Publications of Julie Reynolds :chronological by type listing:
%%
@article{fds285215,
Author = {Dowd, JE and Roy, CP and Thompson, RJ and Reynolds,
JA},
Title = {"on course" for supporting expanded participation and
improving scientific reasoning in undergraduate thesis
writing},
Journal = {Journal of Chemical Education},
Volume = {92},
Number = {1},
Pages = {39-45},
Publisher = {American Chemical Society (ACS)},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0021-9584},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500298r},
Abstract = {The Department of Chemistry at Duke University has
endeavored to expand participation in undergraduate honors
thesis research while maintaining the quality of the
learning experience. Accomplishing this goal has been
constrained by limited departmental resources (including
faculty time) and increased diversity in students'
preparation to engage in the research and writing processes.
Here we assessed the relationship between iterative changes
in pedagogical and mentoring support of honors research that
efficiently employed departmental resources (including the
chemistry thesis assessment protocol, ChemTAP) and students'
scientific reasoning and writing skills reflected in their
undergraduate theses. We found that, although we cannot
disentangle some gradual changes over time from specific
interventions, students exhibited the strongest performance
when they participated in a course with structured
scaffolding and used assessment tools explicitly designed to
enhance the scientific reasoning in writing. Furthermore,
less prepared students exhibited more positive
changes.},
Doi = {10.1021/ed500298r},
Key = {fds285215}
}
@article{fds285224,
Author = {Beck, C and Klemow, K and Paulson, J and Bernstein, A and Lam, M and Middendorf, G and Reynolds, J and Belanger, K and Cardelus, C and Cid,
C and Doshi, S and Gerardo, N and Jablonski, L and Kimmel, H and Lowman, M and Macrae-Crerar, A and Pohlad, B and de Roode, J and Thomas,
C},
Title = {Add ecology to the pre-medical curriculum.},
Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
Volume = {335},
Number = {6074},
Pages = {1301},
Year = {2012},
Month = {March},
ISSN = {0036-8075},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.335.6074.1301-a},
Doi = {10.1126/science.335.6074.1301-a},
Key = {fds285224}
}
@article{fds371105,
Author = {Marion, SB and Reynolds, JA and Schmid, L and Carter, BE and Willis, JH and Mauger, L and Thompson, RJ},
Title = {Beyond Content, Understanding What Makes Test Questions Most
Challenging},
Journal = {BioScience},
Volume = {73},
Number = {3},
Pages = {229-235},
Year = {2023},
Month = {March},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad007},
Abstract = {When students answer test questions incorrectly, we often
assume they don’t understand the content; instead, they
may struggle with certain cognitive skills or with how
questions are asked. Our goal was to look beyond content to
understand what makes assessment questions most challenging.
On the basis of more than 76,000 answers to multiple-choice
questions in a large, introductory biology course, we
examined three question components—cognitive skills,
procedural knowledge, and question forms—and their
interactions. We found that the most challenging questions
require the students to organize information and make
meaning from it—skills that are essential in science. For
example, some of the most challenging questions are
presented as unstructured word problems and require
interpretation; to answer correctly, the students must
identify and extract the important information and construct
their understanding from it. Our results highlight the
importance of teaching students to organize and make meaning
from the content we teach.},
Doi = {10.1093/biosci/biad007},
Key = {fds371105}
}
@article{fds348773,
Author = {Ahern-Dodson, J and Clark, CR and Mourad, T and Reynolds,
JA},
Title = {Beyond the numbers: understanding how a diversity mentoring
program welcomes students into a scientific
community},
Journal = {Ecosphere},
Volume = {11},
Number = {2},
Year = {2020},
Month = {February},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3025},
Abstract = {Programs designed to broaden participation in science are
often deemed “successful” based on quantitative evidence
such as student participation rates, retention, and
persistence. These numbers alone only explain that a program
met its goals; they seldom critically explain how,
specifically, the program achieved its success. To address
this gap, we studied students’ perspectives about and
experiences with the Ecological Society of America's
award-winning education and diversity mentoring program,
Strategies for Ecology Education, Diversity and
Sustainability (SEEDS). The persistence rate in ecology by
SEEDS participants is three times greater than the national
average, but the numbers alone do not explain the program's
impact. We explored the reasons why this program has been so
successful by gathering qualitative data as direct evidence
explaining how SEEDS influenced participants’ decisions to
study science and pursue science careers, and the resulting
integration into a scientific community. We coded open-ended
survey responses from SEEDS alumni against a social
influence theoretical framework that proposes three dominant
processes that predict students’ integration into a
scientific community: scientific self-efficacy, scientific
identity, and shared values with the scientific community.
