Cbe-Life Sciences Education最新文献

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.

Biology education research provides important guidance for educators aiming to ensure access for disabled students. However, there is still work to be done in developing similar guidelines for research settings. By using critical frameworks that amplify the voices of people facing multiple forms of marginalization, there is potential to transform current biology education research practices. Many biology education researchers are still in the early stages of understanding critical disability frameworks, such as Disability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit), which consists of seven tenets designed to explore the intersecting experiences of ableism and racism. Our Research Methods Essay uses DisCrit as a model framework and pulls from other related critical disability frameworks to empower disabled voices in biology education research. Drawing from existing scholarship, we discuss how biology education researchers can design, conduct, and share research findings. Additionally, we highlight strategies that biology education scholars can use in their research to support access for participants. We propose the creation and sharing of Access and Equity Maps to help plan-and make public-the steps researchers take to foster access in their research. We close by discussing frequently asked questions researchers may encounter in taking on critical frameworks, such as DisCrit.

Society and education are inherently ableist. Disabled people are routinely excluded from education, or have poorer outcomes within educational systems. Improving educational experiences and outcomes for people of color has required educators to design antiracist curricula that explicitly address racial inequality. Here, we explore parallel antiableist approaches to bioscience education in an essay coauthored by a disabled bioscience student and able-bodied faculty member in bioscience. Our work is underpinned by Critical Disability Theory and draws on disability and pedagogical scholarship as well as our own experiences. The biosciences has a unique need to confront its history in the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics, which has led to discrimination and human rights abuses against disabled people. We provide a brief history of the relationship between biological sciences research and eugenics and explore how this legacy impacts bioscience education today. We then present a recommended structure for antiableist biology education. Our approach goes beyond providing disability access, to a model that educates all students about disability issues and empowers them to challenge ableist narratives and practices.

Use of high-stakes exams in a course has been associated with gender, racial, and socioeconomic inequities. We investigated whether offering students the opportunity to retake an exam makes high-stakes exams more equitable. Following the control value theory of achievement emotions, we hypothesized that exam retakes would increase students' perceived control over their performance and decrease the value of a single exam attempt, thereby maximizing exam performance. We collected data on exam scores and experiences with retakes from three large introductory biology courses and assessed the effect of optional exam retakes on gender, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in exam scores. We found that Black/African American students and those who worked more than 20 h a week were less likely to retake exams. While exam retakes significantly improved student scores, they slightly increased racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in scores partly because of these differences in participation rates. Most students reported that retake opportunities reduced their anxiety on the initial exam attempt. Together our results suggest that optional exam retakes could be a useful tool to improve student performance and reduce anxiety associated with high-stakes exams. However, barriers to participation must be examined and reduced for retakes to reduce disparities in scores.

At many research-intensive universities in North America, there is a disproportionate loss of minoritized undergraduate students from Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors. Efforts to confront this diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) challenge, such as faculty adoption of evidenced-based instructional approaches that promote student success, have been slow. Instructional and pedagogical change efforts at the academic department level have been demonstrated to be effective at enacting reform. One potential strategy is to embed change agent individuals within STEM departments that can drive change efforts. This study seeks to assess whether tenure-track, teaching-focused faculty housed in STEM departments are perceived as influential on the instructional and pedagogical domains of their colleagues. To answer this, individuals across five STEM departments at large, research-intensive campuses identified faculty who were influential upon six domains of their instruction and pedagogy. Social network analysis of individuals in these departments revealed heterogeneity across the instructional domains. Some, like the teaching strategies network, are highly connected and involve the majority of the department; while others, like the DEI influence network, comprise a significantly smaller population of faculty. Importantly, we demonstrate that tenure-track, teaching-focused faculty are influential across all domains of instruction, but are disproportionately so in the sparsely populated DEI influence networks.

