Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 43Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchTeaching and Learning ProgrammingStatistics Education and Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Power, pitfalls, and potential for integrating computational literacy into undergraduate ecology courses

Open access
Farrell, Kaitlin J., Carey, Cayelan C.·2018·Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Environmental research requires understanding nonlinear ecological dynamics that interact across multiple spatial and temporal scales. The analysis of long‐term and high‐frequency sensor data combined with simulation modeling enables interpretation of complex ecological phenomena, and the computational skills needed to conduct these analyses are increasingly being integrated into graduate student training programs in ecology. Despite its importance, however, computational literacy—that is, the ability to harness the power of computer technologies to accomplish tasks—is rarely taught in undergraduate ecology classrooms, representing a major gap in training students to tackle complex environmental challenges. Through our experience developing undergraduate curricula in long‐term and high‐frequency data analysis and simulation modeling for two environmental science pedagogical initiatives, Project EDDIE (Environmental Data‐Driven Inquiry and Exploration) and Macrosystems EDDIE, we have found that students often feel intimidated by computational tasks, which is compounded by the lack of familiarity with software (e.g., R) and the steep learning curves associated with script‐based analytical tools. The use of prepackaged, flexible modules that introduce programming as a mechanism to explore environmental datasets and teach inquiry‐based ecology, such as those developed for Project EDDIE and Macrosystems EDDIE, can significantly increase students’ experience and comfort levels with advanced computational tools. These types of modules in turn provide great potential for empowering students with the computational literacy needed to ask ecological questions and test hypotheses on their own. As continental‐scale sensor observatory networks rapidly expand the availability of long‐term and high‐frequency data, students with the skills to manipulate, visualize, and interpret such data will be well‐prepared for diverse careers in data science, and will help advance the future of open, reproducible science in ecology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ece3.4363

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Changes in student post‐module self‐assessments of proficiency, confidence, and likely future use of quantitative tools relative to pre‐module responses. Students with the lowest self‐reported proficiency, confidence, and likely future use of a tool prior to completing a module exhibited the largest gains. Responses were on a Likert scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high; Appendix for methodological details). Points represent individual students and are jittered to show relative frequency of responses. Horizontal dashed lines represent no change in self‐assessment; positive values indicate increased proficiency, confidence, or likelihood of future use. Correlation coefficients (Spearman's rho), p‐values, and sample size (n) are shown for each panel. Solid lines show Loess smoothed fits, with 95% confidence intervals shaded in gray
Figure 1 Changes in student post‐module self‐assessments of proficiency, confidence, and likely future use of quantitative tools relative to pre‐module responses. Students with the lowest self‐reported proficiency, confidence, and likely future use of a tool prior to completing a module exhibited the largest gains. Responses were on a Likert scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high; Appendix for methodological details). Points represent individual students and are jittered to show relative frequency of responses. Horizontal dashed lines represent no change in self‐assessment; positive values indicate increased proficiency, confidence, or likelihood of future use. Correlation coefficients (Spearman's rho), p‐values, and sample size (n) are shown for each panel. Solid lines show Loess smoothed fits, with 95% confidence intervals shaded in grayCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 31 · Cited by 43

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 10.1126/science.260.5106.409 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/2003616.2003635 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/nj7638-563a · DOI
  4. Ballen C. J., 2017, Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self‐efficacy drives performance gains with active learning, Cell Biology Education, 16, ar56
  5. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x · DOI
  6. Blum J., 2012, Are we breeding a generation of app‐loving, web‐addicted digital illiterates?
  7. 10.1002/lob.10020 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s10956-016-9644-2 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/lob.10213 · DOI
  10. Elliot A. J., 2017, Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application
  11. 10.1126/science.1230855 · DOI
  12. 10.1890/ES14-00402.1 · DOI
  13. 10.1890/120103 · DOI
  14. 10.1890/130017 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1002/ecs2.1733 · DOI
  16. Lawson B. Szajda D. &Barnett L.(2013).Introducing computer science in an integrated science course. pp.128–135. Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium. Denver CO. · DOI
  17. 10.1080/00131911.2011.628748 · DOI
  18. Mellody M., 2014, Training students to extract value from big data: Summary of a Workshop
  19. 10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.016 · DOI
  20. National Research Council, 2009, A new biology for the 21st century
  21. 10.1093/biosci/bix118 · DOI
  22. 10.1108/10748120110424816 · DOI · Paper page
  23. R Core Team, 2018, R: A language and environment for statistical computing
  24. 10.1002/ecs2.1291 · DOI
  25. 10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1 · DOI
  26. Sherin B., 2011, Inquiry: The School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University
  27. 10.1080/09500690500206408 · DOI
  28. 10.1890/0012-9623-93.4.373 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/s12599-013-0296-y · DOI
  30. 10.1002/lob.201322371 · DOI
  31. 10.1145/2633031 · DOI
  32. 10.1002/bmb.20728 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Farrell, K. J., & Carey, C. C.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Farrell, Kaitlin J.
Venue
Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-30
Volume
8
Issue
16
Pages
7744-7751
ISSN
2045-7758 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2887135138
Cited by
43
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (EF 1702506, DEB 1245707, CNS 1737424, ACI 1234983)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
computational literacy, undergraduate ecology education, long-term ecological data, high-frequency sensor data, computer simulation, student programming skills, reproducible science, environmental data science, curriculum modules

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Power, pitfalls, and potential for integrating computational literacy into undergraduate ecology courses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ece3.4363
The paper
Farrell, K. J., & Carey, C. C. (2018). Power, pitfalls, and potential for integrating computational literacy into undergraduate ecology courses. Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4363