Unfolding the Mystery of Life, Biology Lab Manual for Non-Science Majors

Reviewed by Janet Vaglia, Professor of Biology, DePauw University on 5/17/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Courses such as this are challenging to teach, and it is difficult to find and create resources that covers a range of material that suits every teacher/faculty. As such this Lab Manual does a good job of providing opportunities for students to learn important scientific concepts and gain hands-on experience across a range of foundational scientific topics. These topics range from lessons on the metric system, including how to measure and calculate various dimensions, to basic biochemistry (gases, enzymes), genetics, tissues, and microbiology. I would like to see more on the tissue/organ and physiological side. But again, every teacher will have some individual preferences. Furthermore, the safety precautions and the table of contents are both really great inclusions. They are concise, clear and well organized.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I found this laboratory text to be solidly accurate across the range of experiments and exercises.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Because the manual is designed to provide students with exposure to a broad array of scientific concepts and techniques, it would take a very long time for the material not to be relevant. However, it is important that even beginning students of science, or non-majors, be exposed to current advances in science and technology. Several of the lab exercises could fairly easily be modified to reflect more current innovations and use of technology IF the funds are available to do so. The real limiting factor I can perceive would be cost. For example, the labs that isolate DNA could use more efficient, advanced isolation kits. However, then it would cost more to run the way. The same could be said for the genetics lab and labs involving purchase of material to dissect or study three dimensionally.

Clarity rating: 5

Clarity was a definite strength of the lab text. The background and instructions were easy to read and easy to follow. Students would find it clear what was expected of them for completion of the lab, as well as the lab assignment.

Consistency rating: 5

One of my favorite things about the lab text was the consistency in the structure of the labs. Each lab included an introduction/background, procedure, recording of results and thought-related work based on the results and bigger picture ideas. I particularly liked how students are asked to develop hypotheses and variables for many of the experiments in the lab, versus doing it once and not being asked to apply those same principles again. Terms and new vocabulary are introduced regularly throughout the manual and used consistently thereafter.

Modularity rating: 5

It is very clear how each of the lab lessons, some of which are experiments and some that are not, could be strong supplements to lecture. The labs can reinforce student learning without being too heavy on text or information. A few of the labs are shorter and would not necessarily need a separate lab session. In those cases, the lab exercises could be coopted as active learning modules in the classroom.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Based on many of the non-science major and human biology textbooks I have seen, the topics in this lab text are presented in a commonly used order. Furthermore, the individual labs could be easily swapped around as needed for each instructor.

Interface rating: 5

A few of the labs have links to videos or outside resources. The links work seamlessly and do not interfere with the flow of the labs. Figures and charts are easy to read and interpret. They also serve as really good templates for the students.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

All was well with grammar.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Because the lab text is designed for non-science majors, I do believe it could and should include more examples that speak to diverse races, ethnicities and backgrounds. Some of this type of material could be included in the introductions. However even within the labs themselves there are some missed opportunities for greater inclusiveness. Some examples would be in the genetics, DNA, and microbiology labs.

Comments

This is a lab book that I would seriously consider using in part for a non-science majors class. I would definitely aim to incorporate current technology into some of the labs, as well as integrate more culturally diverse examples and ideas. I believe the text misses the opportunity to engage students in data organization, analysis and graphing using software such as microsoft excel and google sheets. This is a skill that would benefit students of most majors and interests.

Reviewed by Michelle Gould, Biological Sciences Instructor, University of Hawaii Maui College on 1/31/22

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

This lab manual is fairly comprehensive but it doesn't include all of the topics I cover in a Biology Lab for Non-Science majors.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I could not find any errors in this lab manual but I have not used all of the experiments in the classroom yet.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The experiments and background are relevant and many experiments in this course in general have not changed over time. It would be great to perform experiments that are more relevant to the student's everyday life.

Clarity rating: 5

This test is clear and concise. The level of difficulty is appropriate for a college level, introductory level class for non-science majors.

Consistency rating: 5

The framework is consistent and easy to follow since it is well organized.

Modularity rating: 5

The text is a pdf which allows you to choose any experiment or parts of each experiment you like. The flexibility and freedom for the instructor are great.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Each experiment is organized consistently with a background/introduction, method, results, and questions for students to complete.

Interface rating: 5

There were no real issues with text, images, or figures/tables.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I didn't see any grammatical errors but I have not used every experiment myself.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

The lab manual was not culturally insensitive in any way, but did not seek out examples using individuals from diverse races, ethnicities, or backgrounds. Usually culture is irrelevant in many of the experiments, but it could have been included in the genetics sections.