Biology education researchers seek to improve biology education, particularly at the introductory level, yet there is little documentation about what is actually happening in introductory biology. To characterize the landscape of learning expectations for introductory biology, we analyzed course-level learning objectives (n = 1108) and course schedules from 188 nonmajor, mixed major, and major introductory biology syllabi. We analyzed syllabi collected from a diverse range of U.S. institution types to uncover insights about instructional design decisions for introductory biology. Our analysis revealed two distinct nonmajor course types: content and issues-based courses. We found syllabi tend to focus on low-cognitive skills and factual content that is essentially a march in step with a typical textbook table of contents, rarely including core competencies or socioscientific issues (SSIs) other than in nonscience major issues-based courses. Our work contributes more evidence that faculty struggle to write course-level learning objectives. Our findings suggest that there is much work to do if Vision and Change are to become more than simply a vision-to be actualized as change-including developing CLOs for introductory biology as a first step toward creating actionable instructional change.

Advancing equity and justice in undergraduate biology education requires research to address the experiences of disabled students. Scholars working in disability studies have developed models of disability that inform Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER). To date, DBER literature has been predominantly informed by the medical and social models of disability. The medical model focuses on challenges that affect people with disabilities on an individual basis, while the social model focuses on how one's surrounding environment contributes to the construction of disability. In this essay, we discuss past DBER research and opportunities for future research using each of these models. We will also discuss a third, less commonly used model that offers exciting opportunities to drive future research: complex embodiment. Complex embodiment positions disability as a social location that reflects a greater societal value structure. Further examining this value structure reveals how ability itself is constructed and conventionally understood to be hierarchical. Additionally, we explain epistemic injustice as it affects disabled people, and how future education research can both address and counteract this injustice. We discuss how expanding the frameworks that serve as lenses for DBER scholarship on disability will offer new research directions.

Discussions play a significant role in facilitating student learning through engagement with course material and promotion of critical thinking. Discussions provide space for social learning where ideas are deliberated, internalized, and knowledge is cocreated through socioemotional interactions. With the increase of internet-based and hybrid courses, there is a need to evaluate the degree to which online discussion modalities facilitate quality discussions and enhance student achievement. We assessed the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards and traditional face-to-face discussions via qualitative (thematic coding and discussion network analysis) and quantitative (Bloom's taxonomy) techniques and evaluated student perceptions via precourse and postcourse surveys. We found differential strengths of the two formats. Online discussions increased response complexity, while in-person discussions fostered improved connections with course material. Themes related to sharing of personal identity, humanity and verbal immediacy were more frequent throughout in-person discussions. Survey responses suggested that a sense of community was an external motivator for preference of in-person discussions, while anxiety was a factor influencing online discussion preference. Our findings suggest that online and in-person discussions are complementary, and work in tandem to facilitate complex student thinking through online environments and social learning within the classroom.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are an effective method of engaging large numbers of students in authentic research but are associated with barriers to adoption. Short CURE modules may serve as a low-barrier entryway, but their effectiveness in promoting expansion has not been studied. The Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance in the Environment (PARE) project is a modular CURE designed to be a low-barrier gateway into CURE use. In a series of interviews, we track and characterize use of PARE in 19 PARE-interested instructors throughout the Innovation-Decision Process described by Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory. The majority (16/19) implement PARE at least once, and a majority of these implementers (11/16) expanded use by the final interview. Three of four cases of discontinuance were due to a disruption such as moving institutions or a change in course assignment and occurred for community college faculty. Expanders expressed fewer personal challenges than nonexpanders. Overall analysis shows that perception of barriers is nuanced and impacted by the innovation itself, the institutional context, and one's own experiences. These results suggest that a short duration, low barrier CURE can serve as a catalyst for implementation of a longer duration CURE.

In recent years, an increasing number of deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) undergraduates have chosen to study in STEM fields and pursue careers in research. Yet, very little research has been undertaken on the barriers and inclusive experiences often faced by D/HH undergraduates who prefer to use spoken English in research settings, instead of American Sign Language (ASL). To identify barriers and inclusive strategies, we studied six English speaking D/HH undergraduate students working in research laboratories with their eight hearing mentors, and their three hearing peers sharing their experiences. Three researchers observed the interactions between all three groups and conducted interviews and focus groups, along with utilizing the Communication Assessment Self-Rating Scale (CASS). The main themes identified in the findings were communication and environmental barriers in research laboratories, creating accessible and inclusive laboratory environments, communication strategies, and self-advocating for effective communication. Recommendations for mentors include understanding the key elements of creating an inclusive laboratory environment for English speaking D/HH students and effectively demonstrating cultural competence to engage in inclusive practices.