Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Which course resources and student approaches to learning are related to higher grades in introductory biology?

Sarah Adkins 1 2 * ,
Kynadi Brasfield 2,
Tam Tran 2,
J. Jeffrey Morris 2,
Samiksha Raut 2 *
1 Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine2 University of Alabama at Birmingham* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 6, Issue 3, September 2023, pp. 175-196
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 735 DOWNLOADS: 501 Publication date: 15 Sep 2023
ABSTRACT
Undergraduate students in large enrollment gateway courses like introductory biology are often inundated with different study resources to enhance their success on course exams. A good performance on these exams as measured by course grades is a strong determinant of their downstream success in the biology major and ultimately retention in STEM fields. Previous studies have suggested best-practices like pre-class reading guides or Supplemental Instruction. However, many of these studies do not also corroborate student course outcomes with Student Approaches to Learning (SAL). We investigated the association between specific resources and how they correlated with higher exam grades. We further investigated the degree to which SAL also correlated with student outcomes. We collected data over a span of two years from a large introductory biology course (N= 307) from a southeastern university by using a post-semester resource questionnaire. This questionnaire asked the students to describe the study resources they had utilized during the course of the semester and further assessed SAL via the Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). Our results indicate that students who earned a higher overall grade in the course were significantly more likely to self-report higher attendance in optional peer-led Supplemental Instruction meetings and, unexpectedly, were less likely to use pre-class reading guides. These students were more likely to report finding course material interesting, whereas students with lower overall final grades were more likely to report trying to memorize course material. However, we also found that students with higher course grades and high previous college GPAs also reported using rote memorization. Given that the efficacy of resources can vary based on the student, we not only encourage the promotion of resources supported by empirical evidence, but also encourage a deeper understanding of the SAL which shapes resource use.
KEYWORDS
Introductory Biology, Undergraduate, Course resources, Performance, Student Approaches to Learning, Revised Study Process Questionnaire
CITATION (APA)
Adkins, S., Brasfield, K., Tran, T., Morris, J. J., & Raut, S. (2023). Which course resources and student approaches to learning are related to higher grades in introductory biology?. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(3), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.633
REFERENCES
  1. AAAS (2010). Vision and Change: A Call to Action. Washington, DC AAAS www.visionandchange.org/VC_report.pdf.
  2. Adkins-Jablonsky, S. J., Arnold, E., Rock, R., Gray, R., & Morris, J. J. (2021). Agar art: a CURE for the microbiology laboratory. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(2), e00121-21.
  3. Alzen, J. L., Langdon, L., & Otero, V. (2017). The Learning Assistant model and DFW rates in introductory physics courses. In Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 36-39).
  4. Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active Learning and Student-centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213. doi:10.1187/cbe.09-03-002.
  5. Bana, K., & Fatima, K. (2019). Comparing the learning approaches using biggs revised study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) among dental undergraduates. JPDA, 28(02), 69.
  6. Bell, J. (2018). Analysis of DFW Rates for the Fall 2013-Spring 2017 CSU Chico Classes. https://www.csuchico.edu/ir/_assets/documents/by-the-numbers/bell-analysis-of-dfw-rates-in-classes.pdf
  7. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two‐factor study process questionnaire: R‐SPQ‐2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.
  8. Brownell, S. E., Hekmat-Scafe, D. S., Singla, V., Seawell, P. C., Imam, J. F. C., Eddy, S. L., Stearns, T., Cyert, M. S. (2015). A High-Enrollment Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience Improves Student Conceptions of Scientific Thinking and Ability to Interpret Data. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar21. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-05-0092
  9. Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on psychological science, 3(6), 425-453.
  10. Creech, L. R., & Sweeder, R. D. (2012). Analysis of student performance in large-enrollment life science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 386-391.
  11. Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 609-639.
  12. De Grave, W. S., Dolmans, D. H., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. (2002). Student perspectives on critical incidents in the tutorial group. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 7, 201-209.
  13. Elliott, T. R., Godshall, F., Shrout, J. R., & Witty, T. E. (1990). Problem-solving appraisal, self-reported study habits, and performance of academically at-risk college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(2), 203-207. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/10.1037/0022-0167.37.2.203
  14. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings Of The National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
  15. Fisher, M. R., Vemu, S., Oh, Y., & Cole, D. (2020). Identifying Differences in Learning Strategies by Demographics and Course Grade in a Community College Context. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-septemberoctober-2020/identifying
  16. Hassanbeigi, A., Askari, J., Nakhjavani, M., Shirkhoda, S., Barzegar, K., Mozayyan, M. R., & Fallahzadeh, H. (2011). The relationship between study skills and academic performance of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1416-1424.
