Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned About Implementing
an Inquiry-Based Curriculum in a
College Biology Laboratory Classroom
Inquiry-based instruction is widely
promoted to increase both students’
conceptual understanding and their
engagement in course content. What
this means for day-to-day practices
in the classroom is more elusive.
Instructors adopting inquiry-based
curricula often are unaware of the
typical instructional challenges they
may face. In particular, instructors
new to inquiry-based instruction can
anticipate changes to teacher and
student roles, a shift that may be sup-
ported with instructor training and
awareness of common student reac-
tions. We describe our experience
of developing and implementing an
inquiry-based biology laboratory
curriculum and offer suggestions to
help others successfully implement
their own inquiry-based courses.
By Cara Gormally, Peggy Brickman, Brittan Hallar, and Norris Armstrong
T
his familiar scene—students working in small groups on a hands-
on activity—seems to be an example of a “best teaching practices”
moment. But are students engaged and fully participating in learn-
ing and what is required to complete the hands-on activity? Paying
close attention to group interactions in our college biology laboratories, we
observed two types of group conversations: either unrelated to lab or focused
on clarifying procedural-based concerns. Groups spent little time discussing
the science behind what they were doing. Instead, students raced through
the lab, mindlessly following directions, with one goal in mind: to finish and
leave quickly.
Our observations concerned us because students face both personal and
societal decisions of a scientific nature. Whether evaluating claims of a new
miracle diet or voting for candidates with competing proposals on climate
change, students need to be able to articulate ideas in a scientific manner
to make well-considered choices. Teaching these skills was particularly
important because our introductory biology laboratory class serves ~1,300
students each year, mostly nonscience majors with limited college science
experience (32%–45% indicated that this was their first college science
course). For many, this is their single experience doing science in college,
as most do not intend to pursue further study in science (20% indicated
interest in a science career).
Vol. 40, No. 3, 2011 45
 Developing an inquiry-
based curriculum
A major objective of this course is
to help students understand how
science is carried out by giving
them opportunities to perform sci-
entific research. When scientists
conduct experiments, they test ideas
by collecting and evaluating data
to answer a question. This is very
different from the cookbook-style
activities we were using, which
asked students to follow step-by-
step directions to get predetermined
results. This approach did not meet
our goals, and students rarely had
the opportunity to experience the
challenge and joy involved in mak-
ing their own discoveries.
We chose to shift from a teacher-
centered to a more student-centered
course design to give students chal-
lenging and authentic assignments.
Student-centered approaches have
been recommended by the National
Research Council (NRC; 1996), the
American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science (AAAS; 1993),
the National Science Foundation
(NSF), and the Association for Biol-
ogy Laboratory Education (ABLE).
Student-centered approaches have
increased student engagement and
improved learning gains in terms of
exam scores (Ebert-May, Brewer,
and Allred 1997; Crouch and Mazur
2001; Tien, Roth, and Kampmeier
2002; Burrowes 2003; Knight and
Wood 2005; Smith et al. 2009), and
conceptual understanding (Burrowes
2003; Knight and Wood 2005; Smith
et al. 2009), and students have dem-
onstrated higher levels of interest in
science (Burrowes 2003) compared
with teacher-centered instruction of
similar content. By adopting student-
centered instruction, we hoped to
increase students’ conceptual un-
derstanding, help overcome their
intimidation of science, and cultivate
long-term interest in learning about
scientific issues.
In 2005, we developed a new
curriculum using an inquiry-based
46 Journal of College Science Teaching
approach, the type of instruction that
seemed best suited to support our stu-
dent learning goals. Inquiry instruc-
tion includes a variety of activities
requiring different levels of complex
reasoning used by practicing scien-
tists (Chinn and Malhotra 2002).
Our new labs fall on the inquiry
continuum between two extremes:
from authentic inquiry in which stu-
dents choose the research question,
variables, and protocol and explain
their results in light of other studies
and theories, to the other extreme in
which students are given a question
and protocol and told how to collect
and analyze the data. We describe our
labs as “guided inquiry,” using Chinn
and Malhotra’s (2002) “authentic sci-
entific inquiry scale,” or as process-
oriented guided inquiry learning
(POGIL) as explained in the POGIL
project (www.pogil.org/about).
In guided inquiry labs, the in-
structor poses an initial problem and
uses questioning to guide students in
selecting variables, planning proce-
dures, and identifying potential flaws
(Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko
1999; Buck, Bretz, and Towns 2008).
