Search for: All records

In this study, the authors have examined the response-process validity of two recent measures of student evolution acceptance, the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA) and the Generalized Acceptance of Evolution Evaluation (GAENE), using student interviews. They found several validity issues which can inform future study design and survey improvement. 

Concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) are hidden identities that carry negative stereotypes and can result in a loss of social status if revealed. Instructors often choose to conceal these CSIs due to anticipated negative student reactions, yet revealing CSIs can have a positive impact on undergraduates. Women are generally more likely to reveal personal aspects about themselves in social situations, but may face greater consequences for revealing a stigmatized identity to students given their already marginalized position in academic science and engineering. Therefore, in this study, we were interested in understanding to what extent there are differences between men and women science and engineering instructors in (i) the representation of CSIs, (ii) their decisions to reveal CSIs to undergraduates in their classes, and (iii) their perceived stigma of CSIs. Based on a national survey of over 2,000 instructors in science and engineering from very high research activity doctoral institutions, we found that women were more likely than men to report having depression, anxiety, or a disability. Of instructors who held CSIs, women had 1.5x higher odds than men of revealing their CSIs to some undergraduates compared to no undergraduates and perceived greater stigma associated with all CSIs. Despite perceiving greater stigma associated with concealable stigmatized identities, women are more likely to reveal their CSIs to college science and engineering students, leading the way to a more diverse and inclusive scientific community by demonstrating themselves as role models for these identities.

 

Universities throughout the USA increasingly offer undergraduate courses in evolutionary medicine (EvMed), which creates a need for pedagogical resources. Several resources offer course content (e.g. textbooks) and a previous study identified EvMed core principles to help instructors set learning goals. However, assessment tools are not yet available. In this study, we address this need by developing an assessment that measures students’ ability to apply EvMed core principles to various health-related scenarios.

The EvMed Assessment (EMA) consists of questions containing a short description of a health-related scenario followed by several likely/unlikely items. We evaluated the assessment’s validity and reliability using a variety of qualitative (expert reviews and student interviews) and quantitative (Cronbach’s α and classical test theory) methods. We iteratively revised the assessment through several rounds of validation. We then administered the assessment to undergraduates in EvMed and Evolution courses at multiple institutions.

We used results from the pilot to create the EMA final draft. After conducting quantitative validation, we deleted items that failed to meet performance criteria and revised items that exhibited borderline performance. The final version of the EMA consists of six core questions containing 25 items, and five supplemental questions containing 20 items.

The EMA is a pedagogical tool supported by a wide range of validation evidence. Instructors can use it as a pre/post measure of student learning in an EvMed course to inform curriculum revision, or as a test bank to draw upon when developing in-class assessments, quizzes or exams.

 

Hundreds of studies have explored student evolution acceptance because evolution is a core concept of biology that many undergraduate biology students struggle to accept. However, this construct of “evolution acceptance” has been defined and measured in various ways, which has led to inconsistencies across studies and difficulties in comparing results from different studies. Many studies and essays have offered evaluations and perspectives of evolution acceptance instruments, but publications with a focus on consensus building across research teams is still needed. Further, little attention has been paid to how evolution acceptance instruments may be interpreted differently by students with varied religious backgrounds. Funded by a Research Coordination Network in Undergraduate Biology Education grant from the National Science Foundation, we gathered 16 experts from different disciplinary and religious backgrounds to review current evolution acceptance instruments and create a guide to the strengths and weaknesses of these instruments, including appropriate contexts for using these instruments and their potential weaknesses with different religious populations. Finally, in an attempt to move the field forward, we articulated a consensus definition of evolution acceptance that can be used to guide future instrument development.

 

Large introductory lecture courses are frequently post-secondary students’ first formal interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Grade outcomes in these courses are often disparate across student populations, which, in turn, has implications for student retention. This study positions such disparities as a manifestation of systemic inequities along the dimensions of sex, race/ethnicity, income, and first-generation status and investigates the extent to which they are similar across peer institutions.

We examined grade outcomes in a selected set of early STEM courses across six large, public, research-intensive universities in the United States over ten years. In this sample of more than 200,000 STEM course enrollments, we find that course grade benefits increase significantly with the number of systemic advantages students possess at all six institutions. The observed trends in academic outcomes versus advantage are strikingly similar across universities despite the fact that we did not control for differences in grading practices, contexts, and instructor and student populations. The findings are concerning given that these courses are often students’ first post-secondary STEM experiences.

STEM course grades are typically lower than those in other disciplines; students taking them often pay grade penalties. The systemic advantages some student groups experience are correlated with significant reductions in these grade penalties at all six institutions. The consistency of these findings across institutions and courses supports the claim that inequities in STEM education are a systemic problem, driven by factors that go beyond specific courses or individual institutions. Our work provides a basis for the exploration of contexts where inequities are exacerbated or reduced and can be used to advocate for structural change within STEM education. To cultivate more equitable learning environments, we must reckon with how pervasive structural barriers in STEM courses negatively shape the experiences of marginalized students.