We not only found emergent evidence for all three processes,
but we also gained a deeper understanding of how—in
participants’ own words—SEEDS achieves its success.
Specifically, SEEDS successfully welcomes students into a
science community by (1) providing both breadth and depth of
programming that offers flexible, multilayered approaches to
developing self-efficacy to fit the needs of diverse
students, (2) enabling participants to integrate a science
identity into other preexisting identities, and (3)
implementing programming that intentionally helps
participants to consciously connect their values with those
of their communities.},
Doi = {10.1002/ecs2.3025},
Key = {fds348773}
}
@article{fds285222,
Author = {Reynolds, J and Smith, R and Moskovitz, C and Sayle,
A},
Title = {BioTAP: A systematic approach to teaching scientific writing
and evaluating undergraduate theses},
Journal = {BioScience},
Volume = {59},
Number = {10},
Pages = {896-903},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {2009},
Month = {November},
ISSN = {0006-3568},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11},
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. ©
2009 by American Institute of Biological
Sciences.},
Doi = {10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11},
Key = {fds285222}
}
@article{fds329884,
Author = {Smith, R and Reynolds, J},
Title = {Breaking into science writing},
Journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
Volume = {15},
Number = {9},
Pages = {525-526},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2017},
Month = {November},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fee.1727},
Doi = {10.1002/fee.1727},
Key = {fds329884}
}
@article{fds285231,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Moskovitz, C},
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 = {fds285231}
}
@article{fds285234,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Russell, V},
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 = {fds285234}
}
@article{fds323171,
Author = {Dowd, JE and Duncan, T and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {Concept Maps for Improved Science Reasoning and Writing:
Complexity Isn't Everything.},
Journal = {CBE life sciences education},
Volume = {14},
Number = {4},
Pages = {ar39},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-06-0138},
Abstract = {A pervasive notion in the literature is that complex concept
maps reflect greater knowledge and/or more expert-like
thinking than less complex concept maps. We show that
concept maps used to structure scientific writing and
clarify scientific reasoning do not adhere to this notion.
In an undergraduate course for thesis writers, students use
concept maps instead of traditional outlines to define the
boundaries and scope of their research and to construct an
argument for the significance of their research. Students
generate maps at the beginning of the semester, revise after
peer review, and revise once more at the end of the
semester. Although some students revised their maps to make
them more complex, a significant proportion of students
simplified their maps. We found no correlation between
increased complexity and improved scientific reasoning and
writing skills, suggesting that sometimes students simplify
their understanding as they develop more expert-like
thinking. These results suggest that concept maps, when used
as an intervention, can meet the varying needs of a diverse
population of student writers.},
Doi = {10.1187/cbe.15-06-0138},
Key = {fds323171}
}
@misc{fds285218,
Author = {Reynolds, J},
Title = {Disciplinary-Specific Thesis Assessment Protocol: A
validated rubric that promotes student learning and faculty
development},
Pages = {216 pages},
Booktitle = {Changing the Conversation about Higher Education},
Publisher = {Rowman & Littlefield},
Editor = {Thompson, RJ},
Year = {2013},
ISBN = {9781475801859},
Abstract = {This book hopes to change the nature of the conversation
about higher education from critiques to focusing on efforts
of systematic improvement in undergraduate
education.},
Key = {fds285218}
}
@article{fds372758,
Author = {Thompson, RJ and Schmid, L and Mburi, M and Dowd, JE and Finkenstaedt-Quinn, SA and Shultz, GV and Gere, AR and Schiff, LA and Flash, P and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {Diversity of undergraduates in STEM courses: individual and
demographic differences in changes in self-efficacy,
epistemic beliefs, and intrapersonal attribute
profiles},
Journal = {Studies in Higher Education},
Volume = {49},
Number = {4},
Pages = {690-711},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2024},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2250385},
Abstract = {Across undergraduate STEM learning contexts in several
countries, students’ intrapersonal attributes of epistemic
beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, intrinsic motivation, and
sense of identity have been found to influence learning and
to change in response to educational practices. However,
research can mask individual and demographic differences in
student's attributes that may moderate or mediate the
relationship between educational practices and learning
outcomes. We employed variable-centered and person-centered
methods to examine individual and demographic differences in
changes in students’ intrapersonal attributes and patterns
