@article{parsons_ferzli_aune_dale_2022, title={Exploring Plant-Insect Interactions Year-Round Through Field Sampling}, volume={84}, ISSN={["1938-4211"]}, DOI={10.1525/abt.2022.84.6.360}, abstractNote={Teaching ecological concepts and field methods for introductory biology courses can be challenging, especially when class sizes are large and activities or topics depend on environmental conditions that can change dramatically from semester to semester. We provide a laboratory module that can be used throughout the year, where students can explore plant-insect interactions on campus trees in urban environments using nondestructive measures. Students are provided a transparent grid, a measuring tape, and a random selection protocol to estimate gloomy scale (Melanaspis tenebricosa) insect density on preselected Acer rubrum tree trunks. Students are also given a pace-to-plant protocol to evaluate how impervious surfaces around trees in urban environments may be associated with scale insect abundance. This module highlights ecological concepts, such as population dynamics, species interactions, competition, and food webs, among others. Through this module, students also learn skills in ecological field sampling techniques, particularly how to randomly sample, how to estimate insect abundance, and how to use observation skills to inform scientific inquiry.}, number={6}, journal={AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER}, author={Parsons, S. E. and Ferzli, M. and Aune, P. and Dale, A. G.}, year={2022}, month={Jun}, pages={360–364} }
 @article{schussler_read_marbach-ad_miller_ferzli_2015, title={Preparing Biology Graduate Teaching Assistants for Their Roles as Instructors: An Assessment of Institutional Approaches}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1931-7913"]}, DOI={10.1187/cbe.14-11-0196}, abstractNote={ The inconsistency of professional development (PD) in teaching for graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) is a widespread problem in higher education. Although GTAs serve an important role in retention of undergraduate science majors and in promotion of scientific literacy in nonmajors, they often lack preparation and ongoing support for teaching. Given the recent national focus on instructional quality in introductory courses, our goal was to use an online survey to identify current practices of teaching PD for biology GTAs and compare these results with the last national survey on this topic. In responses from 71 participant institutions, 96% reported some mandatory teaching preparation for biology GTAs; however, 52% of these programs required 10 or fewer hours per year. Respondents wanted to change their programs to include more pedagogical information and teaching observations with feedback to their GTAs. Programmatic self-ratings of satisfaction with GTA PD were positively correlated with the number of topics discussed during PD. Although more schools are requiring GTA PD for teaching compared with the last national survey, the lack of program breadth at many schools warrants a national conversation with regard to recent calls for improving undergraduate instruction. }, number={3}, journal={CBE-LIFE SCIENCES EDUCATION}, author={Schussler, Elisabeth E. and Read, Quentin and Marbach-Ad, Gili and Miller, Kristen and Ferzli, Miriam}, year={2015}, month={Sep} }
 @inbook{gardner_karl_ferzli_shea_haase_day_2015, place={Cham, Switzerland}, series={ASTE Series in Science Education}, title={The Bennett's Millpond Environmental Learning Project: Place-based education with student-teacher research teams}, ISBN={["978-3-319-16410-6"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-319-16411-3_14}, abstractNote={This chapter describes a case study of place-based education in action called the Bennett’s Millpond Environmental Learning Project. The work sought to engage high school students and teachers in place-based, collaborative research experiences related to environmental sustainability. Results from a formal evaluation of the project are discussed. Several themes related to science teacher education and professional development that emerged from the data are presented, including teacher development as researchers, teacher development of collaborations with the community, and teacher use of technology to facilitate learning and outreach. An argument is provided for the importance of technology as a mediator that allows both teachers and students to easily move between local place-based environmental sustainability issues and global worldviews.}, booktitle={Educating Science Teachers for Sustainability}, publisher={Springer}, author={Gardner, G.E. and Karl, C. and Ferzli, M. and Shea, D. and Haase, D. and Day, J.B.}, editor={Stratton, S. and Hagevik, R. and Feldman, A. and Bloom, M.Editors}, year={2015}, pages={255–274}, collection={ASTE Series in Science Education} }