  17. Hora, M. T., & Oleson, A. K. (2017). Examining study habits in undergraduate STEM courses from a situative perspective. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 1-19.
  18. Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., Conde-Núñez, M. C., & Gallego-Picó, A. (2019). Examination of Students' Engagement with R-SPQ-2F of Learning Approach in Flipped Sustainable Science Course. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(6), 880-891.
  19. Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Hattie, J. (2017). Surface, deep, and transfer? Considering the role of content literacy instructional strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5), 567-575.
  20. Genc, Z., & Tinmaz, H. (2013). Understanding the Learners’ Study Process: A Vital Step Toward Better Learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 1049-1053.
  21. Goertzen, R. M., Brewe, E., Kramer, L. H., Wells, L., & Jones, D. (2011). Moving toward change: Institutionalizing reform through implementation of the Learning Assistant model and Open Source Tutorials. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 7(2), 020105.
  22. Gurung, R. A., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. (2010). Focusing on how students study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 28-35.
  23. Johnson, S. N. (2019). Cognitive Processes in Undergraduate Anatomy and Physiology Courses.
  24. (Publication No. 2495) [Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University] All Dissertations.
  25. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/249
  26. Johnson, S. N., Gallagher, E. D., & Vagnozzi, A. M. (2021). Validity concerns with the Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in undergraduate anatomy & physiology students. PloS One, 16(4), e0250600.
  27. LaForce, M., Noble, E., & Blackwell, C. (2017). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of motivation and ability beliefs. Education Sciences, 7(4), 92.
  28. Lieu, R., Wong, A., Asefirad, A., & Shaffer, J. F. (2017). Improving exam performance in introductory biology through the use of preclass reading guides. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), ar46.
  29. Milkova, L., Crossman, C., Wiles, S., & Allen, T. (2013). Engagement and skill development in biology students through analysis of art. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 687-700.
  30. Ogden, P., Thompson, D., Russell, A., & Simons, C. (2003). Supplemental instruction: Short-and long-term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 2.
  31. Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78(11), 1218-1224.
  32. Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. 2015. Drawing-to-learn: a framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es2.
  33. RStudio Team. (2016). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/.
  34. Rath, K. A., Peterfreund, A. R., Xenos, S. P., Bayliss, F., & Carnal, N. (2007). Supplemental Instruction in Introductory Biology I: Enhancing the Performance and Retention of Underrepresented Minority Students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(3), 203-216. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-10-0198
  35. Rayner, G. (2008). Using ‘mastering biology’ to formatively improve student engagement and learning in first year biology. Sch Biolog Sci, Monash Univ.
  36. Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Jackson, R. B. (2014). Campbell biology (No. s 1309). Boston: Pearson.
  37. Romine, W., Sadler, T. D., Presley, M., & Klosterman, M. L. (2014). Student Interest in Technology and Science (SITS) survey: development, validation, and use of a new instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 261-283.
  38. Sebesta, A. J., & Bray Speth, E. (2017). How should I study for the exam? Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar30.
  39. Socha, A., & Sigler, E. A. (2014). Exploring and “reconciling” the factor structure for the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 43-50.
  40. Talbot, R. M., Hartley, L. M., Marzetta, K., & Wee, B. S. (2015). Transforming undergraduate science education with learning assistants: Student satisfaction in large-enrollment courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 24-30.
  41. Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331.
  42. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D.L., Cooper, J.D., Dunster, G. Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476-6483.
  43. Tomanek, D., & Montplaisir, L. (2004). Students' Studying and Approaches to Learning in Introductory Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 3(4), 253-262. doi:10.1187/cbe.04-06-0041
  44. Ueckert, C., Adams, A., & Lock, J. (2011). Redesigning a large-enrollment introductory biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 164-174.
  45. VanMeter-Adams, A., Frankenfeld, C. L., Bases, J., Espina, V., & Liotta, L. A. (2014). Students who demonstrate strong talent and interest in STEM are initially attracted to STEM through extracurricular experiences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 687-697.
  46. Verkade, H., & Lim, S. H. (2016). Undergraduate science students' attitudes toward and approaches to scientific reading and writing. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 83.
  47. Walck-Shannon, E. M., Rowell, S. F., & Frey, R. F. (2021). To what extent do study habits relate to performance?. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), ar6.
  48. Yuan, X. (2022). Evidence of the Spacing Effect and Influences on Perceptions of Learning and Science Curricula. Cureus, 14(1).
  49. Ye, L., Shuniak, C., Oueini, R., Robert, J., & Lewis, S. (2016). Can they succeed? Exploring at-risk students' study habits in college general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 878-892.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.