This method avoids perpetuating a
major misconception: Science only
involves completion of simple tasks
to confirm or reject hypotheses rather
than reasoning about complex meth-
odologies (Germann 1996; Chinn
and Malhotra 2002). Guided inquiry
provides more direction to students
who are unprepared to tackle inquiry
problems without support because
they lack experience and knowledge
or have not reached the level of cog-
nitive development required for ab-
stract thought (Lawson 1980; Purser
and Renner 1983). We anticipated
that guidance provided by question-
ing would help lower student frustra-
tion while maintaining a high level of
intellectual challenge (Igelsrud and
Leonard 1988).
Many universities have adopted
inquiry lab curricula for introductory
courses (Sundberg et al. 2005), but
few have systematically assessed the
efficacy of this curriculum compared
with more traditional lab curricula
(a detailed report on effects of our
inquiry-based curriculum on student
learning appears separately; Brickman
et al. 2009). Further, few researchers
have examined the experiences of
students and teaching assistants
(TAs) working in an inquiry-based
laboratory for an entire semester. To
understand students’ attitudes toward
inquiry, one coauthor conducted two
one-hour, end-of-semester focus
groups with student volunteers solic-
ited from each inquiry lab section (N =
10). Students responded to questions
designed to gauge their beliefs on the
role of students and instructors in the
learning process, as well as questions
about their laboratory experience.
Individual one-hour interviews with
TAs (N = 6) were also conducted; TAs
were questioned about their experi-
ences with inquiry, including teaching
inquiry, TA training, and perceptions
of students’ experiences in the labs.
Instructors shifting to student-
centered teaching frequently encounter
several common issues, in particular, a
change in teacher–student roles asso-
ciated with a shift in responsibility for
learning and negative reactions from
students resistant to change (Cooper
1995; Felder and Brent 1996; Weimer
2002; Keeney-Kennicutt, Gunersei,
and Simpson 2008). We offer sugges-
tions based on our own experiences,
reflecting on what we have learned
from implementing an inquiry-based
curriculum. We hope to offer insights
to educators in the process of adopting
inquiry-based curricula, increasing
awareness of changes to anticipate in
the classroom such as student resis-
tance (Keeney-Kennicutt, Gunersei,
and Simpson 2008), and directing
the focus of future studies of inquiry-
based instruction.
Student reactions to
innovative instructional
practices
One major difference between stu-
dent-centered (e.g., inquiry-based)

TABLE 1
Inquiry laboratory curricula.
Weeks Laboratory topic
1 Scientific process
experiments
2 Scientific process
experiments
Media intro: chimp
learning
3 Stream quality analysis
field trip
Media intro: water
pollution linked to dog
poo
4 Stream quality analysis
5 Enzymes Ia
Media intro: brewing
beer like the Egyptians
6 Enzymes IIa
7 Enzymes IIIa
8 Antibiotic resistance
Media intro: Consumer
Reports article
9 Genetic testingb
Media intro:
Huntington’s
10 Genetic testingb
Media intro: genetic
testing
11 Genetics Ic
12 Genetics IIc
13 Genetics IIIc
a
Armstrong (2007)   Bergland et al. (2006)   cBrickman and Gormally (2006)
b
and teacher-centered classrooms is
the shift in responsibility for learn-
ing (Weimer 2002; Keeney-Kenni-
cutt, Gunersei, and Simpson 2008).
In student-centered instruction, stu-
dents are more responsible for their
learning, with the instructor play-
ing a supportive and evaluative role.
This change is reflected in the in-
Lessons Learned
Description of Laboratory activity Assessment used
Students are introduced to the scientific process and learn skills, Worksheet
including how to graph data.
Students read a scientific report from the popular media and Worksheet
create graphs to represent the data in the article.
Students collect and analyze data to assess stream quality, and Experimental write-up
develop an approach to interpret multiple types of data.
Students present their findings in the context of what this means Oral presentations
for health of the stream, in a format suitable for a general (non-
scientific) audience.
Students design experiments to qualitatively measure starch Prelab homework and
concentrations. experimental designs
Students design experiments to quantitatively measure starch Prelab homework and
concentrations. experimental designs
Students design experiments to measure changes in starch Experimental designs
concentrations in response to an enzyme. and lab report
Students isolate, culture nonpathogenic bacteria from their Experimental write-up
environment and design a protocol to identify antibiotic
resistant strains.
