Sally G. Hoskins
As scientific decision-making is increasingly influenced by the non-scientist voting
public, it is essential that all college students be well informed about science.
Many are required to study the topic for at least one semester; however the student
audience for general education science courses is often the same cohort that lost
interest in science well before starting college. Such students may now get much
of their science information from television, which alternates between frightening
the audience with doomsday scenarios (“Hazards in your breakfast cereal! .
. . News at 11”) and making heroes out of geeky gurus who solve complex medical
mysteries in sixty minutes of prime time. Some students seem unaware of the accomplishments
or relevance of twentieth- and twenty-first-century biology research, while others
are not science-neutral but actively anti-science. Given that their votes on science-related
issues will do much to shape the progress of science and society in the twenty-first
century, students who do not choose to major in the sciences nevertheless need to
understand who does science, what scientists do, and why anyone
would be drawn to a science career.
With these issues in mind, I have shifted my focus in teaching biology for non-science
majors from a broad-based yet superficial coverage of many topics to a more focused
approach aimed at imparting not just content but also insight into the “who,
what, and why” of science. I use scientific literature—whether magazine
articles for the general public, research reports in scientific journals, or articles
from newspapers or news websites—as a means to reveal how scientists think.
I have designed classroom approaches that introduce non-science majors to some of
the intellectual activities common to working scientists, including analyzing data,
designing experiments, devising models to explain results, and constructively criticizing
each other’s proposals. My goal is to demystify what scientists do, provide
some insight into why someone would choose a science career, and at the same time
increase respect for the processes and accomplishments of science research among
students who are unlikely to engage directly in such research themselves.
DEPTH VERSUS BREADTH—THE EVOLUTION OF A TEACHING STYLE
Initially, I taught using traditional textbook-based lectures, drawing from a “biology
for the non-major” textbook that used creative graphics and science stories
taken from the news as a springboard for explaining basic principles. Despite the
topical book, I found myself spending much class time going over pathways and processes
that I knew the students had encountered in high school biology, memorized, and
quickly forgotten. Rather than conveying an experience of “thinking like a
scientist,” teaching in this way recapitulated the same approach that students
had rejected previously. Many textbooks focus on scientific content in the near-absence
of emphasis on scientific thinking, critical analysis, or creativity. They do not
give students a real sense of how scientists design studies, interpret the data
they gather, or use the findings to determine the next step in a long-term research
project. Because the universal languages of study design and data analysis are at
the heart of biology and are perhaps the aspects in which science differs most from
nonscience fields, these topics deserve more focus, especially for the students
least familiar with science.
Cognizant of the challenges of research science, the National Research Council has
made specific recommendations on teaching science for understanding:
To develop confidence in an area of inquiry, students must
(a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge
(b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework
(c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application. (National
Research Council, 2003a)
Although these suggestions are aimed at “future research biologists,”
I suggest that the latter two are also important for all science-literate
citizens. In recent semesters I have altered my teaching approach for general-education
science students, now focusing mainly on how scientists frame questions and test
hypotheses. Because of the rate at which biology is changing, at least some of today’s
“deep foundation of factual knowledge” may be tomorrow’s historical
footnote. In the thirty years since I took introductory biology, entirely new fields
(such as proteomics or bioinformatics) have developed, novel organelles (for example,
the proteasome) and processes (like RNA interference) have been discovered in the
cytoplasm, and recognition of an unanticipated conservation of developmental mechanism
across phyla (see, for example, Lall & Patel, 2001) has spurred the emergence
of a major field, evolutionary developmental biology. During the same decades, some
long-held “facts” (such as the “fact” that no neurons are
produced postnatally in the vertebrate nervous system) have been disproven by new
findings. Thus, focusing on scientific facts at the expense of process shortchanges
students and deprives them of insights into scientific approaches to problems.
For students whose single semester of college biology will be their last formal
science course, perhaps what is needed is the development of a toolkit of approaches
for use in understanding science as it grows and changes in the coming decades.
Students need to be able to integrate new findings into their existing conceptual
frameworks and, when necessary, construct novel frameworks. Ultimately, society
may be better served if general education students have a foundation of scientific
analysis skills, transferable approaches to scientific questions, and an understanding
of the types of cognitive activities in which scientists engage on a daily basis,
rather than “a deep foundation of facts” derived from what scientists
have already done. I have shifted my classroom approach to focus on how to read/analyze
science, how scientists approach problems, how to think critically about science,
and how to develop, explain, and defend one’s own ideas about science.
ACTIVE LEARNING THROUGH SCIENTIFIC READING—BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE “VIRTUAL
My current teaching uses active-learning assignments adapted from the C.R.E.A.T.E.
method—consider, read, elucidate hypotheses, analyze
data, and think of the next experiment (Hoskins & Stevens,
2009; Hoskins, Stevens & Nehm, 2007)—an approach that uses close analysis
of primary literature (journal articles) to help upper-level biology students get
“inside” research projects while simultaneously learning “who
does science, and why.” The typical C.R.E.A.T.E. class studies a module of
four papers published in series from one lab, thus following a research project
as it unfolded in real time. The focus on data analysis in virtually every class
session makes the C.R.E.A.T.E. classroom resemble a lab meeting, in which results
are examined, interpretations are debated, and potential directions for follow-up
experiments are considered. Students use novel pedagogical tools and carry out specific
assignments at home in preparation for narrowly focused classroom analyses of a
paper’s findings (see Table 1; Hoskins, Stevens & Nehm, 2007). Late in
the semester, students complete email interviews with paper authors for behind-the-scenes
insight into these scientists’ motivations and lifestyles.
Table 1: C.R.E.A.T.E. Steps and Activities Undertaken by Students in Class
Source: Adapted from Hoskins, S. G. 2010. “But if it’s in the newspaper,
doesn’t that mean it’s true?” Developing critical reading and
analysis skills by analyzing newspaper science with
C.R.E.A.T.E. American Biology Teacher 72(7):415–420.
