Download - Perceptions of Science Graduating Students on their Learning Gains

This article was downloaded by: [Wayne State University]On: 26 November 2014, At: 10:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Perceptions of Science GraduatingStudents on their Learning GainsCristina Varsavskya, Kelly E. Matthewsb & Yvonne Hodgsonc

a Faculty of Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800,Australiab Teaching and Educational Development Institute, University ofQueensland, Brisbane, Australiac School of Biomedical Science, Monash University, Victoria 3800,AustraliaPublished online: 21 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Cristina Varsavsky, Kelly E. Matthews & Yvonne Hodgson (2014) Perceptions ofScience Graduating Students on their Learning Gains, International Journal of Science Education,36:6, 929-951, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.830795

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.830795

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500693.2013.830795

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.830795

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Perceptions of Science Graduating

Students on their Learning Gains

Cristina Varsavskya∗, Kelly E. Matthewsb andYvonne Hodgsonc

aFaculty of Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia; bTeaching

and Educational Development Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia;cSchool of Biomedical Science, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia

In this study, the Science Student Skills Inventory was used to gain understanding of student

perceptions about their science skills set developed throughout their programme (scientific

content knowledge, communication, scientific writing, teamwork, quantitative skills, and ethical

thinking). The study involved 400 responses from undergraduate science students about to

graduate from two Australian research-intensive institutions. For each skill, students rated on a

four-point Likert scale their perception of the importance of developing the skill within the

programme, how much they improved it throughout their undergraduate science programme,

how much they saw the skill included in the programme, how confident they were about the

skill, and how much they will use the skill in the future. Descriptive statistics indicate that overall,

student perception of importance of these skills was greater than perceptions of improvement,

inclusion in the programme, confidence, and future use. Quantitative skills and ethical thinking

were perceived by more students to be less important. t-Test analyses revealed some differences

in perception across different demographic groups (gender, age, graduate plans, and research

experience). Most notably, gender showed significant differences across most skills. Implications

for curriculum development are discussed, and lines for further research are given.

Keywords: Learning gains; Science skills; Undergraduate science; Student perceptions

1. Introduction

The introduction of accountability processes is one of the most significant trends in

recent decades that has had an impact on higher education across the world (Santiago,

Tremblay, Basri, & Arnal, 2008). Quality assurance and accreditation agencies such

as the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education in the UK and Tertiary

International Journal of Science Education, 2014

Vol. 36, No. 6, 929–951, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.830795

∗Corresponding author. Faculty of Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800,

Australia. Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Education Quality and Standards Agency in Australia have been instrumental in gen-

erating a culture of institutional quality, transparency, and self-improvement. Within

this framework, institutions have made substantial efforts towards defining holistically

the characteristics or attributes of their graduates; that is, the knowledge and skills stu-

dents develop throughout their programmes. During most of the last decade the

quality assurance activities revolved around curriculum design and teaching standards

(Barrie, 2007), with a focus on defining attributes at the institutional or programme

(discipline) level (Kuh & Ewell, 2010; QAA, 2009; Tuning Association, 2011) and

mapping these across the curriculum (Spencer, Riddle, & Knewstubb, 2012).

In recent years, there has been a shift from a focus on programme design and

mapping graduate attributes to an increased emphasis on demonstrating what stu-

dents learn by the end of their programme (Coates, 2009). National and international

assessment systems are being developed and implemented for the purpose of account-

ability and comparability across institutions and across countries. In the USA, the

Collegiate Learning Assessment test is administered to samples of students within

an institution to derive a standardised measure of students’ development of skills;

data resulting from this sample testing are used to demonstrate the overall perform-

ance of the institution in adding value to the education of their students (Klein, Ben-

jamin, Shavelson, & Bolus, 2007). Globally, the Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) is undertaking the Assessment of Higher

Education Learning Outcomes study to establish the feasibility of worldwide collec-

tion of data on the capabilities of final-year bachelor degree students (Coates &

Richardson, 2011). In Australia, the current focus is on developing teaching and

learning standards to apply for institutional re-accreditation, with no indications yet

on how these will be assessed (Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2010).

1.1 Science Graduates Skill Set

The need for science graduates with a skill set appropriate to the current and future

rapidly evolving technological environment has been the focus of debates across the

world (National Academy of Sciences, 2006; OECD, 2006; Roberts, 2002), paired

with calls for the improvement of science education (Wieman, 2007; Wieman,

Perkins, & Gilbert, 2010).

In Australia, the government has invested in the development of discipline-specific

learning standards; it did so through its Learning and Teaching Assessment Standards

(LTAS) project. The science threshold learning outcomes developed as part of LTAS

project now provide a point of reference for the desired minimum standards of every

science graduate in Australia (Yates, Jones, & Kelder , 2011); they are the product of a

comprehensive national consultation involving science academics, policy-makers, and

industry. Although this a positive development, an agreed set of threshold learning

outcomes for science graduates is only a starting point. Within the current trend

towards institutional accountability, there is a need to demonstrate that our science

students graduate with these skills.

930 C. Varsavsky et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Universities have been addressing the skills agenda in various ways, including inte-

gration of skills in key units at each year level, or the so-called capstone units at the end

of the programme where students draw together what they learn from the point of

admission (Ewell, 2013). However, there is a paucity of literature on such efforts in

the context of science undergraduate programmes. There has been very little

change in the science curricula around the world. Science teaching and learning at

the undergraduate level still seem to focus primarily on knowledge transfer, with

little attention being paid to skills required to apply knowledge (Weiman, 2007;

Wood, 2009). Brownell and Tanner (2012) argue that profound cultural change is

needed to achieve real reform in science, and calls have been made to increase the

pace of that reform (Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011).

1.2 Student Perceptions of Skills

Student surveys to appraise perceptions of skills developed within undergraduate pro-

grammes have been used in a variety of contexts. They are most commonly used at

graduation point, for institutional accountability and ranking purposes (see, e.g.

Kuh & Ewell, 2010 for the USA; Surridge, 2008 for the UK). In Australia, the instru-

ment used for this purpose is the Course Experience Questionnaire. Graduates com-

plete this survey approximately six months after graduation (Ramsden, 1991). Only

five items of the instrument are designed to gauge skill development, and similar to

other such instruments used around the world, no reference is made to the discipline

studied. In the context of bioscience, a UK study found a strong correlation between

the perception of importance of skills between graduates and their employers (Saun-

ders & Zuzel, 2010). The study also found that graduates tend to assess their skills

more highly than employers, particularly if they did not have an industry placement

experience as part of their programme.