of interrelationship among attributes with a study sample of
students (N = 4,500) in 14 STEM undergraduate courses (8
biology, 4 chemistry, and 2 statistics) at three research
universities in the United States. Variable-centered
analyses revealed overall increases in students’ science
self-efficacy beliefs and epistemic beliefs even though
these outcomes were not intentionally targeted as learning
objectives. However, person-centered analyses indicated that
not all students experienced these gains. For example,
self-identified Asian/Pacific Islander and Black students
were more likely to be members of groups demonstrating a
decrease in science self-efficacy, whereas Asian/Pacific
Islander students and men were less likely to be members of
the subgroup with consistently evaluativist epistemic
beliefs and higher GPAs. Using latent profile analysis
(LPA), we identified five distinct student profiles that
reflected different patterns of interrelationship of
epistemic beliefs, science and writing self-efficacy
beliefs, and science identity. We discuss the implications
of these findings for educational practices, particularly
with regard to intentionally fostering diverse students’
self-efficacy, sense of identity, and adaptive epistemic
beliefs.},
Doi = {10.1080/03075079.2023.2250385},
Key = {fds372758}
}
@article{fds285227,
Author = {III, C and FS, and Power, ME and Pickett, STA and Freitag, A and Reynolds,
JA and Jackson, RB and Lodge, DM and Duke, C and Collins, SL and Power, AG and Bartuska, A},
Title = {Earth Stewardship: science for action to sustain the
human-earth system},
Journal = {Ecosphere},
Volume = {2},
Number = {8},
Pages = {art89},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2011},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00166.1},
Doi = {10.1890/ES11-00166.1},
Key = {fds285227}
}
@article{fds285212,
Author = {Leadley, PW and Reynolds, JA and Thomas, JF and Reynolds,
JF},
Title = {Effects of CO2Enrichment on Internal Leaf Surface
Area in Soybeans},
Journal = {Botanical Gazette},
Volume = {148},
Number = {2},
Pages = {137-140},
Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
Year = {1987},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {0006-8071},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/337640},
Doi = {10.1086/337640},
Key = {fds285212}
}
@article{fds355322,
Author = {Mourad, TM and McNulty, AF and Liwosz, D and Tice, K and Abbott, F and Williams, GC and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {Erratum: The Role of a Professional Society in Broadening
Participation in Science: A National Model for Increasing
Persistence (BioScience DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy066)},
Journal = {BioScience},
Volume = {71},
Number = {1},
Pages = {104},
Year = {2021},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa142},
Abstract = {In the originally published version of this manuscript, the
following errors were noted and listed in this corrigendum.
Upon the original publication, there was an error in the
“References cited” section. The following reference
should read: “Armstrong MJ, Berkowitz AR, Dyer LA, Taylor
J. 2007. Understanding why underrepresented students pursue
ecology careers: A preliminary case study. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 5: 415–420.
doi:10.1890/060113.1” instead of “Armstrong MJ,
Berkowitz AR, Dyer LA, Taylor J 2007. Understanding why
underrepresented students pursue ecology careers: A
preliminary case study. Review of Educational Research 5:
751–796.” Upon the original publication, there was an
error in the “Supplementary material” section. The URL
link for “BIOSCI” should be: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/biosci/biy066#supplementary-data.},
Doi = {10.1093/biosci/biaa142},
Key = {fds355322}
}
@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}
}
@book{fds285213,
Author = {Reynolds, J},
Title = {How do I write a scientific paper? A college student’s
primer on fundamentals and tips for success},
Publisher = {Burgess Publishing},
Year = {1999},
Key = {fds285213}
}
@article{fds355474,
Author = {Thompson, RJ and Finkenstaedt-Quinnb, SA and Shultz, GV and Gere, AR and Schmid, L and Dowd, JE and Mburi, M and Schiff, LA and Flashg, P and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {How faculty discipline and beliefs influence instructional
uses of writing in STEM undergraduate courses at
research-intensive universities},
Journal = {Journal of Writing Research},
Volume = {12},
Number = {3},
Pages = {625-656},
Year = {2021},
Month = {February},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.04},
Abstract = {Efforts to accelerate the pace of adoption of
writing-to-learn (WTL) practices in undergraduate STEM
courses have been limited by a lack of theoretical and
conceptual frameworks to systematically guide research and
empirical evidence about the extent to which intrapersonal
attributes and contextual factors, particularly faculty
beliefs and disciplinary cultures, influence faculty use of
writing assignments in their teaching. To address these
gaps, we adopted an ecological systems perspective and
conducted a national survey of faculty in STEM departments
across 63 research-intensive universities in the United
States. Overall, the findings indicated that 70% of faculty
assigned writing. However, the assignment of writing
differed by faculty demographics, discipline, and beliefs.