As recommended in numerous science-education reform documents (AAAS, 1989, 1990;
Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Glenn Commission, 2000; National Research Council, 1996,
2000, 2003a, 2003b, especially 20–21; Siebert & McIntosh, 2001), C.R.E.A.T.E.
is an active-learning approach. It involves close analysis of a single line of scientific
research, illustrating “the narrative
nature of science” (Kitchen et al., 2003; Muench, 2000) and putting students
into a “virtual laboratory,” where they interpret the papers’
findings and data as if they had made these discoveries themselves. This method
aligns well with long-held views of educational psychologists regarding the mental
activities that facilitate learning. In the mid-twentieth century, psychologist
Benjamin Bloom determined that many exams tested primarily students’ ability
to “recall,” “name,” or “classify,” yet many
teachers would agree that real learning requires more complex cognitive activities,
such as the ability to defend ideas, frame arguments, or design studies (Bloom et
al., 1956). The Bloom scale is a six-point classification system for levels of mental
involvement considered essential to learning (see Figure 1). Figure 1 can serve
as a useful guideline for classroom activities that facilitate students’ ability
to “think like scientists.” The
C.R.E.A.T.E. method and the adapted outline in this paper aim to engage students
in activities at the upper end of the scale—where research scientists spend
a good deal of mental time—with the understanding that the ability to analyze,
synthesize, and evaluate builds upon the foundation of facts and simpler concepts
at the broad base of the pyramid.
Figure 1: The Bloom Scale
Although wet-lab work is not a part of the C.R.E.A.T.E. model, intense focus on
the data of each paper through independent evaluation of every figure and table
casts students as scientists working in a virtual laboratory. By concluding their
analysis of each paper with a design for “the experiment I would do next,”
students see that research does not follow a preset path; instead,
multiple directions are possible. Vetting one another’s experiments in class
builds students’ critical abilities while broadening their understanding of
how science is funded. The author interviews humanize the research process by providing
unique insights into the people behind the papers. For biology majors, this approach
improves critical thinking and content integration skills and stimulates enthusiasm
for science; it also enhances understanding of “who does research, and why”
(Hoskins, Stevens & Nehm, 2007). Challenging general education students in similar
ways should prepare these individuals to articulate their thoughts on science, explain
the nature of science to their friends and families, and encourage understanding
of and better attitudes toward science in the general public.
ACTIVE LEARNING FOR NON-SCIENCE MAJORS
I summarize below three active-learning approaches that I have developed for biology
classes aimed at students who do not plan to major in science: (1) Science, Interpreted—a
close reading of an article written for the general public with subsequent reference
to the published article from which the lay account was derived; (2) Rewrite the
Textbook—an illustration of how “established” science
changes, through a classroom experience focused on a recent paradigm shift in developmental
biology; and (3) It’s Published, But Should You Believe It?—an
activity centered on newspaper/Internet science, perhaps the most likely source
of post-college science information for the general education student. Each activity
is designed for groups of twenty to twenty-five students and can be taught in elective
classes or in laboratory sections of larger lecture classes. Alternatively, with
enough small-group work and instructor energy, these approaches could be scaled
to the large lecture hall.
My impression from the general education students I have taught is that many found
high school science to be overwhelmingly detailed. Such students may approach college
science with low expectations, assuming that memorization will be their main approach
to the material. To jolt students out of a passive approach to biology, I introduce
novel pedagogical tools such as concept mapping, cartooning, and figure annotation
to help them actively engage with material they read in preparation for class (see
Tables 1 and 2). Homework assignments call on students to (1) create concept maps
(Allen & Tanner, 2003; Novak, 1990, 1998; Novak & Gowin, 1984) of introductory
paragraphs to extract key ideas, ground themselves in the topic under analysis,
and define areas for review; (2) draw visual representations (cartoons) of experiments
described, thus creating a context that will aid their understanding of the reported
results (Mathewson, 1999; Schnotz, Picard & Hron, 1993); (3) annotate all figures
by relabeling them based on information in the narrative, methods (if present),
and figure captions to ensure that they fully understand what is being represented;
and (4) triangulate among figures, captions, and the paper narrative to define the
broad question being addressed by the data in each figure or table. In sum, I challenge
students to reconstruct the study; they review the methods, outline the experimental
design, and interpret the data as if they had made the findings themselves. This
level of at-home student preparation allows class time to be spent in discussion
alternating with large- and small-group work in which the faculty member acts as
a facilitator of active discussion rather than the sole source of information. Students
spend the majority of class time engaged in higher-level cognitive activities thought
to facilitate understanding (See Figure 1 and Tables 1 and 2; Bloom et al., 1956).
This teaching style aligns well with twenty-first-century “active classroom”
teaching practices (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000; Knight & Wood, 2005)
as well as with recommendations that the way science is taught should reflect the
way science is actually done (Alberts, 2005; Handlesman et al., 2004; Steitz, 2003).
Table 2: Novel Classroom Activities Challenge Students to Think Deeply about
C.R.E.A.T.E. tools help address scientific issues often omitted from textbooks.
Source: Hoskins, S. G., and L. S. Stevens. 2009. Learning our L.I.M.I.T.S.: Less
is more in teaching science. Advances in Physiology Education 33:17–20.
The general public gets much of its science not from primary sources but from digests
of journal articles, that is, peer-reviewed work that has been summarized and condensed
by a reporter and then edited for publication in a newspaper or general-interest
periodical. To begin sharpening students’ critical reading skills, I assign
one such article, “Babies Recognize Faces Better than Adults, Study Says,”
published in National Geographic News (Mayell, 2005). This brief piece distills
for the general reader a paper from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(PNAS) titled “Plasticity of Face Processing in Infancy” (Pascalis
et al., 2005).
After teaching concept mapping in an introductory class (Novak, 1990; Novak &
Gowin, 1984), I provide students with the two-paragraph introduction to journalist
Hillary Mayell’s article and ask them to map by defining key terms, creating
diagrammatic linkages among them, and appropriately labeling the links. Students
work in groups of three or four to quickly orient themselves in the topic area and
sketch maps to review central issues. In this case, the article recaps a study that
examined whether six-month-old babies could distinguish facial features of primates
and recall them well enough three months later so as to know when a face not previously
seen was added to the mix. Considering the research objective, students review what
they know about the visual system, brain memory centers, and human development and
raise questions—for example, how, in principle, could we measure whether a
preverbal baby “recognizes” or “remembers” something?
We then read the rest of Mayell’s piece, and students return to groups to
make visual representations, sketched on transparencies, of how the study was done.
