HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by FitzPatrick, K. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by FitzPatrick, K. A.

TEACHING IN THE LABORATORY

An investigative laboratory course in human physiology using computer technology and collaborative writing

Department of Biology and Allied Health, Merrimack College, North Andover, Massachusetts 01845

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: K. A. FitzPatrick, Dept. of Biology and Allied Health, Box N8, Merrimack College, 315 Turnpike St., N. Andover, MA 01845 (Kathleen.FitzPatrick{at}Merrimack.edu)

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 
FitzPatrick, Kathleen A. An investigative laboratory course in human physiology using computer technology and collaborative writing. Active investigative student-directed experiences in laboratory science are being encouraged by national science organizations. A growing body of evidence from classroom assessment supports their effectiveness. This study describes four years of implementation and assessment of an investigative laboratory course in human physiology for 65 second-year students in sports medicine and biology at a small private comprehensive college. The course builds on skills and abilities first introduced in an introductory investigations course and introduces additional higher-level skills and more complex human experimental models. In four multiweek experimental modules, involving neuromuscular, reflex, and cardiovascular physiology, by use of computerized hardware/software with a variety of transducers, students carry out self-designed experiments with human subjects and perform data collection and analysis, collaborative writing, and peer editing. In assessments, including standard course evaluations and the Salgains Web-based evaluation, student responses to this approach are enthusiastic, and gains in their skills and abilities are evident in their comments and in improved performance.

Key words: investigative physiology laboratories; scientific writing; peer review; computerized data collection

	Introduction

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 
CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS for science education, noted by the National Science Foundation (21), National Research Council of the American Academies of Science (17–20), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2–4), are supported by an increasing body of evidence from classroom assessment, which demonstrates the effectiveness of active, investigative pedagogies in developing the scientists of the future, as well as the scientific sophistication of the general student (1, 6–8, 12–15, 16, 22, 24, 26–28). Beginning in 1997, the laboratory portion of our sophomore course in human physiology was revised incrementally, reaching its present form in 2000. Unlike a traditional lab that uses preset procedures to coordinate closely with and illustrate principles and lecture concepts, this lab is structured to develop students’ abilities to do science as a physiologist does within the broad neuromuscular/sensory physiology framework. The goals of the new course are 1) to introduce active investigative skills in the scientific method through experiments designed by students themselves actively modeling the excitement of doing physiology and reinforcing physiological concepts from the lecture part of the course, 2) to develop skills in scientific communication through written and oral reports, 3) to develop skills in group collaboration and teamwork, and 4) to develop skills in the use of technology for data collection, analysis, presentation, and literature research. The revised course uses computer hardware/software packages for data collection (9). On the basis of the positive responses to the physiology experience, our department designed a similarly investigative introductory lab course for all freshman department majors [Introduction to Biological Investigations (11)]. Subsequently, the sophomore human physiology laboratory has elaborated on this foundation to enhance and practice skills introduced earlier, to develop an increased level of sophistication, and to add new, more advanced skills for future courses. This complementary approach across courses provides students with a consistent curriculum of repetition and practice of the knowledge, skills, and abilities involved in doing science while challenging them with the opportunity to continue to more advanced understanding and skills. In turn, this human physiology laboratory serves as a foundation for a higher-level exercise physiology lab experience.

	METHODS

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 
Context of the study.
Our institution is a small (2,100 students), private, comprehensive college. In the last four years, 65 students (58% female, 42% male) completed the human physiology laboratory, which accompanies a semester-length lecture course covering nerve, endocrine, muscle, sensory, and some cardiovascular physiology. During this period, 101 students completed the lectures; thus 64% of the lecture students also took the laboratory section. In lab, the majority (83%) were sophomores, with a smaller number of junior (14%) and senior (3%) students transferring into the college and/or the major. The students were primarily majoring in sports medicine (78%), with smaller numbers of majors in biology (16%), health science (5%), and biochemistry (2%). Because the majority were sophomores, they had all completed courses in cell biology, biological investigations, and introductory genetics, as well as two terms of general chemistry. Sports Medicine students had also completed human anatomy, two clinical courses, and statistics; these students are preparing for careers and graduate study in athletic training, physical therapy, and exercise physiology. In recent years (2001, 2002, and 2003), all students taking this class have completed our course in Biological Investigations during their first term in the college.

