Thank you for your questions! The course was implemented as a semester long elective for students who volunteered to participate. I believe all interested students were enrolled however I really appreciate your idea about comparing students who participated with those who were interested but unable to participate. 

Student self efficacy and future research interests were measured via a science opinion survey developed based on research supported strategies. The survey used a 5-point scale (Strongly agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) to rate statements about science activities. Items capture agreement across areas such as: I really enjoy going to science lessons; I would like to be a scientist when I leave school; Working in a science laboratory would be an interesting way to earn a living; etc. Responses were scored on a scale to capture students’ levels of interest in science. Items in the survey were adapted from Gibson and Chase’s (2002) 30-item Science Opinions Survey that was originally developed for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to assess current interest and attitudes in science activities at school.  In addition, we adapted 18-items from Fitzakerley, Michlin, Paton, and Dubinsky’s (2013) study of interest in and sense of efficacy towards science among 4th-6th grade students. 

The pandemic affected a lot of the course's hands on activities. The team adapted the curriculum to be fully online and implemented synchronous online classes. Synchronous implementation offers more opportunities for student collaboration and science discourse that are essential to effective teaching and learning. While a key part of the course, student use of portable EEGs, is limited by remote implementation teacher demonstrations of the technology and online simulations of EEG waves can be used to teach students the same scientific concepts and skills. 

We are currently working on a similar project implementing curriculum in required biology courses at the high school level. Do you feel one implementation method, integration into a required course or as an elective, would be more effective or result in more reliable research outcomes?

We appreciate your feedback! Thanks!

 

Here are the references we used for the student survey:

Gibson HL, Chase C. Longitudinal impact of an inquiry‐based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education. 2002;86(5):693-705.

Fitzakerley JL, Michlin ML, Paton J, Dubinsky JM. Neuroscientists’ classroom visits positively impact student attitudes. PloS one. 2013;8(12):1-14.

Response to your question: "Do you feel one implementation method, integration into a required course or as an elective, would be more effective or result in more reliable research outcomes?"

Like all such research, the answer to this question has to be based on the kinds of questions and outcomes you're seeking to answer. Of course, one basic question is whether one or the other approach makes a significant difference in your intended learning, self-efficacy, identification with science, outcomes. 

But, such an arrangement also leads to conflicting variables. For example, if the required component is offered to all students taking intro biology, then students who elect to take it will likely be at a different grade level, so comparisons are difficult. If you want to control for grade level, then you might compare outcomes at different schools or in different districts, where one incorporates the program into a biology course and the other offers it as an elected. However, the variable that is then less controlled are the approaches to teaching and effectiveness of the instructors in different locations.

Levels of motivation and interest for students in required courses will also likely have greater variance than for students electing to enroll. 

What are the questions you hope to address by offering this as a required component of a course?

Thank you so much for your questions!  To address your lab tool question, we used low-cost portable EEGs such as emotiv©. The context of neuroscience has great advantages for investigating science teaching and learning. I really appreciate your comment about metacognition and having students use their insights to optimize learning. One portion of the curriculum speaks about the lack of evidence that students have different learning styles and teaches students that belief that they have a single best learning style based on their own brains is in fact a misconception. In a similar notion, student research projects often included learning about factors that affect attention and memory. Student outcomes could be used to inform their own learning. I would certainly be interested in expanding the idea of having students consider their own learning processes!

Context-based features had a direct effect on implementation, mainly due to the pandemic. We were fortunate enough to have already completed two years of implementation before the pandemic began and were able to adapt our curriculum for remote learning as well. Student collaboration was a significant part of the curriculum - I'm wondering how students could consider the role of collaboration in their learning processes as well. As a learning scientist, I'd appreciate further recommendations for future projects as well! Like you said, neuroscience is a really unique frame to investigate aspects of teaching and learning and the discipline is not commonly studied in high school classrooms.  

You've given me quite a lot to think about! I really appreciate your insights!

Thank you so much! I really appreciate you sharing this resource!

Hi Anne, thank you so much for this idea! We have not tracked students future careers or majors. We used student surveys as a measure of pre and post STEM interest. I think a longitudinal study of student majors, involvement in an undergraduate research, and future careers would be a really valuable component to our work. We appreciate this suggestion!

Hello Cathryn,

Good stuff! I am an advocate for extracurricular STEM activities. Still, I am unconvinced of these programs' long-term impact on student's entry into the field and ultimate success in affecting the pipeline. Not to say these types of programs aren't necessary!

Thanks,

Anne

Hi Anne,

It's certainly hard to measure ultimate success in affecting the pipeline. Our project, however, was specifically designed not to be extracurricular but instead as an integration into a student's coursework during the school day in the form of an elective students take for science credit. Our next project involved integration into curriculum of a required science class, rather than an elective, in an effort to make programs like this more accessible. Perhaps my team and I can add a longitudinal component to our next project to start measuring long-term impact. 

Thanks,

Cathryn 

Thanks so much, Victor!

Thanks, Leah! The surveys were administered three times - once at the beginning of the course, once a month into the course, and once at the end of the course. We compared data at all three stages to see how student outcomes were changing!