Comments

Overall this is a great lab manual for an introductory level biology lab for non-science majors. I love the flexibility of the format which allows me to choose experiments or even parts of experiments to use in my classroom. Thank you for making this lab manual available as an OER!

Reviewed by Cassie Gohn, Assistant Professor, Manchester University on 4/10/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The lab manual provides many introductory level labs that could be utilized in non-majors courses, as well as majors courses. It gives a good breadth and overview of common intro content.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Overall, accurate and reliable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The text provides instructions for many cook-book labs, which are often used in intro level courses. While not cutting edge, it still enables students to gain knowledge of basic content.

Clarity rating: 4

Overall, no major complaints.

Consistency rating: 4

Overall, no major complaints.

Modularity rating: 5

The text is divided into individuals labs, which could be used on a weekly basis. There are many active learning and critical thinking problems throughout the labs, enabling students to work independently.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Fairly typical organization of content.

Interface rating: 5

No major complaints.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Well-edited.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Neutral.

Reviewed by Jennifer Rubin, Instructor of Biology, Rochester Community & Technical College on 2/3/21, updated 6/1/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Overall the lab manual provides many lab exercises that could be used in an introductory biology lab, several relevant to both non-majors and majors courses. Notable additions that would enhance the lab include: cell division, respiration, and/or DNA replication and protein synthesis.
List of important terms adjacent to the Learning Objectives for each lab exercise, or in a glossary format, would be beneficial. Could include as table format with terms and leave space for students to define before lab or during the introduction to the lab. Exercise 8 has a well-done list of terms with definitions, which is helpful.
Some background content could be expanded; for example, an expansion of the scientific method diagram (p. 18) would be helpful, adding a more comprehensive representation with more than arrows, for example, to emphasize the importance of revisions to a hypothesis or experimental design.
The Analysis section included with some labs is useful to spark student thinking and/or discussion, especially when including graph interpretation, such as Enzymes and Photosynthesis. These were a highlight of several labs.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

Overall the content was accurate and well-presented throughout most exercises. A few notable adjustments include: Section 3.2 on Experimental Design could be more clear here and elsewhere in the manual when discussing independent and dependent variables and experimental and control groups. There is some overlap between term usage in this section that could be stated differently about experimental design. Page 19 would benefit by quantifying sample size to define “an appropriate number of replications” and “many plants in each group.” On page 20 introduction to the Hypothesis defines a prediction – this could be more clearly stated for students to write a hypothesis that establishes a link between temperature to solubility. A section for students to write a relevant prediction for results they expect to see in the experiment would be a good addition after the hypothesis section. P. 93 also has this situation, which could be more clearly worded for students to write a specific hypothesis that explains why environments may vary, and then students follow up with their specific expected results (i.e., their predictions) of which environment is expected to have the most bacteria and fungi.
Section 7.1 with paragraph on photosynthesis phases can be clarified with more detail and appropriate description of each phase. Section 7.2 should use the term affect rather than effect in the first sentence.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The cover artwork is well-done and its creative approach may enable students to connect with living organisms. The inclusion of sketches of additional biological components could be impactful too.
The lab activities throughout are accessible with most basic lab set-ups, although some may require certain materials/equipment and could need to be adapted. Lab exercise “Purpose” could be restated as learning objectives.
To bring CO2 data up to date (p. 24), suggest those using the lab manual update the data table with 2019 and 2020 data, which are available at the provided link, thus Question 3a would have data from 1970-2020 with a graph ending in 2020.
A microscope image to label the parts on p. 9 may be useful for students to fill in the parts as you teach about them, with Section 2.1 on the same page as the scope image. Perhaps a note to indicate a student’s specific microscope may vary, such as monocular vs. binocular, 3 vs. 4 objectives, coarse and fine focus knobs, or could include two separate scope images.

