Search for: All records

Visual models are a necessary part of molecular biology education because submicroscopic compounds and processes cannot be directly observed. Accurately interpreting the biological information conveyed by the shapes and symbols in these visual models requires engaging visual literacy skills. For students to develop expertise in molecular biology visual literacy, they need to have structured experiences using and creating visual models, but there is little evidence to gauge how often undergraduate biology students are provided such opportunities. To investigate students’ visual literacy experiences, we surveyed 66 instructors who taught lower division undergraduate biology courses with a focus on molecular biology concepts. We collected self-reported data about the frequency with which the instructors teach with visual models and we analyzed course exams to determine how instructors incorporated visual models into their assessments. We found that most instructors reported teaching with models in their courses, yet only 16% of exam items in the sample contained a visual model. There was not a statistically significant relationship between instructors’ self-reported frequency of teaching with models and extent to which their exams contained models, signaling a potential mismatch between teaching and assessment practices. Although exam items containing models have the potential to elicit higher-order cognitive skills through model-based reasoning, we found that when instructors included visual models in their exams the majority of the items only targeted the lower-order cognitive skills of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Together, our findings highlight that despite the importance of visual models in molecular biology, students may not often have opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of these models on assessments. 

IntroductionOpen educational resources (OERs) provide instructors access to no-cost lesson materials they can incorporate into their courses. OER lessons can promote the use of innovative and evidence-based educational practices in biology education. Prior research suggests that teaching strategies are often implemented in different ways which can impact student learning. However, few studies have explored how OER lessons are modified to fit their local context. MethodsWe used the teacher-curriculum framework to understand how and why instructors modify these materials. Additionally, we explored how these materials supported instructors in enacting national priorities from Vision and Change. We surveyed 139 instructors who implemented lessons published inCourseSource, a peer-reviewed journal specifically designed to share OERs. ResultsWe found that the majority of instructors who used the lesson materials (e.g., slides, worksheets, assessments, protocols) did so without making substantial modifications, in contrast with prior research. Furthermore, we found that these materials were particularly helpful in incorporating student-centered teaching practices, like group work or discussions, sometimes for the first time. DiscussionThese insights into what instructors value in lesson materials can inform OER publishing guidelines so that these materials best meet instructional needs. 

ABSTRACT In undergraduate life sciences education, open educational resources (OERs) increase accessibility and retention for students, reduce costs, and save instructors time and effort. Despite increasing awareness and utilization of these resources, OERs are not centrally located, and many undergraduate instructors describe challenges in locating relevant materials for use in their classes. To address this challenge, we have designed a resource collection (referred to as Open Resources for Biology Education, ORBE) with 89 unique resources that are primarily relevant to undergraduate life sciences education. To identify the resources in ORBE, we asked undergraduate life sciences instructors to list what OERs they use in their teaching and curated their responses. Here, we summarize the contents of the ORBE and describe how educators can use this resource as a tool to identify suitable materials to use in their classroom context. By highlighting the breadth of unique resources openly available for undergraduate biology education, we intend for the ORBE to increase instructors’ awareness and use of OERs. 

Instructors use a variety of online formative assessment (FA) activities to support learning outside class. Previous studies have revealed barriers for students in online courses, but little is known about the barriers students experience when completing online FA assignments. Understanding these barriers to access is critical to fostering more inclusive learning for all students. Using a framework from previous work in online learning, we examined student perceptions of online FA access with respect to five barrier categories: technical resources, instructor organization, social interactions, personal engagement, and learning environment. We developed and administered a survey to more than 1200 undergraduate biology students at 2-year and 4-year institutions. Students responded to statements using Likert scales and open-ended prompts. Statistical models indicated differences in access across the barrier categories and revealed that demographic characteristics were associated with certain barrier categories. Furthermore, technical resources, instructor organization, and personal engagement barriers were associated with lower course performance. In open-ended responses, students most frequently suggested that changes to scheduling logistics, course delivery, and FA format would improve their online FA experience. We discuss how these findings and student suggestions can inform instruction, particularly how instructors can alter their FA characteristics to better suit their student populations. 

