Cbe-Life Sciences Education最新文献

Program evaluation for interventions aimed at enhancing diversity can fall short when the evaluation unintentionally reifies the exclusion of multiple marginalized student experiences. The present study presents a Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) approach to program evaluation to understand outcomes for Women of Color undergraduates involved in a national biomedical training program called the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) initiative. Using longitudinal data, we examined the impact of participation in the BUILD Scholars programs and BUILD-developed novel biomedical curriculum on undergraduate's research self-efficacy. Employing propensity score matching and multiple regression models, we found that Black women who participated in the BUILD scholars program reported higher research self-efficacy, whereas Latine and White undergraduate BUILD scholars had lower research self-efficacy. Additionally, Latine women who participated in novel biomedical curricula reported significantly lower research self-efficacy. We contend that disaggregated and intersectional analyses of subpopulations are necessary for improving understanding of program interventions and identifying areas where systems of exclusion may continue to harm students from minoritized backgrounds. We provide recommendations for future quantitative program evaluation practices and research in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) equity efforts.

Students who hold minoritized identities are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Educational institutions often apply a deficit lens to understanding disproportionate outcomes between minoritized students and those from the cultural majority. Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) is an asset-based framework that focuses on the cultural strengths that diverse students develop in response to oppressive social structures, and which students use to be successful. Using a QuantCrit approach, we developed and collected evidence of validity for a measure of CCW. QuantCrit is a methodological framework that challenges researchers to critically evaluate their own biases to produce more equitable analyses. Each author reflected upon our experiences and the ways in which CCW manifested within our lived experiences. Through iterative reflection and discussion, we elected to design items that capture intersecting forms of CCW capital. We conducted cognitive interviews with minoritized students identifying with both seen and unseen forms of diversity to collect evidence of validity based on response process and to avoid construct underrepresentation. The resulting measure consists of 100 items on a 6-point response scale of agreement. Our methodological approach integrates teachings from critical theories to challenge deficit narratives and to capture the experiences of those frequently unheard by the majority culture.

In higher education and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), interlocking oppressions can lead to inequitable environments for those who hold marginalized identities. Instructors can play key roles in either exacerbating or mitigating these inequities through their pedagogical approaches and choice of curricular material. However, it remains unclear how instructors who self-identify as committed to justice achieve higher levels of consciousness around areas of injustice and develop the self-efficacy to dismantle barriers for students over time. Here, we draw upon critical race theory and critical white studies to investigate what events or life experiences influence STEM instructors to understand the importance of social justice and examine how STEM instructors use this understanding to drive pedagogical shifts. We find variations in the ways that instructors' experiences and identities shape their understanding of justice. In addition, we uncover factors that influence the switch moment; curriculum and pedagogical shifts; their relationship to justice work broadly; and barriers and supports for justice work. These stories hold powerful lessons for STEM education, but also for education more broadly, both in terms of pedagogical practice and the questions that shape research agendas on equity in education.

LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination and stigma in academic biology. These challenges are likely magnified for graduate students. However, there have been no studies documenting the experiences of LGBTQ+ life sciences graduate students. To address this gap, we conducted an interview study of 22 biology PhD students from 13 universities across the United States who identify as LGBTQ+. We used the master narrative framework to interpret our findings. Master narratives are guidelines that dictate the "expected" and "normal" way one is supposed to navigate life. We considered how graduate students engage with the societal master narrative that treats cisheterosexuality as the norm, as well as the master narrative that expects biology to remain an objective, apolitical space. We found that LGBTQ+ PhD students recognize the anti-LBGTQ+ narratives in academic biology, which can result in instances of discrimination and encourage them to conceal their identities. However, participants pushed back against these master narratives. Graduate students described creating alternative narratives by highlighting how their LGBTQ+ identity has allowed them to become more inclusive instructors and better researchers. Some also purposely reveal their LGBTQ+ identity in academic biology, violating the master narrative that non-science identities should not be discussed in the life sciences.