Clarity rating: 3

Visuals would help throughout the lab manual in some spots to improve student understanding. A few suggestions include: Section 1.1 under Measuring Distance – a sample meter stick drawing that relates in a sketch the comparisons that are described in the paragraph description; p. 33: a diagram depicting hyptertonic, hypotonic, and isotonic terms with the numbers used in each descriptive paragraph.
Defining and including the abbreviation for measurements at the first occurrence of each term would also help, such as “The meter (m) is the standard unit of linear measure.” The conversion examples (p. 2) might be more clear with the addition of an example that also shows a dimensional analysis format. When writing an equation using a times sign, an “x” may be more clear than “X.”
Some exercises have lists and in some cases formatting as a table could be more clear. For example, on p. 27, the Enter cell and Leave cell and their associated lists.
A few examples of potential improvements to the clarity:
For example, on p. 32, one could include in some of the questions (2, 6, 7, 8) that students indicate which way the water moved in their explanations. p. 58 table – widen 3rd column for better clarity. Link on p. 59 may need updating – website was not found. P. 63, add detail to some of the questions or consider a list of terms/genotypes/alleles associated with these questions. Line space additions could improve clarity in several locations, as well as a bit more formatting of headings/subheadings.
Lab 8: For the genetics lab activity (p. 61-62), are there Karyotypes 1-4 on a handout? I did not locate them. Suggest inserting a sample Punnett Square problem with the work and interpretation shown.

Consistency rating: 4

A few inconsistent uses of terms could be revised. For example, in the Table of Contents for Lab Exercise 1, introductory paragraph for Lab section 1.1, and the subheading for Lab section 1.4, the term mass is primarily used and/or defined, however, the “Purpose” of Lab Exercise 1 uses the term weight. Term usage remaining consistent may help understanding, such as in the Metric System Lab 1, sometimes the term basic is used, other times standard. One more example: Scan objective lens and scanning objective lens are both used. May note the option of using a prepared slide of other cells in the microscopy lab, as was noted for an onion cell.
Title of Exercise 10 could be renamed Gel Electrophoresis: A Simulated Test for DNA Fingerprinting.

Modularity rating: 4

The ability of labs or sections of labs to be reordered or reorganized works well due to the subdivision of each lab exercise in the format of this lab manual. The document in word format could be helpful for modifications. One way this could help is to enable modification of some notations (*) at the end of a lab or the bottom of a page, in the case that the schedule is different than the authors’ schedule.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Clear with safety precautions prominently located on inside front cover – this page could be adapted as needed for each teaching environment to clarify and personalize with all relevant aspects of safety for each specific lab class using this manual. The signature page noting an understanding of these precautions is provided as a separate page to submit, which is helpful.
The Table of Contents is helpful but could be improved with the addition of page numbers for each subsection. The labs could be reordered as needed by the user, such as including move 3. The Scientific Method before 2. Microscopy and 5. Biomolecules before 4. Cell Membrane Biology; this would a flow of labs focusing on cell structure to be covered prior to labs focusing on cell function. I may also more 11. Isolation of DNA from Plants before 10. Protein Gel Electrophoresis, to cover DNA structure and then DNA function topics.
Some additional formatting techniques, such as font changes, a line or line space(s) between sections, or a table for formatting, could be helpful. One example might be p. 51, the actual activity blends with the first paragraph on this page; a couple changes to this could make it stand out very prominently for easy location of this heading.

Interface rating: 5

This is very well done. The flow of the document from exercise to exercise is smooth, images are clear and functional. Including a link to the website from which Exercise 9 relates would be beneficial on p. 66 with the materials list, in addition to the general biointeractive.org link included at the end of this exercise.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

There are occasional minor errors, such as missing period or extra comma, but overall this aspect of the manual is well-done.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text does not appear to be offensive or insensitive. One suggestion: p. 60 Under Chromosomal notation: List Human male (which is not included in the list), Human female, and then a variation or two of each. Perhaps include a link in the genetics lab (~p. 60) to a website with more information on relevant topics, for example to widen the range of examples.

Reviewed by Nipun Chopra, Assistant Professor, DePauw University on 1/1/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

There are 13 laboratory modules that explore general intro biology interests. I enjoyed the fact that the labs involved ‘active’ thinking questions which would spark the interest of non-science majors. All the labs have portions that can be adapted and flushed out to be used within a ‘virtual lab’ context. This would be a great asset for virtual learning paradigms. The data analysis portions are simple enough for students of varying abilities and interests. This works well for a non-majors book.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

Largely accurate, error-free and certainly unbiased. Though one major error I noticed was that Experiment 10 was labeled "Protein gel electrophoresis", though the experiment was a southern blot (DNA electrophoresis). This could be confusing to students. Additionally, both pages 2 and 5 are the same 'lab safety' pages. On page 10, the diagram should say "micrometer" not "micromete"

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The material, concepts and labs used in this text are time-tested and will be usable for many years to come.

