Cbe-Life Sciences Education最新文献

In this exploratory mixed-methods analysis of students' perceptions of inclusion in introductory STEM courses for STEM majors, we asked students to rate inclusion in their class and to provide an open-text explanation of their rating. Analyzing 1930 qualitative responses resulted in a codebook containing academic, identity, and nonspecific categories. The majority of responses (>80%) cited academic factors such as interactions between students and instructors or course elements and policies. Most academic responses aligned with evidence-based teaching practices fostering inclusion, describing a range of strategies and policies instructors can implement to increase students' perceptions of inclusion. A small number of student responses indicated that their perception of the required knowledge background for the course impacted course inclusivity. Few differences in frequency distributions were found between subgroups examined (gender, race and ethnicity, self-reported inclusion score, and discipline). Additionally, tracking a subset of students (135) across three courses revealed that most (80%) cited different factors influencing their perception of inclusion in each course. This suggests students' perceptions of inclusive practices are complex, and most students recognize multiple factors that influence their inclusion. Overall, our findings suggest instructors can significantly influence students' perceptions of inclusion by using multiple inclusive teaching strategies and course policies.

A compelling body of research suggests that students from racially marginalized and minoritized (RMM) backgrounds are systematically deterred from Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields when teachers and scientists create ideologically colorblind STEM learning environments where cultural differences are deemed irrelevant and disregard how race/ethnicity shapes students' experiences. We examine whether and how STEM faculty can serve as important sources of information that signal racial/ethnic diversity inclusion (or exclusion) that influence RMM students' motivation to persist in STEM. Specifically, we focus on RMM students' perceptions of their faculty research mentors' cultural awareness-the extent to which students believe that their faculty research mentor acknowledges and appreciates racial/ethnic differences in STEM research. Results from a longitudinal survey of RMM students (N = 150) participating in 74 faculty-led STEM research labs demonstrated that RMM students who perceived their faculty research mentor to be more culturally aware experienced more positive social climates in the lab and were more identified as scientists. Increased science identity, in turn, predicted their motivation to pursue STEM careers 3 months later. These findings demonstrate the importance of acknowledging, welcoming, and celebrating racial/ethnic diversity within STEM learning environments to broaden inclusive and equitable participation in STEM.

Ungrading is an emancipatory pedagogy that focuses on evaluative assessment of learning. Self-regulated learning (SRL) has consistently been referred to as the learning theory that undergirds ungrading, but SRL-with its deficit frame in the literature and in practice-fails to uphold ungrading's emancipatory aims. An asset-framed learning theory-one that combines the cultural orientation of funds of knowledge with the power dynamics of community cultural wealth-is proposed as an alternative to SRL. The proposed learning theory aligns ungrading to its emancipatory aims and may provide an opportunity to better understand the learning that occurs in ungraded classrooms. Scholarly and practical impacts for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), and specifically biology, educational research and practice include investigating the plausibility of mixing learning theories, aligning learning theory to emancipatory aims and researching how faculty activate funds of knowledge and community cultural wealth, both individually and collectively, in ungraded STEM classrooms.

Team-based learning (TBL) is a highly intense active learning pedagogy that uses a cycle of preclass preparation, formative assessment for readiness, mini-lectures, and complex team exercises. Consistent with the literature on active learning, prior research on TBL consistently shows its benefits for student outcomes as compared with previous lecture. However, little work has examined student outcomes disaggregated by demographic variable. We analyzed assessment and student demographic data (i.e., binary gender, racial/ethnic group, generational status) in three semesters of TBL in an upper-division biochemistry course to understand the degree to which performance could be predicted by student demographics. We use theoretical and empirical research from social psychology to hypothesize that the intense interpersonal interactions of TBL could activate psychological threats, the effects of which would be measurable as differences in student performance that correlate with demographic variables. Our regression analysis did not support this hypothesis. This null result invites a deeper discussion on how we measure the potential effects of active learning on student outcomes, particularly given how important it is to account for intersectional and invisible identities.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) offer students opportunities to engage in critical thinking and problem solving. However, quantitating the impact of incorporating research into undergraduate courses on student learning and performance has been difficult since most CUREs lack a comparable traditional course as a control. To determine how course-based research impacts student performance, we compared summative assessments of the traditional format for our upper division immunology course (2013-2016), in which students studied known immune development and responses, to the CURE format (2017-2019), in which students studied the effects of genetic mutations on immune development and responses. Because the overall class structure remained unaltered, we were able to quantitate the impact of incorporating research on student performance. Students in the CURE format class performed significantly better on quizzes, exams, and reports. There were no significant differences in academic levels, degree programs, or grade point averages, suggesting improved performance was due to increased engagement of students in research.

