Thompson Writing Program Faculty Database
Thompson Writing Program
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > TWP > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of Julie Reynolds    :chronological  alphabetical  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}
}

@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}
}


%% Papers Published   
@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}
}

@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}
}

@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{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{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{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{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 inference, 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 inference) can
             actually improve students' scientific reasoning in their
             writing.},
   Doi = {10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052},
   Key = {fds332839}
}

@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{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 = {Writing Across the Curriculum},
   Volume = {27},
   Pages = {36-51},
   Year = {2016},
   Key = {fds326312}
}

@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}
}

@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{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}
}

@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{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{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{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}
}

@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{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{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}
}

@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{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{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{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{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{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{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{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{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}
}


%% Book Chapters   
@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 = {1579228275},
   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{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 = {1475801858},
   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}
}

@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 = {1475801858},
   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}
}

@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 = {3110287862},
   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}
}


%% Published Abstracts   
@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}
}


Duke University * Arts & Sciences * TWP * Faculty * Staff * Reload * Login