Search for: All records

Discipline-based education research—a field of research that investigates teaching and learning within STEM disciplines—has emerged over the last few decades to improve the quality of STEM education worldwide. Simple qualitative questions concerning the career backgrounds and motivations of the individuals who conduct this research have yet to be explored. Here, we surveyed and interviewed discipline-based education researchers about their career trajectories and motivations to pursue this field of research. We focused specifically on recruiting biology education research faculty members at colleges and universities. We used the Social Influence Model and Social Cognitive Career Theory to develop and analyze survey and semi-structured interview questions. Findings revealed participant career paths all began with disciplinary undergraduate and graduate-level biology education. We noticed participants began conducting biology education research due to theirvaluesandpersonal interests, while additionally being swayed bycontextual factors. Specifically, participantsvaluedbiology education research because it allowed them to make a difference in the world and provided them with a community open to change and collaboration. Biology education research allowed them to explore theirinterestsin teaching and evidence-based approaches to education. Thesevaluesandinterestswere impacted bycontextual factors, including discoveries of opportunities, positive (or negative) experiences with mentorship, exposure to evidence-based teaching literature, considerations of salary and job security, and experiences with gender-based discrimination. Our results underscore the importance of harnessing individual values and interests—especially those centered on evidence-based teaching practices and making a difference in the world—while fostering a positive and supportive academic environment. This research reveals pathways toward discipline-based education research careers. Additionally, this research can inform the development of graduate programs and funding opportunities. 

Despite broad consensus that highlighting counter-stereotypical scientist role models in educational materials promotes equity and success, the specific elements that make these materials effective remain untested. Are pictures of counter-stereotypical scientists enough to communicate to students that scientists come from a variety of backgrounds, or is additional information required? To parse the effects of including visual depictions and humanizing information about scientists featured in biology course materials, we distributed three randomized versions of assignments over several academic terms across 36 undergraduate institutions (n> 3700 students). We found that including humanizing information about scientists was key to increasing student engagement with the biology course materials. The positive effect of humanizing information was especially important for students who related to the scientists. Structural equation modelling revealed the extent to which students related to scientists mediated the positive effect of humanizing descriptions on student engagement. Furthermore, our results were strongest among students who shared one or more excluded identity(s) with the featured scientists. Our findings underscore the importance of providing students with examples of humanized and relatable scientists in classrooms, rather than simply adding a photo to increase representation. 

Featuring a diversity of scientists within curriculum provides opportunities for students to relate to them. We manipulated the amount and type of information students received about scientists. We found including personal, humanizing information increased the extent to which students related to them, with implications for curriculum development. 

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. 

In this essay, we review how counter-stereotypical scientists have been featured in life science courses and discuss the benefits and costs of developing and interacting with these materials from the perspectives of three groups: students, instructors, and the featured scientists. 

Students were not able to recognize the inherent gender implied by terms such as “woman” though they frequently corrected text about an infant’s gender. This language is common in textbooks, and this paper shows that more work is needed to rid the biology curriculum of implied equality between an individual’s gender and their sex characteristics. 

Understanding the relationship between science and society is an objective of science education and is included as a core competency in the AAAS Vision and Change guidelines for biology education. However, traditional undergraduate biology instruction emphasizes scientific practice and generally avoids potentially controversial issues at the intersection of biology and society. By including these topics in biology coursework, instructors can challenge damaging ideologies and systemic inequalities that have influenced science, such as biological essentialism and health disparities. Specifically, an ideologically aware curriculum highlights how ideologies and paradigms shape our biological knowledge base and the application of that knowledge. Ideologically aware lessons emphasize the relationship between science and society with an aim to create more transparent, scientifically accurate, and inclusive postsecondary biology classrooms. Here we expand upon our ideologically aware curriculum with a new activity that challenges undergraduate biology students to consider the impacts of healthcare disparities. This lesson allows instructors to directly address systemic inequalities and allows students to connect biomedical sciences to real-world issues. Implementing an ideologically aware curriculum enables students to challenge prevailing worldviews and better address societal problems that lead to exclusion and oppression. 

Abstract Understanding the relationship between science and society is an objective of science education and is included as a core competency in the AAAS Vision and Change guidelines for biology education. However, traditional undergraduate biology instruction emphasizes scientific practice and generally avoids potentially controversial issues at the intersection of biology and society. By including these topics in biology coursework, instructors can challenge damaging ideologies and systemic inequalities that have influenced science, such as biological essentialism and health disparities. Specifically, an ideologically aware curriculum highlights how ideologies and paradigms shape our biological knowledge base and the application of that knowledge. Ideologically aware lessons emphasize the relationship between science and society with an aim to create more transparent, scientifically accurate, and inclusive postsecondary biology classrooms. Here we expand upon our ideologically aware curriculum with a new activity that challenges undergraduate biology students to consider the impacts of healthcare disparities. This lesson allows instructors to directly address systemic inequalities and allows students to connect biomedical sciences to real-world issues. Implementing an ideologically aware curriculum enables students to challenge prevailing worldviews and better address societal problems that lead to exclusion and oppression. 

Environmental pollution is a global threat that is especially prevalent in heavily industrialized and urbanized areas. Pollution can be found in many forms, such as natural and synthetic pollutants from natural and anthropogenic processes. These impact individual, population, and ecosystem health. Additionally, urbanization and industrialization create landscape heterogeneity, which alters socioecological dynamics within environments—often through intentional and systematic processes. For humans, the subjection to and impacts of both pollution and land distribution have disproportionate effects on members of low-income and marginalized communities. Environmental injustice occurs when systemic biases like racism and classism fuel inequalities and inequities among individuals and their communities. The current activity combines predictive graphing and group discussions to help reinforce basic principles of environmental pollution and the sociocultural underpinnings that increase risks of exposure and impacts, using real-life examples of environmental injustice such as the Flint Water Crisis and Cancer Alley Louisiana. Utilizing the “Mapping for Environmental Justice” website, students will predict the cumulative environmental injustice burden across the State of Virginia, resulting from imbalanced land distribution, and compare public health data to examine those to be considered “at risk” based on various demographic characteristics. Students will then think critically and discuss the decision-making behind societal pollution and land management, which influence the presence and intensity of environmental injustices.