Clarity rating: 5

The text is written without much jargon and at a level that would be of interest to undergraduates, including non-majors.

Consistency rating: 4

Overall the text is organized in the same way. The lab, with thought-provoking questions and a separate notes page for students to annotate ideas/questions generated in the laboratory. This is a good setup. However, starting around Lab 7, there are small changes in formatting in how the questions and spaces provided for them are formatted. This is not a major concern, just a bit of inconsistent formatting.

Modularity rating: 5

Each lab explores its own concept, and this works well for keeping student interest and focus. The use of bullet points, numbering and indenting facilitate easy readibility of the entire text.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Experiments are simple and drive home key concepts of biochemistry and biology - such as simple microscopy, hypothesis generation, enzyme activity and kinetics, simple genetic inheritance, etc. The organization makes sense as well, beginning with simpler overall scientific concepts and then narrowing further into more biochemistry/genetics/etc as the text progresses. The contents page is simple and well-organized.

Interface rating: 4

Sometimes lines are angular (for e.g. page 10) or have small kinks (for e.g. page 20). But overall, these are minor concerns.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No grammatical errors noticed.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The textbook is inclusive of variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

Reviewed by Irfanul Alam, Graduate student, University of Colorado Boulder on 6/11/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I really appreciate the first chapter, non-majors are less likely to encounter SI units in their academic career so starting the semester off by getting acquainted with this system is ideal for the subsequent experiments.
When defining hypothesis for the first time, I think it's best to clarify what it really is and is not (i.e not an if..then statement). Giving an example would set precedent as to how students would make their own hypotheses in future labs. Non-majors are coming in with their high-school understanding of what a hypothesis is so it is imperative to deal with the misconception sooner than later.
Pg.31 -> When talking about tonicity, its great to use a visual example here esp if the instructor forget to put one in their PPT. This is a concept that bio majors struggle to grasp so non-majors would find it even more troubling. Maybe include a Youtube link to show the process.
Pg.42 -> If this course is taken concurrently with the lecture and that both are integrated so the lab can piggyback of the lecture, there is no need to include the properties here.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

pg.17 -> Random error definition is incorrect; what the authors meant was systematic errors instead.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Pg.66 - Hyperlink the Youtube link or download the video and then put it on Kaltura so that students can access it in case the video is removed from Youtube.
Pg. 89 - Flash software might be phased out completely so this activity might become obsolete in the next couple of years so folx would need to think of an alternative game. Nice activity though!

Clarity rating: 5

Pg. 22 --> Defining the terms and then asking the students to identify its relevance to the experimental setup is a great way to make the connection. I would use this for my own exercises in the future!
Pg. 56 - Wonderful page with all appropriate terminologies and examples! I loved that the authors stuck to eye color for all examples instead of switching between traits.

Consistency rating: 3

Lack of a cleanup module after experiment B from Pg.20

Modularity rating: 5

No comments.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Pg.5 - The question about displacement should be asked before using the displacement method.
Pg. 6 - Those * statements are essential especially for first time lab students. It gives the instructor some relief in case they forget to put up a slide about clean-up procedures (if they use PPT). Hopefully, if the instructor applies the theory of behaviourism, students should be well aware of lab cleanup expectations by the second week.
Pg.23 --> The factors affecting dissolved oxygen could be bulleted for better clarity
Pg.48 - Figure captions should be used to make better use of space. Its hard to follow different orientation of the figures as well; just left justifying everything should be good IMO.

Interface rating: 3

Pg.11 -> The table is offset
Pg.86 - 12.3 text has a blue box around it, I am assuming it happened during the copy/paste process.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

None.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I like how the question in page 3 applies what they have learned to a very culturally relevant and pressing example of salt intake in the US. It elicits students to think about their nutritional habits even before delving into any "biology" during their first day in lab.