Mayell’s article does not provide any diagrams, so this “cartooning”
step clarifies experimental methodology while raising questions that set the stage
for later critical analysis of the method and findings. During this phase, students
begin to realize they need more information about methods than is provided in the
Mayell version. In response to specific questions, I supply additional information
from the PNAS paper. We compare the groups’ cartoons and come to a consensus
on how the experiment was performed: After an initial training session in which
all participant babies viewed photos of monkey faces, the babies were split into
experimental and control groups. “Experimental” babies were trained
at home on similar photos over a period of months, control babies were not. All
babies were subsequently tested at the lab, where they were videotaped while being
presented photos of monkey faces, in pairs. Some pairs were composed of two faces
that had been used previously, during initial (and for experimental babies, continued)
training. Other pairings combined a photo that the babies had seen previously with
a new monkey photo. Using a method developed in previous work, the experimenters
measured “looking time,” or how long the infants gazed at particular
pairs of photos, from the videotapes. “Longer looking time” for the
pairings that included new monkey faces was considered evidence of recognition of
novelty (Pascalis et al., 2005). Ultimately, if the experimental group looked longer
at novel pairings than did the control group, the finding suggested that the former
set of infants was better able to detect novelty. This in turn suggested that the
trained babies remembered the faces on which they had trained, while the control
babies were less able to recall the faces they had seen during only the initial
Students raise numerous questions about the study design and interpretation: Are
the cognitive processes involved in “detecting novelty” the same ones
involved in “recognizing” a familiar face? Do adults, when “recognizing
faces,” stare longer at novel than familiar ones? What would “looking
time” measurements be for a hypothetical additional control group, composed
of babies that were never shown monkey faces? Is it okay that the control babies
in the study experienced zero visual training during the months between the start
of the experiment and the final testing, given that training for experimental babies
involved periodically sitting on a parent’s lap and being shown a series of
photos? As they delve more deeply into methodology, students begin to raise additional
questions about aspects of the experimental design that are not included in the
lay summary: how many babies were studied, what was the proportion of girls versus
boys, and was the training standardized for the experimental group? Such concerns
link to broad issues that must be considered in any experimental study.
Some students raise questions about possible differences in rate of cognitive development
of girls and boys. As the more critical students explain their concerns (if girl
babies talk earlier on average, might they also “recognize” earlier?),
they gain experience at framing a scientific argument and backing up their opinions
with additional facts (such as, do girl babies, on average, talk sooner,
or is this hearsay?). Students research supporting evidence during class, providing
an opportunity to address the validity of different sources of information available
online. We turn again to the PNAS paper (Pascalis et al., 2005) for clarification
on the demographics of experimental subjects. To practice representing data quantitatively,
students convert the actual numbers of girls and boys in the study to percentages
and draw a histogram. These data typically heighten student concerns. If girls are
faster at developing the skills under study, students point out, then the fact that
the experimental group was majority female and the control group was majority male
is potentially problematic.
We consider what a reasonable sample size would be. Would an N of four be
large enough? Do you need twenty thousand babies? Why or why not? We discuss the
challenges of working with human subjects and whether an investigator can or should
still carry out a study if conditions are less than “perfect.” This
discussion can extend into a consideration of how statistical techniques can be
used to aid in data analysis. The important issues raised in these discussions are
not covered in depth in any of the “science for the non-scientist” textbooks
I have investigated, but they are central to study design. As additional questions
are raised, students who might have been intimidated if initially challenged to
read a PNAS paper now look closely at the methods section for answers.
Many questions focus on the training/testing setup. All babies saw “training
pictures” when they were six months old, after which the experimental group’s
parents repeated the training task at home over a period of months, while control
babies were not trained further. During both training and testing, babies were held
on their mothers’ laps while viewing the pictures. Students point out that
the control and experimental babies thus differed slightly in terms of experience
with the mother, and suggest that less familiarity with the training/testing setup
might have influenced the performance of controls during testing sessions. Other
concerns include whether babies were all trained and/or tested at equivalent times
of day (just before eating? just after a nap?) and whether any babies had “previous
monkey experience” that could have been influential—that is, should
the babies have been matched with regard to which ones had gone to the zoo, seen
more primates in picture books, and so on? Even criticisms that seem far-fetched
can stimulate useful discussion. Finally, some students raise the issue of a possible
“Clever Hans” effect: if the mothers learned the discrimination task
during the training sessions, which seems likely, might they have cued their babies
during testing? The concerns raised link to general issues for experimental design:
Has a potentially confounding variable been overlooked? Are additional controls
needed? Can the method be improved? With a bare minimum of facts, students with
little or no background in biology can critically analyze study design and begin
to “think like scientists.”
Students are then challenged to design their own experiments centered on questions
of facial recognition and/or visual memory in infants. Students initially work in
groups of four to frame a hypothesis and create a group-consensus experiment, then
sketch it on a transparency for evaluation by the entire class. (See Figure 2 for
an example.) For homework, students design additional studies independently.
Figure 2: Modification of “Training” Phase of the Experiment, Designed
in Class by a Group of Four Students Working on a Consensus Experimental Design
Here, the mother has been blindfolded to ensure that she does not learn the visual
Challenging students to diagram their experiment on a transparency, rather than
just describe it verbally, helps them to commit to an idea and hone visualization
skills. Providing a limited time frame in class for designing the experiments demystifies
the process of experimental design and indicates that it is not an esoteric activity
open only to “trained professionals.” Showing transparencies on an overhead
projector facilitates in-class discussion. Teamwork on the early designs provides
a nonthreatening forum in which shy students can express their ideas without fear
of “sounding dumb” in front of the entire class, while the homework
assignment stimulates independent thinking. Together, the range of ideas that emerge
from the group and individual experimental design assignments underscore the wide
variety of new studies that could, in principle, be performed. This approach helps
alter preconceptions of science as a predetermined series of steps that lead to
a known outcome (Ryder, Leach & Driver, 1999).
Student-designed experiments are vetted in a “grant panel exercise”
(for details, see Hoskins, Stevens & Nehm, 2007), which is preceded by an activity
aimed at illuminating the nature of science. Prior to evaluating proposed experiments,
students are grouped into “grant panels” and charged with enumerating
criteria that scientific panels “should” use in deciding how to allocate
taxpayer dollars for science research. Each group lists bullet points for discussion.
For almost all students, this experience is the first time they have considered
how science research is funded, who makes funding decisions, or how competitive
the process might be.
