Introductory Biology in Social Context: The Effects of an Issues-Based Laboratory Course on Biology Student Motivation

Abstract

We investigated the effects of a laboratory curriculum developed using the socio--scientific issues (SSI) framework to contextualize scientific and socially relevant issues for students. Using self-determination theory and hierarchical linear modeling, we examined the effects of the SSI curriculum relative to a control curriculum on student motivation in a large introductory biology course for life science majors. The SSI group had a significant increase in motivation for engaging in the laboratory work relative to motivation of the control group. Additionally, the SSI group showed higher levels of more autonomous forms of regulation concerning participation in laboratory tasks compared with the control group. Interestingly, the SSI-based curriculum seemed to have a buffering effect on typically observed decreases in student motivation over the course of a term. This buffering effect could potentially indicate greater self-determination in students experiencing an SSI-based curriculum, which could lead to greater student success and persistence. Qualitative data suggest that this increased motivation of the SSI group relative to the control group is due to enhanced feelings of relatedness experienced by students, likely due to the SSI.

FIGURE 1.

The self-determination continuum showing continuum and relationship between types of motivation, regulation, levels of self-determination, and internalization of control. In the SDT of motivation, extrinsic motivation is divided into four different types of regulation based on the level of internal control. An individual’s felt level of autonomy increases as he or she moves from controlled (completely external regulation) to more autonomous (more intrinsic regulation) levels of autonomy or self-determination. Adapted from Ryan, and Deci, 2000; Darner, 2012.

FIGURE 2.

Conceptual framework of our study, how SSI curricula might increase motivation and biology literacy. The SSI curriculum is hypothesized to increase the student perception of relatedness with the laboratory activities and, thus, result in an increase in motivation to participate in the laboratory activities. Relatedness is also impacted by relationships between peers and instructors, so these constructs were included in the study.

FIGURE 3.

Hierarchical course structure of introductory biology for science majors and laboratory curricular implementation. The study was implemented in the laboratory sections of a lecture/lab combined course with three different lectures and 25 lab sections.  The SSI and control curricula were divided approximately evenly within each lecturer or lecturer team. The SIMS was offered to all students three times (at the beginning of the term, in the middle of the term, and at the end of term). AM, class taught in the morning; EXT, control group; PM, class taught in the afternoon.

FIGURE 4.

Difference in average and 95% confidence intervals (F = 12.16; p < 0.005) in student SDI scores (SIMS average scores) and 95% confidence intervals between the control (blue) and SSI (red) curricular treatments for all laboratory sections in the control and SSI groups over time (preterm = 0, midterm = 5, postterm = 10). SDI scores can range from −18 to +18.

FIGURE 5.

Student descriptions of the relevance of the curriculum. Coded student responses to the questionnaire question asking students to explain the relevance of the lab activities to their daily lives and/or future career goals for the SSI (n = 435) and control (n = 415) groups. Categories with significant differences between the two curricula determined by the two-sample proportion tests are indicated with asterisks (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).

FIGURE 6.

Participant descriptions of student–instructor relationships. Coded student responses to the question asking students to describe their relationships with their GTAs for the SSI (n = 435) and control (n = 415) groups. Categories with significant differences between the two curricula determined by the two-sample proportion tests are indicated with asterisks (*, p < 0.05; ** p, < 0.01).

FIGURE 7.

Participant descriptions of peer relationships. Coded student responses to the question asking students to describe their relationships with their peers for the SSI (n = 435) and the control (n = 415) groups. Categories with significant differences between the two curricula determined by the two-sample proportion tests are indicated with asterisks (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).