To a lesser extent, the literature also includes studies where the student perception

of skills have been sought to inform curriculum development. For example, Walker

(2008) canvassed college students to identify five skills they should learn in college,

suggesting that learning is not always aligned with what teachers want students to

learn, and that grades do not always represent what students actually learned.

Leggett, Kinnear, Boyce, and Bennet (2004) conducted a study to address the

missing student voice in the debate on the importance of science skills, and concluded

that student perceptions align better with teacher perceptions towards the end of the

programme. This study also suggests that there is a link between the importance of

students place on science skills and the extent to which these are assessed.

The literature includes studies with arguments for and against self-reported learn-

ing gains as compared to direct measures. A US study involving over 2,000 students

comparing student’s grade point average, their results of a standardised test, and their

self-reported learning, suggested that student self-reported gains have a modest rela-

tive validity (Anaya, 1999). Kuh (2001) argued that the National Survey of Student

Engagement did not measure what American students learned from admission to

graduation, but that nevertheless the results of these surveys provided important

Perceptions of Science Graduating Students 931

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

information for institutional self-improvement. More recently, Douglass, Thomson,

and Zhao (2012) highlighted that well-designed surveys ‘offer a valuable and more

nuanced alternative in understanding and identifying learning outcomes’, particularly

in research intensive and complex institutions.

2. Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to address the scarcity of literature on skills developed in

the context of a whole science undergraduate programme, and begin to understand

how science students see their learning of these skills as they approach graduation.

More precisely, this research aims to explore the perceptions of graduating science

students of the skills they develop as part of a science programme, their importance,

their inclusion in the programme, and their confidence with the skills. We use the

Science Students Skills Inventory (SSSI) which was developed at the University of

Queensland (Matthews & Hodgson, 2012), modelled on the Student Assessment of

Learning Gains (Seymour, Wiese, Hunter, & Daffinrud, 2000). The distinctive

science graduate skills addressed in this inventory include

(a) Scientific content knowledge.

(b) Oral communications skills to make scientific presentations.

(c) Scientific writing skills.

(d) Team work skills (working with others to accomplish a shared task).

(e) Quantitative skills (mathematical and statistical reasoning).

(f) Ethical thinking skills (ethical responsibilities and approaches).

The specific research questions addressed in this study are

(1) What perceptions do graduating science students have of the importance of

developing science graduate skills during their degree programme? What is

their perceived confidence and improvement in these skills, and how much do

they think these skills were included in their degree programme and will be

used in the future?

(2) Are there mismatches between student perceptions of science graduate skills and

their perceptions of (i) the improvement they made within the whole programme,

(ii) how much they saw them included in the programme, (iii) their confidence

with these skills, and (iv) how much they will use them after graduation?

(3) Are there differences in perceptions by different demographic groups such as

gender, age, their research experiences within the programme, and their future

plans?

3. Methodology

The SSSI was used to capture the breadth of perceptions of graduating science stu-

dents about their skill set. This instrument is specific to science and explores how

the whole science degree programme contributes to the development of science


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

skills. The SSSI has been previously published, including information on its validity

and reliability (Matthews & Hodgson, 2012).

3.1 The Survey

For each of the six science graduate skills, the survey asked students to rate, on a four-

point Likert scale (Table 1).

. How important it is to have in the science programme activities that develop the par-

ticular skill (from 1 ¼ not at all important to 4 ¼ very important).

. The level of improvement they made regarding the particular skill as a result of the

overall science programme (from 1 ¼ no improvement to 4 ¼ a great deal of

improvement).

. To what extent were activities to develop the particular skill included in their science

programme (from 1 ¼ not included at all to 4 ¼ included a lot).

. To what extent they felt confident with the particular skill as a result of the science

programme (from 1 ¼ not at all confident to 4 ¼ very confident).

. Five years after they graduate from the science programme, how much do they think

they will use the particular skill (from 1 ¼ not at all to 4 ¼ a lot).

The demographic information sought from students included gender, age, partici-

pation in undergraduate research experiences (URE) (summer research scholarships,

Table 1. Structure of survey questions, with measures of perception and categories used for

analyses

Question 1 (low) 2 (low) 3 (high) 4 (high)

How important is to have in

the science programme

activities that develop [skill]?

Not at all

important

Not very

important

Important Very important

As a result of your overall

science programme what

improvements have you

made with [skill]?

No

improvement

Little

improvement

Moderate

improvement

A great deal of

improvement

To what extent were

activities to develop [skill]

included in your science

programme?

Not included

at all

Included a

little

Included a

moderate

amount

Included a lot

To what extent do you feel

confident about [skill] as a

result of your science

programme?

Not at all

confident

A little

confident

Moderately

confident

Very confident

Five years after you graduate

from your science

programme, how much do

you think you will be using

[skill]?

Not at all A little Quite a bit A lot


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

or a research unit undertaken for credit) and plans students had for after graduation

(employment, postgraduate studies (research or other), or no plans yet). Finally, the

two institutions involved in the study are very similar; both belong to the Group of

Eight Australian universities, admit students at the highest end of academic perform-

ance, their science programmes are equivalent in breadth and depth, and their teach-

ing largely aligns with the more traditional approaches used in research-intensive

universities.

3.2 Data Collection

The survey was administered online to all students undertaking their final semester of

the Bachelor of Science or the Bachelor of Biomedical Science at two research-inten-

sive Australian institutions. A total of 1,207 final semester science students were

invited to complete the online survey, and 647 responses were received. Students

who were combining science studies with other disciplines (dual degrees) were

removed to ensure the perceptions were about what students learned in a science

degree programme. Incomplete surveys were also removed. In total, 400 surveys

were used to perform the data analysis; this represents 45.4% of all surveyed students

who were studying a science single degree. The data set included 56% female stu-

dents, 83% in the 19–22 age bracket, and 60% students from University A.

