Online interactive teaching modules enhance quantitative proficiency of introductory biology students

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 277-283

  Thompson, Katerina V ^a   Nelson, Kären C ^b   Marbach Ad, Gili ^a   Keller, Michael ^a   Fagan, William F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b University of Maryland   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; METHODOLOGY; STUDENT; TEACHING;

BIOLOGY; CURRICULUM; DATA COLLECTION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; INTERNET; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EID: 77958547551     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0028     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., and Kulik, C. C. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. J. Comp.-Based Instr. 12, 59-68.
3. Betz, N.E. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students. J. Couns. Psychol. 25, 441-448.
4. Clark, R. C., and Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Wiley.
5. Cohen, J. E. (2004). Mathematics is biology's next microscope, only better; biology is mathematics' next physics, only better. PLoS Biol. 2, e439.
6. Cotton, K. (1991). Computer-Assisted Instruction. School Improvement Research Series Close-Up 10, North West Regional Educational Laboratory.
7. d'Ailly, H. H., Simpson, J., and MacKinnon, G. E. (1997). Where should "you" go in a math compare problem? J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 562-567.
8. Edwards, J., Norton, S., Taylor, S, Weiss, M., and Dusseldorp, R. (1975). How effective is CAI? A review of the research. Educ. Leadersh. 33, 147-153.
9. Ewing, J. (2002). The next big thing in mathematics. Chron. High. Educ. Sept. 20.
10. Garson, D. (2007). Validity. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/validity.htm (accessed 14 March 2010).
11. Gross, L. (1994). Quantitative training for life-science students. Bioscience 44, 59.
12. Gross, L. (2000). Education for a biocomplex future. Science 28, 807.
13. Gross, L. J. (2004). Points of view: the interface of mathematics and biology: interdisciplinarity and the undergraduate biology curriculum: finding a balance. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 85-87.
14. Hannafin, R. D., and Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 88, 162-173.
15. Hastings, A., and Palmer, M. A. (2003). Mathematics and biology: a bright future for biologists and mathematicians? Science 299, 5615.
16. Hoy, R. (2004). Points of view: the interface of mathematics and biology: new math for biology is the old new math. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 90-92.
17. Jungck, J.R. (2005). Challenges, connection, complexities: educating for collaboration. In: Math & Bio 2010: Linking Undergraduate Disciplines, ed. L.A. Steen, Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America, 1-12.
18. Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., and Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 10-16.
19. Matthews, K. E., Abrams, P., and Goos, M. (2009). Putting it into perspective: mathematics in the undergraduate science curriculum. Int. J. Math. Ed. Sci. Tech. 40, 891-902.
20. Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice 41, 226-232.
21. Mayer, R.E. (2008). Learning and Instruction. 2nd ed. Person Merrill Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
22. Moreno, R., and Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: the case for personalized multimedia messages. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 724-733.
23. National Research Council (NRC) (2003). BIO2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. NRC (2009). A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25. Nelson, K. C., Marbach-Ad, G., Fagan, W. E., Thompson, K., and Shields, P. (2009). Math Bench biology modules: using interactive web-based modules to infuse mathematics into the undergraduate biology curriculum. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 38, 34-39.
26. Parker, L. E., and Lepper, M. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy context on children's learning and motivation: making learning more fun. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62, 625-633.
27. Project Kaleidoscope (2006). Report on Reports II: Recommendations for Urgent Action; Transforming America's Scientific and Technological Infrastructure. www.pkal.org/documents/ReportOnReportsII.cfm (accessed 22 July 2010).
28. Ragosta, M., Holland, P.W., and Jamison, D.T. (1982). Computer-Assisted Instruction and Compensatory Education: The ETS/LAUSD study. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
29. Robertson, E. B., Ladewig, B. H., Strickland, M. P., and Boschung, M. D. (1987). Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted instruction. J. Educ. Res. 80, 314-316.
30. Roblyer, M. D., Castine, W.H., and King, F. J. (1988). Assessing the Impact of Computer-based Instruction: A Review of Recent Research. New York: Haworth Press.
31. Ross, S. M. (1983). Increasing the meaningfulness of quantitative material by adapting context to student background. J. Educ. Psychol. 75, 519-529.
32. Steen, L.A. (2005). The "gift" of mathematics in the era of biology. In: Math & Bio 2010: Linking Undergraduate Disciplines, ed. L.A. Steen, Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.
33. Weglinsky, H. (1998). Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
34. Yuan, R. (2005). A quantitative approach to the biology curriculum: issues to consider. In: Math & Bio 2010: Linking Undergraduate Disciplines, ed. L.A. Steen, Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America, 27-33.