Reviewed by Michelle Phillips, Assistant Professor, Hawaii Community College on 1/3/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Biology lab manuals for non-science majors that are a perfect fit for a particular location, level of student, available materials, and the myriad ways in which instructors teach this course are difficult to find, and this manual is a helpful addition to those currently available. The manual provides a number of interesting labs that can easily be used alone or as inspiration for the modification of current labs. In general, the level of the text is appropriate for non-science community college or high school students. Some of the labs, however, do not provide context or background enough for non-science majors unless it is strategically linked with a lecture course or arranged differently (Exercise 8 on Genetics, for example). As other reviewers have commented, the text could greatly benefit from an appendix where the metric lab (Exercise 1) could be moved, as this information could easily be incorporated into other labs (like Exercise 2, Microscopy). It also provides only 13 labs (12 if the metric lab is incorporated elsewhere; although Exercise 13 is divided into two weeks), and could therefore also benefit from lab exercises or activities on cells/organelles, cellular respiration, mitosis/meiosis, and/or labs on plant and animal diversity to round out a full 15- to 16-week semester. The text has a table of contents instead of an index or glossary, although some of the labs provide short glossaries of the relevant terms for that particular lab. As discussed later in this review, a list of materials or an instructor’s preparation guide is also missing and would be very helpful for using this text in the classroom.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The content in this text is primarily error-free, although there are a few inconsistencies and simplifications that are used that are not completely accurate. Exercise 2 on Microscopy states that microscopes use light rays as energy...but although light rays are used to view objects, the light rays do not use these as a source of energy; and page 60 refers to Fragile X syndrome as “taking its name from the appearance of the X chromosome,” but does not explain why (it is due to the specific mutation). There are other areas where the text could use additional background and context for student understanding.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The content in the text is relevant to today’s world and students, and includes topics like climate change and certain recent epidemics. One date is referred to in Exercise 13, but will remain relevant for some time to come. This could also easily be updated, and there were no other areas within the text that would make it obsolete within a short period of time, and even in areas where the science is changing (i.e. the Kingdom Protista), the information and activities as presented, will remain helpful and easily updatable.

Clarity rating: 3

Some of the chapters use terminology - like eukaryotes, cytoplasm, solubility, etc. - without defining them. Some of the exercises also use the terms but the definitions and/or more thorough explanations are placed in later labs, so it would be helpful to have some context or further description for these terms that are unfamiliar to non-major students. Providing additional background information also would help with the modularity of the book - many of the labs could be easily rearranged but would require additional background for terms used within the activities. Some of the experiments could benefit from additional explanation and/or connection between the experiment and information that is provided - i.e. digestion of lipids by the body versus detergent in Exercise 5.3 (page 38), or a discussion of saturated/unsaturated fats since there is a picture of a “saturated fatty acid” next to it, but without explanation of what this is or how it relates to lipids.

Consistency rating: 3

Most of the labs had a consistent framework, which included the purpose of the lab (which in some cases is written more like objectives), an introduction section, and lab activities, followed by questions for students and a place for student notes. Some of the units had more helpful background information in the Introduction or activities, whereas some of the other units did not have as much. For instance, Exercise 2 on Microscopy could benefit from definitions of compound microscopes and background or history on microscopy and/or different types of microscopes. Other examples where further explanation could be helpful is including a description (or entire lab) on mitosis/meiosis when discussing genetics and non-disjunction, since meiosis is used in the definition but not discussed elsewhere; or the human blood cell descriptions where students are asked to draw an example of a white blood cell but it isn’t discussed prior to that there are even different types. Other small inconsistencies include that some activities are labeled with letters, others are not; some units have materials lists but not all; some tables have table numbers while others do not; and the first unit refers to a “homework assignment” but the rest don’t (Exercise 13 describes the lab questions as a homework assignment, but in Exercise 1 it is separate and not a part of the text). The text also repeats the Safety Procedures on pages ii and iv, presumably so that a student can print it and sign it, but also keep a copy for themselves; however, it would be nice to exchange the two so that a student could tear out the page they sign and still print the rest of the lab double-sided.

Modularity rating: 5

This text is easily used in a modular format, and in fact, needs to be used this way if you have a longer semester, since there are not enough labs to cover an entire semester unless field trips are included. My non-majors lecture course is divided into themes that cover the content, and this text worked easily with that structure since I was able to pull out several labs and modify them slightly to fit my own reorganization of the content. Again, providing additional context and/or background for some labs would help improve this. It would also help significantly if it could be made available in a word document so that instead of a .pdf in case modifications are needed or desired (even as far as small details like spelling errors or lines like “pick up the homework assignment,” etc.).

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

While the modularity of the lab manual provides the ability to reorganize the labs, the order that the manual is currently in is not exactly traditional. Typically, information about DNA and isolation must take place before understanding electrophoresis and/or even chromosomes and genetics. Additionally, microscopy and identification of cell types usually takes place after an examination or discussion of cells, and the Scientific Method is traditionally taught before microscopy (or next to other labs where microscopy is used).