Abstract While formative assessments (FAs) can facilitate learning within undergraduate STEM courses, their impact likely depends on many factors, including how instructors implement them, whether students buy-in to them, and how students utilize them. FAs have many different implementation characteristics, including what kinds of questions are asked, whether questions are asked before or after covering the material in class, how feedback is provided, how students are graded, and other logistical considerations. We conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with students from eight undergraduate biology courses to explore how various implementation characteristics of in-class and out-of-class FAs can influence student perceptions and behaviors. We also interviewed course instructors to provide context for understanding student experiences. Using thematic analysis, we outlined various FA implementation characteristics, characterized the range of FA utilization behaviors reported by students, and identified emergent themes regarding the impact of certain implementation characteristics on student buy-in and utilization. Furthermore, we found that implementation characteristics have combined effects on student engagement and that students will tolerate a degree of “acceptable discomfort” with implementation features that contradict their learning preferences. These results can aid instructor reflection and guide future research on the complex connections between activity implementation and student engagement within STEM disciplines. 

Instructors’ interactions can foster knowledge sharing around teaching and the use of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). Coordinated teaching presents an impetus for instructors’ interactions and creates opportunities for instructional improvement but also potentially limits an instructor’s autonomy. In this study, we sought to characterize the extent of coordination present in introductory undergraduate courses and to understand how departments and instructors implement and experience course coordination. We examined survey data from 3,641 chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors at three institution types and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of 24 survey respondents to determine what types of coordination existed, what factors led to coordination, how coordination constrained instruction, and how instructors maintained autonomy within coordinated contexts. We classified three approaches to coordination at both the overall course and course component levels: independent (i.e., not coordinated), collaborative (decision-making by instructor and others), controlled (decision-making by others, not instructor). Two course components, content coverage and textbooks, were highly coordinated. These curricular components were often decided through formal or informal committees, but these decisions were seldom revisited. This limited the ability for instructors to participate in the decision-making process, the level of interactions between instructors, and the pedagogical growth that could have occurred through these conversations. Decision-making around the other two course components, instructional methods and exams, was more likely to be independently determined by the instructors, who valued this autonomy. Participants in the study identified various ways in which collaborative coordination of courses can promote but also inhibit pedagogical growth. Our findings indicate that the benefits of collaborative course coordination can be realized when departments develop coordinated approaches that value each instructor’s autonomy, incorporate shared and ongoing decision-making, and facilitate collaborative interactions and knowledge sharing among instructors. 

The General Biology–Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science (GenBio-MAPS) assessment measures student understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts at the beginning, middle, and end of undergraduate biology degree programs. Assessment coordinators typically administer this instrument as a low-stakes assignment for which students receive participation credit. While these conditions can elicit high participation rates, it remains unclear how to best measure and account for potential variation in the amount of effort students give to the assessment. To better understand student test-taking motivation, we analyzed GenBio-MAPS data from more than 8000 students at 20 institutions. While the majority of students give acceptable effort, some students exhibited behaviors associated with low motivation, such as low self-reported effort, short test completion time, and high levels of rapid-selection behavior on test questions. Standard least-squares regression models revealed that students’ self-reported effort predicts their observable time-based behaviors and that these motivation indices predict students’ GenBio-MAPS scores. Furthermore, we observed that test-taking behaviors and performance change as students progress through the assessment. We provide recommendations for identifying and filtering out data from students with low test-taking motivation so that the filtered data set better represents student understanding. 

Abstract Instructional reform in STEM aims for the widespread adoption of evidence based instructional practices (EBIPS), practices that implement active learning. Research recognizes that faculty social networks regarding discussion or advice about teaching may matter to such efforts. But teaching is not the only priority for university faculty – meeting research expectations is at least as important and, often, more consequential for tenure and promotion decisions. We see value in understanding how research networks, based on discussion and advice about research matters, relate to teaching networks to see if and how such networks could advance instructional reform efforts. Our research examines data from three departments (biology, chemistry, and geosciences) at three universities that had recently received funding to enhance adoption of EBIPs in STEM fields. We evaluate exponential random graph models of the teaching network and find that (a) the existence of a research tie from one faculty member$$i$$ $i$to another$$j$$ $j$enhances the prospects of a teaching tie from$$i$$ $i$to$$j$$ $j$, but (b) even though faculty highly placed in the teaching network are more likely to be extensive EBIP users, faculty highly placed in the research network are not, dimming prospects for leveraging research networks to advance STEM instructional reforms.