Students attended 12 weekly three-hour faculty-facilitated laboratory sessions (Table 1). Initially, the unique features of experimentation with human subjects were introduced; informed consent and confidentiality were emphasized, and each student reviewed and signed a consent form and was assigned a numerical identifier to be used in all subsequent experiments. The instructor functions as an Institutional Review Board, to ensure the safety and ethical standards of the experiments.

During the remainder of the term, four experimental systems, presented in multiweek modules, examined 1) muscle function through electromyography, 2) motor point stimulation, nerve conduction, and dynamometry, 3) reflexes and reaction times, and 4) electrocardiography, pulse, and blood flow (Table 1). All the modules are based on the use of the PowerLab 4/20T System and Chart software (ADInstruments), which provide computerized data recording and analysis using multiple transducers. One week was devoted to the introduction of the PowerLab system, Chart software, and various transducers.

Each multiweek module began with a presentation of the system or model, background physiological concepts, and the techniques or methods and available transducers used to test hypotheses related to that system. For example, raw and integrated electromyographic responses from hand flexors and extensors, along with force output from dynamometry during various gripping movements, along with computer analysis techniques for the processing of raw data, were demonstrated. Students were then invited to experiment freely with the equipment to explore potential questions for further investigation. Research teams of four students then gathered to identify a question of interest, develop a specific, testable hypothesis, design well-controlled experiments, determine what data would be collected, and predict the ways in which the data would be managed and presented, guided by an experimental design sheet (APPENDIX 1, adapted from Ref. 5). The experimental design was discussed with the instructor and refined, and any additional necessary equipment was noted. The team chose a principal investigator (PI) for the experiment (5). The following week, before the lab session, the PI was required to submit the completed experimental design sheet and a draft of an Introduction section for the lab report. This included a specific hypothesis and background references for the study, with at least three primary sources. I reviewed both the design sheet and Introduction and returned them to the team with comments and suggestions for revision.

During the next session, the teams carried out the revised experiments, and the data were collected, organized, and analyzed. As all team members rotated through the experiment as subjects (unless medically contraindicated), the roles of computer operator, data recorder, and experiment director rotated among the students as well, giving each team member the opportunity to practice different roles and skills. Once the study began, I provided nondirective support and oversight (both for safety and for scientific process), to offer a sounding board for ideas and questions and served generally as a consultant, without dominating their direction.

After the lab, the teams met to discuss data analysis and prepare graphs and tables of results, which were submitted for comment and returned. I served as a consultant during the report writing and editing phase; many students often requested the opportunity outside of class time to talk through ideas, run drafts by me, and sit with me at the computer as they analyzed data or performed literature searches. These informal sessions provided a great chance for one-on-one discussion. I encouraged them to rely similarly on their teammates.

With this material in hand, the PI then created a draft of the complete report. The drafts were circulated to the team members, who reviewed them using a structured review sheet (modified from Ref. 5), along with the grading outline for reports (APPENDIX 2) to critique the draft. Drafts and reviews were returned to the PI, who then incorporated them into the final version of the report, which was handed in along with the reviewers’ marked drafts and review sheets. The PI received a grade based on the final paper, whereas reviewers were graded on the quality, thoroughness, and insight of the review. The final draft and reviews were returned to the group with extensive written comments and suggestions, creating a portfolio of returned reports for reference to improve subsequent papers. For some modules, research teams met outside the lab to prepare presentations illustrated by posters, overheads, etc., and presented their findings to the class. The group discussed the results, and all students rated the presentation content and delivery by means of a brief checklist assessment. With each subsequent experiment, the role of PI rotated to a new student. In this scheme, each student served as PI for one experiment and as reviewer for three others.