3.3 Data Analysis

For each skill, descriptive statistics of importance, improvement, confidence,

inclusion, and future use were examined. Similar to Wyer (2003), ordinal data were

analysed using logistic regression with Likert scale responses grouped into high and

low categories. Measures of perception were divided into high and low categories to

assess not only students’ average perception but also the degree of opposing views

within each skill. ‘Low’ category was based on the two lower points of the scale

(such as ‘not at all important’ and ‘not very important’) whereas ‘high’ category

was based on responses corresponding to the two highest points on the scale (such

as ‘moderately confident’ and ‘very confident’) (Table 1). Age was also categorised

to reflect the primary cohort within the undergraduate science degree programmes

(aged 19–22 years) relative to individuals outside of this cohort (aged 23+). Gradu-

ate plans were based on categories describing students’ intentions after graduating

from the science degree programme. Students intending to continue with postgradu-

ate studies aimed towards medicine or education were categorised as having pro-

fessional postgraduate plans. Those planning to undertake postgraduate studies in

research were categorised as having research postgraduate plans. Students intending

to enter the work force after graduation, whether that be in a science- or non-science-

related area, were categorised as ‘work force’. Students were categorised as not having

a set plan after graduation based on giving this response in the survey; ‘other’ graduate

plans include those intending to enrol in another postgraduate degree programme and

those who answered ‘other’ in the survey (Table 2).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

A series of independent samples t-tests and one-ways Analyses of variance

(ANOVAs) were used, where appropriate, to determine whether student perceptions

of each graduate skill differed according to gender, age, graduate plans, URE, and uni-

versity. When using one-way ANOVAs, Bonferroni adjustment was used for planned

contrasts. A series of paired t-tests were used to determine whether there were differ-

ences between student perception regarding importance of graduate skills and percep-

tion regarding improvement, inclusion, confidence, and future use of these skills. For

all analyses, an alpha level of 0.05 was used as an indication of statistical significance.

Data were analysed using PASW 20.0.

4. Findings

4.1 Student Perceptions of Skills

Table 3 gives descriptive statistics of perceptions of importance, improvement, inclusion,

confidence, and future use for each of the six skills. Figure 1 complements this

Table 3. Perceptions of importance, improvement, inclusion, confidence, and future use for each

of the six skills: mean (standard deviation) and number (percentage) of student rating high

Scientific

content

Oral

communication Writing Teamwork Quantitative

Ethical

thinking

Importance 3.78 (+.42) 3.50 (+.57) 3.70 (+.51) 3.34 (+.68) 3.36 (+.69) 3.17 (+.77)

High 399 (99.8%) 385 (96.3%) 393 (98.3%) 359 (89.9%) 356 (89.0%) 330 (82.5%)

Improvement 3.72 (+.58) 3.06 (+.82) 3.36 (+.73) 2.95 (+.78) 2.88 (+.87) 2.76 (+.85)

High 385 (96.3%) 314 (78.5%) 352 (88.0%) 302 (75.5%) 270 (67.5%) 253 (63.3%)

Inclusion 3.77 (+.47) 3.12 (+.74) 3.49 (+.70) 3.30 (+.69) 2.84 (+.76) 2.46 (+.71)

High 391 (97.8%) 323 (80.8%) 359 (89.9%) 352 (88.0%) 261 (65.3%) 163 (40.8%)

Confidence 3.37 (+.60) 3.17 (+.79) 3.24 (+.69) 3.35 (+.72) 2.64 (+.86) 2.92 (+.85)

High 378 (94.5%) 335 (83.8%) 354 (88.5%) 363 (90.8%) 242 (60.5%) 282 (70.5%)

Future use 3.32 (+.82) 3.42 (+.70) 3.07 (+.87) 3.56 (+.61) 2.65 (+.89) 2.96 (+.92)

High 330 (82.5%) 355 (88.8%) 289 (72.3%) 378 (94.5%) 221 (55.3%) 274 (68.5%)

Table 2. Demographic variables and categories used for analysis

Variable Categories

Sex Female Male

Age 19–22

years

23+ years

University University

A

University B

Graduate plans No set

plans

Work force Postgraduate

(professional)

Postgraduate

(research)

Other

Research

experience

(URE)

None Summer

research

scholarship

Unit (for credit) Both


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

information, displaying the percentage of students who rated high each of the five vari-

ables. Tables 4–9 show the results of the independent sample t-tests and one-way

ANOVAs; where significant differences in perceptions were found, these are highlighted.

4.1.1 Scientific content knowledge. Results from independent sample t-tests and

one-way ANOVAs showed perception of scientific content knowledge were largely

consistent by gender, age, university, graduate plans, and URE with some exceptions.

Specifically, males were more confident. Students completing both a research course

unit and research scholarship had a significantly higher rating of scientific content

knowledge relative to students with no URE. Finally, students reporting ‘other’ as

their graduate plan had more future use of this knowledge compared to those intend-

ing to enter the workforce or enrolling in postgraduate research studies.

Figure 1. Percentage of students assigning high ratings


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 4. Differences in perception of scientific content knowledge by demographic and academic factors

Variables

Importance Improvement Inclusion Confidence Future use

M (SD) p M (SD) p M (SD) p M (SD) p M (SD) p

Gender .35 .15 .94 .02 .80

Female 3.80 (+.40) 3.75 (+.55) 3.77 (+.46) 3.31 (+.60) 3.34 (+.78)

Male 3.76 (+.44) 3.66 (+.60) 3.77 (+.48) 3.46 (+.60) 3.32 (+.87)

Age .68 .45 .61 .53 .09

19–22 3.78 (+.42) 3.72 (.57) 3.78 (+.47) 3.38 (+.61) 3.31 (+.83)

23+ 3.80 (+.40) 3.65 (.64) 3.74 (+.49) 3.33 (+.52) 3.52 (+.72)

University .67 .43 .82 .25 .61

Institution A 3.77 (+.43) 3.69 (.57) 3.78 (+.47) 3.40 (+.59) 3.35 (+.82)

Institution B 3.79 (+.41) 3.74 (.58) 3.77 (+.47) 3.33 (+.62) 3.30 (+.83)

Graduate plans .48 .09 .21 .08 .02

No set plans 3.71 (+.47) 3.57 (+.85) 3.50 (+.65) 3.29 (+.47) 3.36 (+.93)

Work force 3.72 (+.45) 3.76 (+.46) 3.79 (+.41) 3.25 (+.55) 3.20 (+.90)

Postgraduate(prof) 3.78 (+.43) 3.66 (+.61) 3.77 (+.50) 3.38 (+.62) 3.35 (+.79)

Postgraduate(res) 3.77 (+.43) 3.59 (+.73) 3.73 (+.46) 3.23 (+.75) 2.91 (+.92)

Other 3.84 (+.37) 3.83 (+.48) 3.82 (+.42) 3.49 (+.58) 3.49 (+.75)

Research experience .98 .05 .91 .26 .79

None 3.78 (+.03) 3.65 (+.65) 3.76 (+.48) 3.33 (+.61) 3.30 (+.81)

Scholarship 3.76 (+.43) 3.72 (+.45) 3.79 (+.44) 3.37 (+.60) 3.34 (+.87)

Course unit 3.80 (+.41) 3.80 (+.46) 3.80 (+.46) 3.48 (+.55) 3.40 (+.84)

Both 3.78 (+.42) 3.86 (+.46) 3.78 (+.48) 3.46 (+.61) 3.39 (+.79)

Note: Bold values represent statistically different perceptions (p , 0.05).

