Cbe-Life Sciences Education最新文献

One of the central issues in ecology is the underrepresentation of individuals from diverse backgrounds. This underrepresentation starts at the undergraduate level and continues into graduate programs, contributing to a need for more diversity in the discipline. We hypothesize that the interplay of students' identities and contextual factors influence how students perceive their sense of belonging in a field-based discipline. We present findings from a 2-yr evaluation of a pregraduate school field program, FIRED UP (Field-Intensive Research Emphasizing Diversity UP in the alpine), where students interacted with a curriculum focused on building field skills and cohort bonding. Students provided feedback through surveys and interviews conducted at various phases throughout the program. Using the Phenomenological Variant Ecological Systems Theory, we present our interview results in three cases describing differing student outcomes regarding belonging which allows us to give voice and weight to students with more critical and constructive perspectives. Thus, the results of this study can be used to critically examine field-based educational program design to maximize the ability of programs to respond to diverse student needs. The broader implications of this work address how to approach pregraduate school training and cohort building that supports students marginalized in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines as they enter graduate school.

Hawai'i students, and in particular Native Hawaiian students, face high rates of attrition and low representation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) academic majors and careers, but place-based Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) such as the Research Experiences in Marine Science (REMS) summer program may help to better engage these students with scientific content understanding and skills development. This article assesses latent factors of student gains after participating in the REMS program as they relate to student science identity. Results from an exploratory factor analysis examining the internal structure of an assessment measure delivered during the program suggest strong evidence of four latent factors in student self-reported learning gains: Content Understanding, Scientific Skills, Interest, and Integration. These factors will guide the development and delivery of the REMS survey as it is applied to additional cohorts of students participating in REMS and other, similar programs being developed and implemented in Hawai'i to support Native Hawaiian students. Although there were no significant relationships between these factors and responses to a science identity survey item, additional insights from an alumna of the program highlight how place-based elements in CUREs provide authentic and rigorous research training experiences for students from populations historically marginalized in STEM.

Mixture modeling is a latent variable (i.e., a variable that cannot be measured directly) approach to quantitatively represent unobserved subpopulations within an overall population. It includes a range of cross-sectional (such as latent class [LCA] or latent profile analysis) and longitudinal (such as latent transition analysis) analyses and is often referred to as a "person-centered" approach to quantitative data. This research methods paper describes one type of mixture modeling, LCA, and provides examples of how this method can be applied to discipline-based education research in biology and other science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines. This paper briefly introduces LCA, explores the affordances LCA provides for equity-focused STEM education research, highlights some of its limitations, and provides suggestions for researchers interested in exploring LCA as a method of analysis. We encourage discipline-based education researchers to consider how statistical analyses may conflict with their equity-minded research agendas while also introducing LCA as a method of leveraging the affordances of quantitative data to pursue research goals aligned with equity, inclusion, access, and justice agendas.

Scientist Spotlights are homework assignments that highlight the personal and scientific stories of counterstereotypical scientists. Previous research has focused on whether these assignments promote possible selves in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). We sought to understand the value students themselves placed on the assignment using expectancy-value theory complemented by further analysis of the assignment's self-reported impacts on students. Therefore, at the end of an introductory biology course with several Scientist Spotlights, we asked students to reflect on how the course would influence them for years to come. We found that although the assignments had low instrumental value, 49% of students mentioned Scientist Spotlights or a highlighted scientist. Thematic analysis on the Scientist Spotlight-related parts of the reflections found novel emergent themes including diversity in science, humanizing scientists, and self-efficacy. Most students mentioned multiple themes, with few differences between students from minoritized and nonminoritized groups. We interpreted our results through the lens of the "mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors" framework, as Scientist Spotlights appeared to function as "windows" into the diverse scientific world, "mirrors" for seeing human traits in scientists, and "sliding glass doors" inviting students further into science. Our study expands our understanding of the broad, multiple, and intersecting impacts of Scientist Spotlights.

Building on decades of scholarship critiquing scientist representation in classrooms and textbooks, the present study characterizes the lifetime experiences of undergraduate students regarding their perceptions of scientists and science identity. Informed by the theoretical framework of Cultural Learning Pathways (CLP), we conducted 31 semistructured interviews with undergraduates who completed six Scientist Spotlights (scientistspotlights.org), which are inclusive curricular supplements that feature counterstereotypical scientists. Despite decades of progress in curricular representation, our results revealed almost all students (94%, n = 29) recounted exposure to predominantly (if not exclusively) stereotypical scientists across social institutions (e.g., media, K12, universities, healthcare environments) throughout their lifetime, which limited their Scopes of Possibility to pursue science. All students (100%, n = 31) reported that Scientist Spotlights enhanced Scopes of Possibility for themselves and others from marginalized backgrounds to pursue science. Last, almost all students (97%, n = 30) shared characteristics they hoped to see when imagining Scopes of Possibility, emphasizing the need for a concerted effort to increase representation of counterstereotypical scientists across science curriculum and social institutions more broadly.

