The credibility of conclusions made about the effectiveness of educational interventions depends greatly on the quality of the assessments used to measure learning gains. This essay, intended for faculty involved in small-scale projects, courses, or educational research, provides a step-by-step guide to the process of developing, scoring, and validating high-quality content knowledge assessments. We illustrate our discussion with examples from our assessments of high school students’ understanding of concepts in cell biology and epigenetics. Throughout, we emphasize the iterative nature of the development process, the importance of creating instruments aligned to the learning goals of an intervention or curricula, and the importance of collaborating with other content and measurement specialists along the way.

Western science has grown increasingly reductionistic and, in parallel, the undergraduate life sciences curriculum has become disciplinarily fragmented. While reductionistic approaches have led to landmark discoveries, many of the most exciting scientific advances in the late 20th century have occurred at disciplinary interfaces; work at these interfaces is necessary to manage the world’s looming problems, particularly those that are rooted in cellular-level processes but have ecosystem- and even global-scale ramifications (e.g., nonsustainable agriculture, emerging infectious diseases). Managing such problems requires comprehending whole scenarios and their emergent properties as sums of their multiple facets and complex interrelationships, which usually integrate several disciplines across multiple scales (e.g., time, organization, space). This essay discusses bringing interdisciplinarity into undergraduate cellular biology courses through the use of multiscalar topics. Discussing how cellular-level processes impact large-scale phenomena makes them relevant to everyday life and unites diverse disciplines (e.g., sociology, cell biology, physics) as facets of a single system or problem, emphasizing their connections to core concepts in biology. I provide specific examples of multiscalar topics and discuss preliminary evidence that using such topics may increase students’ understanding of the cell’s position within an ecosystem and how cellular biology interfaces with other disciplines.

Biology graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are significant contributors to the educational mission of universities, particularly in introductory courses, yet there is a lack of empirical data on how to best prepare them for their teaching roles. This essay proposes a conceptual framework for biology GTA teaching professional development (TPD) program evaluation and research with three overarching variable categories for consideration: outcome variables, contextual variables, and moderating variables. The framework’s outcome variables go beyond GTA satisfaction and instead position GTA cognition, GTA teaching practice, and undergraduate learning outcomes as the foci of GTA TPD evaluation and research. For each GTA TPD outcome variable, key evaluation questions and example assessment instruments are introduced to demonstrate how the framework can be used to guide GTA TPD evaluation and research plans. A common conceptual framework is also essential to coordinating the collection and synthesis of empirical data on GTA TPD nationally. Thus, the proposed conceptual framework serves as both a guide for conducting GTA TPD evaluation at single institutions and as a means to coordinate research across institutions at a national level.

Relationships with colleagues have the potential to be a source of support for faculty to make meaningful change in how they teach, but the impact of these relationships is poorly understood. We used a mixed-methods approach to investigate the characteristics of faculty who provide colleagues with teaching resources and facilitate change in teaching, how faculty influence one another. Our exploratory investigation was informed by social network theory and research on the impact of opinion leaders within organizations. We used surveys and interviews to examine collegial interactions about undergraduate teaching in life sciences departments at one research university. Each department included discipline-based education researchers (DBERs). Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that DBERs promote changes in teaching to a greater degree than other departmental colleagues. The influence of DBERs derives, at least partly, from a perception that they have unique professional expertise in education. DBERs facilitated change through coteaching, offering ready and approachable access to education research, and providing teaching training and mentoring. Faculty who had participated in a team based–teaching professional development program were also credited with providing more support for teaching than nonparticipants. Further research will be necessary to determine whether these results generalize beyond the studied institution.

Evolution is a core concept of biology, and yet many college biology students do not accept evolution because of their religious beliefs. However, we do not currently know how instructors perceive their role in helping students accept evolution or how they address the perceived conflict between religion and evolution when they teach evolution. This study explores instructor practices and beliefs related to mitigating students’ perceived conflict between religion and evolution. Interviews with 32 instructors revealed that many instructors do not believe it is their goal to help students accept evolution and that most instructors do not address the perceived conflict between religion and evolution. Instructors cited many barriers to discussing religion in the context of evolution in their classes, most notably the instructors’ own personal beliefs that religion and evolution may be incompatible. These data are exploratory and are intended to stimulate a series of questions about how we as college biology instructors teach evolution.