More specifically, faculty demographics accounted for 5% of
the variance in assignment of writing. Faculty discipline
accounted for an additional 6% increment in variance, and
faculty epistemic beliefs and beliefs about effectiveness of
WTL practices and contextual resources and constraints
influencing the use of writing in their teaching together
accounted for an additional 30% increment in variance. The
findings point to faculty beliefs as salient intervention
targets and highlight the importance of disciplinary
specific approaches to the promotion of the adoption of WTL
practices},
Doi = {10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.04},
Key = {fds355474}
}
@misc{fds285217,
Author = {Thaiss, C and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {How Writing-to-Learn Practices Improve Student Learning:
Connecting Research and Practice through a Consideration of
Mechanisms of Effect},
Pages = {216 pages},
Booktitle = {Changing the Conversation about Higher Education},
Publisher = {Rowman & Littlefield},
Editor = {Thompson, RJ},
Year = {2013},
ISBN = {9781475801859},
Abstract = {This book hopes to change the nature of the conversation
about higher education from critiques to focusing on efforts
of systematic improvement in undergraduate
education.},
Key = {fds285217}
}
@article{fds285221,
Author = {Abraham, JK and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {Human diversity in science},
Journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
Volume = {11},
Number = {3},
Pages = {115},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2013},
Month = {April},
ISSN = {1540-9295},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-11.3.115},
Doi = {10.1890/1540-9295-11.3.115},
Key = {fds285221}
}
@article{fds285216,
Author = {Dowd, JE and Connolly, MP and Thompson, RJ and Reynolds,
JA},
Title = {Improved Reasoning in Undergraduate Writing through
Structured Workshops},
Journal = {The Journal of Economic Education},
Volume = {46},
Number = {1},
Pages = {14-27},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0022-0485},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.978924},
Abstract = {© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. The Department of
Economics at Duke University has endeavored to increase
participation in undergraduate honors thesis research while
ensuring a high-quality learning experience. Given the
faculty-to-student ratio in the department (approximately
1:16), increasing research participation required the
creation of a stable, replicable framework for mentoring
students through research. The department aimed to make the
research experience more consistent and interactive so that
students also learned from each other in a group setting.
Here, the authors assess the relationship between changes in
mentoring support of honors research and students scientific
reasoning and writing skills reflected in their
undergraduate theses. They find that students who
participated in structured courses designed to support and
enhance their research exhibited the strongest learning
outcomes, as measured by systematic writing
assessment.},
Doi = {10.1080/00220485.2014.978924},
Key = {fds285216}
}
@misc{fds285219,
Author = {Lemons, P and Reynolds, JA and Curtin, A and Bissell,
A},
Title = {Improving Critical-Thinking Skills in Introductory Biology
Through Quality Practice and Metacognition},
Pages = {232 pages},
Booktitle = {Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student
Learning},
Publisher = {Stylus Publishing, LLC},
Editor = {M. Kaplan and N. Silver and D. LaVaque-Manty and D.
Meizlish},
Year = {2013},
Month = {April},
ISBN = {9781579228279},
Abstract = {This book -- by presenting principles that teachers in
higher education can put into practice in their own
classrooms -- explains how to lay the ground for this
engagement, and help students become self-regulated learners
actively employing ...},
Key = {fds285219}
}
@misc{fds184260,
Author = {J.A. Reynolds and R. Thompson},
Title = {Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Theses by Teaching
the Conventions of Scientific Writing and Professional Peer
Review},
Journal = {Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education},
Volume = {11},
Number = {1},
Pages = {97},
Year = {2010},
url = {http://jmbe.asm.org/index.php/jmbe/article/view/155/pdf_18},
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 paper, we present the results of a study
that compares the quality of theses written by students who
used BioTAP versus those who did not, controlling for
academic and demographic variables that could confound
results. The overall quality of theses – including factors
such as writing for the appropriate audience, constructing
an argument for the significance of the students’ research
within the context of the scientific literature, clearly
interpreting results and discussing their implications, and
citing appropriately – written by students who used BioTAP
was significantly higher than the group who did not use this
tool (p < 0.01). We also discuss how BioTAP has been
successfully adapted to other departments and other
disciplines, including economics, chemistry and
engineering.},
Key = {fds184260}
}
@article{fds285223,
Author = {Goldberg, R and Caves, K and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {Improving the quality of writing in a capstone engineering
design course},
Journal = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference
Proceedings},
Publisher = {American Society for Engineering Education},
Address = {Vancouver BC},
Year = {2011},
Month = {August},
url = {http://search.asee.org/search/fetch?url=file%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FE%3A%2Fsearch%2Fconference%2FAC2011%2FASEE_AC2011_1129.pdf&index=conference_papers&space=129746797203605791716676178&type=application%2Fpdf&charset=},
Abstract = {In engineering programs, students develop skills in both
technical design and writing, and a capstone design course
gives students the opportunity to practice and refine these
skills. In our course (a collaboration between faculty and
students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
and Duke University), students work in small teams to
develop custom devices for people with disabilities. At the
end of the semester, we give the completed devices to the
client, free of charge. The final reports (written by each
team) are not only an educational exercise; we also use them
to disseminate students' work so that others can build
similar devices for individuals with disabilities.