Interface rating: 5

There are very few interface issues present in the text that might confuse students, and none I would consider significant. Some of the spelling and/or grammatical errors that are present, however, can create confusion. For example, Table 5.1 has a column titled, “check if sugar is resent” (I think they meant present). Other tables have extra rows that can create confusion (page 44); or graphs that do not include units of measurement (page 48; the graph also shows “Km” but does not define it, and then asks students about mM for Figure C). Page 86 (Exercise 12) asks students to fill in Table 14.4, and page 99 refers to Section 14.3, neither of which exist within the book. Likewise, in Exercise 2, the microscopy unit, it refers students to the “student identification guide” that also isn’t present in the book.

It would help significantly if the text had an instructor’s manual available or even a description on where to find some of the materials, make certain solutions, or determine amounts of materials mentioned in the labs. For example, page 3 has students weighing an amount of salt “that many in the United States consume daily” - but instructors would need to determine this on their own; or the “evidence” students swab for the Kastle/Meyer test on page 70. Alternatively, even a consistent list at the beginning of each lab or section with the required materials for the students that could serve as a prep list for the instructor would be helpful - this is available in some of the labs, but not all of them. Lastly, some special equipment (i.e. a thermometer that can measure skin temperature; vacuum, certain specific karyotypes or stickleback cards in units 8-9) and/or living organisms (vinegar eels) were required that are not necessarily available to labs everywhere.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Overall, the text is grammatically correct. There are small inconsistencies, like using acronyms before defining them, although most of these are well-known acronyms and most errors are not egregious enough to decrease the rating of 5 that I gave this text. There are also a few punctuation inconsistencies, as well as spelling errors (i.e. page 2; millimeter is missing an “l” and micrometer is missing an “r”), grammar errors, and some incomplete sentences throughout.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Overall the text is culturally sensitive, although I would not consider it culturally inclusive. While the language and activities primarily stay objective in most labs, the only identifiable item in the text was in Exercise 1 on metric measurement, where it asks “Could a normal person be 3 meters tall?” (page 4).

Comments

Overall, I found this text to be very helpful, and a great addition to the OER manuals available for non-majors Biology courses. Many of the exercises were slight variations of ones I have seen available, but a few were new and interesting and I appreciated the change. While there is room for improvement (as in all texts!), this text provides a great resource and useful framework for an interesting, mostly inquiry-driven non-majors biology course that is relevant and easy to use for students.

Reviewed by Jameel Al-Haddad, Instructor, Michigan State University on 11/22/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

The manual is intended for non-majors, pre-biology, and pre-allied health majors. However, after going through the different units, some of the units are suitable for earlier stages such as high school. Several of its units were too basic for a college-level course and can be re-written to a depth suitable for college. It does cover most of biology areas but not all. For example, it did not include a dedicated unit on ecology. Some units had lists of definitions, which are helpful, but they made up all or most of the introduction section of the unit. Instead, a glossary could have been included as an appendix broken down into the different units covered in the manual. For the microscopy unit, I recommend having an extra piece on dissecting microscopes.
And for the scientific method unit, a ‘question’ usually precedes the ‘hypothesis’ and ‘predictions’ follow, another example on how some units may not be too basic for college level.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

Most units are accurate and error-free. There is still room for improvement. For example, in the first unit on the metric system, to measure the volume of an object in step 3 page 5, the object should be non-floating object. Avoid wooden items for example. For the microscopy unit, the microscope nosepiece can sometimes have more than three objective lenses.
Unit 7, photosynthesis, was well-put. However, there is room for improving accuracy. For example, in “The breaking of the water molecules releases energy that is stored as ATP and NADPH and oxygen is released as a bi-product”, energy stored in ATP and NADPH is not from breaking the water molecule, rather it is from the captured light energy (by chlorophyll) that energizes the electrons which then power the synthesis of ATP and NADPH.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The exercises in this manual have been in use for a significant time in biology labs. Considering the units are isolated for the most part, individual units can be updated without concern to ‘flow’ of manual content.

Clarity rating: 4

The language used in the manual is simple to understand. Some examples of applying concepts to everyday life were provided such as applying the concept of catalase interaction with hydrogen peroxide when healing wounds. However, there are cases when clarification is necessary. For example in Unit 9, the unit jumps into concepts without proper or enough introduction such as phenotypes, dominance, homozygous, genotype.
Simple suggested improvements include, avoiding the use of ‘X’ to symbolize the multiplication process when described within the text, and it may be proper to use the word water inside the text instead of H2O. Other suggestions exist but no room to be included in this review.

