Cbe-Life Sciences Education最新文献

While several studies have investigated gender inequities in the social learning environment of biology lecture courses, that same phenomenon remains largely unexplored in biology laboratory contexts. We conducted a mixed methods study to understand the influence of gender on student perceptions of their peers' research aptitude in introductory biology CUREs and traditional laboratory courses. Specifically, students (N = 125) were asked to complete a name generator survey at three time points across the semester. This survey asked students to list the names of peers whom they viewed as "most proficient" in the course investigations and to justify their choice via an open-ended response prompt. Using social network analysis, exponential random graph modeling (ERGM), and thematic analysis, we demonstrate that student gender identity did not influence nomination behaviors in CURE or traditional laboratory courses. However, the ERGMs reveal the presence of a popularity effect in CUREs and demonstrate that mutual nominations were more prevalent in traditional laboratory courses. Our qualitative data further provide insights into the reasons students nominated peers as proficient in CURE and traditional courses.

Nearly all undergraduate biology courses rely on quizzes and exams. Despite their prevalence, very little work has been done to explore how the framing of assessment questions may influence student performance and affect. Here, we conduct a quasi-random experimental study where students in different sections of the same course were given isomorphic questions that varied in their framing of experimental scenarios. One section was provided a description using the self-referential term "you", placing the student in the experiment; another section received the same scenario that used classmate names; while a third section's scenario integrated counterstereotypical scientist names. Our results demonstrate that there was no difference in performance throughout the semester between the sections, nor were there differences in students' self-reported stress and identity. However, students in all three sections indicated that they most preferred the self-referential framing, providing a variety of reasons that suggest that these variants may influence how well a student reads and processes the question. In addition, our results also indicate that the framing of these scenarios can also have a large impact on some students' affect and attitude toward the question. We conclude by discussing implications for the biology education research community and biology instructors.

Science advances through the interplay of idea construction and idea critique. Our goal was to describe varied forms of productive disciplinary engagement that emerged during primary literature discussions. Such descriptions are necessary for biology educators and researchers to design for and recognize diverse repertoires of participation in the critique and discussion of primary scientific literature. We identified three cases (a lower-division ecology course, an upper-division organismal course, and a journal club embedded in a summer research program) that were each designed with weekly primary literature discussions. We analyzed 12 discussions (four from each case) to describe what postsecondary students attend to when they critique and what forms of participation emerged from students reading and discussing primary scientific literature. Students participated in critique in all three cases and patterns in the substance and framing of critiques reflected the level of the context (lower- or upper-division). Students also shaped how they participated in ways that were relevant to the science classroom communities in each case. Our findings suggest that structuring primary literature discussions in ways that both elevate and connect students' agency and personal relevance is important for fostering varied forms of productive disciplinary engagement within a science classroom community.

Students' beliefs about their abilities (called "lay theories") affect their motivations, behaviors, and academic success. Lay theories include beliefs about the potential to improve intelligence (mindset), who (i.e., everyone or only some people) has the potential to be excellent in a field (universality), and whether reaching excellence in a field requires raw intellectual talent (brilliance). Research demonstrates that each of these beliefs influences students' educational experiences and academic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether they represent distinct latent constructs or are susceptible to the "jangle fallacy" (i.e., different names given to the same underlying construct). We conducted a multiphase, mixed-methods study to 1) evaluate whether mindset, universality, and brilliance beliefs represent conceptually and empirically discriminable concepts, and 2) evaluate whether mindset, universality, and brilliance beliefs contribute unique explanatory value for both psychosocial (e.g., sense of belonging) and academic outcomes (e.g., course grades). To address these questions, we developed and collected validity evidence for a new measure of science and math undergraduates' lay theories, called the Undergraduate Lay Theories of Abilities (ULTrA) survey. Factor analyses suggest that mindset, brilliance, and universality are distinct and empirically discriminable constructs. Structural Equation Models indicate that each lay theory contributes unique predictive value to relevant outcomes.

Despite the existent gender parity in undergraduate biology degree attainment, gendered differences in outcomes are prevalent in introductory biology courses. Less is known about whether these disparities persist at the upper-division level, after most attrition is assumed to have occurred. Here, we report the consistent presence of gender equity gaps across 35 offerings (10 years) of a large-enrollment upper-division biology course at a research-intensive public university. Multilevel modeling showed that women's grades were lower than men's, regardless of prior GPA. These gender gaps were present even when controlling for students' race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation college-going status, international status, and transfer status. Class size, gender representation in the classroom, and instructor gender did not significantly relate to course grades. Student questionnaires in a subset of offerings indicated gendered differences in course anxiety, science identity, and science self-efficacy, which correlated with grade outcomes. These results suggest that women experience differential outcomes in upper-division biology, which may negatively influence their persistence in STEM fields postgraduation. Our findings suggest that gender disparities are a systemic problem throughout the undergraduate biology degree and underscore the need for further examination and transformation of upper-division courses to support all students, even at late stages of their degrees.