Additionally, many students submit their final reports to
national design competitions. Therefore, it is important
that these reports are well written and effectively explain
the goals, methods, and outcomes of the project.
Historically we have seen that students devote considerable
effort to the design and development of their projects, but
that they are not as motivated to devote time and effort to
writing. As a result, their final reports often have
significant problems with organization, clarity, and
effectiveness. Therefore, we recently adopted several new
strategies to improve the quality of student writing. Our
goals were to 1) encourage students to work on their writing
earlier and throughout the semester; 2) engage every student
in each team in the writing process; 3) use writing as a
tool to improve students' understanding of the clinical
problem that they are addressing and how their design
addresses their client's needs; and 4) improve the quality
of the final reports. To achieve these goals, we first
designed a rubric that would help students understand the
expectations for each section of the final report. We also
imposed frequent deadlines for sections of the report to
keep students engaged with their writing. To minimize the
burden for the course faculty, we conducted several in-class
"writer's workshops" in which students learned what was
expected for each section of the report. Based on these
workshops, students then peer reviewed each other's writing.
Finally, we implemented more efficient methods of providing
feedback on writing, such as using digitally-recorded audio
feedback. As a result of these strategies, the quality of
writing in the final reports has improved significantly.
Feedback from students indicates that they appreciated the
opportunity to work on their technical writing, although
some felt that the peer review feedback was not helpful and
that the writing process distracted from their work on the
projects. In the future, we plan to streamline the peer
review process and to refine the evaluation rubric so that
students provide more effective feedback to their peers. Our
goal is to further improve the quality of writing, without
compromising the students' focus on the design and
development of their projects. © 2011 American Society for
Engineering Education.},
Key = {fds285223}
}
@article{fds333743,
Author = {Goldberg, R and Caves, K and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {Improving the quality of writing in a capstone engineering
design course},
Journal = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference
Proceedings},
Year = {2011},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {In engineering programs, students develop skills in both
technical design and writing, and a capstone design course
gives students the opportunity to practice and refine these
skills. In our course (a collaboration between faculty and
students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
and Duke University), students work in small teams to
develop custom devices for people with disabilities. At the
end of the semester, we give the completed devices to the
client, free of charge. The final reports (written by each
team) are not only an educational exercise; we also use them
to disseminate students' work so that others can build
similar devices for individuals with disabilities.
Additionally, many students submit their final reports to
national design competitions. Therefore, it is important
that these reports are well written and effectively explain
the goals, methods, and outcomes of the project.
Historically we have seen that students devote considerable
effort to the design and development of their projects, but
that they are not as motivated to devote time and effort to
writing. As a result, their final reports often have
significant problems with organization, clarity, and
effectiveness. Therefore, we recently adopted several new
strategies to improve the quality of student writing. Our
goals were to 1) encourage students to work on their writing
earlier and throughout the semester; 2) engage every student
in each team in the writing process; 3) use writing as a
tool to improve students' understanding of the clinical
problem that they are addressing and how their design
addresses their client's needs; and 4) improve the quality
of the final reports. To achieve these goals, we first
designed a rubric that would help students understand the
expectations for each section of the final report. We also
imposed frequent deadlines for sections of the report to
keep students engaged with their writing. To minimize the
burden for the course faculty, we conducted several in-class
"writer's workshops" in which students learned what was
expected for each section of the report. Based on these
workshops, students then peer reviewed each other's writing.
Finally, we implemented more efficient methods of providing
feedback on writing, such as using digitally-recorded audio
feedback. As a result of these strategies, the quality of
writing in the final reports has improved significantly.