Consistency rating: 4

The different units can start with ‘learning goals’ rather than ‘purpose’, then use the format “Students will be able to ….etc.

Modularity rating: 5

The manual is highly modular. Some exercises focus on lab techniques while others explain/apply concepts. For example, unit #10 is about gel electrophoresis, and #11 is about isolating DNA while #12 is about animal tissues followed by #13 about microbiology. There is minimal risk in re-arranging the content except for maybe microscopy.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

I find the metric system unit too basic for college. Instead, it can be included as an appendix, or assigned as a video such as the video suggested on page 19 for the scientific method exercise. The microscopy unit can potentially move after the scientific method and before cell membrane biology for slightly better flow.
I suggest the ‘safety precautions’ page be displayed somewhere in the classroom rather than being part of the manual. The page is repeated I am guessing so the students would sign and date it before they tear and submit the page to the instructor.

Interface rating: 5

Not entirely sold on the manual cover art. Nice art by Alexis Halka, nevertheless. One arrow on page 2 is obscuring the period in the number. And there are paragraph formatting issue in page 67. No "significant" interface issues overall.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some articles were missing here and there such as “Obtain a small object such as dice.” requires an ‘a’ before dice.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Exercise 1.3, requires the existence of a human skeleton model on display with labeled bones. This assumes the availability of one in every lab regardless of discipline. Alternatives can be suggested for the metric system exercise. However, overall, no culturally insensitive or offensive material was spotted.

Comments

The effort to put together an open-resource biology lab manual for non-majors is highly appreciated.

Reviewed by Carol Mapes, Professor, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania on 11/5/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

This lab manual covers thirteen lab exercises for a one semester introductory biology lab class for non-science majors, pre-biology majors, or pre-allied health majors. It would benefit from at least two additional exercises to work for a 15 week semester and would benefit greatly from the addition of alternate lab exercises to enable instructors to tailor the lab content to the needs of their particular courses. The lab manual has a table of contents in lieu of an index but does not have a glossary. The lab manual needs an appendix with an instructor’s guide to setting up the labs. Directions for making solutions should be included in that guide. The lab on the analysis of genetic crosses of stickleback fish (exercise 9), cannot be done without sets of 56 cards with images of stickleback fish with or without pelvic spines. Images should be included that would facilitate the making of sets of these cards for the class exercise.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

There are some inaccuracies and misleading statements in the lab manual. For example, the manual states that light microscopes “use light rays as an energy source” when in fact the light rays are used to enable one to visualize the image while electricity powers the light microscope. The text also indicates that the coarse focus adjustment knob of a microscope should only be used when the scanning lens is in position, but in reality it can be used when the low power lens is in position as well. The statement indicating that “flagella are long whip-like tails”, is not accurate. The statement: “A solution of low solute concentration is referred to as hypotonic” is misleading as the term hypotonic only makes sense when it is used in a comparative manner. Even though the next sentence mentions a comparison with a cell, the statement by itself is misleading and could be confusing for a student.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Many of the lab exercises are ones that have been used for years and probably will be used for years to come. The text should not become obsolete in a short period of time.

Clarity rating: 4

In general, the text was written with clarity, but some topics are presented in an overly simplistic manner and without sufficient background information. Some terms are used for the first time in the text without having been previously defined. Some examples include the first used of the terms meniscus, eukaryotic, and osmosis. Not enough detail is provided for some of the lab exercises. For example, more detail should be provided on the proper use of the light microscope with an emphasis on how to focus on objects using different lenses. Coverage of the concept of changes in working distance with different lenses is also important. Students can become very frustrated when they cannot find smaller objects when looking through the microscope. If the instructor emphasizes proper technique early on, these frustrations can be avoided.

Consistency rating: 5

The text is internally consistent as each lab exercise is presented in a similar fashion starting with the purpose and ending with a notes section.

Modularity rating: 5

The lab manual has 13 separate labs that could be rearranged and covered in an order that would suit the needs of the particular course.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

With the exception of sometimes using scientific terms prior to, or without a definition (as described above), the topics are typically presented in a logical order within each lab exercise.

Interface rating: 5

The text is free of significant interface issues.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

There are some “typos” in the text. For example on page 2: “milimeter: should be “millimeter”; “micromete” should be “micrometer:
The word “data” is plural and on page 17 for example, it should be: “data that do not fit….” instead of “data that does not fit”.
On page 30, “Small molecules such as… easy cross the membrane,,” should be :”Small molecules such as…easily cross the membrane”.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

In general, the text is culturally sensitive. One exception is found on page 4 with the question “Could a normal person be 3 meters tall?” One should avoid using the subjective phrase “normal person”.

