Publications of Julie A Reynolds :chronological combined listing:
%% Books
@book{fds14991,
Author = {J.A. Reynolds},
Title = {How do I write a scientific paper? A college student's
primer on fundamentals and tips for success},
Publisher = {Burgess Publishing, Edina, Minnesota},
Year = {2003},
Key = {fds14991}
}
%% Papers Published
@article{fds159418,
Author = {Julie A. Reynolds},
Title = {When communicating science to the public, use VELCRO to make
science stick},
Journal = {Bulletin of Ecological Society of America},
Volume = {90},
Number = {3},
Pages = {297-304},
Year = {2009},
url = {http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-9623-90.3.297},
Abstract = {Communicating science to the public is a difficult but
essential task, especially given the large number of urgent
environmental issues we are currently facing. Although many
scientists are willing to engage the public in conversations
about topics such as global climate change and the rapid
loss of biodiversity, there is little evidence that their
messages are getting through. Here, I offer suggestions for
how scientists can more effectively engage general audiences
and improve information retention rates. First, I build upon
the Velcro theory of learning, which states that new
knowledge needs some prior knowledge or experience to
“hook” onto in order to stick in our brains. Then, I use
the acronym VELCRO to introduce six strategies that
scientists can use to put this theory into
practice.},
Key = {fds159418}
}
@article{fds165141,
Author = {Julie A. Reynolds and Robin Smith and Cary Moskovitz and Amy
Sayle},
Title = {BioTAP, the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol: A Systematic
Approach to Teaching Scientific Writing and Evaluating
Undergraduate Theses},
Journal = {BioScience},
Volume = {59},
Number = {10},
Pages = {896-903},
Year = {2009},
Keywords = {faculty-mentored undergraduate research, Writing in the
Disciplines program, honors thesis, formative and summative
assessment, learning community},
Abstract = {Undergraduate theses and other capstone research projects
are standard features of many science curricula, but
participation has typically been limited to only the most
advanced and highly motivated students. With the recent push
to engage more undergraduates in research, some faculty are
finding that their typical approach to working with thesis
writers is less effective, given the wider diversity of
students, or is inefficient, given the higher participation
rates. In these situations, a more formal process may be
needed to ensure that all students are adequately supported
and to establish consistency in how student writers are
mentored and assessed. To address this need, we created
BioTAP, the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol, a teaching
and assessment tool. BioTAP includes a rubric that
articulates departmental expectations for the thesis and a
guide to the drafting-feedback-revision process that is
modeled after the structure of professional scientific peer
review. In this article we (a) describe BioTAP’s parts and
the rationale behind them, (b) present the results of a
study of the rubric’s interrater reliability, (c) describe
how the development of BioTAP helped us create a faculty
learning community, and (d) suggest how other departments
and institutions can adapt BioTAP to suit their
needs.},
Key = {fds165141}
}
@article{fds150834,
Author = {Julie A. Reynolds and Cary Moskovitz},
Title = {Calibrated Peer Review™ assignments in science courses:
Are they designed to promote critical thinking and writing
skills?},
Journal = {Journal of College Science Teaching},
Volume = {38},
Number = {2},
Pages = {60-66},
Year = {2008},
Abstract = {Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), an online program that
purportedly helps students develop as writers and critical
thinkers, is being increasingly used by science educators.
CPR is an enticing tool since it does not require
instructors to grade student writing, and instructors can
adopt assignments directly from a library. Given that
library assignments are of unknown quality, we analyzed the
underlying pedagogies of a representative sample. We found
that between 47-67 % of assignments are designed to promote
critical thinking and less than a third promote the
development of higher-order writing skills. While we support
the CPR concept, we recommend that the current library be
used with caution, a CPR users manual be written (with
detailed instructions for creating high-quality writing
assignments), and, in the future, that the CPR library be
limited to peer-reviewed assignments.},
Key = {fds150834}
}
@article{fds148725,
Author = {Julie A. Reynolds and Vicki Russell},
Title = {Can You Hear Us Now?: A comparison of peer review quality
when students give audio versus written feedback},
Journal = {Writing Across the Curriculum Journal},
Volume = {19},
Pages = {29-44},
Year = {2008},
url = {http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol19/reynolds_russell.pdf},
Abstract = {Most instructors teaching writing courses seek ways to
improve student writing and facilitate more active student
engagement in the revision process. One way to do this is
through teaching students to provide high quality peer
reviews. In this study, we followed first-year composition
students for one semester and assessed the quality of their
peer reviews when they gave audio versus written feedback to
their classmates. Audio feedback was digitally-recorded
using iPods or similar technology. In general, we found that
the quality of audio reviews was higher than written
reviews. Students, however, preferred giving and receiving
written feedback. Our results suggest that instructors
should adopt audio peer review when possible, but may need
to help students recognize its value.},
Key = {fds148725}
}
@article{fds70942,
Author = {Julie Reynolds and Steve Vogel},
Title = {Precisely! A writing exercise for science and engineering
classes},
Journal = {Journal of College Science Teaching},
Volume = {34},
Number = {5},
Pages = {30-34},
Year = {2007},
url = {http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1261402001&sid=1&Fmt=6&clientId=15020&RQT=309&VName=PQD},
Abstract = {While the formats and conventions of scientific and
technical writing vary from field to field, the transcendent
requirement is precision, so that the work can be understood
and, if necessary, reproduced. Science teachers undoubtedly
tell students about the importance of precision in
collecting data and analyzing results; what is less commonly
emphasized is the need for precision in writing. This
exercise, developed for science and engineering courses that
have a significant writing component, teaches students the
importance of linguistic precision.},
Key = {fds70942}
}
@article{fds14989,
Author = {Julie A. Reynolds},
Title = {Quantifying habitat associations in marine fisheries: a
generalization of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic using
commercial logbook records linked to archived environmental
data},
Journal = {Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences},
Volume = {60},
Pages = {370-378},
Year = {2003},
Abstract = {Understanding species–habitat associations is critical for
designing marine reserves, defining essential fish habitat,
and predicting the impacts of climate change on fisheries.