Students use the Case-It program to identify methods to Prelab homework
examine inheritance of genetic traits in a family.
Students present their findings from the previous lab in a format Oral presentations
suitable for a general audience.
Students design and conduct multiweek experiments to Problem sets and
investigate the genotype of a mutant C. elegans. experimental design
Students continue experiments of C. elegans. Problem sets and
experimental design
Students analyze their data and describe their experimental Lab report
findings in the style of popular media reports.
structional materials we created and, the optimum conditions for a brew-
consequently, in students’ roles in the ing enzyme similar to project-based
classroom: few “directions” are pro- science curricula of Schneider et al.
vided in our lab manual for students 2002; see Table 1). Students are sup-
to follow. Instead, students work in ported by basic content knowledge
groups of three to four to investigate gained through prelab readings taken
a given question, usually based on a from popular science media reports
real-life scenario (e.g., assessing the such as a Consumer Reports article
health of a stream or determining on contamination of chicken with
Vol. 40, No. 3, 2011 47
 antibiotic-resistant bacteria (see Ta-
ble 1) and guidance from their TA’s
active questioning.
Students in inquiry-based courses
must modify their perception of their
role in the classroom from passive fol-
lower to active designer. To facilitate
this transformation, we changed our
assessments from beginning-of-lab
quizzes to writing-to-learn tasks that
asked students to document their
thought processes throughout each
learning unit. In addition, instead
of standard lab reports, students
wrote reports in popular news article
styles, to encourage them to describe
their work in their own words. These
“writing-to-learn” methods are ben-
eficial for students, as they are asked
to organize and analyze their thought
processes in a way that encourages
transfer of knowledge (McCrindle
and Christensen 1995).
Students often expressed frus-
tration about the amount of work
involved, as well as the process of
struggling to design and conduct
experiments. From previous science
experiences, they were accustomed to
following detailed directions to reach
predetermined results. Grappling
with failure and confusion, which
are sometimes involved in doing sci-
ence, was at times overwhelming for
them. Encouragingly, reports from
TAs indicated that students’ strong
initial negative reaction to inquiry
instruction generally lessened over
the course of the semester, similar to
previous observations by Sundberg
and Moncada (1994) and Keeney-
Kennicutt, Gunersei, and Simpson
(2008). Although we cannot explicate
the process of students’ attitudinal
change, both TA and student interview
data have suggested that working in
groups supported the recognition and
acclimation to increased responsibil-
ity for learning.
Students repeatedly commented
on their newfound abilities as learn-
ers and increased understanding of
course content. Several students
recognized that although they would
48 Journal of College Science Teaching
prefer the easier traditional laboratory
instruction, they would not have been
challenged to learn as much. This was
similar to the reaction of first-year
chemistry students, 70% of whom
recognized the value of the innova-
tive instruction they experienced, but
with few (26%) enjoying it (Keeney-
Kennicutt, Gunersei, and Simpson
2008). Our students’ reactions may be
explained by findings that the charac-
teristics primarily influencing positive
student attitude toward lab are excite-
ment, time efficiency, and relative
ease of material (Basey, Sackett, and
Robinson 2008). Multiple students
expressed an appreciation for their
own ability to apply what they had
learned to real-life problems, similar
to Keeney-Kennicutt, Gunersei, and
Simpson (2008). One student summa-
rized what this recognition of chang-
ing roles as a learner meant: “You’re
used to being told what to do . . . [I]
had to take the initiative to start ask-
ing questions . . . [n]obody is telling
me what to do.” Inquiry lab students
frequently expressed that they “un-
derstood why” they were doing things
and that they were “figuring out rather
than just being told,” which led to
deeper conceptual understanding of
biological ideas and changed their
views of themselves as learners.
Although mentioning group work
usually elicits groans from students,
group interactions and the level of
discussion in the inquiry classroom
significantly improved. Students
commented that collaborative as-
pects of struggling together were
both rewarding and critical to learn-
ing in the inquiry classroom. One stu-
dent explained: “[W]e know that we
need to understand it and so whoever
understands part A will explain it . . .