Undergraduate introductory biology courses are changing based on our growing understanding of how students learn and rapid scientific advancement in the biological sciences. At Iowa State University, faculty instructors are transforming a second-semester large-enrollment introductory biology course to include active learning within the lecture setting. To support this change, we set up a faculty learning community (FLC) in which instructors develop new pedagogies, adapt active-learning strategies to large courses, discuss challenges and progress, critique and revise classroom interventions, and share materials. We present data on how the collaborative work of the FLC led to increased implementation of active-learning strategies and a concurrent improvement in student learning. Interestingly, student learning gains correlate with the percentage of classroom time spent in active-learning modes. Furthermore, student attitudes toward learning biology are weakly positively correlated with these learning gains. At our institution, the FLC framework serves as an agent of iterative emergent change, resulting in the creation of a more student-centered course that better supports learning.

We present our design for a cell biology course to integrate content with scientific practices, specifically data interpretation and model-based reasoning. A 2-yr research project within this course allowed us to understand how students interpret authentic biological data in this setting. Through analysis of written work, we measured the extent to which students’ data interpretations were valid and/or generative. By analyzing small-group audio recordings during in-class activities, we demonstrated how students used instructor-provided models to build and refine data interpretations. Often, students used models to broaden the scope of data interpretations, tying conclusions to a biological significance. Coding analysis revealed several strategies and challenges that were common among students in this collaborative setting. Spontaneous argumentation was present in 82% of transcripts, suggesting that data interpretation using models may be a way to elicit this important disciplinary practice. Argumentation dialogue included frequent co-construction of claims backed by evidence from data. Other common strategies included collaborative decoding of data representations and noticing data patterns before making interpretive claims. Focusing on irrelevant data patterns was the most common challenge. Our findings provide evidence to support the feasibility of supporting students’ data-interpretation skills within a large lecture course.

Redesigning undergraduate biology courses to integrate quantitative reasoning and skill development is critical to prepare students for careers in modern medicine and scientific research. In this paper, we report on the development, implementation, and assessment of stand-alone modules that integrate quantitative reasoning into introductory biology courses. Modules are designed to improve skills in quantitative numeracy, interpreting data sets using visual tools, and making inferences about biological phenomena using mathematical/statistical models. We also examine demographic/background data that predict student improvement in these skills through exposure to these modules. We carried out pre/postassessment tests across four semesters and used student interviews in one semester to examine how students at different levels approached quantitative problems. We found that students improved in all skills in most semesters, although there was variation in the degree of improvement among skills from semester to semester. One demographic variable, transfer status, stood out as a major predictor of the degree to which students improved (transfer students achieved much lower gains every semester, despite the fact that pretest scores in each focus area were similar between transfer and nontransfer students). We propose that increased exposure to quantitative skill development in biology courses is effective at building competency in quantitative reasoning.

Scientific teaching requires scientifically constructed, field-tested instruments to accurately evaluate student thinking and gauge teacher effectiveness. We have developed a 23-question, multiple select–format assessment of student understanding of the essential concepts of the central dogma of molecular biology that is appropriate for all levels of undergraduate biology. Questions for the Central Dogma Concept Inventory (CDCI) tool were developed and iteratively revised based on student language and review by experts. The ability of the CDCI to discriminate between levels of understanding of the central dogma is supported by field testing (N = 54), and large-scale beta testing (N = 1733). Performance on the assessment increased with experience in biology; scores covered a broad range and showed no ceiling effect, even with senior biology majors, and pre/posttesting of a single class focused on the central dogma showed significant improvement. The multiple-select format reduces the chances of correct answers by random guessing, allows students at different levels to exhibit the extent of their knowledge, and provides deeper insight into the complexity of student thinking on each theme. To date, the CDCI is the first tool dedicated to measuring student thinking about the central dogma of molecular biology, and version 5 is ready to use.

Concept inventories (CIs) are valuable tools for educators that assess student achievement and identify misconceptions held by students. Results of student responses can be used to adjust or develop new instructional methods for a given topic. The regulation of gene expression in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes is an important concept in genetics and one that is particularly challenging for undergraduate students. As part of a larger study examining instructional methods related to gene regulation, the authors developed a 12-item CI assessing student knowledge of the lac operon. Using an established protocol, the authors wrote open-ended questions and conducted in-class testing with undergraduate microbiology and genetics students to discover common errors made by students about the lac operon and to determine aspects of item validity. Using these results, we constructed a 12-item multiple-choice lac operon CI called the Lac Operon Concept Inventory (LOCI), The LOCI was reviewed by two experts in the field for content validity. The LOCI underwent item analysis and was assessed for reliability with a sample of undergraduate genetics students (n = 115). The data obtained were found to be valid and reliable (coefficient alpha = 0.994) with adequate discriminatory power and item difficulty.