 @article{gardner_jones_ferzli_2009, title={Popular media in the biology classroom: viewing popular science skeptically}, volume={71}, DOI={10.2307/20565328}, abstractNote={Biology is not an opinion subject. ... It's a facts-based subject. If this had been a philosophy class, I wouldn't have said anything. (Spies, 2008) The above statement was made by a senior in a university embryology course in response to her teacher's suggestion that fetuses should be aborted if amniocentesis showed the presence of trisomy-21. The student, who happened to have a sibling with Down syndrome, was appalled at the comment, and reported the instructor to the Dean of the college because she felt that instructor opinions had no place in the science classroom. In response, the professor (with 35 years of teaching experience) later admitted that he offers this opinion as a means for stimulating class discussion, and if faced with the same situation would not likely find the decision as clear-cut as he might imply in his lecture. Accusations and justifications aside, it is the student's explanation of why this statement was offensive in this particular classroom setting that begs consideration. Where did the aforementioned lesson go wrong? Why was there a disconnect between the instructor's intent and the student's interpretation? The authors of this article argue that this example elucidates a disturbing trend in students' views of the nature of science (in this case, in the context of biology) as a body of facts. Recent science education research and reform documents strongly disagree with this perspective and stress the need for teaching students to appreciate the nature of the scientific enterprise and its social ramifications. It can be argued that the responsibilities of biology educators to their students extend far beyond the delivery of science content. Educators are also charged with ensuring that students do not temporarily memorize the information, but actively integrate it into their daily lives. Personal integration of science content should prepare students to evaluate the reliability and merit of this information outside of the classroom (Laugksch, 2000). At the K-12 level, the National Science Education Standards support this educational goal as one component of scientific literacy by stating that, "everyone needs to be able to engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about important issues that involve science and technology" (NRC, 1996, p. 1). In addition, the former Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), Gerry Wheeler, was quoted as saying, "We have in this country a major crisis of people listening to people they feel comfortable with [rather than] listening to a variety of groups and critically thinking through their messages" (MacDonald, 2008). For the general public, information regarding science topics is often obtained from media sources such as the Internet, television, or newspapers (NSF, 2006). In recognition of this, it would be beneficial for curriculum designers to integrate the critical use of media sources as a tool to promote scientific literacy in the biology classroom (Jarman & McClune, 2007; MacKenzie, 2007). This is admittedly not a new concept to the community of educators, many of whom already address the intersection of science and society by integrating popular media into their lesson plans (Guill, 2006). In his discussion of the primary goals of scientific literacy, DeBoer (2000) argues that the ability to understand and negotiate science issues presented by the media is a critical skill for students' successful matriculation into society. Teaching through the use of popular media can be difficult for many teachers because science issues presented may often carry implicit or subtle cultural, moral, and/or religious undertones. When asked about their methods regarding teaching such controversial science topics, many teachers indicate a preference for focusing on facts, rationality, balanced views, and teacher neutrality (Oulton et al., 2004). This only reinforces student perceptions that science should be all about "facts. …}, number={6}, journal={American Biology Teacher}, author={Gardner, G. E. and Jones, M. G. and Ferzli, M.}, year={2009}, pages={332–335} }