Assessment.
In all years, standard departmental teacher course evaluations were administered during the last class meeting of the term. The surveys, including numerical items relating to the instructor and narrative items relating to the course itself, were passed out at the beginning of the class, and students were allowed 10–15 minutes to write their responses anonymously. All students present completed the survey. All surveys were collected and analyzed.

In the most recent year, an additional, Web-based assessment, The Student Assessment of Learning Gains (Salgains) (23, 24) was added. The Salgains evaluates students’ perceptions of their learning gains and the usefulness of a large variety of aspects of the course. The Salgains template was modified to fit the content and activities of this course. At the end of term, students received a handout describing the process for accessing and completing the instrument online, with a deadline at the final exam. Nine of 15 lab students completed the evaluation (60% response rate). Each question uses a Likert-type scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Raw data, statistical summaries, and narrative responses were downloaded from the site following submission of final grades.

	RESULTS

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 
Sample titles of student-designed experiments are presented in Table 2. As might be expected from a class of primarily sports medicine majors, many experiments related to responses to human movement and exercise.

The Salgains data reinforce the effectiveness of this approach. Results pertaining to lab are presented in Table 5. Relative to class activities, all means exceeded 3 (moderate help), whereas several exceeded 4 (much help); mode scores for these items were 4 or 5. In terms of how much the class had added to skills in various areas, again, all items exceeded 3 (somewhat) and four of six exceeded 4 (a lot); mode scores were 4 or 5, with the exception of oral presentations. The most highly rated items included writing and reviewing lab reports, designing experiments, and hands-on activities. The lower-rated items concerned lab teamwork and working with others, as well as oral reports and written lab instructions. (The lab manual created for the course intentionally provides little specific direction for the four experimental modules).

Throughout this lab course over the last four years, students showed small but significant improvement in their design/review/report grades from the first to the last module. [mean ± SD = 87.4 ± 4.6 to 88.8 ± 3.9; n = 65 (P = 0.021), paired 2-tailed t-test]. In contrast, during the last two years prior to the beginning of course revisions (1995, 1996), grades were lower, and no improvement was evident from the first to the last report-writing assignment [mean ± SD = 79.1 ± 7.5 to 76.4 ± 9.3; n = 15 (P = 0.529), paired 2-tailed t-test].

	DISCUSSION

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 
The positive subjective student response to the lab experience and the improvement in performance seen relative to that of the previous course and within the course support the effectiveness of this active student-directed and collaborative format in achieving the course goals. Students responded enthusiastically to the challenge of designing interesting experiments based on clear, testable hypotheses. They adapted very quickly to the computer data system. During the design and performance phases of the lab, students demonstrated a real sense of ownership and creativity in their work, as seen in the comments in Table 4. Teams often designed experiments that related to some of their other courses as well as to this one, often remarking that they had discussed similar ideas in a previous or current course. This establishing of connections between courses seemed to be a very positive feature of the experience. They were innovative in designing experiments that employed equipment not currently available in lab and obtaining it on their own initiative (free weights, Therabands, stability balls, aerobic steps, tape, splints, ice and hot packs, goniometers, etc.). On some occasions during the experiments, students used the equipment kits they carried for clinical evaluation of injuries. They also developed good organizational skills in switching roles, time management, and efficiency. For example, some groups streamlined their data collection and analysis by recording data in real time directly into Excel, rather than in notebooks or the ever-present loose sheets of paper. Students were also quite observant of the experiments of other groups, picking up hints for both improvement and efficiency and for avoiding problems and missteps from those around them.