Using the context of a 2-wk instructional unit focused on eye and vision health, we developed and validated a multilevel measure of middle school students’ interest in science and health careers. This survey contained three subscales positioned differently with respect to curricular content. Interest in Vision Care was most related, but less transferrable to other contexts. Interest in Science was most general, and Interest in Healthcare was positioned between the two. We found that, with two exceptions, items fitted well with validity expectations and were stable across a 2-wk intervention. Further, measures of interest in science, health, and vision-care careers were shown to be reliable and valid. We found that ease of facilitating change across the intervention was generally greater in subscales closely related to the curricular context but that the average magnitude of change in Interest in Healthcare and Interest in Science was not significantly different. We discuss use of these measures in informing instructional efforts and advise that changes in students’ perceptions of how science and healthcare relate should be considered in longitudinal analyses.

When undergraduate biology students learn to explain biological mechanisms, they face many challenges and may overestimate their understanding of living systems. Previously, we developed the MACH model of four components used by expert biologists to explain mechanisms: Methods, Analogies, Context, and How. This study explores the implementation of the model in an undergraduate biology classroom as an educational tool to address some of the known challenges. To find out how well students’ written explanations represent components of the MACH model before and after they were taught about it and why students think the MACH model was useful, we conducted an exploratory multiple case study with four interview participants. We characterize how two students explained biological mechanisms before and after a teaching intervention that used the MACH components. Inductive analysis of written explanations and interviews showed that MACH acted as an effective metacognitive tool for all four students by helping them to monitor their understanding, communicate explanations, and identify explanatory gaps. Further research, though, is needed to more fully substantiate the general usefulness of MACH for promoting students’ metacognition about their understanding of biological mechanisms.

Recent reform efforts in undergraduate biology have recommended transforming course exams to test at more cognitively challenging levels, which may mean including more cognitively challenging and more constructed-response questions on assessments. However, changing the characteristics of exams could result in bias against historically underserved groups. In this study, we examined whether and to what extent the characteristics of instructor-generated tests impact the exam performance of male and female and middle/high- and low-socioeconomic status (SES) students enrolled in introductory biology courses. We collected exam scores for 4810 students from 87 unique exams taken across 3 yr of the introductory biology series at a large research university. We determined the median Bloom’s level and the percentage of constructed-response questions for each exam. Despite controlling for prior academic ability in our models, we found that males and middle/high-SES students were disproportionately favored as the Bloom’s level of exams increased. Additionally, middle/high-SES students were favored as the proportion of constructed-response questions on exams increased. Given that we controlled for prior academic ability, our findings do not likely reflect differences in academic ability level. We discuss possible explanations for our findings and how they might impact how we assess our students.

Academic self-efficacy encompasses judgments regarding one’s ability to perform academic tasks and is correlated with achievement and persistence. This study describes changes in biology self-efficacy during a first-year course. Students (n = 614) were given the Biology Self-Efficacy Scale at the beginning and end of the semester. The instrument consisted of 21 questions ranking confidence in performing biology-related tasks on a scale from 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (totally confident). The results demonstrated that students increased in self-efficacy during the semester. High school biology and chemistry contributed to self-efficacy at the beginning of the semester; however, this relationship was lost by the end of the semester, when experience within the course became a significant contributing factor. A proportion of high- and low- achieving (24 and 40%, respectively) students had inaccurate self-efficacy judgments of their ability to perform well in the course. In addition, female students were significantly less confident than males overall, and high-achieving female students were more likely than males to underestimate their academic ability. These results suggest that the Biology Self-Efficacy Scale may be a valuable resource for tracking changes in self-efficacy in first-year students and for identifying students with poorly calibrated self-efficacy perceptions.

National efforts to transform undergraduate biology education call for research experiences to be an integral component of learning for all students. Course-based undergraduate research experiences, or CUREs, have been championed for engaging students in research at a scale that is not possible through apprenticeships in faculty research laboratories. Yet there are few if any studies that examine the long-term effects of participating in CUREs on desired student outcomes, such as graduating from college and completing a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) major. One CURE program, the Freshman Research Initiative (FRI), has engaged thousands of first-year undergraduates over the past decade. Using propensity score–matching to control for student-level differences, we tested the effect of participating in FRI on students’ probability of graduating with a STEM degree, probability of graduating within 6 yr, and grade point average (GPA) at graduation. Students who completed all three semesters of FRI were significantly more likely than their non-FRI peers to earn a STEM degree and graduate within 6 yr. FRI had no significant effect on students’ GPAs at graduation. The effects were similar for diverse students. These results provide the most robust and best-controlled evidence to date to support calls for early involvement of undergraduates in research.