Reviewed by Jacqueline Spencer, Assistant Professor of Biology, Thomas Nelson Community College on 10/29/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

This new lab manual for nonscience majors, as well as pre-biology and pre-allied health majors, has an unevenness in the quality of the 13 different experiments. While the Table of Contents shows a logical progression of the subject matter, especially appropriate for students with little biology background, the exercises differ significantly in the accuracy of information, the quality of material presented, and the omission of terms and explanations that would facilitate optimal student learning. Many of the experiments themselves have been available for the past 20 years or so in various forms. The best experiment in the Lab Manual is “Lab #1 – The Metric System of Measurement” because it provides a brief history of the topic and has good visual aids for students who aren’t familiar with the metric units of measure. The poorest is “Lab #8 - Human Genetics and Cytogenetics” because it contains some inaccurate information and has experiments that are not easily carried out by this level of student. There are other lab experiments in the public domain that could be done to demonstrate a point with fewer potential
problems and better learning potential.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

There are several inaccuracies in information presented in the lab material. Then in other sections of the labs there are omissions of definitions and explanations that should have been included for the benefit of those with little prior knowledge of biology. For Example, Lab #2 on Microscopy made no mention of the terms “Depth of Field”, “Parfocal” and “Resolution” all standard terms described in most microscopy labs help a student understand the limits of the microscope. In Lab #3 on The Scientific Method, no explanation is provided for the differences between positive and negative controls. In Lab #4 on Cell Membrane Biology, there was no mention of the type of lipids found in them and why their amphipathic nature is important in determining what goes in and out of the selectively permeable structure. In Lab #7 on Photosynthesis, the prelab material doesn’t adequately explain why water is critical to the entire pathway in the Light Dependent Phase as it pertains to replacement of H+ and electrons and subsequent release of oxygen gas. This is the oxygen gas we breathe! In Lab #12 there is an incorrect description of respiration in birds. Their system is more efficient than that of mammals because of the one-way air flow along with the air sacs. Therefore there was no selective pressure to discard the nuclei in avian red blood cells in order to carry more hemoglobin to which oxygen gas molecules can bind.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

Not all of the content in the labs is up-to-date, especially in Lab #8 on Human Genetics and Cytogenetics. The relationship between dominant and recessive alleles is used here as an example of a “human trait determined by a single gene”. However the idea that eye color is determined by a single gene is incorrect and a reflection of outdated research. The inheritance of eye color has been known to involve multiple genes for quite a few years.

Clarity rating: 3

Some of the labs are written very clearly for the student, but others lack the depth of detail needed for even a nonmajor’s understanding. An example is Lab 3 on Microscopy in the section on members of the Kingdom Protista. When introducing the Protozoa (first animal-like cells) the lab correctly describes the first three types as being differentiated based on how they move. But then the lab inexplicably omitted the 4th group or sporozoans who have no independent movement, depending mainly on vectors to move them. As the protozoan that causes malaria belongs to this group, this was an important omission particularly for Allied Health Majors.

Consistency rating: 4

The framework for the lab manual is consistent lab to lab, however it is outdated to use the term “Purpose” in introducing what students should learn at the beginning of every lab. The use of the more widely used terminology such as “Student Learning Outcomes”, (i.e. “what you have to know”), might get students’ attention faster. Also the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives would be appropriate for this Lab Manual.

Modularity rating: 5

The text in each of the 13 labs does demonstrate a breakdown of material into small sections. Many of these also have their own subtitles.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization of the lab manual is very good, particularly in the ordering of the labs. The knowledge gained from one serves as the building blocks for the next.

Interface rating: 5

There are no interface issues. However there are instances were the labs would benefit from either drawing or video clips showing a student how to perform the techniques required for a particular exercise. An example is the Lab #3 on Microscopy when students are called upon to make a wet mount of pond water without any detailed instructions or graphics to help them.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

There were no grammatical errors that I could determine in the Lab Manual.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The Lab Manual does not demonstrate any cultural insensitivity nor is it offensive to any groups of students.

Comments

This Lab Manual has the potential to be a really good addition to the list of Biology texts and manuals currently available if the inaccuracies can be corrected and the unevenness in quality of lab exercises can be overcome.