 

Learning about evolution is a foundational part of biology education, but most current studies that explore college student evolution education are conducted at universities. However, community college students tend to be more diverse in characteristics shown to be related to evolution education outcomes. To explore how studies involving university students may generalize to community college students, we surveyed students from seven community college ( n = 202) and nine university ( n = 2288) classes. We measured students’ evolution interest, acceptance, and understanding, and for religious students, we measured their perceived conflict between their religions and evolution. Controlling for state and major, we found that community college students had similar levels of evolution interest as university students but perceived greater conflict between their religions and evolution. Further, community college students had lower evolution understanding and acceptance compared with university students. Religiosity was a strong factor predicting community college and university students’ evolution acceptance. However, unique to community college students, evolution understanding was not related to their macroevolution or human evolution acceptance. This indicates that, although some results between community college and university students are similar, there are differences that have implications for evolution instruction that warrant the need for more evolution education research at community colleges. 

To increase participation of students of color in science graduate programs, research has focused on illuminating student experiences to inform ways to improve them. In biology, Black students are vastly underrepresented, and while religion has been shown to be a particularly important form of cultural wealth for Black students, Christianity is stigmatized in biology. Very few studies have explored the intersection of race/ethnicity and Christianity for Black students in biology where there is high documented tension between religion and science. Since graduate school is important for socialization and Black students are likely to experience stigmatization of their racial and religious identity, it is important to understand their experiences and how we might be able to improve them. Thus, we interviewed 13 Black Christian students enrolled in biology graduate programs and explored their experiences using the theoretical lens of stigmatized identities. Through thematic content analysis, we revealed that students negotiated experiences of cultural isolation, devaluation of intelligence, and acts of bias like other racially minoritized students in science. However, by examining these experiences at the intersection of race/ethnicity and religion, we shed light on interactions students have had with faculty and peers within the biology community that cultivated perceptions of mistrust, conflict, and stigma. Our study also revealed ways in which students' religious/spiritual capital has positively supported their navigation through biology graduate school. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of why Black Christian graduate students are more likely to leave or not pursue advanced degrees in biology with implications for research and practice that help facilitate their success.

 

Sharing personal information can help instructors build relationships with students, and instructors revealing concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) may be particularly impactful. One CSI is the LGBTQ+ identity, but there has been no research on the student-perceived impact of an instructor revealing this identity. In this exploratory study conducted at an institution in the U.S. Southwest, an instructor revealed that she identifies as LGBTQ+ to her undergraduate biology course in less than 3 seconds. We surveyed students ( n = 475) after 8 weeks to assess whether they remembered this, and if so, how they perceived it affected them. We used regression models to assess whether students with different identities perceived a disproportionate impact of the reveal. Most students perceived the instructor revealing her LGBTQ+ identity positively impacted them; regression results showed LGBTQ+ students and women perceived greater increased sense of belonging and confidence to pursue a science career. Students overwhelmingly agreed that instructors revealing their LGBTQ+ identities to students is appropriate. This study is the first to indicate the perceived impact of an instructor revealing her LGBTQ+ identity to students in the United States and suggests that a brief intervention could positively affect students. 

ABSTRACT Evolution is one of the most important concepts in biology, but it is rejected by a substantial percentage of religious students due to a perceived conflict with their religious beliefs. The use of religious cultural competence in evolution education (ReCCEE) has been shown to effectively increase evolution acceptance among religious students during in-person instruction, but there is no research that we know of that indicates the effectiveness of these practices during online instruction. In this study, we explored the efficacy of online culturally competent practices for religious students on students’ evolution understanding, evolution acceptance, and comfort learning evolution at a religious university. Before and after evolution instruction, we surveyed 178 students in online introductory biology courses and compared these student outcomes to 201 students in the same instructor’s in-person introductory biology courses. We found that evolution acceptance and understanding increased in online classes with culturally competent practices, and these gains were similar to those observed in the in-person courses. Despite these similarities, we found that students were more comfortable learning evolution in person than online, but this difference was small. Our findings suggest that the use of culturally competent practices online can be as effective as their use for in-person instruction for improving students' attitudes toward evolution, but in-person instruction may be more effective for cultivating students’ comfort while learning evolution. 

Bioethics is an important aspect of understanding the relationship between science and society, but studies have not yet examined undergraduate student experiences and comfort in bioethics courses. In this study, we investigated undergraduate bioethics students’ support of and comfort when learning three controversial bioethics topics: gene editing, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Furthermore, student identity has been shown to influence how students perceive and learn about controversial topics at the intersection of science and society. So, we explored how students’ religious affiliation, gender, or political affiliation was associated with their support of and comfort when learning about gene editing, abortion, and PAS. We found that most students entered bioethics with moderated viewpoints on controversial topics but that there were differences in students’ tendency to support each topic based on their gender, religion, and political affiliation. We also saw differences in student comfort levels based on identity: women reported lower comfort than men when learning about gene editing, religious students were less comfortable than nonreligious students when learning about abortion and PAS, and nonliberal students were less comfortable than liberal students when learning about abortion. Students cited that the controversy surrounding these topics and a personal hesitancy to discuss them caused discomfort. These findings indicate that identity impacts comfort and support in a way similar to that previously shown in the public. Thus, it may be important for instructors to consider student identity when teaching bioethics topics to maximize student comfort, ultimately encouraging thoughtful consideration and engagement with these topics.