The experiments designed in this course were clearly more sophisticated than those in Investigations, reflecting the skills gained in that experience and increasing student intellectual maturity. Although the overall grades are fairly good, it is clear that in the Discussion section data interpretation and the relating of results to previous reports in the literature pose the greatest challenge to students. It was very evident to me, and to the students themselves, that the final drafts for each module were vastly improved from first drafts as a result of peer editing. Although some reviews were fairly minimal, particularly if the first draft was quite good, other reviews showed considerable independent effort in critiquing and rewriting the draft, in a way that was supportive to the writer. Students do show a reluctance to "criticize" the work of their friends; however, they do see the improvement in everyone’s grades that results from constructive and encouraging reviews.

The design used in this course offers many positive features. The human-based and hands-on nature of the lab is highly relevant to students who will be going on to careers and further study in applied clinical fields. This elicits a high level of interest, and the opportunity to pursue questions of their own design provides a sense of ownership of the studies. Initiative, creativity, and the making of connections between the many other courses in their program of study help to reinforce learning. The use of a computerized data collection package with a large variety of transducers maximizes the variety of possible experiments and minimizes set-up and learning time for each subsequent module. The ability to collaborate and work effectively as a member of a team is highly valued in health care and research settings. The team-based design, writing, and revision approach described here fosters those abilities. The process of writing, editing, and revising multiple drafts of written work helps in developing effective communication. Students often remark that, in contrast to more passive cookbook labs, the self-designed approach reveals to them the complexity of research activity and the need for constant initiative, trouble shooting, revision, creativity, adaptation, and flexibility as an experiment is performed. Thus students become more self-directed and confident in their abilities. For the instructor, this experience is far more stimulating intellectually, as it involves doing science, rather than talking about its results. The ability to work closely with students in the capacity of mentor is a more rewarding way to teach. Students get the chance to see and participate in the process by which the instructor thinks through a problem, modeling good practice.

There are also challenges to this approach. For the instructor, student-design formats require a judicious balance between being too directive and controlling on the one hand and being too hands-off on the other. This balance can be learned over time. During the lab, the presence of several groups, each performing completely different experiments, can generate a three-ring circus atmosphere that requires a high level of vigilance, adaptability, and quick thinking from the instructor. The final report packages can be daunting, often an inch thick per group, with an experimental design plan, final report, three first drafts, three reviews, etc. The grading of these packages requires at least two to three times more instructor hours but is also more rewarding in that the review process really does lead to improvement. A significant investment of time outside class is needed, not only for grading but for meeting with individuals and groups. This chance to work with students more as scientific collaborators in a more creative and stimulating way compensates for the extra time invested.

The financial investment to acquire a system like PowerLab and the required computers is initially large; however, there are no costs in subsequent years for consumables. Students adapted readily to the computerized format. Because all PowerLab components work similarly off the Chart software, there is very little relearning required between experiments. The ease of set-up and the sophisticated data analysis and data processing made possible by the software fit very well with a student-design format. Before 2003, a different, older data collection system had been used and was a frequent complaint on evaluations. The very positive response to the technological aspects of this year’s class reflects the importance of current, updated equipment.

In terms of the student experiments, some problems are inherent to this set-up. In groups of four, the subject number is small, and students find that differences that appear large between treatments usually do not prove to be statistically significant. This provides opportunities for discussion of sample size, individual variation, controls, and other concepts. They are often surprised in exercise physiology in working with a large database that smaller differences achieve significance when the n is large. Students note the greater complexity of human research and the difficulty of controlling all potential confounding variables. They see the differences and challenges of this work in contrast to the simple cellular, molecular, and invertebrate systems that they have worked with before. Issues of bias also arise in this design; because team members are subjects, they are not blind to the hypothesis and expected outcome. Although this is unavoidable in this setting, students often think to literally blindfold subjects during the experiment so they cannot see the data on the computer screen as it is gathered and obtain feedback that might alter their responses. Again, this is a fruitful area of discussion.

As noted above, the uses of primary literature and data interpretation are areas that challenge students most. More concentration on reading and interpreting primary literature is clearly needed at this level, and upper level courses in our department emphasize these abilities in much more detail.