Investigating definitions of success and failure among introductory biology students is essential for understanding what underlies their self-efficacy; a student who gets a B on an exam may lose self-efficacy if they define failure as anything less than an A. Yet, whether students have the same definitions for success as they have for failure in these classes is unknown, nor how those definitions relate to course performance. To better understand student definitions for success and failure and their implications, this mixed-methods study collected survey data from students in two introductory biology courses about their definitions of success and failure and their self-reported grades. Coding of open-ended responses revealed four broad themes related to both success and failure: Performance, Content, Preparation, and Attitude. Although there were common themes in how students defined success and failure overall, individual students often (65%) described success or failure in relation to different standards. We also found some definitions of success and failure were predicted by grades. These results highlight the complexity of building self-efficacy in introductory biology and suggest the need for greater awareness and acknowledgment of the different standards students use to judge their success and failure.

Background: Mentorship is critical to success in postgraduate science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) settings. As such, the purpose of this study is to comprehensively explore the state of mentorship interventions in postgraduate STEMM settings to identify novel practices and future research directions. The selection criteria for reviewed articles included: 1) published between 2002 and 2022, 2) peer-reviewed, 3) in English, 4) postgraduate mentees, 5) a program where mentorship is a significant, explicit focus, and 6) a description of mentee outcomes related to the mentorship intervention. Overall, 2583 articles were screened, and 109 articles were reviewed.

Results: Most postgraduate STEMM mentorship intervention studies lack strong evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, with only 5.5% of articles designed as randomized controlled trials. Most mentorship interventions (45.6%) were created for faculty, and few (4%) were for postdoctoral researchers. Also, only 18.8% of interventions focused on underrepresented groups in STEMM. Most interventions (53.7%) prescribed a dyadic structure, and there was more mentorship training for mentors than mentees.

Conclusion: Overall, these findings identify gaps in mentorship interventions and provide step-by-step guidance for future interventions, including a consideration for underrepresented groups and postdoctoral scholars, robust mentorship training, and more randomized controlled trials.

Causal mechanistic reasoning is a thinking strategy that can help students explain complex phenomena using core ideas commonly emphasized in separate undergraduate courses, as it requires students to identify underlying entities, unpack their relevant properties and interactions, and link them to construct mechanistic explanations. As a crossdisciplinary group of biologists, chemists, and teacher educators, we designed a scaffolded set of tasks that require content knowledge from biology and chemistry to construct nested hierarchical mechanistic explanations that span three scales (molecular, macromolecular, and cellular). We examined student explanations across seven introductory and upper-level biology and chemistry courses to determine how the construction of mechanistic explanations varied across courses and the relationship between the construction of mechanistic explanations at different scales. We found non-, partial, and complete mechanistic explanations in all courses and at each scale. Complete mechanistic explanation construction was lowest in introductory chemistry, about the same across biology and organic chemistry, and highest in biochemistry. Across tasks, the construction of a mechanistic explanation at a smaller scale was associated with constructing a mechanistic explanation for larger scales; however, the use of molecular scale disciplinary resources was only associated with complete mechanistic explanations at the macromolecular, not cellular scale.

Racial biases, which harm marginalized and excluded communities, may be combatted by clarifying misconceptions about race during biology lessons. We developed a human genetics laboratory activity that challenges the misconception that race is biological (biological essentialism). We assessed the relationship between this activity and student outcomes using a survey of students' attitudes about biological essentialism and color-evasive ideology and a concept inventory about phylogeny and human diversity. Students in the human genetics laboratory activity showed a significant decrease in their acceptance of biological essentialism compared with a control group, but did not show changes in color-evasive ideology. Students in both groups exhibited increased knowledge in both areas of the concept inventory, but the gains were larger in the human genetics laboratory. In the second iteration of this activity, we found that only white students' decreases in biological essentialist beliefs were significant and the activity failed to decrease color-evasive ideologies for all students. Concept inventory gains were similar and significant for both white and non-white students in this iteration. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of addressing misconceptions about the biological origins of race and encourage more research on ways to effectively change damaging student attitudes about race in undergraduate genetics education.

The purpose of the Current Insights feature is to highlight recent research and scholarship from outside the Life Sciences Education (LSE) community. In this installment, I draw together a collection of articles that explore the challenging emotions that emerge for teachers in learning and professional development contexts. Recent research has begun to deepen understandings of the role of emotions in learning-mostly studying students. The articles in this set extend that focus to teachers who, like students, can feel frustration, overwhelm, or fear when faced with challenges involved in learning. Insights from these articles can inform those working with teachers to support transformational change.