[i]t’s a learning from each other kind
of thing.” Another student explained
that group dynamics were “com-
pletely different from any group
work” he or she had done before
because “everyone was so excited
about working together and teaching
somebody else.” The student went
on to explain that this enthusiasm
“really helped everybody to learn
and got everybody included” so that
“moochers” were not a problem in
the inquiry classroom. However,
students also expressed that group
work was at times frustrating because
“you’ve got four or five people there
throwing out ideas that sometimes
aren’t the same and you end up at
a standstill,” a feeling that perhaps
reflects more frustration with the pro-
cess of struggling to understand how
to design and carry out an experiment
than with group interaction.
Other instructors incorporating
similar student-centered instruction
should anticipate that students may
be frustrated as they are given more
responsibility for learning and ac-
complishing a task. To counter this,
we explicitly communicated clear ex-
pectations and explained the purpose
of inquiry-based instruction, setting
expectations for students at the very
beginning of the semester, as students
then felt a greater sense of involve-
ment and awareness of their shifted
role (Sundberg et al. 1992; Anderson
2002; Keeney-Kennicutt, Gunersei,
and Simpson 2008). Further, instruc-
tors must have realistic expectations
of the level of challenge involved. For
students unfamiliar with inquiry, it
may be desirable to begin the course
with simpler activities, introducing
the approach gradually, increasing the
level of difficulty as the semester pro-
gresses. We changed the structure of
our 13-week lab course, creating 2–3
week lab sequences so that students
not only worked on each topic in more
depth, but were also able to design in-
creasingly more complex experiments
within each lab sequence as their
conceptual understanding grew (see
Table 1). Changing to multiweek units
facilitated the need for significantly
more class time for inquiry-based
activities, especially those depen-
dent on collaborative group efforts
(Keeney-Kennicutt, Gunersei, and
Simpson 2008). We believe student
frustration with the process of strug-

gling to “figure out” how to address
a particular scientific question was an
indicator of success—truly engaging
students with course content and of-
fering a more realistic view of what it
means to “do science.” We encourage
instructors to continue to modify their
implementation strategies and cur-
riculum as needed, to work through
student resistance.
Supporting instructors’
implementation of
innovative instructional
practices or too little, causing them to flounder
Just as students are expected to change
their role in an inquiry-based class-
room, the instructor’s role also chang-
es. Instead of simply telling students
what to do, instructors using an inqui-
ry-based approach help students find
their own answers by asking guiding
questions and having the students de-
scribe their ideas both verbally and in
writing. Novice instructors often have
difficulty implementing inquiry in-
struction (Gallagher 1989; Crawford
1999), with successful implementa-
tion of inquiry-based tasks varying
across a teaching population (Luft
2001). Though most of our TAs found
teaching inquiry labs difficult at first,
and several were resistant to changing
their teaching strategies, by the end of
the semester most had been won over
and said they would not want to go
back to the old, scripted versions of
the labs. As one TA commented when
asked if he or she would prefer to
teach an inquiry or traditional lab in
the future:
Definitely inquiry, because the
onus is on [the students] to do
what needs to be done, not me to
tell them, to hold their hand and
do everything. . . . The question
makes them be on top of things.
They know they have to do it for
themselves so they really have
to pay attention.
The most common problem our
TAs experienced was how to help
students with guiding questions. It is
Novice instructors
may be hesitant to
teach using an inquiry-
based format because
of a perceived lack of
control in the classroom
and changes in their
teaching practices.
easy to give too much information,
essentially telling students what to do,
unnecessarily. One TA commented
that “students were used to step-by-
step protocols [and . . .] they would
ask questions to get answers out of
the TA instead of seeking answers
for themselves.” Using guiding ques-
tions is a learned skill that can take a
good deal of practice to master. This
is especially true of beginning TAs,
as many have never been exposed to
inquiry-based teaching methods in
their own classes. Another difficulty
is the apparent “randomness” of an
inquiry-based lab. Compared with
highly scripted cookbook labs, inquiry
labs can seem much more haphazard
as students try to find their own solu-
tions to problems. It is not unusual
for different groups to use varying
approaches and for some to be faster
at planning and doing their work than
others. Adjusting to the apparent lack
of control the instructor has over the
lab can be very disconcerting to an
inexperienced teacher.