Group work presents its own challenges. Although several comments note the benefits of peer review, the typical complaints of uneven participation, time constraints, and difficulty scheduling group meetings are often raised. This is reflected in the somewhat lower Salgains results for questions in this area. Most college faculty were not trained in group facilitation, and this area needs a lot of attention to help make the experience a positive one. It might be helpful to include in the grade an anonymous peer review of the relative contribution of group members at midterm and finals time. This would help to spot problems early on for correction. I have encouraged more electronic communication between students via e-mail. Designs, drafts, and reviews can pass back and forth without the need for face-to-face meetings, and more recently I have made all course documents available on the course Blackboard website. Unfortunately, some students remain a bit computer-phobic about electronic communication and require encouragement to move beyond paper-and-pencil editing. Reluctance to speak in public and to respond spontaneously to questions, along with a lack of self-confidence, can make the experience of oral presentations painful for some students. It is important to create opportunities for repeated practice to desensitize students to the setting and to model constructive, nonthreatening critiques stressing learning positively from peers. Although an anonymous review of lab reports is best to encourage honest feedback, our lab classes are limited to 12 students, and in this group they tend to have several classes in common, making anonymity somewhat unrealistic. Sometimes, reports are assigned to members of other teams for review. This helps to encourage writers to communicate clearly with those not intimately familiar with experiment.

This course represents an intermediate level in a continuum of courses, each building on the previous one to enhance and reinforce the original goals. In Biological Investigations, students practice simple experimental design in a variety of systems, begin computer graphing, and use simple descriptive statistics. They are introduced to information literacy and use of the library in locating primarily secondary and tertiary sources and general science periodicals. They practice giving and reviewing group oral presentations and individual scientific writing, first generating individual report sections, then revising and building up to complete reports. In this physiology lab, they extend their work to human subjects and practice more complex experimental design, begin the use of Excel, PubMed, and primary sources, and acquire more advanced statistical analysis methods (correlations, t-tests, ANOVA). They are introduced to peer writing and review. In my subsequent junior-level course in exercise physiology, peer writing and review are continued. Because accreditation requirements make it necessary to teach specific physical assessment techniques in lab, the experiments performed are not student designed. Here, testing data on several aspects of human fitness and performance for each year’s class is added to a database from previous years. Students learn to work with a large database (140 subjects) to form and test hypotheses. For example, they might examine the correlation between different predictive tests for maximal oxygen consumption within and across subpopulations (male vs. female; athlete vs. nonathlete). At this level, more extensive and thorough literature research, more advanced statistics, and more creative and thoughtful writing and reviews are expected.

Many recent reports describe the effectiveness of student-directed investigative lab activities in courses in different subject matter at different levels. The positive features reported here are consistent with those reported by other faculty implementing investigative labs in first-year courses (7, 11–14, 27). A more positive relationship between achievement and hands-on labs for introductory biology in the inquiry-based model compared with cookbook labs was noted. In addition, female students participated more equally, compared with males, in both manipulation and discussion in the inquiry-based model (22). Students identified similar features of creativity, enhanced understanding, critical thinking, group skills, and increased interest as positive aspects of the experience in a molecular biology lab (1), an investigative exercise physiology lab (8, 15), an investigative ecology lab (16), a comparative anatomy-physiology lab in which investigative skills are developed incrementally throughout the term (6), and in microbiology (26) and molecular biology courses (28). Although the model may be implemented in different ways (single-semester-length projects, single-meeting projects, multiple-week modules) and emphasize different skills within the investigative framework, (design, writing, oral communication, literature research, technology use, collaborative skills, etc.), these studies all support the effectiveness and benefits of the investigative model. Doing science is an exciting and challenging activity, and the more deeply we can involve our students actively in it, the more satisfaction we will collectively find in our experiences.