 @article{carter_ferzli_wiebe_2007, title={Writing to Learn by Learning to Write in the Disciplines}, volume={21}, ISSN={1050-6519 1552-4574}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1050651907300466}, DOI={10.1177/1050651907300466}, abstractNote={The traditional distinction between writing across the curriculum and writing in the disciplines (WID) as writing to learn versus learning to write understates WID's focus on learning in the disciplines. Advocates of WID have described learning as socialization, but little research addresses how writing disciplinary discourses in disciplinary settings encourages socialization into the disciplines. Data from interviews with students who wrote lab reports in a biology lab suggest five ways in which writing promotes learning in scientific disciplines. Drawing on theories of situated learning, the authors argue that apprenticeship genres can encourage socialization into disciplinary communities.}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Business and Technical Communication}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Carter, Michael and Ferzli, Miriam and Wiebe, Eric N.}, year={2007}, month={Jul}, pages={278–302} }
 @article{ferzli_carter_wiebe_2005, title={LabWrite: Transforming lab reports from busywork to meaningful learning opportunities}, volume={35}, journal={Journal of College Science Teaching}, author={Ferzli, M. and Carter, M. and Wiebe, E.}, year={2005}, pages={31–33} }
 @article{carter_ferzli_wiebe_2004, title={Teaching genre to English first-language adults: A study of the laboratory report}, volume={38}, number={4}, journal={Research in the Teaching of English}, author={Carter, M. and Ferzli, M. and Wiebe, E.}, year={2004} }
 @inbook{nagappan_williams_wiebe_miller_balik_ferzli_petlick_2003, title={Pair learning: With an eye toward future success}, volume={2753}, ISBN={354040662X}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-540-45122-8_21}, abstractNote={Pair programming is a practice in which two programmers work collaboratively at one computer on the same design, algorithm, or code. Prior research indicates that pair programmers produce higher quality code in essentially half the time taken by solo programmers. Pair programming is becoming increasingly popular in industry and in university curricula. An experiment was run at North Carolina State University over a period of one and a half years to assess the efficacy of pair programming as an alternative educational technique in an introductory programming course. We found that the retention rate of the students in the introductory programming courses is equal to or better than that of the students in the solo programming courses. Most students show a positive attitude towards collaborative programming, and students in paired classes continue to be successful in subsequent programming classes that require solo programming. Pair programming also leads to a reduced workload for the course staff in terms of grading, questions answered and teaching effort.}, booktitle={Extreme programming and agile methods: XP/Agile Universe 2003: Third XP Agile Universe Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, August 10-13, 2003}, publisher={Berlin; New York: Springer}, author={Nagappan, N. and Williams, L. and Wiebe, Eric and Miller, C. and Balik, S. and Ferzli, M. and Petlick, J.}, year={2003}, pages={185–198} }
 @article{williams_wiebe_yang_ferzli_miller_2002, title={In support of paired programming in the introductory computer science course}, volume={12}, DOI={10.1076/csed.12.3.197.8618}, abstractNote={A formal pair programming experiment was run at North Carolina to empirically assess the educational efficacy of the technique in a CS1 course. Results indicate that students who practice pair programming perform better on programming projects and are more likely to succeed by completing the class with a C or better. Student pairs are more self-sufficient which reduces their reliance on the teaching staff. Qualitatively, paired students demonstrate higher order thinking skills than students who work alone. These results are supportive of pair programming as a collaborative learning technique.}, number={3}, journal={Computer Science Education}, author={Williams, L. and Wiebe, Eric and Yang, K. and Ferzli, M. and Miller, C.}, year={2002}, pages={197–212} }
 @inproceedings{williams_yang_wiebe_ferzli_miller_2002, title={Pair programming in an introductory computer science course: Initial results and recommendations}, ISBN={1581134711}, booktitle={OOPSLA 2002: 17th ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications : conference proceedings: November 4-8, 2002, Washington State Convention and Trade Center, Seattle, Washington, USA}, publisher={New York, NY: ACM Press}, author={Williams, L. and Yang, K. and Wiebe, E. and Ferzli, M. and Miller, C.}, year={2002} }
 @inproceedings{wiebe_hare_carter_fahmy_russell_ferzli_2001, title={Supporting lab report writing in an introductory materials engineering lab}, booktitle={2001 ASEE annual conference & exposition: Proceedings ; June 24-27, 2001, Albuquerque Convention Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico}, publisher={Washington, DC: ASEE}, author={Wiebe, E. N. and Hare, T. M. and Carter, M. and Fahmy, Y. and Russell, R. and Ferzli, M.}, year={2001} }