Cited by 69Library Science and Information LiteracyScience Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Information Fluency for Undergraduate Biology Majors: Applications of Inquiry-based Learning in a Developmental Biology Course

Open access
Gehring, Kathleen M., Eastman, Deborah A.·2008·CBE—Life Sciences Education

Abstract

Many initiatives for the improvement of undergraduate science education call for inquiry-based learning that emphasizes investigative projects and reading of the primary literature. These approaches give students an understanding of science as a process and help them integrate content presented in courses. At the same time, general initiatives to promote information fluency are being promoted on many college and university campuses. Information fluency refers to discipline-specific processing of information, and it involves integration of gathered information with specific ideas to form logical conclusions. We have implemented the use of inquiry-based learning to enhance and study discipline-specific information fluency skills in an upper-level undergraduate Developmental Biology course. In this study, an information literacy tutorial and a set of linked assignments using primary literature analysis were integrated with two inquiry-based laboratory research projects. Quantitaitve analysis of student responses suggests that the abilities of students to identify and apply valid sources of information were enhanced. Qualitative assessment revealed a set of patterns by which students gather and apply information. Self-assessment responses indicated that students recognized the impact of the assignments on their abilities to gather and apply information and that they were more confident about these abilities for future biology courses and beyond.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.07-10-0091

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Peer-reviewed primary literature provides evaluated scientific content, and reading the primary literature consequently strengthens student understanding of the scientific process.

    “Peer-reviewed primary literature provides evaluated scientific content, and reading the primary literature consequently strengthens student understanding of the scientific process (5, 8, 16).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 69

Authors
Gehring, K. M., & Eastman, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Connecticut College (US)
  • Department of Biology and
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2008-03
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
54-63
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132686443
Cited by
69
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
16.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
information fluency, information literacy, inquiry-based learning, developmental biology education, information literacy tutorials, student self-assessment, student self-confidence
MeSH terms
Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Developmental Biology, Problem-Based Learning

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