Feedback from students indicates that they appreciated the
opportunity to work on their technical writing, although
some felt that the peer review feedback was not helpful and
that the writing process distracted from their work on the
projects. In the future, we plan to streamline the peer
review process and to refine the evaluation rubric so that
students provide more effective feedback to their peers. Our
goal is to further improve the quality of writing, without
compromising the students' focus on the design and
development of their projects. © 2011 American Society for
Engineering Education.},
Key = {fds333743}
}
@misc{fds285220,
Author = {Ye, J and Reynolds, JF and Reynolds, JA and Herrick, JE and Wu, J and Chuluun, T and Li, F-M and Long, R},
Title = {New Ecology Education: Preparing Students for the Complex
Human- Environmental Problems of Dryland East
Asia},
Pages = {470 pages},
Booktitle = {Dryland East Asia (DEA): Land Dynamics Amid Social And
Climate Change},
Publisher = {Walter de Gruyter},
Editor = {Chen, J and Wan, S and Henebry, G and Qi, J and Gutman, G and Sun, G and Kappas, M},
Year = {2013},
ISBN = {9783110287868},
Abstract = {The book provides state-of-the-art knowledge on drylands
ecosystem dynamics, climate changes, and land use in DEA.
With contributions from international experts, the book will
be of interest both to researchers and students.},
Key = {fds285220}
}
@article{fds365579,
Author = {Finkenstaedt-Quinn, SA and Gere, AR and Dowd, JE and Thompson, RJ and Halim, AS and Reynolds, JA and Schiff, LA and Flash, P and Shultz,
GV},
Title = {Postsecondary Faculty Attitudes and Beliefs about
Writing-Based Pedagogies in the STEM Classroom.},
Journal = {CBE life sciences education},
Volume = {21},
Number = {3},
Pages = {ar54},
Year = {2022},
Month = {September},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-09-0285},
Abstract = {Writing is an important skill for communicating knowledge in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and
an aid to developing students' communication skills, content
knowledge, and disciplinary thinking. Despite the importance
of writing, its incorporation into the undergraduate STEM
curriculum is uneven. Research indicates that understanding
faculty beliefs is important when trying to propagate
evidence-based instructional practices, yet faculty beliefs
about writing pedagogies are not yet broadly characterized
for STEM teaching at the undergraduate level. Based on a
nationwide cross-disciplinary survey at research-intensive
institutions, this work aims to understand the extent to
which writing is assigned in undergraduate STEM courses and
the factors that influence faculty members' beliefs about,
and reported use of, writing-based pedagogies. Faculty
attitudes about the effectiveness of writing practices did
not differ between faculty who assign and do not assign
writing; rather, beliefs about the influence of social
factors and contextually imposed instructional constraints
informed their decisions to use or not use writing. Our
findings indicate that strategies to increase the use of
writing need to specifically target the factors that
influence faculty decisions to assign or not assign writing.
It is not faculty beliefs about effectiveness, but rather
faculty beliefs about behavioral control and constraints at
the departmental level that need to be targeted.},
Doi = {10.1187/cbe.21-09-0285},
Key = {fds365579}
}
@article{fds285230,
Author = {Reynolds, J and Vogel, S},
Title = {Precisely! A writing exercise for science and engineering
classes},
Journal = {Journal of College Science Teaching},
Volume = {36},
Number = {5},
Pages = {30-33},
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 = {fds285230}
}
@article{fds285225,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Lowman, MD},
Title = {Promoting ecoliteracy through research service‐learning
and citizen science},
Journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
Volume = {11},
Number = {10},
Pages = {565-566},
Publisher = {Wiley},
Year = {2013},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {1540-9295},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-11.10.565},
Doi = {10.1890/1540-9295-11.10.565},
Key = {fds285225}
}
@article{fds285229,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Ahern-Dodson, J},
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},
Volume = {39},
Number = {6},
Year = {2010},
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 = {fds285229}
}
@article{fds285233,
Author = {Reynolds, JA},
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},
Number = {4},
Pages = {370-378},
Publisher = {Canadian Science Publishing},
Year = {2003},
Month = {April},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f03-032},
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.},
Doi = {10.1139/f03-032},
Key = {fds285233}
}
@article{fds326312,
Author = {Reynolds, J and Dowd, J and Thompson, R},
Title = {Quantitative Genre Analysis of Undergraduate Theses:
Uncovering Different Ways of Writing and Thinking in Science
Disciplines},
Journal = {The WAC Journal},
Volume = {27},