Concerns regarding students' difficulties with the concept of energy date back to the 1970s. They become particularly apparent for systems involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which plays a central role in maintaining the nonequilibrium state of biological systems and in driving energetically unfavorable processes. One of the most well-documented misconceptions related to ATP is the idea that breaking bonds releases energy, when the opposite is true. This misconception is often attributed to language used in biology referring to the "high-energy bonds" in ATP. We interviewed chemistry, biology, and biochemistry instructors to learn how they think about and teach the mechanism(s) by which ATP is used as an energy source in biological systems. Across 15 interviews, we found that instructors relied primarily on two mechanisms to explain the role of ATP: 1) energy release, focused on ATP hydrolysis and bond energies; and/or 2) energy transfer, focused on phosphorylation and common intermediates. Many instructors shared negative and uncomfortable experiences related to teaching ATP and energy release. Based on these findings, we suggest instructional strategies that: 1) aim to ease the concerns expressed by introductory biology instructors, and 2) emphasize the role of ATP so as to support students' understanding of molecular mechanisms.

Researchers who study student acceptance of evolution rely on surveys that are designed to measure evolution acceptance. It is important for these surveys to measure evolution acceptance accurately and in isolation from other constructs, so that researchers can accurately determine what leads to low acceptance. The Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA) and the Generalized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation (GAENE) are two surveys that were developed to improve upon the limitations of earlier surveys. Yet neither survey has been extensively tested for response process validity, which can assess the extent to which students use constructs other than their acceptance of evolution to answer survey items. In this study, we examined the response-process validity of the I-SEA and GAENE by conducting cognitive interviews with 60 undergraduate students. Interviews revealed that both surveys retain certain response-process issues. The I-SEA conflated knowledge about and acceptance of evolution for a subset of students. The GAENE measured evolution acceptance inconsistently because students interpreted "evolution" in different ways; it also measured willingness to advocate for evolution in addition to acceptance. Researchers can use these findings to better inform their survey choice when designing future studies, and to further improve the measurement of evolution acceptance.

Hispanic/Latinx young adults remain significantly underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, yet the role families play in these young adults' trajectories in STEM is still underexamined. The purpose of this study was to examine the relational supports and constraints that Hispanic/Latinx college students in STEM majors experienced with their parents as they moved through college and transitioned into their first year of graduate school or full-time employment. Two rounds of interviews were conducted with 18 Hispanic/Latinx young adults who were part of an undergraduate STEM program at a Hispanic-majority university. Most of the study participants reported benefiting from immense emotional support from their parents; however, this emotional support was often simultaneously coupled with home-school value conflicts and a dynamic we call "conversational constraints." Results from this study point to important interventions involving family that might improve the rates of participation of Hispanic/Latinx students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds in STEM fields.

Random call has been proposed as an inclusive and equitable practice that engages students in learning. However, this inclusion may come with a cost. In some contexts, students experience anxiety and distress when being called on. Recently, focus has shifted to critical components of random call that may mitigate this cost. We examined how community college (CC) students perceive being called on by addressing 1) benefits that help their learning and 2) characterizing the anxiety students experience through this practice. To do this, we surveyed students in six biology courses taught by six faculty members over six academic quarters. We analyzed survey responses from 383 unique students (520 total responses) using mixed methods. Qualitative responses were coded and consensus codes revealed that students saw benefits to being called on, including paying attention and coming prepared. Qualitative codes also revealed different types of anxiety, both distress and eustress. Analysis of Likert scale survey data revealed perceptions of increased student interaction with their peers in warm random call classes. Furthermore, warm random call may increase participation in class discussions, and it is not correlated with increased extreme anxiety. These data suggest warm random call used in smaller, community college classes, may contribute to students' positive perceptions of being called on.

Black women in graduate school can experience stress due to blatant and subtle acts of gendered racism. However, we do not know how such stressors are navigated over time among those who successfully complete their PhDs. The current study used a Black feminist thought framework and narrative analysis to conduct a longitudinal exploration of how three successful Black women biomedical graduate students make sense of and respond to gendered racism they experienced and the coping strategies they employ as they persist. When interacting with others, the women experienced low expectations and doubts about being legitimate scientists. These experiences contributed to feelings of isolation, impacted their networking opportunities, and dampened their view of the desirability of an academic career postgraduation. Over time, their coping strategies for dealing with negative racial and gendered racial stereotypes and biases shifted from opting to "prove others wrong" or working harder, to leaning on their social networks for camaraderie and advice as well as choosing to not exert energy to form a response. Implications for mentoring and mentoring programs at the graduate level and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programming are discussed.