Many ideas in the biological sciences seem especially difficult to understand, learn, and teach successfully. Our goal in this feature is to explore how these difficulties may stem not from the complexity or opacity of the concepts themselves, but from the fact that they may clash with informal, intuitive, and deeply held ways of understanding the world that have been studied for decades by psychologists. We give a brief overview of the field of developmental cognitive psychology. Then, in each of the following sections, we present a number of common challenges faced by students in the biological sciences. These may be in the form of misconceptions, biases, or simply concepts that are difficult to learn and teach, and they occur at all levels of biological analysis (molecular, cellular, organismal, population, and ecosystem). We then introduce the notion of a cognitive construal and discuss specific examples of how these cognitive principles may explain what makes some misconceptions so alluring and some biological concepts so challenging for undergraduates. We will argue that seemingly unrelated misconceptions may have common origins in a single underlying cognitive construal. These ideas emerge from our own ongoing cross-disciplinary conversation, and we think that expanding this conversation to include other biological scientists and educators, as well as other cognitive scientists, could have significant utility in improving biology teaching and learning.

Apps for touch-pad devices hold promise for guiding and supporting learning. Students may use them in the classroom or on their own for didactic instruction, just-in-time learning, or review. Since Apple touch-pad devices (i.e., iPad and iPhone) have a substantial share of the touch-pad device market (), this Feature will explore cell biology apps available from the App Store. My review includes iPad and iPhone apps available in June 2012, but does not include courses, lectures, podcasts, audiobooks, texts, or other books. I rated each app on a five-point scale (1 star = lowest; 5 stars = highest) for educational and production values; I also provide an overall score.

The National Science Foundation GK–12 program has made more than 300 awards to universities, supported thousands of graduate student trainees, and impacted thousands of K–12 students and teachers. The goals of the current study were to determine the number of sustained GK–12 programs that follow the original GK–12 structure of placing graduate students into classrooms and to propose models for universities with current funding or universities interested in starting a program. Results from surveys, literature reviews, and Internet searches of programs funded between 1999 and 2008 indicated that 19 of 188 funded sites had sustained in-classroom programs. Three distinct models emerged from an analysis of these programs: a full-stipend model, in which graduate fellows worked with partner teachers in a K–12 classroom for 2 d/wk; a supplemental stipend model in which fellows worked with teachers for 1 d/wk; and a service-learning model, in which in-classroom activity was integrated into university academic coursework. Based on these results, potential models for sustainability and replication are suggested, including establishment of formal collaborations between sustained GK–12 programs and universities interested in starting in-classroom programs; development of a new Teaching Experience for Fellows program; and integration of supplemental fellow stipends into grant broader-impact sections.

This study explores biology undergraduates’ misconceptions about genetic drift. We use qualitative and quantitative methods to describe students’ definitions, identify common misconceptions, and examine differences before and after instruction on genetic drift. We identify and describe five overarching categories that include 16 distinct misconceptions about genetic drift. The accuracy of students’ conceptions ranges considerably, from responses indicating only superficial, if any, knowledge of any aspect of evolution to responses indicating knowledge of genetic drift but confusion about the nuances of genetic drift. After instruction, a significantly greater number of responses indicate some knowledge of genetic drift (p = 0.005), but 74.6% of responses still contain at least one misconception. We conclude by presenting a framework that organizes how students’ conceptions of genetic drift change with instruction. We also articulate three hypotheses regarding undergraduates’ conceptions of evolution in general and genetic drift in particular. We propose that: 1) students begin with undeveloped conceptions of evolution that do not recognize different mechanisms of change; 2) students develop more complex, but still inaccurate, conceptual frameworks that reflect experience with vocabulary but still lack deep understanding; and 3) some new misconceptions about genetic drift emerge as students comprehend more about evolution.

This mixed-methods study explores differences in novice and experienced undergraduate students’ perceptions of their cognitive, personal, and professional gains from engaging in scientific research. The study was conducted in four different undergraduate research (UR) programs at two research-extensive universities; three of these programs had a focus on the biosciences. Seventy-three entry-level and experienced student researchers participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews and completed the quantitative Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) instrument. Interviews and surveys assessed students’ developmental outcomes from engaging in UR. Experienced students reported distinct personal, professional, and cognitive outcomes relative to their novice peers, including a more sophisticated understanding of the process of scientific research. Students also described the trajectories by which they developed not only the intellectual skills necessary to advance in science, but also the behaviors and temperament necessary to be a scientist. The findings suggest that students benefit from multi-year UR experiences. Implications for UR program design, advising practices, and funding structures are discussed.