Science communication has historically been inequitable, with certain voices and perspectives holding the power and dominant ways of knowing being promoted over others. Recently, there has been a push toward inclusive science communication, which values diverse perspectives and ways of knowing in collaborative conversations to solve complex socioscientific issues. However, there is a lack of both trainings in inclusive science communication for undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students as well as established ways to evaluate the efficacy of these trainings. To address this need, we designed a new multifactorial survey based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to assess students' attitudes/norms, self-efficacy, behavioral intents, and behaviors in inclusive science communication, which we termed the Planned Behaviors in Inclusive Science Communication (PB-ISC) Scale. We utilized expert review, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, cognitive interviews, and quantitative measures to gather evidence of validity supporting the proposed use of the final 4-factor, 26-item survey. This survey can be used as a tool by science communication educators and researchers to assess students' planned behavior in inclusive science communication in response to trainings or experiences in science communication or related topics like socioscientific issues, civic engagement, and citizen science.

Office hours are an integral component of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses at nearly all colleges and universities. Despite their ubiquity as a support mechanism, there has only been limited work examining how instructors approach office hours and what shapes these approaches. Here, we conduct a phenomenographic study to investigate how instructors of STEM courses experience office hours and how these experiences may impact their approaches to promoting and managing office hours. We identified variations in how instructors promoted office hours, the modality of office hours (i.e., when and where office hours were held), and how instructors facilitated learning during office hours. These variations spanned from student-centric (strategies instructors use with students' interest in mind, e.g., wanting to increase student learning, accessibility, comfort, etc.) to instructor-centric (strategies the instructors use with their own self-interest in mind, e.g., saving time and/or bandwidth, personal needs, comfort, etc.). Additionally, we identify several challenges and barriers, including a lack of formal training or opportunities to discuss office hour approaches with other faculty, and conclude with general recommendations for instructors and administrators in STEM departments for engaging and supporting students during office hours.

The underrepresentation and underperformance of low-income, first-generation, gender minoritized, Black, Latine, and Indigenous students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) occurs for a variety of reasons, including, that students in these groups experience opportunity gaps in STEM classes. A critical approach to disrupting persistent inequities is implementing policies and practices that no longer systematically disadvantage students from minoritized groups. To do this, instructors must use data-informed reflection to interrogate their course outcomes. However, these data can be hard to access, process, and visualize in ways that make patterns of inequities clear. To address this need, we developed an R-Shiny application that allows authenticated users to visualize inequities in student performance. An explorable example can be found here: https://theobaldlab.shinyapps.io/visualizinginequities/. In this essay, we use publicly retrieved data as an illustrative example to detail 1) how individual instructors, groups of instructors, and institutions might use this tool for guided self-reflection and 2) how to adapt the code to accommodate data retrieved from local sources. All of the code is freely available here: https://github.com/TheobaldLab/VisualizingInequities. We hope faculty, administrators, and higher-education policymakers will make visible the opportunity gaps in college courses, with the explicit goal of creating transformative, equitable education through self-reflection, group discussion, and structured support.

Inaccurate sex and gender narratives have saturated the political landscape, resulting in legal restrictions for people with queer genders. Biology educators can correct these false narratives by teaching scientifically accurate and queer gender and intersex inclusive sex and gender curriculum. Here, we interviewed four undergraduate biology instructors who were working to reform their sex and gender curriculum. Using their reformed curriculum to promote conversation in the interviews, we asked participants about their curriculum, their reform process, and the obstacles they faced in implementing their reformed curriculum. We noticed the instructors' journeys to reforming involved intense personal work and education, both at the beginning and iteratively throughout implementation. We found instructors focused on changing language and using a variety of inclusive activities in their undergraduate biology classroom, ranging from highlighting scientists with queer genders to assigning students to research the experiences of people with queer genders with adolescent hormone therapy. Instructors mentioned obstacles to implementing reformed curriculum, including fear of potentially isolating students and concern about the instructor's own positionality. Removing obstacles and supporting the process of unlearning exclusive ways of teaching sex and gender topics may bolster instructor efforts to provide more accurate and inclusive biology education.

Using the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model, this qualitative study examined development of psychosocial attributes (i.e., sense of belonging, science identity, and self-efficacy) among 1st-year life science undergraduate students who participated in integrated and culturally engaging research activities at New Mexico Highlands University, a rural Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). Research activities were part of a project called SomosSTEM [We are STEM], which included four major components: 1) course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) that are laboratory modules integrated into introductory life science classes; 2) summer Bridge Science Challenge Academy for 1st-year students; 3) full summer internship program; and 4) Community Voices lecture series. We found the integrated nature of SomosSTEM represents an engaging learning environment that positively impacted students' perceptions of their development of psychosocial attributes. This paper's significance is it outlines specific, integrated activities that are also community-based and culturally engaging. We discuss community-based and culturally engaging learning environments as a viable solution to the problem of individualistic and exclusionary learning environments.