Pages = {36-51},
Year = {2016},
Key = {fds326312}
}
@article{fds343503,
Author = {Dowd, JE and Thompson, RJ and Schiff, L and Haas, K and Hohmann, C and Roy,
C and Meck, W and Bruno, J and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {Student Learning Dispositions: Multidimensional Profiles
Highlight Important Differences among Undergraduate STEM
Honors Thesis Writers.},
Journal = {CBE life sciences education},
Volume = {18},
Number = {2},
Pages = {ar28},
Publisher = {American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)},
Year = {2019},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-07-0141},
Abstract = {Various personal dimensions of students-particularly
motivation, self-efficacy beliefs, and epistemic beliefs-can
change in response to teaching, affect student learning, and
be conceptualized as learning dispositions. We propose that
these learning dispositions serve as learning outcomes in
their own right; that patterns of interrelationships among
these specific learning dispositions are likely; and that
differing constellations (or learning disposition profiles)
may have meaningful implications for instructional
practices. In this observational study, we examine changes
in these learning dispositions in the context of six courses
at four institutions designed to scaffold undergraduate
thesis writing and promote students' scientific reasoning in
writing in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. We explore the utility of cluster analysis for
generating meaningful learning disposition profiles and
building a more sophisticated understanding of students as
complex, multidimensional learners. For example, while
students' self-efficacy beliefs about writing and science
increased across capstone writing courses on average, there
was considerable variability at the level of individual
students. When responses on all of the personal dimensions
were analyzed jointly using cluster analysis, several
distinct and meaningful learning disposition profiles
emerged. We explore these profiles in this work and discuss
the implications of this framework for describing
developmental trajectories of students' scientific
identities.},
Doi = {10.1187/cbe.18-07-0141},
Key = {fds343503}
}
@article{fds352757,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Cai, V and Choi, J and Faller, S and Hu, M and Kozhumam,
A and Schwartzman, J and Vohra, A},
Title = {Teaching during a pandemic: Using high-impact writing
assignments to balance rigor, engagement, flexibility, and
workload.},
Journal = {Ecology and evolution},
Volume = {10},
Number = {22},
Pages = {12573-12580},
Year = {2020},
Month = {November},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6776},
Abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges for
instructors who seek high-impact educational practices that
can be facilitated online without creating excessive burdens
with technology, grading, or enforcement of honor codes.
These practices must also account for the possibility that
some students may need to join courses asynchronously and
have limited or unreliable connectivity. Of the American
Association of Colleges and University's list of 11
high-impact educational practices, writing-intensive courses
may be the easiest for science faculty to adopt during these
difficult times. Not only can writing assignments promote
conceptual learning, they can also deepen student engagement
with the subject matter and with each other. Furthermore,
writing assignments can be incredibly flexible in terms of
how they are implemented online and can be designed to
reduce the possibility of cheating and plagiarism. To
accelerate the adoption of writing pedagogies, we summarize
evidence-based characteristics of effective writing
assignments and offer a sample writing assignment from an
introductory ecology course. We then suggest five strategies
to help instructors manage their workload. Although the
details of the sample assignment may be particular to our
course, this framework is general enough to be adapted to
most science courses, including those taught in-person,
those taught online, and those that must be able to switch
quickly between the two.},
Doi = {10.1002/ece3.6776},
Key = {fds352757}
}
@article{fds339624,
Author = {Mourad, TM and McNulty, AF and Liwosz, D and Tice, K and Abbott, F and Williams, GC and Reynolds, JA},
Title = {The role of a professional society in broadening
participation in science: A national model for increasing
persistence},
Journal = {BioScience},
Volume = {68},
Number = {9},
Pages = {715-721},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {2018},
Month = {September},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy066},
Abstract = {Professional societies can, and should, recruit and retain
young scientists by providing a welcoming and inclusive
intellectual home. SEEDS (Strategies for Ecology Education,
Diversity and Sustainability), the flagship education
program of the Ecological Society of America, is designed to
broaden participation in ecology through mentoring, field
trips, leadership development, and research fellowships.