Percep

tions

ofS

cience

Gra

duatin

gS

tuden

ts937

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 5. Differences in perception of communication skills by demographic and academic factors



Sex .01 .01 .02 .80 .61

Female 3.56 (+.56) 3.15 (+.82) 3.19 (+.73) 3.16 (+.81) 3.44 (+.70)

Male 3.40 (+.58) 2.94 (+.81) 3.02 (+.73) 3.18 (+.76) 3.39 (+.70)

Age .54 .90 .45 .12 .96

19–22 3.49 (+.57) 3.06 (+.82) 3.13 (+.73) 3.19 (+.79) 3.42 (+.70)

23+ 3.54 (+.55) 3.04 (+.82) 3.04 (+.79) 3.00 (+.73) 3.41 (+.69)

University .03 .001 .001 .84 .35

Institution A 3.45 (+.58) 2.95 (+.82) 2.95 (+.69) 3.16 (+.74) 3.42 (+.70)

Institution B 3.57 (+.56) 3.23 (+.80) 3.38 (+.74) 3.18 (+.86) 3.41 (+.71)

Graduate plans .08 .37 .84 .19 .05

No set plans 3.21 (+.58) 2.93 (+.83) 2.93 (+.92) 3.29 (+.73) 3.71 (+.47)

Work force 3.54 (+.50) 3.16 (+.71) 3.13 (+.74) 3.07 (+.74) 3.45 (+.68)



Other 3.59 (+.51) 3.14 (+.86) 3.11 (+.76) 3.24 (+.81) 3.53 (+.66)


None 3.46 (+.59) 2.91 (+.84) 3.00 (+.73) 3.10 (+.81) 3.35 (+.69)

Scholarship 3.46 (+.58) 3.19 (+.82) 3.41 (+.72) 3.21 (+.82) 3.51 (+.70)

Course unit 3.53 (+.55) 3.23 (+.73) 3.18 (+.75) 3.25 (+.67) 3.33 (+.76)

Both 3.64 (+.48) 3.30 (+.73) 3.17 (+.69) 3.29 (+.71) 3.61 (+.65)


938

C.

Varsa

vsk

yet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 6. Differences in perception of writing skills by demographic and academic factors



Sex .001 .07 .08 .70 .48

Female 3.77 (+.46) 3.42 (+.71) 3.54 (+.63) 3.25 (+.69) 3.10 (+.86)

Male 3.60 (+.55) 3.28 (+.75) 3.42 (+.77) 3.22 (+.71) 3.03 (+.89)

Age .09 .93 .56 .47 .01

19–22 3.68 (+.51) 3.36 (+.73) 3.48 (+.70) 3.32 (+.70) 3.03 (+.88)

23+ 3.80 (+.45) 3.37 (+.71) 3.54 (+.72) 3.30 (+.63) 3.39 (+.77)

University .40 .39 .38 .65 .99

Institution A 3.68 (+.52) 3.33 (+.73) 3.46 (+.72) 3.25 (+.67) 3.07 (+.86)

Institution B 3.72 (+.49) 3.40 (+.72) 3.53 (+.66) 3.22 (+.73) 3.07 (+.89)

Graduate plans .04 .70 .51 .86 .001

No set plans 3.43 (+.51) 3.14 (+.86) 3.50 (+.65) 3.21 (+.43) 2.50 (+.76)

Work force 3.71 (+.46) 3.41 (+.72) 3.57 (+.60) 3.22 (+.67) 3.22 (+.86)



Other 3.70 (+.40) 3.38 (+.73) 3.55 (+.63) 3.30 (+.69) 3.32 (+.89)


None 3.70 (+.50) 3.31 (+.74) 3.49 (+.70) 3.21 (+.69) 2.91 (+.88)

Scholarship 3.68 (+.56) 3.34 (+.75) 3.62 (+.57) 3.24 (+.67) 3.13 (+.88)

Course unit 3.70 (+.52) 3.60 (+.59) 3.45 (+.71) 3.38 (+.63) 3.23 (+.72)

Both 3.68 (+.50) 3.41 (+.73) 3.38 (+.77) 3.25 (+.76) 3.43 (+.87)


Percep

tions

ofS

cience

Gra

duatin

gS

tuden

ts939

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 7. Differences in perception of team work skills by demographic and academic factors



Sex .01 .14 .02 .32 .38

Female 3.41 (+.64) 3.00 (+.80) 3.37 (+.66) 3.38 (+.71) 3.59 (+.60)

Male 3.23 (+.72) 2.48 (+.76) 3.21 (+.72) 3.31 (+.74) 3.53 (+.63)

Age .75 .92 .19 .01 .46

19–22 3.34 (+.68) 2.94 (+.79) 3.32 (+.68) 3.38 (+.71) 3.57 (+.61)

23+ 3.30 (+.70) 2.96 (+.76) 3.17 (+.71) 3.09 (+.76) 3.50 (+.62)

University .10 .38 .26 .66 .60

Institution A 3.29 (+.69) 2.92 (+.78) 3.27 (+.69) 3.33 (+.69) 3.55 (+.63)

Institution B 3.41 (+.65) 2.99 (+.79) 3.35 (+.68) 3.37(+.77) 3.58 (+.59)

Graduate plans .67 .41 .50 .58 .80

No set plans 3.29 (+.47) 3.21 (+.58) 3.21 (+.70) 3.36 (+.63) 3.36 (+.93)

Work force 3.38 (+.65) 3.05 (+.75) 3.28 (+.69) 3.26 (+.68) 3.58 (+.57)



Other 3.40 (+.70) 2.89 (+.82) 3.23 (+.70) 3.43 (+.75) 3.57 (+.61)


None 3.33 (+.70) 2.87 (+.79) 3.26 (+.69) 3.36 (+.70) 3.57 (+.60)

Scholarship 3.38 (+.60) 3.12 (+.72) 3.49 (+.59) 3.40 (+.67) 3.51 (+.74)

Course unit 3.25 (+.74) 2.98 (+.80) 3.13 (+.82) 3.25 (+.71) 3.53 (+.51)

Both 3.35 (+.66) 2.99 (+.80) 3.33 (+.66) 3.32 (+.87) 3.61 (+.57)


940

C.

