targeted parent science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) course. In this article, we assess the efficacy of the program in terms of student success in the parent course. As PAL is an opt-in program, we employ propensity score matching techniques to account for confounding factors. Our analysis shows that the mean course grade point average is 1.98 for matched nonparticipants and 2.40 for matched PAL participants, indicating that the program provides an average bump of 0.42 points in the parent course. We consider data from more than 25,000 students, and our propensity score analysis uses more than 10,000 students (4,519 PAL and 5,814 non-PAL) for whom appropriate matches could be found.

The purposes of this study were to examine preservice elementary teachers’ conception of the water cycle; determine if participating in a conceptual change–based role-play alters these conceptions; and ascertain if any conceptual change brought about by the intervention is lasting. We found that most of our students held naive conceptions of the water cycle. Participating in an activity based on a conceptual change model did broaden participants’ notions of the water cycle, and those more sophisticated ideas held for at least 3 months. The students were able to see how a lesson planned using the model could bring about conceptual change for themselves, which hopefully provided the impetus for them to include the model in their own instructional planning. The conceptual change model likely can be applied to any concept to improve understanding.

Guided by self-determination theory to design an authentic learning environment, we attempted repeated engagement in critical evaluation of evidence to foster accuracy-oriented reasoning and critical thinking in an applied science course for non-STEM undergraduates taught completely online during a 6-week summer term and a 16-week fall term. Student outcomes were measured as indicators of the effectiveness of our pedagogical strategies. Results suggest that student engagement in integration and resolution modes of cognitive presence are associated with students’ feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. A positive trend of students moving toward accuracy goals during evidence evaluation was also observed, as students visited both sides of evidence at the same frequency or spent about the same amount of time evaluating both sides of evidence regardless of their voting decision at the end of the course. These findings suggest that scientific literacy among nonscientists may be fostered through repeated, supportive engagement in evidence evaluation.

Online laboratories can be an effective way to introduce students to lab concepts while providing flexibility, increased access, and reduced costs. However, online labs might lack the authentic research experience that can be gained by doing hands-on lab work. This study explores student perceptions of an online, inquiry-based introductory biology lab. Students participated in a semester-long curriculum during summer 2020. Upon completion of the course, students responded to a survey about their thoughts and attitudes toward the material and mode of delivery. Overall, students perceived the course favorably, with more than 90% of students indicating that they were satisfied with the course. Students had strong positive impressions of the writing-intensive sections of the course, which included a research proposal and a lab report. They also recognized that these components helped contribute to their own learning. This positive influence on student perceptions indicates that an online inquiry-based lab can be an effective means for student participation in biology labs when in-person lab options are not available.

Since 2010, the National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded Science, Technology, and Math Preparation Scholarships (STAMPS) project has provided financial and community support for undergraduate students at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) in STEM majors. In this article, the authors explore the impact of STAMPS on how cohorts support students’ sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and science identity. A mixed-methods design approach enabled the collection of multiple types of data that could be used to examine participants’ experiences. Key findings suggest that participation in the STAMPS program has increased students’ self-efficacy, science identity, and sense of belonging. Students reported feeling a bolstered self-efficacy primarily due to interactions with other students, faculty, and scientists during class, field trips, and presentations. Peer and faculty mentors and STAMPS events were most frequently cited as being responsible for impacting science identity. UNCG-specific and STAMPS events assisted in the formation of students’ sense of belonging.

Existing processes for academic peer review can yield unnecessarily harsh critiques that focus on any vulnerability rather than constructive feedback to improve the work. Efforts to improve the peer-review process recommend training at the graduate level. This article describes the Modified Critical Response Process (MCRP) as a means to achieve such training and improve in-class peer review. The MCRP is based on Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process (CRP), an art-critique method that helps form constructive dialogues about artworks in progress. I adapted the MCRP for the nature of science products and the time limitations of graduate-level seminar courses. The four-step MCRP process includes (i) focus areas prescribed by presenter and rubric, (ii) clarifying questions asked by responders, (iii) positive comments offered by responders, and (iv) bounded comments given on areas for improvement. Evidence from instructor observations, student evaluations, and teaching peer reviews suggests that the MCRP can be a kinder, more constructive way for students to give and receive peer-review feedback. The MCRP can help students learn, articulate novel scholarly insights, and develop facilitation and teaching skills. The MCRP could readily be applied to seminar courses, lab group meetings, seminar series, or workshops.

Although many summer undergraduate research programs made the decision to delay, cancel, or suspend their summer experiences in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Morehouse College McNair Scholars Program instead offered a completely virtual summer research experience to 14 Scholars with faculty-led remote research. The program included online curriculum; GRE preparation; and the development of social capital and community between peer and stakeholders in a series of activities with professionals, McNair alumni, and graduate school virtual workshops. It concluded with a virtual research symposium. Evaluations from surveys showed positive results from Scholars and mentors. Student participants indicated gains in confidence on core research skills, knowledge of and interest in graduate school, and research careers. As we navigate through and beyond this pandemic, it is important to recognize and address opportunities and strategies for, and challenges of, conducting research programs remotely, especially for programs geared toward students from groups that are underrepresented in STEM.

Although argumentation is a critical historical component of scientific literacy, the recent coronavirus pandemic and associated issues have highlighted the importance of argumentation in science practice. Argumentation that aligns with functional scientific literacy requires gathering evidence and reasoning to support or refute claims related to socioscientific issues (SSI)—those informed by science but also affected by society. In this article, we present a 5E module that models argumentation instruction while scaffolding preservice elementary teachers’ argumentation practice in the context of SSI. To do so, we introduced the claim-evidence-reasoning argumentation framework. In this approach, students responded to potential solutions to SSI related to the coronavirus (claim), supported their responses with data (evidence), and justified how the evidence they provided supported their responses (reasoning). Specifically, preservice elementary teachers completed diverse argumentation tasks—starting with more traditional scientific argumentation and building toward recognizing and addressing nonscientific, cross-curricular issues—to develop effective argumentation practice concerning contemporary SSI.