Undergraduate researchers at research universities are often mentored by graduate students or postdoctoral researchers (referred to collectively as “postgraduates”) and faculty, creating a mentoring triad structure. Triads differ based on whether the undergraduate, postgraduate, and faculty member interact with one another about the undergraduate’s research. Using a social capital theory framework, we hypothesized that different triad structures provide undergraduates with varying resources (e.g., information, advice, psychosocial support) from the postgraduates and/or faculty, which would affect the undergraduates’ research outcomes. To test this, we collected data from a national sample of undergraduate life science researchers about their mentoring triad structure and a range of outcomes associated with research experiences, such as perceived gains in their abilities to think and work like scientists, science identity, and intentions to enroll in a PhD program. Undergraduates mentored by postgraduates alone reported positive outcomes, indicating that postgraduates can be effective mentors. However, undergraduates who interacted directly with faculty realized greater outcomes, suggesting that faculty interaction is important for undergraduates to realize the full benefits of research. The “closed triad,” in which undergraduates, postgraduates, and faculty all interact directly, appeared to be uniquely beneficial; these undergraduates reported the highest gains in thinking and working like a scientist.

Researchers, instructors, and funding bodies in biology education are unanimous about the importance of developing students’ competence in experimental design. Despite this, only limited measures are available for assessing such competence development, especially in the areas of molecular and cellular biology. Also, existing assessments do not measure how well students use standard symbolism to visualize biological experiments. We propose an assessment-design process that 1) provides background knowledge and questions for developers of new “experimentation assessments,” 2) elicits practices of representing experiments with conventional symbol systems, 3) determines how well the assessment reveals expert knowledge, and 4) determines how well the instrument exposes student knowledge and difficulties. To illustrate this process, we developed the Neuron Assessment and coded responses from a scientist and four undergraduate students using the Rubric for Experimental Design and the Concept-Reasoning Mode of representation (CRM) model. Some students demonstrated sound knowledge of concepts and representations. Other students demonstrated difficulty with depicting treatment and control group data or variability in experimental outcomes. Our process, which incorporates an authentic research situation that discriminates levels of visualization and experimentation abilities, shows potential for informing assessment design in other disciplines.

Authentic research experiences are valuable components of effective undergraduate education. Research experiences during the first years of college are especially critical to increase persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. The Science Education Alliance Phage Hunters Advancing Genomics and Evolutionary Science (SEA-PHAGES) model provides a high-impact research experience to first-year students but is usually available to a limited number of students, and its implementation is costly in faculty time and laboratory space. To offer a research experience to all students taking introductory biology at Gonzaga University (n = 350/yr), we modified the traditional two-semester SEA-PHAGES course by streamlining the first-semester Phage Discovery lab and integrating the second SEA-PHAGES semester into other courses in the biology curriculum. Because most students in the introductory course are not biology majors, the Phage Discovery semester may be their only encounter with research. To discover whether students benefit from the first semester alone, we assessed the effects of the one-semester Phage Discovery course on students’ understanding of course content. Specifically, students showed improvement in knowledge of bacteriophages, lab math skills, and understanding experimental design and interpretation. They also reported learning gains and benefits comparable with other course-based research experiences. Responses to open-ended questions suggest that students experienced this course as a true undergraduate research experience.

Two sections of Genetics and Evolution were taught by one instructor. One group (the fully flipped section) had the entire class period devoted to active learning (with background material that had to be watched before class), and the other group (the partially flipped section) had just a portion of class time spent on active learning (with the background material presented during class time). The same materials and assessments were used for both sections. Analysis of objective measures revealed that there was no significant difference between the learning outcomes of students in the two sections. There was no main effect of gender, major, or ethnicity on success in the whole cohort or in either section. There appeared to be a significant main effect of class standing, with freshmen performing significantly less well than sophomores, juniors, or seniors (who all performed equally well) in both sections (p < 0.01); however, this was a very preliminary observation, as there were very few freshmen in either section. The only predictor of success in the two sections was prior grade point average. An anonymous end-of-semester survey showed no significant difference between the two sections in interest in the subject matter.