Student Annotations of Published Data as a Collaboration between an Online Laboratory Course and the C. elegans Database, WormBase

Abstract

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) provide the same benefits as individual, mentored faculty research while expanding the availability of research opportunities. One important aspect of CUREs is students' engagement in collaboration. The shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic created an immediate need for meaningful, collaborative experiences in CUREs. We developed a partnership with the Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) database, WormBase, in which students submitted annotations of published manuscripts to the website. Due to the stress on students during this time of crisis, qualitative data were collected in lieu of quantitative pre- and postanalyses. Most students reported on cognitive processes that represent mid-level Bloom's categories. By partnering with WormBase, students gained insight into the scientific community and contributed as community members. We describe possible modifications for future courses, potential expansion of the WormBase collaboration, and future directions for quantitative analysis.

FIGURE 1

Image of the annotation webform for submitting annotations. Annotators fill out the input fields to generate a phenotype annotation. Most fields can bring up a pull-down menu for confirmation of the term, ID, number, etc. Annotators fill in their instructor’s name in the “Your Name” box and their own name in the “Comment” box to ensure that the contribution can be tracked by WormBase administrators.

FIGURE 2

Screen shot from the WormBase homepage, September 2020. The WormBase website tracks annotation contributions by WBPersonID. The CURE had the second highest number of annotations. One student used their own WBPersonID and was also listed in the top ten annotators for the same time period.

FIGURE 3

Self-reported impacts of the WormBase annotation activity on student learning. Students were asked whether the activity helped them in four different categories, compared with other biology courses they had taken. Questions asked about: distinguishing between genotype and phenotype, distinguishing between control and experimental conditions, identifying different alleles, and distinguishing between transgenic organisms and genetic mutants. The questions, in full, are found in Appendix 6. A. student responses were categorized as Very Negative, Negative, Neutral, Positive, or Very Positive. B. Student responses to the questions described in (A) were scored using Bloom’s taxonomy categories. Responses that indicated no change in self-reported knowledge are shown as No Change (gray). Responses with single word affirmatives or negatives were categorized as n/a (white). No students described their learning in terms of the two highest Bloom’s categories, Evaluate and Create.