CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 287Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsEducational Methods and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teaching the Process of Science: Faculty Perceptions and an Effective Methodology

Open access
Coil, David, Wenderoth, Mary Pat, Cunningham, Matthew, Dirks, Clarissa·2010·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005PMC PMC2995770
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Most scientific endeavors require science process skills such as data interpretation, problem solving, experimental design, scientific writing, oral communication, collaborative work, and critical analysis of primary literature. These are the fundamental skills upon which the conceptual framework of scientific expertise is built. Unfortunately, most college science departments lack a formalized curriculum for teaching undergraduates science process skills. However, evidence strongly suggests that explicitly teaching undergraduates skills early in their education may enhance their understanding of science content. Our research reveals that faculty overwhelming support teaching undergraduates science process skills but typically do not spend enough time teaching skills due to the perceived need to cover content. To encourage faculty to address this issue, we provide our pedagogical philosophies, methods, and materials for teaching science process skills to freshman pursuing life science majors. We build upon previous work, showing student learning gains in both reading primary literature and scientific writing, and share student perspectives about a course where teaching the process of science, not content, was the focus. We recommend a wider implementation of courses that teach undergraduates science process skills early in their studies with the goals of improving student success and retention in the sciences and enhancing general science literacy.

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 · 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. The three skills selected by faculty (N = 156) as the most important for students to acquire in an undergraduate education as determined by comparing all averages. The percent faculty at different institutions is reported for each skill.
Figure 1. The three skills selected by faculty (N = 156) as the most important for students to acquire in an undergraduate education as determined by comparing all averages. The percent faculty at different institutions is reported for each skill.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 2. The three skills selected by faculty (N = 156) as the least important for students to acquire in an undergraduate education as determined by comparing all averages. Percent faculty at (A) R-1, non-R1, and liberal arts institutions and (B) community college is reported for each skill.
Figure 2. The three skills selected by faculty (N = 156) as the least important for students to acquire in an undergraduate education as determined by comparing all averages. Percent faculty at (A) R-1, non-R1, and liberal arts institutions and (B) community college is reported for each skill.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Faculty offered other skills (N = 74) that students should have by the time they graduate. These skills generally fell into one of eight categories and are reported as percent of the total.
Figure 3. Faculty offered other skills (N = 74) that students should have by the time they graduate. These skills generally fell into one of eight categories and are reported as percent of the total.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Percent faculty (N = 156) at different institutions who felt that the amount of time they spent teaching science process skills was NOT sufficient.
Figure 4. Percent faculty (N = 156) at different institutions who felt that the amount of time they spent teaching science process skills was NOT sufficient.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Percent time (mean ± SEM) faculty (N = 156) at different institutions reported teaching skills as opposed to content. Values not sharing the same letter are significantly different from each other as determined by a one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test.
Figure 5. Percent time (mean ± SEM) faculty (N = 156) at different institutions reported teaching skills as opposed to content. Values not sharing the same letter are significantly different from each other as determined by a one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 6. Percent faculty (N = 100) selecting reasons that prevent them from spending more time teaching science skills. Numbers sum to greater than 100% due to respondents choosing more than one response.
Figure 6. Percent faculty (N = 100) selecting reasons that prevent them from spending more time teaching science skills. Numbers sum to greater than 100% due to respondents choosing more than one response.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 7. A schematic representing the kinds and timing of class instruction and practice between assignments.
Figure 7. A schematic representing the kinds and timing of class instruction and practice between assignments.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 8. Percent of total points (mean ± SEM) received during either a pretest or a posttest on scientific writing (graded with the SWR; N = 44) or SLT (N = 42) for 2006 BFP students. Statistically significant differences by paired t-test are indicated in the figure.
Figure 8. Percent of total points (mean ± SEM) received during either a pretest or a posttest on scientific writing (graded with the SWR; N = 44) or SLT (N = 42) for 2006 BFP students. Statistically significant differences by paired t-test are indicated in the figure.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 9. Students' understanding scores (mean ± SEM) for each of the topics (7–8 per module) were averaged to give the student one understanding score at each of the four time points for that module. Individual students completed between one and four modules. If students completed more than one module, their understanding scores were averaged across modules. Thus, each student (N = 39) received a composite score at each time point. Statistically significant differences by paired t-test are indicated in the figure.
Figure 9. Students' understanding scores (mean ± SEM) for each of the topics (7–8 per module) were averaged to give the student one understanding score at each of the four time points for that module. Individual students completed between one and four modules. If students completed more than one module, their understanding scores were averaged across modules. Thus, each student (N = 39) received a composite score at each time point. Statistically significant differences by paired t-test are indicated in the figure.CC BY-NC-SA · 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

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?

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

Cites

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Alberts B., 2009, Issues Sci. Tech., 77
  2. American Association of Medical Colleges and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2009, Scientific Foundations for Future physicians
  3. Brickman P., 2009, Internat. J. Schol. Teach. Learn., 3, 1
  4. Carnegie Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education, 2009, The Opportunity Equation
  5. Cota-Robles E. H., 1999, Reaching the Top: A Report of the National Task Force on Minority High Achievement
  6. Duckworth E., 1990, Science Education: A Minds-On Apporach for the Elementary Years
  7. Fortner R. W., 1999, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 281, 261
  8. Gandara P., 1999, Priming the Pump: Strategies for Increasing Under-Represented Minority Graduates
  9. Handelsman J., 2007, Scientific Teaching
  10. Henderson L., 2000, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 30, 109
  11. Hermann C., 1999, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 29, 252
  12. Janick-Buckner D., 1997, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 27, 29
  13. Leonard W. H., 2000, Coll. Sci. Teach., 29, 385
  14. Muench S. B., 2000, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 29, 255
  15. National Research Council (NRC), 2005, How Student Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom
  16. Preszler R. W., 2006, Bioscene, 32, 21
  17. Shepard L. A., 2005, Educ. Leadership., 63, 66
  18. Sirum K. L., 2009, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 38, 38
  19. Wright R., 2005, Educ., 4, 189

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 287

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Dirks, Clarissa
ORCID
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2010-12
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
524-535
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005
PMC
PMC2995770
OpenAlex
W2115994980
Cited by
282
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 11
FWCI
49.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (52003841)
  • University of Washington
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
Keywords
scientific method, science process skills, undergraduate science education, teacher perceptions, scientific writing, experimental design, data interpretation, problem solving, scientific literacy, teaching methods
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Faculty, Science, Students, Teaching, Universities

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