Varsa

vsk

yet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 8. Differences in perception of quantitative skills by demographic and academic factors



Sex .73 .15 .28 .001 .10

Female 3.37 (+.67) 2.83 (+.88) 2.80 (+.74) 2.49 (+.86) 2.59 (+.88)

Male 3.34 (+.72) 2.95 (+.85) 2.88 (+.79) 2.83 (+.82) 2.73 (+.89)

Age .08 .25 .26 .90 .004

19–22 3.33 (+.70) 2.86 (+.87) 2.82 (+.75) 2.64 (+.85) 2.60 (+.87)

23+ 3.52 (+.62) 3.02 (+.77) 2.96 (+.84) 2.65 (+.92) 3.00 (+.92)

University .14 .14 .13 .50 .10

Institution A 3.40 (+.65) 2.93 (+.84) 2.88 (+.74) 2.66 (+.86) 2.59 (+.90)

Institution B 3.29 (+.75) 2.80 (+.90) 2.77 (+.79) 2.60 (+.86) 2.74 (+.88)

Graduate plans .09 .06 .002 .05 .002

No set plans 3.14 (+.86) 3.14 (+.95) 3.21 (+.70) 3.07 (+.48) 2.43 (+.94)

Work force 3.49 (+.68) 3.08 (+.76) 3.07 (+.75) 2.78 (+.78) 2.84 (+.80)


Postgraduate(res) 3.44 (+.68) 2.68 (+.99) 2.68 (+.72) 2.32 ((+.95) 2.14 (+.83)

Other 3.36 (+.69) 2.93 (+.90) 2.89 (+.85) 2.65 (+.93) 2.81 (+.89)


None 3.34 (+.67) 2.87 (+.83) 2.86 (+.70) 2.60 (+.80) 2.55 (+.84)

Scholarship 3.26 (+.77) 2.75 (+.97) 2.71 (+.83) 2.59 (+.89) 2.76 (+.99)

Course unit 3.48 (+.64) 2.95 (+.85) 2.93 (+.85) 2.83 (+.76) 2.78 (+.87)

Both 3.36 (+.72) 3.03 (+.87) 2.86 (+.76) 2.71 (+.94) 2.78 (+.89)


Percep

tions

ofS

cience

Gra

duatin

gS

tuden

ts941

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 9. Differences in perception of ethical thinking skills by demographic and academic factors



Sex .001 .002 .003 .60 .56

Female 3.35 (+.68) 2.88 (+.83) 2.55 (+.72) 2.90 (+.87) 3.07 (+.88)

Male 2.94 (+.82) 2.61 (+.86) 2.34 (+.68) 2.95 (+.83) 2.82 (+.95)

Age .22 .86 .08 .24 .44

19–22 3.16 (+.78) 2.76 (+.86) 2.44 (+.70) 2.94 (+.86) 2.94 (+.93)

23+ 3.30 (+.70) 2.74 (+.83) 2.63 (+.80) 2.78 (+.81) 3.11 (+.85)

University .001 .003 .02 .18 .40

Institution A 3.05 (+.81) 2.66 (+.83) 2.39 (+.64) 2.88 (+.84) 2.89 (+.94)

Institution B 3.35 (+.67) 2.92 (+.87) 2.56 (+.79) 2.99 (+.88) 3.06 (+.88)

Graduate plans .29 .35 .42 .90 .97

No set plans 2.86 (+.66) 2.79 (+.80) 2.50 (+.65) 3.14 (+.77) 2.64 (+.84)

Work force 3.17 (+.76) 2.92 (+.76) 2.58 (+.74) 2.93 (+.81) 2.83 (+.93)



Other 3.09 (+.86) 2.65 (+.86) 2.38 (+.67) 2.93 (+.92) 2.96 (+.97)


None 3.16 (+.74) 2.74 (+.86) 2.47 (+.73) 2.88 (+.81) 2.91 (+.92)

Scholarship 3.26 (+.77) 2.75 (+.87) 2.47 (+.74) 2.93 (+.97) 3.13 (+.91)

Course unit 3.13 (+.85) 2.88 (+.82) 2.48 (+.68) 3.00 (+.85) 2.93 (+.86)

Both 3.16 (+.83) 2.77 (+.86) 2.42 (+.63) 2.92 (+.85) 2.99 (+.93)


942

C.

Varsa

vsk

yet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Results from a series of paired t-tests suggest that, on average, students believed the

importance of scientific content knowledge was greater than their improvement, con-

fidence, and future use of this skill (p , 0.05). See Table 3 for a summary of the mean

differences.

In addition, differences between importance of scientific content knowledge and

graduate perceptions, stratified by age, gender, URE, university, and graduate

plans, were also explored. A consistent trend emerged such that individuals across

gender, age, university, and URE reported that importance of scientific content

knowledge was greater than their confidence and future use of this skill (all p ,

0.01) with one exception. There was no difference between perception of importance

and future use of this content knowledge among students without graduate plans (p ¼

0.14). See Table 4 for a summary of the mean differences.

4.1.2 Oral communication skills to make scientific presentations. Females as well as

students from Institution B perceived oral communication to be better improved,

more important and with greater inclusion in the undergraduate science programme

relative to males and students from Institution A, respectively. Those with no URE

reported lower improvement, saw lower inclusion in the programme and predicted

lower future use of oral communication skills compared to students who had partici-

pated in URE.

Students’ perception regarding the importance of communication skills was signifi-

cantly higher than their perception of their improvement, inclusion, confidence, and

future use of these skills (all p , 0.05). In addition, differences between importance of

communication skills and graduate perceptions, stratified by age, gender, URE, uni-

versity, and graduate plans, were also explored and revealed that importance of com-

munication skills was greater than their perception of improvement, confidence, and

inclusion of these skills (all p , 0.05), with some exceptions. Specifically, perceptions

regarding importance and future use of communication skills were the same between

males, students 23 years and older, those who completed a research scholarship,

research course, both a scholarship, and a course and students who plan to work or

‘other’ after graduating from the undergraduate programme (p ¼ 0.08 and p ¼

0.74, respectively). Further null differences were found between inclusion and impor-

tance among those who completed a research scholarship (p ¼ 0.79) and those with

no set plans after graduation (p ¼ 1.00). Null differences were also found with the

latter regarding confidence and importance of communication skills (p ¼ 0.75). See

Table 5 for a summary of the mean differences.

4.1.3 Scientific writing skills. Most differences regarding scientific writing skills

centred on future use of this skill. Older students considered they would use this

skill more in the future. Students with ‘other’ graduate plans reported that they

would utilise scientific writing more in the future relative to those with postgraduate

plans, work, or no plans. Students who planned to work after graduating also thought

they were more likely to use scientific writing relative to those enrolling in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

postgraduate research studies as well as those with no plans. Furthermore, students

with course and scholarship research experience also predicted greater future use of

scientific writing compared to students without URE (Table 6).