Typically, some groups suggest reserving funds for “established” scientists,
leading other students to defend newcomers who might bring novel perspectives. Multiple
groups propose that “the work must be relevant to human beings.” This
statement provides a useful springboard for discussing model systems—that
is, does the statement imply that for maximum “human relevance” all
researchers should work on human beings? Barring that possibility, should everyone
work on primates? Usually some students are cognizant of the fruit fly’s relevance
to genetics, but few have thought closely about why studies using the fruit fly
(Drosophila melanogaster), nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans), or the
zebrafish (Danio rerio) might in fact prove “relevant to human beings.”
In turn, considering why “model systems” are often funded provides an
opportunity to review evolutionary concepts that students may have been exposed
to previously but dismissed. The genetic code table, for example, was likely covered
in high school biology but may not have been presented in an evolutionary context.
Students begin to see that if human beings and simpler organisms all “spell”
proteins using the same genetic alphabet, studying organisms with more accessible
genetics could provide insights relevant to humans. Discussions of this sort are
particularly interesting in classes with students who started the semester skeptical
about the theory of evolution.
After the grant-panel criteria have been discussed, all student-designed experiments
are viewed. The designs generally reflect a wide variety of approaches. (See Figures
3 through 5, for example.) Some students concentrate on making the control group
more parallel to the experimental by, for example, instituting “control group
sham training” in which control babies spend an equal amount of time in a
training situation, but look at pictures of landscapes or nonprimate animals rather
than monkey faces. Other students decide to use only girls or only boys in their
study. Some alter the testing conditions so that the mother is blindfolded or the
training and testing use pictures projected on the bedroom ceiling and viewed by
the baby lying in a crib, thus eliminating possible parental cueing. Students see
that experimental design requires careful thought and attention to controls but
is not beyond the capacity of the average thinking person.
Student grant panels reconvene to discuss and debate the merits of the proposed
experiments and select one for “funding.” This exercise links science
research with broader societal concerns: what experiment has the greatest potential payoff, for instance, and can we necessarily tell in advance? The exercise
also reveals some of the challenges professional scientists face on genuine grant
panels: reaching consensus, the likelihood that the number of fundable experiments
exceeds the funds available, and the fact that different panel members may have
specific and strongly held agendas. The act of considering such issues helps humanize
science and shows how personal and societal concerns intersect with basic research.
Figure 3: Sample Student-Designed Improved Experiment, Done as Homework
Figure 4: Sample Student-Designed Improved Experiment, Done as Homework
This student has considered multiple variables that could affect “recognition”
and also has raised the issue of whether experimenters’ interpretation of
babies’ emotional reactions to particular stimuli could be affected by differing
cultural interpretations of emotion, based on country of origin. Whether all the
variables raised could be addressed in a single study, or whether it would instead
be wise to devise individual studies on particular sub-issues, can become a focus
of further class discussion.
Figure 5: Sample Student-Designed Improved Experiment, Done as Homework
This student's improved experiment focuses on a question raised in class: whether "experimental" babies in the original study performed better during testing simply because they had been trained, not because they had been trained specifically on faces.
In a class with six grant panels five or more different experiments might
be chosen as “the one to fund.” This outcome underscores the fact that
neither scientists nor general education students playing the roles of scientists
are a uniform population in which everyone thinks the same way. Overall, the grant
panel exercise builds students’ skill at designing, defending, and debating
experiments, while also humanizing scientists and providing insight into how science-funding
decisions are made.
To conclude the babies/faces activity, I ask students for a one-sentence summary
of the study. Many return to some version of the National Geographic News
title, “Babies Recognize Faces Better than Adults, Study Says,” only
to realize for the first time that no evidence in the article supports this
claim. There is no direct comparison of babies’ and adults’ ability
to recognize faces, nor a conclusion that babies are “better” at this
task. The article’s main reference to adults is a casual claim regarding zookeepers
Students are startled to realize that even after closely reading the article, they
accepted the title’s claim that “babies recognize faces better than
adults” in the absence of supporting data. One student attributed this reaction
to “the font effect,” writing: “We believe what we read. If the
title is printed in a 72 point bold typeface crowning a two-column article it must
be true, no questions about it; and more often than not, no further reading is necessary.”
The PNAS title, “Plasticity of Face Processing in Infancy,” makes
no claims about the recognition capabilities of babies versus that of adults. The
class considers whether the magazine article was titled by the reporter or an editor
and whether the desire for a catchy headline might have precluded accuracy. Students
note that some key features of the PNAS study were absent from the version
summarized for the general public even as a new “fact” about adults
was added. This dialogue underscores for the non-scientist student both the need
to read “digested” information about science with a critical eye, and
the value of referring to primary sources when clarification is needed. Overall,
active-learning tools and activities (see Table 2) applied to “simple”
popularized science can help students learn to read critically, to visualize the
experiments behind the summaries, to gain experimental design and evaluation skills,
and to realize that in science writing for the general public something important
may have been lost in translation.
Rewrite the Textbook: Paradigm Shifts and the Nature of Science
General education students often hold strong opinions about biological science that
do not align with the reality of the field. Few seem cognizant of controversies
in science, of sometimes nonlinear paths to discoveries, or of the evolutionary
links among all forms of life. In addition to omitting consideration of the grant
process, scientific textbooks tend to ignore the controversies, conflicting data,
and failed hypotheses that are part of much scientific investigation and that, when
analyzed, can stimulate understanding (Seethaler, 2005; Oulton & Grace, 2004;
Mead & Scharmann, 1994). Non-scientist students who participate in the cognitive
activities typical of science research labs—interpreting data, resolving controversies,
creating models to represent and explain biological phenomena, and designing experiments—can
gain appreciation for what scientists do, including the fact that sometimes scientists’
findings refute previously well-established “truths.” To help students
discover that published textbook science may need periodic revision, and that even
well-established scientific models may not hold up in the face of unexpected new
data, I introduce a recent paradigm shift in developmental biology (for details,
see Hoskins, 2008).
Paradigm shifts occur when well-established, widely accepted models are overturned
by new data that cannot be made to fit (Kuhn, 1970). Most general education students
have heard of the Copernican revolution, arguably the best-known example, but smaller-scale
paradigm shifts can also be instructive. The history of developmental neurobiology
includes a paradigm shift regarding early events in the formation of the vertebrate
nervous system. With a brief introduction to the basics of embryogenesis—a
minimal set of facts—general education students work through the logic of
an experimental story as it progressed over seven decades, gaining insight into
how scientific models develop and change.