Variability in instructor skill can
have a significant effect on student
learning outcomes (Akkus, Gunel,
and Hand 2007). To reduce variabil-
ity, instructors new to inquiry-based
methods need to be supported in their
efforts. This may be through training
workshops, mentoring by experi-
enced instructors, collaborative cur-
ricular development, and opportuni-
ties for self-reflection and assessment
of their teaching (Rushin, De Saix,
and Lumsden 1997; Luft et al. 2004;
Bouwma-Gearhart et al. 2005; Tanner
Lessons Learned
and Allen 2006; Trautmann and
Krasny 2006; Schussler et al. 2008;
Austin et al. 2009). Our TAs were
given two-hour, weekly prepara-
tory meetings as well as a four-hour,
presemester orientation to inquiry
methods that included participation in
an inquiry-based physics exercise—
an exercise with basic but unfamiliar
content—that helped TAs appreci-
ate how students might experience
inquiry activities, observation of
videotapes of inquiry and traditional
classroom exercises, and discussion
of questioning techniques.
Training sessions emphasized the
importance of using questioning to
redirect the thinking and learning
processes back to student groups—
questions addressing high-order
learning and understanding versus
basic procedures. An unplanned but
invaluable aspect of the training was
the informal peer mentoring that
developed between TAs during dis-
cussions about teaching and learning
in the inquiry labs. TAs also attended
a weekly, one-hour semester-long
workshop taught in collaboration
with the campus’s Writing Intensive
Program on how to effectively and
efficiently respond to student writing.
Last, TAs were observed twice dur-
ing the semester by their supervisors
and peer TAs, using a modification
of the Reform Teaching Observation
protocol (Sawada et al. 2002). The
follow-up conversations between TA
and supervisor, as well as between
TAs, provided TAs with opportuni-
ties to discuss and reflect on their
teaching practices. Many TAs were
initially unhappy about the extra time
commitment required for training to
teach inquiry-based labs. However,
most acknowledged that the training
improved their teaching skills, and a
few indicated it also helped their own
speaking and writing skills.
Final thoughts
Inquiry instruction has been widely
incorporated in science classrooms in
recent years and lauded for enhancing
Vol. 40, No. 3, 2011 49
 student learning. Here, we reflected
on our experiences of implementing
an inquiry-based curriculum for an
introductory college biology labora-
tory. The outcomes from our experi-
ence may offer insights to instructors
following in our footsteps and alert
them to anticipated challenges. We
found that adopting an inquiry-based
curriculum required not only a sub-
stantial investment in curriculum de-
velopment but also instructor training
to facilitate the shift in instructional
practices. Further, innovative instruc-
tion such as inquiry-based learning
is often met with resistance from
students as they are challenged to
approach problems at a higher level.
Similarly, though to a lesser extent,
novice instructors may be hesitant to
teach using an inquiry-based format
because of a perceived lack of control
in the classroom and changes in their
teaching practices. We cannot over-
emphasize that developing our cur-
riculum was a long-term process and
that it proved essential to incorporate
student and TA feedback to fine-tune
activities and classroom assessments
that were central to creating a suc-
cessful curriculum.
We caution administrators evalu-
ating the success of innovative
instruction that student evaluations
cannot be the sole indicator of the
quality of instruction. Our inquiry lab
students rated their experience lower
on course evaluations but exhibited
an interesting trend toward a more
honest appraisal of their own abilities
and an increased appreciation of their
accomplishments. A mixed-methods
approach incorporating quantitative
evaluations and qualitative assess-
ments was critical to effectively eval-
uate the success of our curriculum.
Further, findings from our qualitative
assessment proved to be essential
for improving our curriculum and
enhancing student learning. n
References
Akkus, R., M. Gunel, and B. Hand.
2007. Comparing an inquiry-based
50 Journal of College Science Teaching
approach known as the science writ-
ing heuristic to traditional science
teaching practices: Are there differ-
ences? International Journal of Sci-
ence Education 29 (14): 1745–1765.
American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science (AAAS). 1993.
Benchmarks for science literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. 2002. Reforming science
teaching: What research says about
inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher
Education 13 (1): 1–2.
Armstrong, N. 2007. An inquiry-based
enzyme laboratory. Paper presented
at the annual workshop/confer-
ence of the Association for Biology
Laboratory Education (ABLE),
Lexington, KY.
Austin, A.E., R. Campa III, C. Pfund,
D.L. Gillian-Daniel, R. Mathieu,
and J. Stoddart. 2009. Preparing
STEM doctoral students for future
faculty careers. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning Monograph
Series 117: 83–95.