	APPENDIX 1

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 
BI 316 Human Physiology Laboratory Experimental Design Worksheet (adapted and modified from www.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/expdesign.html).

1. What is the general topic/question/problem you want to investigate?
   Form a specific testable hypothesis that will allow you to answer this question. Remember that a good hypothesis makes a specific prediction about the expected outcome(s) of the planned experiment that will allow you to accept or reject your hypothesis.
   
2. In your hypothesis, identify the variable that you will manipulate (independent variable). Identify the variable that you will measure (dependent variable) to test the effect of manipulation of the independent variable above. Indicate units of measurement of both variables.
   
3. What is/are the treatment(s) or different levels/variations/categories of the independent variable that you will test? Be specific with quantitative parameters (for example, you might test the ability of stimulus voltages of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 V to evoke a muscle contraction; this would be five treatments).
   Is your independent variable continuous (for example, a range of values of stimulus voltages or a range of solution concentrations in g/l) or is it discontinuous/categorical (for example, male and female or biceps and triceps muscles)? This is important to understand, as it dictates the type of graph you might use to represent the results.
   What type of graph is generally used to depict results of an experiment with a continuous independent variable? With a discontinuous variable?
   
4. What is/are your control(s) for the variable(s) being tested? This is the standard to which you will compare the results of your treatments to determine whether they are really having an effect. The control condition should be as identical as possible to the treatment conditions, with the exception that the treatment is not given. For example, in testing drug effects of a frog heart, the control might involve adding the same amount of solution in the same solvent at the same temperature, but with a drug concentration of 0.
   Define the terms positive and negative controls. What will each control tell you? Do you have both in your experiment?
   
5. What is one replicate (e.g., measurement, observation, trial) in your experiment? How many replicates in each treatment level and control will there be? How many subjects will be used? Consider how long it takes to get one observation and how much time you have. The total number of data points in the experiment is equal to the (number of subject) times the (number of treatments and controls) times the (number of replicates for each treatment + each control). For example, if we tested 5 subjects times (5 treatment voltages and control) times (3 replicates per treatment), we would have 90 data points.
   
6. How will your data be summarized and/or normalized (i.e., mean of number of replicates for each treatment ± SD, % of control, etc.)? Show relevant calculations and indicate the statistical tests/analysis you’ll perform. For example, how will you know if the mean of a particular treatment level is really different from the control mean? It is prudent to make sure you can analyze the data later using routine statistics to distinguish differences due to random variation from those due to the treatment.
   
7. How will your data be presented? For graphic presentation, draw an example of the type of graph and the variables to be plotted, clearly indicating what the graph should look like if the data support your original hypothesis. For KaleidaGraph/Excel users, consider how the data sheet will be set up to facilitate analysis and graphing of the data.
   
8. Outline the step-by-step procedure you’ll use to obtain a single measurement or observation, and be sure to specify all the quantitative parameters (how much, how long, when, what dose, etc.) and the equipment used for each step. This must be precise and clear enough that anyone can do it with a consistent level of accuracy and complete enough for anyone to replicate your experiment with comparable equipment.
   
9. State any assumptions you are making in doing this experiment and justify them, i.e., explain your rationale for making them. For example, in a human physiology experiment, are you assuming that male and female subjects will react the same to the same treatment? Often, assumptions that are taken for granted and not examined may introduce differences not due to the treatments being studied. How will know if your assumptions are not met?
   
10. List all materials you will need that have not been provided already.
    

	APPENDIX 2

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 
Physiology PI Lab Report Evaluation (Adapted and Modified From www.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/expdesign.html)

	Acknowledgments

 
I thank the students and faculty of the Merrimack College Biology and Allied Health Department for their efforts and support in on-going curriculum revision and reform.

Received for publication February 24, 2004. Accepted for publication April 11, 2004.