Students’ perception regarding the importance of writing skills was significantly

higher than their perception of the improvement, inclusion, confidence, and future

use of these skills (all p , 0.001). See Table 3 and Figure 1 for a summary of the

mean differences. In addition, differences between importance of writing skills and

graduate perceptions, stratified by age, gender, URE, university, and graduate

plans, were also explored. Data suggest students older than 23 years, those who com-

pleted a research scholarship, those who completed a research course unit, those with

no set plans as well as those preparing to undertake postgraduate research work after

graduation had the same perception regarding importance of writing skills and

inclusion of writing skills in this programme (p ¼ 0.99–1.00). See Table 4 for a

summary of the mean differences.

4.1.4 Team work skills. Few differences in perceptions were found when examining

team work skills. Females believed team work was more important and more included

in the undergraduate science degree programme. Younger students reported greater

confidence of these skills. Students completing a research scholarship thought team

work had higher inclusion in their programme relative to students completing a

research unit.

Results from paired t-tests suggest that, on average, students believed the impor-

tance of team work skills was greater than their improvement in this skill within the

undergraduate science programme (p , 0.05). However, students also perceived

that team work skills had greater future use relative to the importance they placed

on these skills. Perceptions of importance matched perceptions of inclusion (p ¼

0.20) and confidence (p ¼ 0.91). See Table 3 and Figure 1 for a summary of the

mean differences. In addition, differences between importance of team work skills

and graduate perceptions, stratified by age, gender, URE, university, and graduate

plans, were also explored. Unlike the other graduate skills, ratings of importance rela-

tive to improvement, confidence, inclusion, and future use were the same over cat-

egories of age and gender. This trend of null differences was also found across

university, URE, and graduate plans, with few exceptions. First, students with no

set plans, University A students as well as those with both scholarship and course

experience in research perceived future use of team work skills higher than importance

of team work skills (p , 0.05). See Table 7 for a summary of the mean differences.

4.1.5 Quantitative skills. Males reported higher confidence in this area; older stu-

dents perceived greater future use of these skills. Students planning to enter the work-

force also reported greater inclusion of quantitative skills and higher future use

compared to students planning to undertake postgraduate studies in a professional

area.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Perception regarding the importance of quantitative skills was significantly higher

than their perception of the improvement, inclusion, confidence, and future use of

these skills (all p , 0.001). See Table 3 and Figure 1 for a summary of the mean differ-

ences. This trend was consistent by age, gender, URE, and graduate plans (all p ,

0.001) with few exceptions. Those with no set plans reported similar perceptions

relating to importance and inclusion (p ¼ 1.00) as well as confidence (p ¼ 0.54) in

quantitative skills. See Table 8 for a summary of the mean differences.

4.1.6 Ethical thinking skills. Regarding ethical thinking all differences are centred

on gender and university. Specifically, females as well as University B students per-

ceived ethical thinking skills to be more important, better improved, and more

included in the degree programme compared to their male counterparts and Univer-

sity A students, respectively.

Perception of importance of ethical thinking skills was significantly higher than their

perception of the improvement, inclusion, confidence, and future use of these skills

(all p , 0.001). See Table 3 and Figure 1 for a summary of the mean differences.

Again, this trend was largely consistent across the different socio-demographic and

academic groups explored in this study (all p , 0.05). However, perception of impor-

tance was the same as confidence and future use of ethical thinking among students

who completed a research course unit, both a scholarship and research course unit

and those with no plans after graduation (p ¼ 0.10–.38). Males also had similar per-

ceptions regarding importance and confidence (p ¼ 0.89) with those completing

research scholarships rating importance and future use of ethical thinking (p ¼

0.28) on the same level. See Table 9 for a summary of the mean differences.

5. Discussion

This study gives an insight into how students perceive the development of skills in the

context of science studies, across their whole degree programme, as they approach

graduation. Students will draw upon their skills as they embark on their next stage

in life, be this employment or further studies; hence, a reflection on these skills

close to graduation becomes highly relevant to them. The development of employabil-

ity skills is one of the main reasons students pursue higher education; while a good

qualification is important when seeking employment, employers are now more inter-

ested in the set of skills they have to offer rather than grades (Yorke, 2006).

5.1 Perceptions of Importance, Improvement, Inclusion, Confidence, and Future Use of

Science Skills

Students reported all six skills to be important, although ethical thinking, quantitative

skills, and teamwork were perceived to be less important than scientific content

knowledge, oral communication, and scientific writing. On average, students consist-

ently reported that most graduate skills were moderately improved throughout their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

programme, they saw them included a moderate amount in their programme, and stu-

dents were moderately confident in applying these skills, and would use them in the

future. High and low ratings of these skills show a similar picture, with the majority

of students consistently viewing these skills as having high importance, high inclusion,

high improvement, have high confidence in applying them, and see high future use.

In this analysis two of the six skills stand out: quantitative skills and ethical thinking.

Although these show similar patterns as the other four skills, more students reported

lower importance, inclusion, improvement, confidence, and future use of these skills.

These perceptions seem to be a reflection of the curriculum. Despite general agree-

ment across the world that quantitative skills are essential graduate outcomes (Mat-

thews, Belward, Coady, Rylands, & Simbag, 2012), the importance of mathematics

in science programmes has been de-emphasised (Berlin & Hyonyong, 2005;

Brown, 2009; Koenig, 2011). On the other hand, the role of ethics in the science cur-

riculum has not been discussed up until recently (Atweh & Brady, 2009; Boyd et al.,

2008; Reiss, 1999) and has largely focused on plagiarism. Our results suggest that not

enough attention is being paid to ethics in the science curriculum, despite it being

articulated as a graduate attribute in the science threshold learning outcomes (Yates

et al., 2011).

Overall, perception of importance of all six science skills being included in the cur-

riculum was greater than perception of improvement, inclusion, confidence, and

future use. The only exception was team work; this skill was perceived consistently

across socio-demographic and academic groups of students as being highly relevant

in their future. The perceptions of our respondents match Saunders and Zuzel’ find-

ings (2010) that teamwork was rated more highly than other skills by bioscience

graduates and their employers. Learning in teams does not only help students build

team work skills; studies in the context of science have shown that small group learn-

ing also has positive effects on student attitudes towards learning (Springer, Stanne, &

Donovan, 1999) and on performance (Gupta, 2004). Interestingly, the participants of

our study felt very confident about their team work skills even when they saw this skill

less included in the curriculum. Greater research is required to understand how and

where students develop team work skills.

5.2 Demographic Differences in Perceptions

There were some differences in perceptions across the different demographic groups.

Most notably, gender showed significant differences in perceptions across most skills.