Studying this issue also provides an opportunity for students to create explanatory
models. While designing models based on experimental data is an important activity
for scientists—the double helix probably the best-known example—modeling
is not typically taught in the science classroom. As a consequence, students may
be largely unaware of scientists’ use of visual representations to stimulate
thinking and suggest new experiments.
I begin with embryonic development, reminding students that all the cells of their
bodies can be traced back to the fertilized egg. First, focusing on the amphibian
embryo, we review gamete formation, fertilization, and the cleavage divisions that
rapidly produce in a three-layered embryo whose outermost layer, ectoderm, will
eventually form both skin and nervous system. Second, I present key grafting studies
carried out by embryologist Hilde Man-gold in the early twentieth century (Spemann
& Mangold, 1924); the studies show that embryonic pattern formation involves
cell-to-cell interactions and some form of signaling. Given Mangold’s results,
student working groups are challenged to derive a consensus interpretation of the
cellular interactions that give rise to the embryonic nervous system and illustrate
those interactions with a diagrammatic model. Third, I describe additional studies
of the system whose results are consistent with Mangold’s findings (Holtfreter,
1933; Nieuwkoop, 1969). Students integrate the new findings into their existing
models and typically emerge with a diagrammatic explanation built on two postulates:
1) that embryonic cells are “preprogrammed” to form skin as “baseline
fate”; and 2) that nervous system tissue forms when the preprogramming is
overridden by an external chemical signal, such as that which hypothetically emanates
from Mangold’s graft. (See Hoskins, 2008 for examples of models devised by
student groups.) If prompted for a molecular mechanism, students propose that the
graft caused the “turning on” of neuronal genes in nearby cells, overriding
these cells’ inherent tendency to differentiate as skin. This interpretation
parallels the historic idea that ectoderm could only produce neurons if induced
by an external signal, a view that persisted in textbooks for more than a half-century.
At this point, I provide information from a later experiment (Hemmati-Brivanlou
& Melton, 1992, 1994), with some surprising results—namely that ectodermal
cells isolated from any “signal” differentiate as neurons, not skin.
When asked to integrate the additional findings into their existing models, students
soon discover that the modification is not possible, and frustration leads some
to assume that at least one of the previous experiments is “wrong.”
(In fact, the experiments and their outcomes have all been described accurately;
the interpretation of the initial findings was inaccurate.) Without confirming or
denying this possibility, I challenge students to design a new model that makes
sense of all the results. Working in groups, students discover that this
requirement can be met only if they are willing to abandon both of their
initial postulates: that the baseline, preprogrammed fate of embryonic ectoderm
cells is epidermal (skin), and that ectoderm cells become neurons only if they receive
an external “instructive” chemical signal. Rather, according to students’
new models, the baseline, preprogrammed fate of embryonic ectoderm cells is neuronal.
These cells become skin only if a signal they are already receiving from their neighboring
cells, which is promoting their differentiation into skin, is turned off
by the action of an external, overriding signal. To reach this conclusion,
students must note that when cells communicate through chemical signals, the chemical
communication might turn off an existing process, rather than simply activate
a new process, as they had assumed initially. As pointed out by embryologists Ali
Hemmati-Brivanlou and Douglas Melton (1997), this reinterpretation represented a
fundamental paradigm shift in vertebrate embryology. As students grapple with conflicting
data and the need to jettison their no-longer-useful original models, they experience
many of the cognitive activities that characterize authentic science, where interpretations
are not just matters of opinion but are data driven and where, if solid new data
do not fit the prevailing model, the model, no matter how entrenched, must be reconsidered.
The paradigm-shift story thus allows general education students to experience science
both as a logical pursuit of explanations and an evolving set of interpretations.
An additional insight into the nature of science comes from Hemmati-Brivanlou and
Melton’s observation that their paradigm-shifting data were not the first
to conflict with the established model for neural/epidermal fate choice (Hemmati-Brivanlou
& Melton, 1997). Nearly a decade earlier, two groups of researchers (Grunz &
Tacke, 1989; Godsave & Slack, 1989) working on slightly different questions
had also observed isolated ectodermal cells unexpectedly differentiating as neurons,
even though the cells had not received any theoretically required “external
signal” (see also Figure 6). Neither previous team, however, used its novel
results as a basis for challenging the prevailing “skin is the default fate”
model. Students closely read the discussion sections of each paper to determine how the unexpected results were explained, and
note that each group found a way to interpret what had happened without drawing
the conclusion that the new findings overturned a well-established model, suggesting
that the influence of existing paradigms can be strong.
Figure 6: Using a Paradigm Shift to Illuminate the Self-Correcting Nature of Science
Depending on the instructor’s goals, some steps could be assigned as homework
rather than being carried out in class. Source: Adapted from Hoskins, S. G. 2008.
Using a paradigm shift to teach neurobiology and the nature of science: A C.R.E.A.T.E.-based
approach. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 6(2):A40–A52.
The paradigm-shift story also offers an opportunity to address student understanding
of evolution, in this case in the context of “recycling” biological
signaling mechanisms. Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) (Kudoh et al., 2004; Zimmerman,
De Jesus-Escobar & Harland, 1996) is a key player in the “decision”
of embryonic cells to become skin or neuron, and is involved in active signaling
among ectodermal cells at a stage when earlier researchers assumed no outside signals
were being exchanged. When students consider that “bone protein” plays
a role during normal development of the embryonic nervous system, they are initially
mystified, often incorrectly proposing that mature bone cells are present in the
embryo, or that the ectodermal cells that release BMP are bone precursors. Discussion
of the history of BMP sheds light on the issue: the molecule was discovered in a
bone cell growth assay and named at that time based on its presumed bone specificity.
Unexpectedly, in a different scenario, studied by different researchers, the same
factor plays a role. As one student pointed out, if this morphogen had first been
discovered in the embryo, it might have been named “SIP—Skin Induction
Protein,” in which case later investigators might have been surprised to discover
a role for “skin inducer” SIP in developing bone. Students perceive
that signaling molecules and mechanisms can be “recycled” in a variety
of species and situations (Salie, Nierderofler & Arber, 2005) in unanticipated
ways. Linking this discussion with the “model systems” issue outlined
above illustrates why learning the molecular basis for pattern formation in such
disparate organisms as fruit flies and frogs can be expected to provide results
that will indeed be relevant to human beings.