	REFERENCES

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES

 

1. Ahern-Rindell AJ. Applying inquiry-based and cooperative group learning strategies to promote critical thinking. J Coll Sci Teach 28: 203–207, 1999.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Project 2061: Science For All Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS, 1989.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda For Action. Washington, DC: AAAS, 1990.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks For Science Literacy: Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS, 1993.
5. Biology Department Bates College. [http://abacus.bates/edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/pi.html], [http://abacus.bates/edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/expdesign.html], [http://abacus.bates/edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/peerreview.html], Lewiston, ME, 2003.
6. Chaplin SB. Guided development of independent inquiry in an anatomy/physiology laboratory. Adv Physiol Educ 27: 230–240, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Chaplin SB, Manske JM, and Cruise JL. Introducing freshman to investigative research—a course for biology majors at Minnesota’s St. Thomas University. J Coll Sci Teach 27: 347–350, 1998.
8. DiPasquale DM, Mason CL, and Kolkhorst FW. Exercise in inquiry. J Coll Sci Teach 32: 388–393, 2003.
9. FitzPatrick KA. Student-Designed Experiments on Human Reflexes. "What Works: Alternatives to Lecture-Based Learning in Math and Science." Project Kaleidoscope/Faculty 21 Workshop, Wheaton College, Norton, MA, June 4, 1998.
10. Foote L, FitzPatrick KA, and Lyon J. Introduction to Biological Investigations: A First Year Experience in Experimental Design and Scientific Communication. 9th National Conference of the Council on Undergraduate Research, Connecticut College, New London, CT, June 19–22, 2002.
11. Foote L and FitzPatrick KA. Introduction to biological investigations: a first year experience in experimental design and scientific communication. J Coll Sci Teach In press.
12. Glasson GE and McKenzie WL. Investigative learning in undergraduate freshman biology laboratories. J Coll Sci Teach 27: 189–193, 1997.
13. Grant BW and Vatnick I. A multi-week inquiry for an undergraduate introductory biology laboratory. J Coll Sci Teach 28: 109–112, 1998.
14. Hufford TL. Increasing academic performances in an introductory biology course. Bioscience 41: 107–108, 1991.
15. Kolkhorst FW, Mason CL, DiPasquale DM, Patterson P, and Buono MH. An inquiry-based learning model for an exercise physiology laboratory course. Adv Physiol Educ 25: 45–50, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. McGraw JB. The total science experience laboratory for sophomore biology majors. J Coll Sci Teach 28: 325–330, 1999.
17. National Research Council. Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation’s Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1990.
18. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1996.
19. National Research Council. Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Math, Engineering and Technology. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press, 1999.
20. National Research Council. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003.
21. National Science Foundation. Shaping the Future. Washington, DC: NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources (NSF 96–139), 1996.
22. Russell CP and French DP. Factors affecting participation in traditional and inquiry-based laboratories. J Coll Sci Teach 31: 225–229, 2001.
23. Salgains. Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains (S.A.L.G.). [http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/salgains].
24. Schamel D and Ayers MP. The minds-on approach: student creativity and personal involvement in the undergraduate science laboratory. J Coll Sci Teach 21: 226–229, 1992.
25. Seymour E, Wiese DJ, Hunter AB, and Daffinrud SM. Creating a better mousetrap: On-line student assessment of their learning gains. Paper presented to the National meetings of the American Chemical Society Symposium, Using Real-World Questions to Promote Active Learning, San Francisco, CA, March 27, 2000.
26. Stukus P and Lennox JE. Use of an investigative semester-length project in an introductory microbiology course. J Coll Sci Teach 25: 135–139, 1995.
27. Sunberg MD, Armstrong JE, Dini ML, and Wischusen WE. Some practical tips for instituting investigative biology laboratories. J Coll Sci Teach 29: 353–359, 2000.
28. Wimmers LE. Practicing real science in the laboratory: a project based approach to teaching molecular biology. J Coll Sci Teach 31: 167–171, 2001.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by FitzPatrick, K. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by FitzPatrick, K. A.