Student ownership of research experience is an important feature in STEM curriculum design that leads to the many documented outcomes, such as increased learning motivation, greater interest in research, and higher retention in STEM fields. Although previous researchers have derived concepts of ownership from student descriptions of research experiences, few studies examined the definition of ownership directly from students’ perspective. In addition, we do not have a clear idea of how student writing approaches relate to perceptions of ownership, particularly in a course-based research setting. To address these unknowns, we used qualitative analysis of student survey and interview responses in an upper-division laboratory course. Through the analysis of 167 survey responses and 9 interviews, we found that students have varying perceptions of ownership despite working on the same projects. Common themes of how students define ownership include contributing ideas, doing the work, and being responsible for outcomes. Regardless of the level of ownership students had, student approaches to writing were largely considered pragmatic, which relies on given ideas and secondary literature to dictate what to write, as opposed to the genuine approach, which builds writing on original thoughts. Despite efforts to increase ownership, other course structures may reduce the authorial identity students have and demonstrate. If our goal is to provide authentic research and writing experiences through a course-based laboratory setting, we need to carefully consider how scientific writing is incorporated, as well as how course structures support the development of ownership and authorial identity.

Argumentation is known to improve understanding of primary literature and aid in achieving the goals of undergraduate biology education. However, argumentation has not traditionally been taught in the undergraduate classroom setting, leading to deficits in this skill among students. To support students to develop strong argumentation skills, and understand where students are struggling when constructing written arguments, it is essential to evaluate how students construct their arguments. Hence, my project aimed to develop a framework to answer the following questions: (1) What is the structure of students’ arguments: how much of their argument is addressing a claim, evidence, and mechanism? (2) How often do students include relevant and correct information in their arguments? (3) What are the common ways that students describe evidence in their written arguments? (4) Does argument quality improve after engaging in peer-review? Using a Toulmin framework, we assessed 240 arguments, written by students who had taken an undergraduate genetics course at the University of California, San Diego, over two years. Current findings reveal that students’ arguments were largely describing evidence, with a low inclusion of biological mechanisms to explain the data. Additionally, the majority of students described evidence as general trends instead of conducting data analysis. Assessing correctness and relevance of statements that make up an argument was not sufficient to reveal the struggles students have with writing scientific arguments. Also, our data suggested that a peer-review process might benefit students with more careful instruction.

Students preparation for their courses varies depending on their background.Previous work has found that certain types of study strategies are correlated with success, but it has not been done across multiple biology courses, at various levels, nor have the reasons for perceiving strategies as useful been identified or faculty perceptions. The goal of this study was to examine student perspectives of study strategies, which they find effective and ineffective and why. A second goal was to compare student perceptions to those of faculty and learn more about the communication of study strategies from professors to students. Students and faculty members were asked to rank, in a survey, what they perceived to be the most effective and ineffective study strategies, explain why the strategies are the most and least effective, whether or not faculty encouraged study strategies and if self-testing was among those recommended study strategies. Students and faculty both agreed that cramming, flashcards, quizlet, and recopying your notes are the least effective study strategies. Students appear to be more oriented towards more individual based work and faculty rank peer communication-based strategies higher. This is an indication that the perception of what makes a study strategy effective is somewhat different among students and faculty. Students and faculty both agree that learning and understanding is the biggest reason for the effectiveness of a study strategy. Perception of study strategies should align more between faculty and students which may lead to improved performance in UCSD biology student’s coursework.