Undergraduates entering science curricula differ greatly in individual starting points and learning needs. The fast pace, high enrollment, and high stakes of introductory science courses, however, limit students’ opportunities to self-assess and modify learning strategies. The University of Washington's Biology Fellows Program (BFP) intervenes through a 20-session, premajors course that introduces students to the rigor expected of bioscience majors and assists their development as science learners. This study uses quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess whether the 2007–2009 BFP achieved its desired short- and long-term impacts on student learning. Adjusting for differences in students’ high school grade point average and Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, we found that participation in the BFP was associated with higher grades in two subsequent gateway biology courses, across multiple quarters and instructors. Two to 4 yr after participating in the program, students attributed changes in how they approached learning science to BFP participation. They reported having learned to “think like a scientist” and to value active-learning strategies and learning communities. In addition, they reported having developed a sense of belonging in bioscience communities. The achievement of long-term impacts for a short-term instructional investment suggests a practical means to prepare diverse students for the rigors of science curricula.

Students’ writing can provide better insight into their thinking than can multiple-choice questions. However, resource constraints often prevent faculty from using writing assessments in large undergraduate science courses. We investigated the use of computer software to analyze student writing and to uncover student ideas about chemistry in an introductory biology course. Students were asked to predict acid–base behavior of biological functional groups and to explain their answers. Student explanations were rated by two independent raters. Responses were also analyzed using SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys and a custom library of science-related terms and lexical categories relevant to the assessment item. These analyses revealed conceptual connections made by students, student difficulties explaining these topics, and the heterogeneity of student ideas. We validated the lexical analysis by correlating student interviews with the lexical analysis. We used discriminant analysis to create classification functions that identified seven key lexical categories that predict expert scoring (interrater reliability with experts = 0.899). This study suggests that computerized lexical analysis may be useful for automatically categorizing large numbers of student open-ended responses. Lexical analysis provides instructors unique insights into student thinking and a whole-class perspective that are difficult to obtain from multiple-choice questions or reading individual responses.

Learning science requires higher-level (critical) thinking skills that need to be practiced in science classes. This study tested the effect of exam format on critical-thinking skills. Multiple-choice (MC) testing is common in introductory science courses, and students in these classes tend to associate memorization with MC questions and may not see the need to modify their study strategies for critical thinking, because the MC exam format has not changed. To test the effect of exam format, I used two sections of an introductory biology class. One section was assessed with exams in the traditional MC format, the other section was assessed with both MC and constructed-response (CR) questions. The mixed exam format was correlated with significantly more cognitively active study behaviors and a significantly better performance on the cumulative final exam (after accounting for grade point average and gender). There was also less gender-bias in the CR answers. This suggests that the MC-only exam format indeed hinders critical thinking in introductory science classes. Introducing CR questions encouraged students to learn more and to be better critical thinkers and reduced gender bias. However, student resistance increased as students adjusted their perceptions of their own critical-thinking abilities.

Women are sparsely represented in leadership in academic science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM). Cultural stereotypes about men, women, and leaders influence the attitudes, judgments, and decisions that others make about women and the choices women make for themselves. Multilevel interventions are needed to counteract the impact of these pervasive and easily activated stereotypes, which conspire in multiple ways to constrain women's entry, persistence, and advancement in academic STEMM. We describe an individual-level educational intervention. Using the transtheoretical model of behavioral change as a framework, we assessed the success of a semester course on increasing women's leadership self-efficacy for the first three cohorts of course participants (n = 30). Pre/post questionnaires showed gains in leadership self-efficacy, personal mastery, and self-esteem, and decreases in perceived constraints. Qualitative text analysis of weekly journals indicated increasing leadership self-efficacy as course participants applied course information and integrated strategies to mitigate the impact of societal stereotypes into their own leadership practices. Follow-up queries of the first two cohorts supported the enduring value of course participation. We conclude that providing strategies to recognize and mitigate the impact of gender stereotypes is effective in increasing leadership self-efficacy in women at early stages of academic STEMM careers.

The North Carolina State University Biotechnology Program offers laboratory-intensive courses to both undergraduate and graduate students. In “Manipulation and Expression of Recombinant DNA,” students are separated into undergraduate and graduate sections for the laboratory, but not the lecture, component. Evidence has shown that students prefer pairing with someone of the same academic level. However, retention of main ideas in peer learning environments has been shown to be greater when partners have dissimilar abilities. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that there will be enhanced student learning when lab partners are of different academic levels. We found that learning outcomes were met by both levels of student, regardless of pairing. Average undergraduate grades on every assessment method increased when undergraduates were paired with graduate students. Many of the average graduate student grades also increased modestly when graduate students were paired with undergraduates. Attitudes toward working with partners dramatically shifted toward favoring working with students of different academic levels. This work suggests that offering dual-level courses in which different-level partnerships are created does not inhibit learning by students of different academic levels. This format is useful for institutions that wish to offer “boutique” courses in which student enrollment may be low, but specialized equipment and faculty expertise are needed.