Basey, J., L. Sackett, and R. Robinson.
2008. Optimal science lab design:
Impact of various components of
lab design on students’ attitudes
toward lab. International Journal
for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning 2 (1). Available at http://
academics.georgiasouthern.edu/
ijsotl/v2n1/articles/basey/index.htm.
Bergland, M., M. Lundeberg, K.
Klyczek, J. Sweet, J. Emmons, C.
Martin, K. Marsh, J. Werner, and
M. Jarvis-Uetz. 2006. Exploring
biotechnology using case-based
multimedia. The American Biology
Teacher 68 (2): 81–86.
Bouwma-Gearhart, J., S. Millar, S.
Barger, M. Connolly. 2005. Doctor-
al and postdoctoral STEM teaching-
related professional development:
Effects on training and early career
periods. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Schol-
arship of Teaching and Learning,
London, England.
Brickman, P., and C. Gormally. 2006.
The creature from beneath: An
inquiry genetics exercise for intro-
ductory non-science majors. Paper
presented at the conference for the
Association for Biology Laboratory
Education (ABLE), Purdue Univer-
sity, West Lafayette, IN.
Brickman, P., C. Gormally, N. Arm-
strong, and B. Hallar. 2009. Effects
of inquiry-based learning on
students’ science literacy skills and
confidence. International Journal
for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning 3 (2). Available at http://
academics.georgiasouthern.edu/
ijsotl/v3n2/articles/_BrickmanGor-
mallyHallarArmstrong/index.htm.
Buck, L.B., S.L. Bretz, and M.H.
Towns. 2008. Characterizing the
level of inquiry in the undergradu-
ate laboratory. Journal of College
Science Teaching 38 (1): 52–58.
Burrowes, P.A. 2003. A student-cen-
tered approach to teaching general
biology that really works: Lord’s
constructivist model put to a test.
The American Biology Teacher 65
(7): 491–502.
Chinn, C.A., and B.A. Malhotra 2002.
Epistemologically authentic inquiry
in schools: A theoretical framework
for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science
Education 86 (2): 175–218.
Cooper, M.M. 1995. Cooperative
learning: An approach for large en-
rollment courses. Journal of Chemi-
cal Education 72 (2): 162–164.
Crawford, B.A. 1999. Is it realistic to
expect a preservice teacher to create
an inquiry-based classroom? Jour-
nal of Science Teacher Education
10 (3): 175–194.
Crouch, C.H., and E. Mazur 2001. Peer
instruction: Ten years of experience
and results. American Journal of
Physics 69 (9): 970–977.
Ebert-May, D., C. Brewer, and S.
Allred. 1997. Innovation in large
lectures—teaching for active learn-
ing. Bioscience 47 (9): 601–607.
Felder, R.M., and R. Brent. 1996.
Navigating the bumpy road to
student-centered instruction. Col-
lege Teaching 44 (2): 43–47.
Gallagher, J.J. 1989. Research on
secondary school science teachers’

practices, knowledge and beliefs: A
basis for restructuring. In Looking
into windows: Qualitative research
in science education, eds. M.L.
Matyas, K. Tobin, and B.J. Fraser,
43–57. Washington DC: American
Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Germann, P.J. 1996. Comparing fea-
tures of seven high school biology
laboratory manuals. American Biol-
ogy Teacher 58 (2): 78–84.
Igelsrud, D.E., and W.H.E. Leonard.
1988. Labs: What research says
about biology laboratory instruc-
tion. American Biology Teacher 50
(5): 303–306.
Keeney-Kennicutt, W., A.B. Gunersei,
and N. Simpson. 2008. Overcom-
ing student resistance to a teaching
innovation. International Journal
for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning 2 (1). Available at http://
academics.georgiasouthern.edu/
ijsotl/v2n1/articles/Keeney-Kenni-
cutt_Gunersel_Simpson/index.htm.
Knight, J., and W.B. Wood. 2005.
Teaching more by lecturing less.
Cell Biology Education 4 (4):
298–310.
Lawson, A.E. 1980. Relationships
among level of intellectual develop-
ment, cognitive style, and grades in
a college biology course. Science
Education 64 (1): 95–102.
Luft, J.A. 2001. Changing inquiry
practices and beliefs: The impact of
an inquiry-based professional de-
velopment programme on beginning
and experienced secondary science
teachers. International Journal of
Science Education 23 (5): 517–534.