Informed by social science fields including psychology and public health, we propose a Model for Emotional Intelligence to advance biology education research in affective learning. The model offers a shared discourse for biology education researchers to develop and assess evidence-based strategies to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions for students and instructors in life sciences classrooms. We begin by reviewing the connection between stress, emotional invalidation, Sense of Belonging, and Science Identity as it relates to emotions in undergraduate life sciences classrooms. Next, we highlight the impact that emotionally invalidating classroom environments have on science students' development of psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and high-risk behaviors. Assuming Emotional Intelligence can be taught and learned (i.e., the ability model of Emotional Intelligence), we develop a Model for Emotional Intelligence to advance biology education research in this arena. This essay aims to inform assessments of current and future interventions designed to counteract emotional invalidation and encourage the development of emotional management among students and instructors. In alignment with our collective effort to support student well-being in the life sciences, the study of Emotional Intelligence in undergraduate biology education has the potential to support student mental health as future scientists and health care practitioners.

Discourse around Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education in the United States has long focused on improving the persistence and academic achievement of students. On the surface, such goals are reasonable and well-intentioned. However, the near-exclusive focus on those two outcomes as shorthand for "success" serves hegemonic norms which preclude the equitable success of all students. Although STEM education research has begun to address the inequitable systems within which students and faculty operate, the language of success has largely not changed. While previous work has aimed to recognize and characterize how normative definitions of success harm students and faculty, they fall short of providing readers with strategies for how to sustainably change these systems of injustice. Utilizing the four frames model for systemic change, this Essay 1) deconstructs the operational definitions of student success among key stakeholders involved in STEM higher education: students, faculty, departments, and institutions; 2) determines how extant policies and practices drive misalignments among these definitions and thwart equity; and 3) highlights three key opportunities for change agents to transform how success is measured and defined within STEM higher education.

Field biology courses can be formative learning experiences that develop students' science identities. Yet, they can also pose challenges to students that may disaffirm their science identities-especially to those who identify with underrepresented, excluded, and minoritized groups. It is largely unknown how students' social (e.g., gender) and personal (e.g., where they grew up) identities intersect with their science identities in field biology courses. Therefore, we used the Expanded Model of Science Identity to determine: 1) the factors that influence students' science, social, and personal identities; and 2) whether and how these identities intersect in field biology courses. Using a card sorting task during semistructured interviews, we found variation in science identities with which students identified, mediated by social factors (e.g., social comparison). These social factors influenced how students' social and personal identities intersected with their science identities. Intersections between students' social and science identities were also facilitated by structural factors (e.g., privilege, lack of representation) that perpetuate inequities in field biology. Based on our findings, we offer suggestions to support welcoming, equitable, and inclusive field biology education that nurtures the science identities of all students.

In undergraduate research settings, students are likely to encounter anomalous data, that is, data that do not meet their expectations. Most of the research that directly or indirectly captures the role of anomalous data in research settings uses post-hoc reflective interviews or surveys. These data collection approaches focus on recall of past reasoning, rather than analyzing reasoning about anomalous data as it happens. We use the frameworks of sensemaking and epistemological resources to explore in-the-moment how students identify, generate ideas about the cause of, and determine what to do with anomalies. Students participated in think-aloud interviews where they interacted with anomalous data within larger datasets. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed to identify epistemological resources students used when interacting with anomalous data, and how students' reasoning influenced later choices with the data. Results found that students use a variety of resources as they sensemake about anomalous data and determine what to do with the anomalies. Furthermore, the explanation that students generate about the cause of an anomaly impacts whether the student chooses to keep, remove, recollect, or mitigate the anomalous data. Findings highlight the need to understand students' complex reasoning around anomalous data to support students in lab settings.

Featuring scientists in classroom materials provides opportunities for students to relate to scientists as role models and see themselves in science. However, it is unclear what information students find most relatable when encountering scientists throughout their education. In this study, we manipulated the amount and type of information provided about scientists featured in biology courses. Within the context of activities focused on a scientist's research study and data, we provided students with either no personal information about the scientist (Control treatment), pictures of the scientist (Visual treatment), or pictures and humanizing details about the scientist (Humanizing treatment). We asked students to describe how they related to the featured scientist, and qualitatively coded responses. Results showed that students related to the scientist's 1) professional research interests (e.g., research topic, science as a career) and 2) personal information (e.g., life experiences, hobbies, personality characteristics, race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status). In addition, we observed differences in how students related to scientists across our treatments. Students were twice as likely to relate to featured scientists, and related in a greater variety of ways, when course materials included personal, humanizing information. We discuss implications for curriculum development and call for intentionality in how we present scientists throughout biology education.