Nationally, fewer than 40% of college students who intended
to pursue a career in science, technology, math, or
engineering complete their degrees in these fields, and
these numbers are even smaller for underrepresented
minorities (URMs). In contrast, 80% of SEEDS alumni in our
study had completed at least one degree in an
ecology-related field, and the completion rate for URMs was
85%. In addition, 71% of working SEEDS alumni respondents
have careers in ecology. SEEDS is a model for other
professional societies wishing to increase students'
self-efficacy and sense of belonging through professional
development and positive social reinforcement.},
Doi = {10.1093/biosci/biy066},
Key = {fds339624}
}
@article{fds285232,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Wilen, JE},
Title = {The sea urchin fishery: Harvesting, processing, and the
market},
Journal = {Marine Resource Economics},
Volume = {15},
Number = {2},
Pages = {115-126},
Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
Year = {2003},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/mre.15.2.42629295},
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.},
Doi = {10.1086/mre.15.2.42629295},
Key = {fds285232}
}
@article{fds332839,
Author = {Dowd, JE and Thompson, RJ and Schiff, LA and Reynolds,
JA},
Title = {Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical
Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis
Writers.},
Journal = {CBE life sciences education},
Volume = {17},
Number = {1},
Pages = {ar4},
Year = {2018},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052},
Abstract = {Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills
are core learning objectives of science education, but
little empirical evidence exists regarding the
interrelationships between these constructs. Writing
effectively fosters students' development of these
constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how
they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing
in biology at two universities, we examine how scientific
reasoning exhibited in writing (assessed using the Biology
Thesis Assessment Protocol) relates to general and specific
critical-thinking skills (assessed using the California
Critical Thinking Skills Test), and we consider implications
for instruction. We find that scientific reasoning in
writing is strongly related to <i>inference</i>, while other
aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing
(epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.)
are not significantly related to critical-thinking skills.
Science reasoning in writing is not merely a proxy for
critical thinking. In linking features of students' writing
to their critical-thinking skills, this study 1) provides a
bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science
writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a
foundational step for subsequently determining whether
instruction focused explicitly on developing
critical-thinking skills (particularly <i>inference</i>) can
actually improve students' scientific reasoning in their
writing.},
Doi = {10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052},
Key = {fds332839}
}
@article{fds285228,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Thompson, RJ},
Title = {Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage
students and their faculty readers in scientific peer
review.},
Journal = {CBE life sciences education},
Volume = {10},
Number = {2},
Pages = {209-215},
Year = {2011},
Month = {January},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21633069},
Abstract = {One of the best opportunities that undergraduates have to
learn to write like a scientist is to write a thesis after
participating in faculty-mentored undergraduate research.
But developing writing skills doesn't happen automatically,
and there are significant challenges associated with
offering writing courses and with individualized mentoring.
We present a hybrid model in which students have the
structural support of a course plus the personalized
benefits of working one-on-one with faculty. To optimize
these one-on-one interactions, the course uses BioTAP, the
Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol, to structure engagement
in scientific peer review. By assessing theses written by
students who took this course and comparable students who
did not, we found that our approach not only improved
student writing but also helped faculty members across the
department--not only those teaching the course--to work more
effectively and efficiently with student writers. Students
who enrolled in this course were more likely to earn highest
honors than students who only worked one-on-one with
faculty. Further, students in the course scored
significantly better on all higher-order writing and
critical-thinking skills assessed.},
Doi = {10.1187/cbe.10-10-0127},
Key = {fds285228}
}
@article{fds285214,
Author = {Reynolds, J},
Title = {When communicating with diverse audiences, use VELCRO to
make science stick},
Journal = {Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America},
Volume = {90},
Number = {3},
Pages = {297-304},
Year = {2009},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/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 = {fds285214}
}
@article{fds285226,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Thaiss, C and Katkin, W and Thompson,
RJ},
Title = {Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a
community-based, conceptually driven approach.},
Journal = {CBE life sciences education},
Volume = {11},
Number = {1},
Pages = {17-25},
Year = {2012},
Month = {January},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22383613},
Abstract = {Despite substantial evidence that writing can be an
effective tool to promote student learning and engagement,
writing-to-learn (WTL) practices are still not widely
implemented in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) disciplines, particularly at research
universities. Two major deterrents to progress are the lack
of a community of science faculty committed to undertaking
and applying the necessary pedagogical research, and the
absence of a conceptual framework to systematically guide
study designs and integrate findings. To address these
issues, we undertook an initiative, supported by the
National Science Foundation and sponsored by the Reinvention
Center, to build a community of WTL/STEM educators who would
undertake a heuristic review of the literature and formulate
a conceptual framework. In addition to generating a
searchable database of empirically validated and promising
WTL practices, our work lays the foundation for
multi-university empirical studies of the effectiveness of
WTL practices in advancing student learning and
engagement.},
Doi = {10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064},
Key = {fds285226}
}