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. 

Concepts of molecular biology and genetics are difficult for many biology undergraduate students to master yet are crucial for deep understanding of how life works. By asking students to draw their ideas, we attempted to uncover the mental models about genes and gene expression held by biology students ( n = 23) and experts ( n = 18) using semistructured interviews. A large divide was identified between novice and expert conceptions. While experts typically drew box-and-line representations and thought about genes as regions of DNA that were used to encode products, students typically drew whole chromosomes rather than focusing on gene structure and conflated gene expression with simple phenotypic outcomes. Experts universally described gene expression as a set of molecular processes involving transcription and translation, whereas students often associated gene expression with Punnett squares and phenotypic outcomes. Follow-up survey data containing a ranking question confirmed students’ alignment of their mental models with the images uncovered during interviews ( n = 156 undergraduate biology students) and indicated that Advanced students demonstrate a shift toward expert-like thinking. An analysis of 14 commonly used biology textbooks did not show any relationship between Punnett squares and discussions of gene expression, so it is doubtful students’ ideas originate directly from textbook reading assignments. Our findings add to the literature about mechanistic reasoning abilities of learners and provide new insights into how biology students think about genes and gene expression. 

Despite the wealth of research exploring science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) identity and career goals in both formal and informal settings, existing literature does not consider STEM identity for undergraduate students pursuing health and medical careers through STEM pathways. We address this gap by examining the STEM identity of undergraduate STEM majors on pre-med/health tracks as it compares with that of other STEM majors, thus focusing on a population that is chronically understudied in STEM education research. We surveyed 440 undergraduate STEM students enrolled in entry-level STEM courses to assess their STEM identities and three identity precursors: interest, performance–competence, and recognition. Through regression analyses accounting for gender, major, and perceived home support around STEM, we found that pre-med/health students were more likely to have higher STEM identity and recognition scores than their peers; we did not detect a significant difference for performance–competence or interest in STEM. Although there is little tracking of pre-med/health students’ ultimate career attainment, the implications of our findings support a potential for sustaining pre-med/health students while simultaneously creating pathways to other STEM pursuits for the nearly 60% of those who do not enter medical school by offering participation in experiences that affirm their STEM identities.