Translating expertise into effective instruction: The impacts of cognitive task analysis (CTA) on lab report quality and student retention in the biological sciences

39Citations
Citations of this article
123Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Poor instruction has been cited as a primary cause of attrition from STEM majors and a major obstacle to learning for those who stay [Seymour and Hewitt [1997]. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview]. Using a double-blind design, this study tests the hypothesis that the lack of explicit instructions in scientific inquiry skills is a major factor in both low STEM retention and academic underperformance. This project delivered supplemental instruction to students in a laboratory-based undergraduate biology course (n = 314) that was derived either from cognitive task analyses (CTAs) conducted with expert biologists (treatment) or was authored and delivered by an award-winning biology instructor (control). Students receiving traditional instruction were almost six times more likely to withdraw from the course than students in the treatment condition (8.1% vs. 1.4% of initial enrollment). Of the students who completed the course, those who received the CTA-based instruction demonstrated significantly higher levels of performance in the discussion section of their written laboratory reports. Significantly higher performances were seen specifically in the areas of analyzing data to formulate valid conclusions, considering alternative explanations, consideration for the limitations of the experimental design and implications of the research. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Feldon, D. F., Timmerman, B. C., Stowe, K. A., & Showman, R. (2010). Translating expertise into effective instruction: The impacts of cognitive task analysis (CTA) on lab report quality and student retention in the biological sciences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1165–1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20382

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free