Faculty Database Thompson Writing Program Arts & Sciences Duke University |
||
HOME > Arts & Sciences > TWP > Faculty | Search Help Login |
| Publications of Julie Reynolds :chronological combined listing:%% Books @book{fds14991, Author = {J.A. Reynolds}, Title = {How do I write a scientific paper? A college student's primer on fundamentals and tips for success}, Publisher = {Burgess Publishing, Edina, Minnesota}, Year = {2003}, Key = {fds14991} } @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{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} } @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} } @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{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} } @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} } @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} } %% Book Chapters @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} } @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} } @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{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} } %% 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 |