Male students reported greater confidence in scientific content knowledge and in

quantitative skills.

On the other hand, their female counterparts assigned greater importance to oral

communication, scientific writing, team work and ethical thinking and saw greater

inclusion of communication, teamwork, and ethical thinking skills. There is a

dearth of literature on gender differences in perception and development of skills in

the science context; however, our findings are largely consistent with the few

studies related to these. A UK study found that male students are more confident


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in quantitative skills than their female counterparts. (Tariq, Qualter, Roberts,

Appleby, & Barnes, 2012). Other studies concluded that females prefer teamwork

and gain more educational benefits than males (Curran, Sharpe, Forristall, &

Flynn, 2008; Wainer, Bryant, & Strasser, 2001). Research at the university level on

ethics teaching has largely been conducted in business-related fields; one such

study found that female university students showed more favourable perception

towards ethics than males (Luthar, DiBattista, & Gautschi, 1997). An Australian

study of tertiary entrance exam performance found that females scored higher on

written communication than males (Cox, Leder, & Forgasz, 2004). Finally, when

researching attitudes of high school students towards science as they were choosing

their university studies, Miller, Slawinski Blessing, and Schwartz (2006) found that

females were more interested than males in majors that were more people oriented

and they choose science largely because of the skills required to achieve this end.

This may explain why women doing science assign greater importance to oral com-

munication, scientific writing, team work, and ethical thinking.

Our study found that students with URE of some kind report greater improvement

of their communication skills, even when they do not assign greater importance to this

skill. Furthermore, those who had both types of research experiences (scholarship and

course unit) also predict greater use of scientific writing and oral communication in

the future. It could be argued that the latter group had in mind a postgraduate

pathway that will require those skills; however, this is not reflected in the differences

seen in their future plans: those with plans for postgraduate studies did not rate higher

the future use of scientific writing and communication. The present findings support

prior research on the benefits of URE (Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & DeAntoni,

2004).

With relation to future plans, those with plans other than postgraduate studies or

workforce saw greater future use for scientific content knowledge. It is not obvious

why this is the case, and no literature was found to explain it; further investigation

will be required to understand this difference. Finally, age seems to influence percep-

tions of scientific writing and team work skills, with older students seeing greater

future use and greater confidence with team work skills. It is likely that older students

have already operated in a workplace, and hence have the benefit of the insight into the

requirements of employment (Saunders & Zuzel, 2010).

Students from both institutions responded consistently across most variables and

skills, with two exceptions. These related to oral communication and ethical thinking

where importance, improvement, and inclusion of these two skills were rated higher in

one of the two institutions. This is surprising, as it would appear that the teaching and

assessment practices of the two institutions are comparable; further research will be

required to understand what lies behind these differences.

6. Conclusion and Further Research

This quantitative study gives a picture of student perceptions about their science skill

set as they are about to enter their next stage in life after their undergraduate degree.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Overall, student perceive all six skills as important, they report moderate improve-

ment, see them moderately included in their programme, feel moderately confident

and they see themselves using them in their future. Perceptions of importance of

these skills are greater than perceptions of improvement, inclusion in the programme,

confidence, and future use. Quantitative skills and ethical thinking were perceived by

more students to be less important. Team work skills were perceived as having greater

future use, but were seen less often in their programme. Some differences in percep-

tion across different demographic groups were found. Most notably, gender showed

significant differences across most skills. Male students reported greater confidence

in scientific content knowledge and in quantitative skills; female students assigned

greater importance to oral communication, scientific writing, team work and ethical

thinking and saw greater inclusion of communication, teamwork, and ethical thinking

skills.

Caution should be exercised when generalising these results. The data set analysed

is large, but it should be noted that data represent perceptions of only about half of the

students surveyed, and that this study involved two very similar institutions with a

strong focus on research. Also, our study does not attempt to explain these percep-

tions and the differences found across demographic groups.

The present study has several implications for curriculum reform and further

research. An examination of teaching and assessment practices is required to under-

stand the difference of perception of importance of skills and improvement, inclusion,

confidence, and future use. For example, how are these skills integrated throughout

the programme? Are they explicitly included in the teaching and in the assessment

tasks? Does performance on these skills count towards their grades? The use of a

survey on student perceptions of their skills has several advantages for curriculum

reform. First, student surveys focused on a particular programme taught within an

institution provide valuable information for short-term curriculum changes; unlike

national and institutional generic surveys, a programme directed survey can provide

information in a timely fashion allowing responsive changes to be made to curricula

(Harris et al., 2010). Second, students are more likely to be responsive to a survey

that comes from the academics who teach them as opposed to administrators from

institutions or government (Denson, Loveday, & Dalton, 2010), and hence the infor-

mation gathered is of greater value. Finally, programme level surveys of perceptions of

skills provide an opportunity to engage all academics teaching into the programme, to

increase their familiarity with the programme intended learning skills, and hence

improve teaching and assessment practices (de la Harpe & David, 2012).

Future research should examine several areas. First, our results would be enriched

with a qualitative approach to explain student perceptions of importance, inclusion,

improvement, confidence, and future use of science skills. Second, further work

needs to be done to understand student perceptions of where, how, and when

science skills are developed. For example, a possible line of inquiry could seek to

complement the study by Leggett et al. (2004) to gain greater understanding of

student perceptions of their science skills as they progress level by level from the com-

mencement of their programme through to graduation. Third, more research


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

contextualised in undergraduate science is required to understand the demographic

differences found in this study, particularly gender differences on perceptions about

ethics and teamwork. Fourth, because our findings are in the context of large

research-intensive universities, it is important to question if they can be generalised

to other institutions. Finally, studies that examine the relationship between student

perceptions of learning gains in science skills and academic assessment of those

gains would greatly benefit the higher education sector.

References

Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self-reported gains,

standardized test scores, and college grades. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 499–526.

Atweh, B., & Brady, K. (2009). Socially response-able mathematics education: Implications of an

ethical approach. Eurasia Journal of mathematics, science & technology education, 5(3), 267–276.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council. (2010). Learning and teaching academic standards

(LTAS) project.

Barrie, S. C. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attri-

butes. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 439–458. doi:10.1080/03075070701476100

Berlin, D. F., & Hyonyong, L. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical

analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 15–24.

Boyd, W. B. E., Healey, R. L., Hardwick, S. W., Haigh, M., Klein, P., Doran, B., . . ., Bradbeer, J.

(2008). ‘None of us sets out to hurt people’: The ethical geographer and geography curricula in

higher education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 37–50.

Brown, G. (2009). Review of education in mathematics, data science and quantitative disciplines: Report

to the Group of Eight Universities. Canberra: Group of Eight.

Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training,

time, incentives, and . . . Tensions with professional identity? Life Sciences Education, 11(4),

339–346.

Coates, H. (2009). What is the difference? A model measuring the value added by higher education

in Australia. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 77–96. Retrieved from http://

www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/50309916.pdf

Coates, H., & Richardson, S. (2011). An international assessment of bachelor degree graduates’

learning outcomes. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23(3), 51–70.

Cox, P. J., Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2004). Victorian certificate of education: Mathematics,

science and gender. Australian Journal of Education, 48(1), 27–46.

Curran, V. R., Sharpe, D., Forristall, J., & Flynn, K. (2008). Attitudes of health sciences students

towards inter professional teamwork and education. Learning in Health and Social Care, 7(3),

146–156.

Denson, N., Loveday, T., & Dalton, H. (2010). Student evaluation of courses: What predicts satis-

faction? Higher Education Research and Development, 29, 339–356. doi:10.1080/

07294360903394466

Douglass, J. A., Thomson, G., & Zhao, C. M. (2012). The learning outcomes race: The value of

self-reported gains in large research universities. Higher Education, 64(3), 317–335.

Ewell, P. T. (2013). The lumina degree qualifications profile (DQP): Implications for assessment.

Occasional Paper# 16. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Gupta, M. L. (2004). Enhancing student performance through cooperative learning in physical

sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 63–73.

de la Harpe, B., & David, C. (2012). Major influences on the teaching and assessment of graduate

attributes. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 493–510. doi:10.1080/

07294360.2011.629361


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/50309916.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/50309916.pdf

Harris, L., Driscoll, P., Lewis, M., Matthews, L., Russell, C., & Cumming, S. (2010). Implement-

ing curriculum evaluation: Case study of a generic undergraduate degree in health sciences.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 477–490.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM

instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teach-

ing, 48(8), 952–984.

Klein, S., Benjamin, R., Shavelson, R., & Bolus, R. (2007). The collegiate learning assessment:

Facts and fantasies. Evaluation Review, 31, 415–439. doi:10.1177/0193841X07303318

Koenig, J. (2011). A survey of the mathematics landscape within bioscience undergraduate and postgradu-

ate UK higher education. Leeds: UK Centre for Bioscience, Higher Education Academy.

Kuh, G. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national survey of

student engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17.

Kuh, G., & Ewell, P. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United States. Higher

Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1–20.

Leggett, M., Kinnear, A., Boyce, M., & Bennett, I. (2004). Student and staff perceptions of the

importance of generic skills in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 23,

295–312. doi:10.1080/0729436042000235418

Luthar, H. K., DiBattista, R. A., & Gautschi, T. (1997). Perception of what the ethical climate is

and what it should be: The role of gender, academic status, and ethical education. Journal of

Business Ethics, 16(2), 205–217.

Matthews, K., & Hodgson, Y. (2012). The science students skills inventory: Capturing graduate

perceptions of their learning outcomes. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Math-

ematics Education, 20(1), 24–43.

Matthews, K. E., Belward, S., Coady, C., Rylands, L., & Simbag, V. (2012). The state of quantitative

skills in undergraduate science education: Findings from an Australian study. Australia: Office for

Learning and Teaching (OLT).

Miller, P. H., Slawinski Blessing, J., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school stu-

dents’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363–381.

National Academy of Sciences. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing

America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: NAS Committee on Science, Engineer-

ing and Public Policy.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). Evolution of student

interest in science and technology studies: Policy report. Paris: OECD Global System Forum.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2009). Subject benchmark statements. Retrieved from www.qaa.

ac.uk

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course

experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129–150. doi:10.1080/

03075079112331382944

Reiss, M. J. (1999). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34, 115–140.

Roberts, G. (2002). SET for success: The supply of people with science, engineering and mathematics skills.

London: HM Treasury.

Santiago, P., Tremblay, K., Basri, E., & Arnal, E. (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society,

Vol 1. Paris: OECD.

Saunders, V., & Zuzel, K. (2010). Evaluating employability skills: Employer and student percep-

tions. Bioscience Education, 15, 1–15.

Seymour, A. D., Wiese, D. A., Hunter, A., & Daffinrud, S. M. (2000). Creating a better mousetrap:

On-line student assessment of their learning gains. Proceedings of National Meeting of the Amer-

ican Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA.

Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of

research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year

study. Science Education, 88, 493–534. doi:10.1002/sce.10131


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

www.qaa.ac.uk

www.qaa.ac.uk

Spencer,D., Riddle, M., &Knewstubb, B. (2012). Curriculummapping toembed graduate capabilities.

Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 217–231. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.554387

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on under-

graduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of

educational research, 69(1), 21–51.

Surridge, P. (2008). The national student survey 2005–2007: Findings and trends. A report to the Higher

Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/

2008/rd12_08/rd12_08.pdf

Tariq, V. N., Qualter, P., Roberts, S., Appleby, Y., & Barnes, L. (2012). Mathematical literacy: Role of

gender and emotional intelligence. STEM Annual Conference, London. Retrieved from http://

www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stemconference/MSOR/Vicki_Tariq.pdf

Tuning Association. (2011). Tuning educational structures in Europe. Retrieved from www.unideusto.

org/tuningeu/home.html

Wainer, J., Bryant, L., & Strasser, R. (2001). Sustainable rural practice for female general prac-

titioners. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 9(Suppl), S43–S48.

Walker, P. (2008). What do students think they (should) learn at college? Student perceptions of

essential learning outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 45–60.

Wieman, C. E. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change, 39(5), 9–15.

Wieman, C. E., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large research

intensive universities: A case study in progress. Change, 42(2), 6–14.

Wood, W. B. (2009). Revising the AP biology curriculum. Science, 325, 1627–1628.

Wyer, M. (2003). Intending to stay: Images of scientists, attitudes toward women, and gender as

influences on persistence among science and engineering majors. Journal of Women and Min-

orities in Science and Engineering, 9(1), 1–16.

Yates, B., Jones, S., & Kelder, J. (2011). Learning and teaching academic standards project: Science.

Final report. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-learning-and-teaching-academic-

standards-science-2011

Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is – What it is not. York: Higher Edu-

cation Academy.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:35

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd12_08/rd12_08.pdf

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd12_08/rd12_08.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stemconference/MSOR/Vicki_Tariq.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stemconference/MSOR/Vicki_Tariq.pdf

www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/home.html

www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/home.html

http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-learning-and-teaching-academic-standards-science-2011

http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-learning-and-teaching-academic-standards-science-2011

Download - Perceptions of Science Graduating Students on their Learning Gains

Top Related