For many species, however, there is a paucity of
fisheries-independent data that simultaneously track
abundance and environmental variables, as is the case for
widow rockfish (Sebastes entomelas), a commercially
important fishery off the west coast of the United States.
In this paper, I generalize a previous approach to
identifying habitat associations so that fisheries-dependent
data can be used. In analyzing Oregon commercial logbook
records and archived environmental data from the National
Oceanographic Data Center, I found three environmental
variables (bottom depth, vertical depth of fish in the water
column, and temperature) to be statistically adequate. Using
a generalized Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistic, I
compared an empirically derived cumulative distribution
function (CDF) of the habitat sampled to a CDF weighted by
widow rockfish catch. Results suggest that the significant
habitat association for widow rockfish includes bottom
depths between 136 and 298 m, vertical depths between 101
and 197 m, and temperatures between 7.1 and 8.1°C. This
novel use of commercial logbook data, which links disparate
data sources and explicitly accounts for unequal spatial
sampling, is a methodological advance that also provides
initial insights into widow rockfish habitat
preferences.},
Key = {fds14989}
}
@article{fds14990,
Author = {Julie A. Reynolds and James E. Wilen},
Title = {The sea urchin fishery: Harvesting, processing, and the
market},
Journal = {Marine Resource Economics},
Volume = {15},
Number = {2},
Pages = {115-126},
Year = {2003},
Abstract = {This paper examines the North American sea urchin fishery,
with a particular focus on the Japanese wholesale market.
After a brief history and discussion of biology, methods of
harvesting are discussed, followed by an overview of
processing, handling, and transportation links. An
econometric model of price determination in the Tokyo
Central Wholesale Market is developed and estimated. The
model reveals important mechanisms governing prices of
imported product; in particular, the interconnections
between the domestic and imported markets, the role of
household income variation, and the importance of quality,
which varies within the season but out of phase in each of
the two major supply regions.},
Key = {fds14990}
}
%% Papers Accepted
@article{fds159067,
Author = {Julie A. Reynolds and Jennifer Ahern-Dodson},
Title = {Promoting science literacy through Research
Service-Learning, an emerging pedagogy with significant
benefits for students, faculty, universities, and
communities},
Journal = {Journal of College Science Teaching},
Year = {2009},
Abstract = {Research service-learning (RSL) is an emerging pedagogy in
which students engage in research within a service-learning
context. This approach has great potential to promote
science literacy because it teaches students how to use
scientific knowledge and scientific ways of thinking in the
service of society, and gives students a greater
appreciation of the strengths and limitations of the
scientific method. We used RSL to promote science literacy
in an introductory course for non-majors, Conservation
Biology of the Eno River. In this paper, we describe RSL,
explain how we used it to design this course, and describe
some lessons learned from the experience. We also describe
the benefits of this approach for students, faculty, the
community, and universities. Our hope is to provide science
educators with another useful strategy for promoting science
literacy.},
Key = {fds159067}
}
%% Papers Submitted
@article{fds159069,
Author = {Julie Reynolds and Amanda Curtin and Ahrash Bissell and Paula
Lemons},
Title = {Improving critical thinking skills through quality practice
and metacognition: A classroom exercise that helps students
construct meaning from content},
Year = {2009},
Abstract = {Developing critical thinking skills (such as application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) is recognized as a
major teaching goal, but is often not taught explicitly in
science courses. Many instructors assume that students will
pick up these skills along the way, but research indicates
that this is frequently not the case. Courses that emphasize
content knowledge also perpetuate the myth that science is a
collection of facts rather than a way of thinking. In
contrast, when instructors teach critical thinking skills
explicitly and simultaneously with content, students learn
to construct meaning from facts. Even when instructors are
committed to teaching critical thinking skills, however,
effective assignments and efficient assessment tools are
rare. In this paper, we present an exercise that teaches
students how to use both content knowledge and critical
thinking skills to answer scientific questions. We also
present the results of a study in which we assessed the
effectiveness of the exercise at promoting the development
of critical thinking skills, and suggest ways in which this
exercise can be adapted to other courses and
disciplines.},
Key = {fds159069}
}
Duke Biology Box 90338 Durham, NC 27708 Phone: 919-660-7372 Fax: 919-660-7293