Focusing on paradigm shifts helps dispel student preconceptions that science doesn’t
change. A second example in the nervous system is the unexpected and dogma-contradicting
discovery that the vertebrate brain is not “complete” at birth but in
fact adds new cells postnatally. The finding that new neurons arise in adult canary
brains (Goldman & Nottebohm, 1983) was followed by proof, in the face of some
initial skepticism from the scientific community, that the new cells were genuine
neurons (Paton & Nottebohm, 1984). The new cells were subsequently characterized
anatomically, though the initial determination that nearly all were local interneurons
(Paton, O’Loughlin & Nottebohm, 1985) was later supplanted by the finding
that many are actually projection neurons (Alvarez-Buylla, Theelen & Nottebohm,
These papers form a useful module that, once the relevant techniques are clarified,
is not beyond the grasp of general education students. The story is particularly
interesting in that it includes both a major paradigm shift—the surprising
discovery of newly formed neurons in adult vertebrates—and a follow-up study
that missed a class of newborn projection neurons due to limitations in the then-available
tracing techniques. The fact that all four publications are from the same lab is
notable, and the story can be complemented by an interesting essay (Kaplan, 2001)
from a researcher who was ahead of his time in the 1970s. He hypothesized that new
neurons were born in postnatal mammalian brains, leading him to a career-threatening
conflict with existing dogma. Examples such as these reflect the reality that new
data may compel reevaluation of old interpretations.
It’s Published, But Should You Believe It?
Once general education students complete their college science requirement, many
will not take another biology class. My overarching goal is to develop new habits
of scientific thinking in such students before they return to a focus on history,
architecture, philosophy, or literature. Ideally, attention to experimental design,
the use of diagrams to aid understanding, the ability to construct models that organize
data and suggest mechanisms, and the development of critical analysis skills will
inform students’ approach to whatever scientific information they encounter in the future. A great deal of this information will likely
come from the newspaper, online sources, or television (Gudrais, 2007; Knight Foundation,
2007). I thus developed a literature analysis activity focused on “newspaper
science” (see Table 3; Hoskins, 2010).
Table 3: Newspaper Science as a Springboard for Discussion of Key Aspects of
Science that are Underemphasized in Textbooks
Source: Adapted from Hoskins,
S. G. 2010. “But if it’s in the newspaper, doesn’t that mean it’s
true?” Developing critical reading and analysis skills by analyzing newspaper
C.R.E.A.T.E. American Biology Teacher 72(7):415–420.
Science articles found in newspapers and on the Internet often refer to data but
do not include illustrations, making it easy for casual readers to ignore the actual
findings that (theoretically) underlie the headlines. Reporters may give the briefest
of overviews or only superficially summarize information from studies published
in scholarly journals. Information lost in the editing process may make the scientific
basis of the newspaper claim difficult to understand or even inaccurate. Newspaper
science is thus an excellent venue for training students to read critically and
skeptically, enhancing the skills that support development of scientific literacy
(Elliott, 2006; Strauss, 2005).
One example of newspaper science that I have used in teaching general education
students is an article titled “Study Links Produce Prices to Obesity”
(Rundle, 2005). (For details, see Hoskins, 2010.) The article reports on a study
funded by the Rand Corporation and published in the journal Public Health
(Sturm & Datar, 2005). Per the newspaper version, the study examined children’s
weight gain over a three-year span—kindergarten to third grade—in a
range of cities in the United States. Prices of fruits and vegetables in those communities
were also monitored. The article gives the casual reader the impression that when
produce prices rise, parents buy less produce and, as a consequence, children eat
less produce, consume fast food instead, and gain excess weight. No data are presented
supporting any of these implied causal relationships, however. The article provides
some information on produce prices and children’s average weight gain over
the three-year span in two towns, one in California and one in Alabama. Part of
the challenge for students reading this article is to determine whether the study
described indeed “links” obesity to produce prices. As students work through this issue, they also consider the broader
question of correlation and causation, a fundamental distinction often overlooked
in science-based arguments made to the general public (see Table 3).
Students orient themselves in the subject area by concept-mapping the topics of
food, weight, and produce prices and considering multiple variables that relate
to each (see Figure 7). They next hone visualization skills by asking themselves
how the study must have been done, that is, what sort(s) of data would compel the
conclusion that there are “strong links” between produce prices and
obesity, and how might such data be gathered? Students make their own decisions
about what hypothetical data to represent and how to represent it. This is the first
time many students have been challenged to represent data without being told how
or being provided prelabeled axes. As charts from different groups are compared,
common graphing errors can be addressed; for example, some students connect points
that represent different cities with a (meaningless) continuous line because “it’s
a graph; you always connect the dots” (See Figure 8; Clement, 1989; Berg &
Philips, 1994; Foertsch, 2000).
Figure 7: Group Concept Maps Done Quickly in Class as a First Step in Analyzing
the “Produce Prices” Article
Links are unlabeled. Note that different groups emphasize different ideas, with
one map (left) focusing on income as a central factor, and the other noting income
as one factor along with metabolism, exercise, and consumption of produce. Comparing
maps in class prepares students to discuss the scientific issues that underlie the
article, while underscoring the fact that different individuals (and by extension,
scientists) can view the “same” data differently.
Figure 8: Sample Data Produced by Students Working in a Small Group During Class
This figure reveals misconceptions about graphing that are addressed later with
the entire class.
Students are initially unconcerned about the scope of the study, which encompassed
around 6,900 children in 59 towns. Plotting graphs and thinking about how the study
might have been done raises questions of sample size,
and in turn, the question of whether studying some 117 children per community is
a sufficiently large sample, especially in large cities with diverse neighborhoods.
This concern bridges to a discussion of a fundamental issue: to what extent does
one’s confidence in conclusions reached depend on the size of the population
studied, whether that cohort is populated with children in a obesity study or by
citizens polled on a political issue?
