CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Culturally Relevant Inquiry-Based Laboratory Module Implementations in Upper-Division Genetics and Cell Biology Teaching Laboratories

Open access
Siritunga, Dimuth, Montero-Rojas, María, Carrero, Katherine, Toro, Gladys, Vélez, Ana, Carrero-Martínez, Franklin A.·2011·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.11-04-0035PMC PMC3164568
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Today, more minority students are entering undergraduate programs than ever before, but they earn only 6% of all science or engineering PhDs awarded in the United States. Many studies suggest that hands-on research activities enhance students' interest in pursuing a research career. In this paper, we present a model for the implementation of laboratory research in the undergraduate teaching laboratory using a culturally relevant approach to engage students. Laboratory modules were implemented in upper-division genetics and cell biology courses using cassava as the central theme. Students were asked to bring cassava samples from their respective towns, which allowed them to compare their field-collected samples against known lineages from agricultural stations at the end of the implementation. Assessment of content and learning perceptions revealed that our novel approach allowed students to learn while engaged in characterizing Puerto Rican cassava. In two semesters, based on the percentage of students who answered correctly in the premodule assessment for content knowledge, there was an overall improvement of 66% and 55% at the end in the genetics course and 24% and 15% in the cell biology course. Our proposed pedagogical model enhances students' professional competitiveness by providing students with valuable research skills as they work on a problem to which they can relate.

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.11-04-0035

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Representative student-produced agarose gel electrophoresis of DNA extracted from five unknown farm-collected cassava samples (A), the subsequent PCR amplification with SSR-marker “SSR182” (B), and PAGE of 13 unknown cassava samples, each assessed with SSR-markers “SSR4” (left) and “SSR103” (right) (C). In each gel, a molecular weight marker is also shown.
Figure 1. Representative student-produced agarose gel electrophoresis of DNA extracted from five unknown farm-collected cassava samples (A), the subsequent PCR amplification with SSR-marker “SSR182” (B), and PAGE of 13 unknown cassava samples, each assessed with SSR-markers “SSR4” (left) and “SSR103” (right) (C). In each gel, a molecular weight marker is also shown.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Gains in content knowledge. Assessment of knowledge gained by students through pre- and postmodule assessments consisting of seven questions. Percentage correct per question in the premodule (gray bars) and postmodule (black bars) assessments during Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semester in the genetics (A) and cell biology (B) courses. The last horizontal bars show the overall percentages. Percentage increase of the number of students obtaining the correct answer per question as a result of the implementation of the lab module (postmodule data normalized for the premodule data) in the genetics (C) and cell biology (D) courses. GCQ and CCQ refer to “genetics content question” and “cell biology content question,” respectively. The overall scores in the posttests were higher (*p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *** p < 0.1) as determined using an unpaired t test.
Figure 2. Gains in content knowledge. Assessment of knowledge gained by students through pre- and postmodule assessments consisting of seven questions. Percentage correct per question in the premodule (gray bars) and postmodule (black bars) assessments during Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semester in the genetics (A) and cell biology (B) courses. The last horizontal bars show the overall percentages. Percentage increase of the number of students obtaining the correct answer per question as a result of the implementation of the lab module (postmodule data normalized for the premodule data) in the genetics (C) and cell biology (D) courses. GCQ and CCQ refer to “genetics content question” and “cell biology content question,” respectively. The overall scores in the posttests were higher (*p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *** p < 0.1) as determined using an unpaired t test.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Gains in confidence. Assessment of self-confidence postmodule measured using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = very confident, 4 = confident, 3 = somewhat confident, 2 = not confident, and 1 = not at all confident) in genetics (A) and cell biology (B). GPQ and CPQ refer to “genetics perception question” and “cell biology perception question,” respectively. (Continued)
Figure 3. Gains in confidence. Assessment of self-confidence postmodule measured using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = very confident, 4 = confident, 3 = somewhat confident, 2 = not confident, and 1 = not at all confident) in genetics (A) and cell biology (B). GPQ and CPQ refer to “genetics perception question” and “cell biology perception question,” respectively. (Continued)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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Cabral GB, 2001, R Bras Fisiol Veg, 13, 41, 10.1590/S0103-31312001000100005 · DOI
  2. Cox T, 1986, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 83, 5583, 10.1073/pnas.83.15.5583 · DOI
  3. Dellaporta S, 1983, Plant Mol Biol Reporter, 1, 19, 10.1007/BF02712670 · DOI
  4. Fields H, 2010, Sci Educ HHMI Bull, 23, 38
  5. Fregene M, 2003, Theor Appl Genet, 107, 1083, 10.1007/s00122-003-1348-3 · DOI
  6. Goenaga R, 2002, J Agric Univ Puerto Rico, 86, 27, 10.46429/jaupr.v86i1-2.3181 · DOI
  7. Hathaway RS, 2002, J Coll Stud Dev, 43, 614
  8. Hovenkamp-Hermelink JHM, 1988, Potato Res, 31, 241, 10.1007/BF02365532 · DOI
  9. Kizito E, 2005, Euphytica, 146, 45, 10.1007/s10681-005-2959-3 · DOI
  10. Lord T, 2007, J Coll Sci Teach, 36, 62
  11. Mohammadi S, 2003, Crop Sci, 43, 1235, 10.2135/cropsci2003.1235 · DOI
  12. Montero-Rojas M, 2011, AoB Plants
  13. Morgante M, 1993, Plant J, 3, 175, 10.1111/j.1365-313X.1993.tb00020.x · DOI
  14. National Academy of Sciences (2010). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads In: Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  15. National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning In: Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  16. NRC (2003). BIO 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century In: Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  17. Prince M, 2007, J Coll Sci Teach, 36, 14
  18. Russell SH, 2007, Science, 316, 548, 10.1126/science.1140384 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Seymour EL, 2004, Sci Educ, 88, 493, 10.1002/sce.10131 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1187/09-11-0087 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Smith J, 1984, Crop Sci, 24, 1041, 10.2135/cropsci1984.0011183X002400060009x · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Siritunga, D., Montero-Rojas, M., Carrero, K., Toro, G., Vélez, A., & Carrero-Martínez, F. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez (PR)
  • Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, PR 00680
Corresponding author
Siritunga, Dimuth
ORCID
Siritunga, Dimuth
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2011-09
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
287-297
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.11-04-0035
PMC
PMC3164568
OpenAlex
W2117918363
Cited by
29
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Keywords
culturally relevant pedagogy, inquiry-based learning, genetics education, cell biology education, cassava, student engagement, research skills, content knowledge assessment, upper division courses
MeSH terms
Manihot, Culture, Curriculum, Cell Biology, Electrophoresis, Agar Gel, Genetic Markers, Genetics, Laboratories, Learning, Puerto Rico, Starch, Students, Teaching, Plant Roots, DNA, Plant, Microsatellite Repeats, Knowledge, Plant Stomata

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