Luft, J.A., J.P. Kurdziel, G.H. Roeh-
rig, and J. Turner. 2004. Growing
a garden without water: Graduate
teaching assistants in introductory
science laboratories at a doctoral/
research university. Journal of Re-
search in Science Teaching 41 (3):
211–233.
Magnusson, S., J. Krajcik, and H.
Borko. 1999. Nature, sources, and
development of pedagogical content
knowledge for science teaching.
In Examining pedagogical content
knowledge: The construct and its
implications for science education,
eds. J. Gess-Newsome and N.G.
Lederman, 95–132. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
McCrindle, A.R., and C.A. Christensen.
1995. The impact of learning jour-
nals on metacognitive and cognitive
processes and learning performance.
Learning and Instruction 5 (2):
167–185.
National Research Council (NRC).
1996. National science education
standards. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academies Press.
Purser, R.K., and J.W. Renner. 1983.
Results of two tenth-grade biology
teaching procedures. Science Edu-
cation 67 (1): 85–98.
Rushin, J.W., J. De Saix, and A.S.
Lumsden. 1997. Graduate teach-
ing assistant training: A basis for
improvement of college biology
teaching and faculty development?
The American Biology Teacher 59
(2): 86–90.
Sawada, D., M.D. Piburn, E. Judson,
J. Turley, K. Falconer, R. Benford,
and I. Bloom. 2002. Measuring re-
form practices in science and math-
ematics classrooms: The Reformed
Teaching Observation Protocol.
School Science and Mathematics
102 (6): 245–253.
Schneider, R.M., J. Krajcik, R.W. Marx,
and E. Soloway. 2002. Performance
of students in project-based science
classrooms on a national measure
of science achievement. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 39 (5):
410–422.
Schussler, E., L.E. Torres, S. Rybc-
zynski, G.W. Gerald, E. Monroe, P.
Sarkar, D. Shahi, and M.A. Osman.
2008. Transforming the teaching of
science graduate students through
reflection. Journal of College Sci-
ence Teaching 38 (1): 32–36.
Smith, M.K., W.B. Wood, W.K.
Adams, C. Weiman, J.K. Knight,
N. Guild, and T.T. Su. 2009. Why
peer discussion improves student
performance on in-class concept
Lessons Learned
questions. Science 323: 122–124.
Sundberg, M.D., J.E. Armstrong, and
E.W. Wischusen, 2005. Reappraisal
of the status of introductory biology
laboratory education in U.S. colleg-
es and universities. The American
Biology Teacher 67 (9): 525–529.
Sundberg, M.D., E.J. Kormondy, J.L.
Carter, J.A. Moore, S.N. Postleth-
wait, and J.W. Thorton. 1992. Edu-
cation: Reassessing the Commission
on Undergraduate Education in the
Biological Sciences. Bioscience 42
(6): 442–447.
Sundberg, M.D., and G.J. Moncada.
1994. Creating effective investiga-
tive laboratories for undergraduates.
Bioscience 44 (10): 698–704.
Tanner, K., and D. Allen. 2006. Ap-
proaches to biology teaching and
learning: On integrating pedagogical
training into the graduate experi-
ences of future science faculty. CBE-
LIfe Sciences Education 5: 1–6.
Tien, L.T., V. Roth, and J.A. Kamp-
meier. 2002. Implementation of
a peer-led team learning instruc-
tional approach in an undergraduate
organic chemistry course. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 39
(7): 606–632.
Trautmann, N.M., and M.E. Krasny.
2006. Integrating teaching and
research: A new model for gradu-
ate education? Bioscience 56 (2):
159–165.
Weimer, M. 2002. Learner-centered
teaching: Five key changes to prac-
tice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cara Gormally (cara.gormally@biology.
gatech.edu) is a faculty member in the
School of Biology at the Georgia Institute
ofTechnology in Atlanta.Peggy Brickman
is an associate professor in the Plant Bi-
ology Department at the University of
Georgia in Athens. Brittan Hallar is a
postdoctoral fellow in research admin-
istration in the Division of Science and
Research at the West Virginia Higher Edu-
cation Policy Commission in Charleston.
Norris Armstrong is an associate pro-
fessor in the Genetics Department at the
University of Georgia in Athens.
Vol. 40, No. 3, 2011 51
Copyright of Journal of College Science Teaching is the property of National Science Teachers Association and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.