Students initially accept the article at face value, but after concept-mapping it,
carefully examining the data, and thinking about how they would study the obesity
question, they are startled to note in the final paragraph that “the Rand
study didn’t measure actual consumption of fruits and vegetables anywhere
in the country” (Rundle, 2005). Given that the title claims “links”
between produce prices and obesity, the lack of data on what was eaten by the children
whose weight was monitored raises concerns and provides many ideas for student-designed
Challenged to design a study or experiment that checks for actual causal relationships,
some students propose overseeing the diets of selected subsets of children, carefully
matching control and experimental populations. Some design broad surveys to examine
whether parents in fact buy less produce when it is expensive. Others plan experiments
in animal model systems, in which the food intake weight of one cohort of laboratory
mice eating fruits and vegetables and another eating the rodent equivalent of a
fast-food diet can be closely monitored. Student grant panels evaluate proposed
studies and discuss how their findings could potentially be applied to improve human
health. In this context, a sidebar discussion of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
changing food pyramid (that is, comparing the 1994 and 2005 versions) provides additional
insight into the nature of science. In this case the focus is on the issue of whether
nutritional recommendations from the U.S. government are made or revised based exclusively
on nutritional research, or whether food lobbies also play a role.
Applying new analytical tools (Table 1) to newspaper science allows students to
experience, after reading fewer than 750 words, critical analysis, data representation,
interpretation of charted findings, design and vetting of studies, and consideration
of how science research is funded. Ideally, students gain fluency in the language
of scientific analysis and master skills that they can apply to any scientific reading,
however casual, that they do in the future.
PERSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE
Taken together, the active-learning approaches I have adapted for the general education
classroom complement approaches typical of textbooks by providing opportunities
for students to think independently as they design experiments or criticize methods
(see Table 4). Students working with other student-scientists to reach consensus
in group experimental design challenges or grant-panel debates may begin to view
science as a social activity rather than one open only to antisocial geek-geniuses
of popular culture’s stereotypes.
Table 4: Complementing Textbook Teaching with Literature-Based Approaches Provides
Insight into Scientific Thinking and Science Process
Textbooks Aimed at General Education Students
Science Articles Scaffolded to Original Papers
Focus on Paradigm Shifts
Close Analysis of Newspaper Science
Focus mainly on content
Focus mainly on scientific process
Use creative graphics to clarify content
Create your own graphics to clarify content
Read with a critical eye
Learn that “established” science can change
Move from verbal description to data representation
Learn to evaluate scientific proposals in grant panels
Find more than one way to answer a scientific question
Learn to design a good experiment
View science as creative
Learn to intelligently criticize research findings or proposed experiments
Focus on the universal logic of data analysis
C.R.E.A.T.E.-based activities complement the content coverage typical of textbooks
in order to actively involve students in key aspects of scientific thinking.
To get a sense of whether student attitudes about science shift over the course
of the semester in classes using such approaches, I probed opinions in an anonymous
pre/post survey. Students responded to a series of statements about science, biology,
and science/society issues by indicating the degree to which they agreed or disagreed
with each proposition (for example, “Experiments in model organisms like the
fruit fly have led to important advances in understanding human biology”).
In two general education cohorts (2006, 2007), I administered the survey during
the first and final classes of a fourteen-week semester, in a biology course focused
on genetics, development, and evolution. Surveys were coded with numbers known only
to the students themselves, to allow statistical comparisons between individuals
as well as groups. In each cohort, students underwent significant shifts on measures
of self-rated understanding of content (Figure 9a), understanding of applicability
of research on model organisms (Figure 9b), self-rated ability to visualize experimental
scenarios (Figure 9c), and self-assessed critical reading skills (Figure 9d). While
these shifts must be interpreted with caution because of the small sample sizes,
they suggest that active-learning approaches can help students gain deeper insight
Figures 9a–9d: Contributions of C.R.E.A.T.E. Methods to Student Gains in
Insight into the Nature of Science
Students in “Man and Nature; Life” (Science 10001), a course for
non-science majors in the City College of New York Honors College, took an anonymous
survey pre- and post-course, responding on a five-point scale to statements about
science or to the request to rate their understanding of science (Figure 9a). The
surveys were coded using numbers known only to participants (see Hoskins, Stevens
& Nehm, 2007). Average score pre and post; error bar = standard error. N = 16
(2006); N = 15 (2007).
Faculty tend to teach as they were taught, and most college science teachers are
trained by lecturers. Unlike K–12 teachers, college faculty are largely untrained
in theories of teaching and learning. This situation, coupled with the multiple
demands on faculty time, can make it difficult for professors to shift their teaching
style away from the lecture format (see Hoskins & Stevens, 2009). The active-learning
classroom activities with which I have experimented are designed to facilitate change
by decreasing preparation time and capitalizing on faculty members’ deep understanding
of scientific process. Working
scientists constantly evaluate data, design studies, and vet proposals. Faculty
who bring these authentic (and high-Bloom scale; see Figure 1) activities into the
classroom can thus play to their strengths, while also benefiting general education
students by revealing who does science, what scientists do, and why
they do it. Rather than delivering a detailed lecture, a teacher using approaches
of the sort outlined above will coach students in developing scientific reasoning
skills in a class session that resembles a lab meeting. Ideally, providing students
a new toolkit of approaches for understanding biology and helping them use the tools
to analyze and intelligently criticize data, to design models, and to outline novel
experiments will help develop a cadre of science-aware citizens who appreciate science
as a way of knowing, understand what drives scientists, and respect the goals of
Alberts, B. 2005. A wakeup call for science faculty. Cell 123:739–741.
Allen, D., and K. Tanner. 2003. Approaches to cell biology teaching: Mapping the
journey—Concept maps as signposts of developing knowledge structures. Cell
Biology Education 2(3):133–136.
Alvarez-Buylla, A., M. Theelen, and F. Nottebohm. 1988. Birth of projection neurons
in the higher vocal center of the canary forebrain before, during, and after song
learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1989. Science for All
Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and
Technology. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
———. 1990. Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford
Berg, C. A., and D. G. Philips. 1994. An investigation of the relationship between
logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31:323–344.
Bloom, B., M. Englehart, E. Furst, W. Hill, and D. Krathwohl. 1956. A Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. R. Cocking. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School. Expanded Ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academies
Brooks, J. G., and M. G. Brooks. 1993. The Case for Constructivist Classrooms.
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Clement, J. 1989. The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing.
Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 11:77–87.
Elliott, P. 2006. Reviewing newspaper articles as a technique for enhancing the
scientific literacy of student-teachers. International Journal of Science Education
Foertsch, J. 2000. Models for undergraduate instruction: The potential of modeling
and visualization technology in science and math education. In
Targeting Curricular Change: Reform in Undergraduate Education in Science, Math,
Engineering, and Technology, 37–40. Washington, D.C.: American Association
for Higher Education.
Glenn Commission. 2000. Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from The
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Godsave, S. F., and J. M. Slack. 1989. Clonal analysis of mesoderm induction in
Xenopus laevis. Developmental Biology 134:486–490.
Goldman, S. A., and F. Nottebohm. 1983. Neuronal production, migration, and differentiation
in a vocal control nucleus of the adult female canary brain.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Grunz, H., and H. Tacke. 1989. Neural differentiation of Xenopus laevis ectoderm
takes place after disaggregation and delayed reaggregation without inducer. Cell
Differentiation and Development 28:211–218.
Gudrais, E. 2007. Teen tune-out nixing the news. Harvard Magazine 110(2).
Handlesman, J., D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan,
J. Gentile, S. Laufer, S. Tighlman, and W. Wood. 2004. Scientific teaching. Science
Hemmati-Brivanlou, A., and D. Melton. 1992. A truncated activin receptor inhibits
mesoderm induction and formation of axial structures in Xenopus embryos. Nature
———. 1994. Inhibition of activin receptor signaling promotes neuralization
in Xenopus. Cell 77:273–281.
———. 1997. Vertebrate embryonic cells will become nerve cells
unless told otherwise. Cell 88:13–17.
Holtfreter, J. 1933. Die totale Exogastrulation, eine Selbstablösung des Ektoderms
vom Endomesoderm. Wilhelm Roux’ Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen
Hoskins, S. G. 2008. Using a paradigm shift to teach neurobiology and the nature
of science: A C.R.E.A.T.E.-based approach. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience
———. 2010. “But if it’s in the newspaper, doesn’t
that mean it’s true?” Developing critical reading and analysis skills
by analyzing newspaper science with C.R.E.A.T.E. American Biology Teacher
———, and L. S. Stevens. 2009. Learning our L.I.M.I.T.S.: Less
is more in teaching science. Advances in Physiology Education 33:17–20.
———, L. S. Stevens, and R. H. Nehm. 2007. Selective use of primary
literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory. Genetics 176:1381–1389.
Kaplan, M. S. 2001. Environmental complexity stimulates visual cortex neurogenesis:
Death of a dogma and a research career. Trends in Neuroscience 24(10):617–620.
Kitchen, E., J. D. Bell, S. Reeve, R. Sudweeks, and W. Bradshaw. 2003. Teaching
cell biology in the large-enrollment classroom: Methods to promote analytic thinking
and assessment of their effectiveness. Cell Biology Education 2(3):180–194.
Knight, J. K., and W. B. Wood. 2005. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology
Knight Foundation. 2007. Survey finds young Americans’ news use is half that
of older adults: Teens’ daily news use is even lower than that of young adults.
Press release, http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_ press_releases/detail.dot?id=13032.
Kudoh, T., M. L. Concha, C. Hourat, I. B. Dawid, and S. W. Wilson. 2004. Combinatorial
Fgf and Bmp signaling patterns the gastrula ectoderm into prospective neural and
epidermal domains. Development 131:3581–3592.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd Ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lall, S., and N. H. Patel. 2001. Conservation and divergence in molecular mechanisms
of axis formation. Annual Review of Genetics 35:407–437.
Mathewson, J. H. 1999. Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked
by educators. Science Education 83:33–35.
Mayell, H. 2005. Babies recognize faces better than adults, study says. National
Geographic News, May 22. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/ 03/0321_050321_babies.html.
Mead, J., and L. Scharmann. 1994. Enhancing critical thinking through structured
academic controversy. American Biology Teacher 56:416–419.
Muench, S. 2000. Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational
goals. Journal of College Science Teaching 29:255–260.
National Research Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press.
———. 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:
A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academies
———. 2003a. Bio 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for
Future Research Biologists. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
———. 2003b. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National
Nieuwkoop, P. D. 1969. The formation of mesoderm in urodelan amphibians. Paper I.
Induction by the endoderm. Roux’s Archives of Developmental Biology
Novak, J. D. 1990. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 27:937–949.
———. 1998. Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps
TM as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations.
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
———, and G. B. Gowin. 1984. Concept mapping for meaningful learning.
In Learning How to Learn, 15–54. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oulton, C., and M. M. Grace. 2004. Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial
issues. International Journal of Science Education 26:411–423.
Pascalis, O., L. Scott, D. Kelly, R. Shannon, E. Nicholson, W. Coleman, and
C. Nelson. 2005. Plasticity of face processing in infancy. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:5297–5300.
Paton, J. A., and F. N. Nottebohm. 1984. Neurons generated in the adult brain are
recruited into functional circuits. Science 225:1046–1048.
———, B. E. O’Loughlin, and F. Nottebohm. 1985. Cells born
in adult canary forebrain are local interneurons. Journal of Neuroscience
Rundle, R. 2005. Study links produce prices to obesity. The Wall Street Journal,
Ryder, J., J. Leach, and R. Driver. 1999. Undergraduate students’ images of
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(2):201–209.
Salie, R., V. Nierderofler, and S. Arber. 2005. Patterning molecules: Multitasking
in the nervous system. Neuron 45:189–192.
Schnotz, W., E. Picard, and A. Hron. 1993. How do successful and unsuccessful learners
use texts and graphics? Learning and Instruction 3:181–199.
Seethaler, S. 2005. Helping students make links through science controversy. American
Biology Teacher 67:265–274.
Siebert, E. D., and W. J. McIntosh. 2001. College Pathways to the Science Education
Standards. Arlington, Va.: National Science Teachers Association.
Spemann, H., and H. Mangold. 1924. Über induktion von Embryonalagen durch Implantation
Artfremder Organisatoren. Wilhelm Roux’ Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik
der Organismen 100:599–638.
Steitz, J. 2003. Commentary: Bio 2010—New challenges for science educators.
Cell Biology Education 2(2):87–91.
Strauss, B. 2005. Pub Med, The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune
as tools for teaching genetics. Genetics 171:1449–1454.
Sturm, R., and A. Datar. 2005. Body mass index in elementary school children, metropolitan
area food prices and food outlet density. Public Health 119(12): 1059–1068.
Zimmerman, L., J. De Jesus-Escobar, and R. Harland. 1996. The Spemann organizer
signal noggin binds and inactivates bone morphogenetic protein 4. Cell 86:599–606.