The Current Insights feature is designed to introduce life science educators and researchers to current articles of interest in other social science and education journals. In this installment, I highlight three recent studies from the fields of psychology and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education that can inform life science education. The first characterizes how instructor beliefs about intelligence are communicated to students in the classroom. The second explores how instructor identity as a researcher may lead to different types of teaching identities. The third presents an alternative way to characterize students’ success that is based in Latinx college student values.

Reflective practices in education are widely advocated for and have become important components of professional reviews. The advantages of reflective practices are many; however, the literature often focuses on the benefits to students, rather than the benefits for the educators themselves. Additionally, the extant literature concerning reflective practices in education is laden with conflicting terminology and complex studies, which can inhibit educators’ understanding of reflective practices and prevent their adoption. As such, this Essay serves as a primer for educators beginning reflective practices. It briefly describes the benefits to educators and different classifications and modalities of reflection and examines some of the challenges that educators may encounter.

Pressure gradients serve as the key driving force for the bulk flow of fluids in biology (e.g., blood, air, phloem sap). However, students often struggle to understand the mechanism that causes these fluids to flow. To investigate student reasoning about bulk flow, we collected students’ written responses to assessment items and interviewed students about their bulk flow ideas. From these data, we constructed a bulk flow pressure gradient reasoning framework that describes the different patterns in reasoning that students express about what causes fluids to flow and ordered those patterns into sequential levels from more informal ways of reasoning to more scientific, mechanistic ways of reasoning. We obtained validity evidence for this bulk flow pressure gradient reasoning framework by collecting and analyzing written responses from a national sample of undergraduate biology and allied health majors from 11 courses at five institutions. Instructors can use the bulk flow pressure gradient reasoning framework and assessment items to inform their instruction of this topic and formatively assess their students’ progress toward more scientific, mechanistic ways of reasoning about this important physiological concept.

Contextual features of assessments can influence the ideas students draw from and the ways they assemble knowledge. We used a mixed-methods approach to explore how surface-level item context impacts student reasoning. In study 1, we developed an isomorphic survey to capture student reasoning about fluid dynamics, a crosscutting phenomenon, in two item contexts (blood vessels, water pipes), and administered the survey to students in two different course contexts: human anatomy and physiology (HA&P) and physics. We observed a significant difference in two of 16 between-context comparisons and a significant difference in how HA&P students responded to our survey compared with physics students. In study 2, we conducted interviews with HA&P students to explore our findings from study 1. Using the resources and framing theoretical framework, we found that HA&P students responding to the blood vessel protocol used teleological cognitive resources more frequently compared with HA&P students responding to the water pipes version. Further, students reasoning about water pipes spontaneously introduced HA&P content. Our findings support a dynamic model of cognition and align with previous work suggesting item context impacts student reasoning. These results also underscore a need for instructors to recognize the impact of context on student reasoning about crosscutting phenomena.

In-person undergraduate research experiences (UREs) promote students’ integration into careers in life science research. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted institutions hosting summer URE programs to offer them remotely, raising questions about whether undergraduates who participate in remote research can experience scientific integration and whether they might perceive doing research less favorably (i.e., not beneficial or too costly). To address these questions, we examined indicators of scientific integration and perceptions of the benefits and costs of doing research among students who participated in remote life science URE programs in Summer 2020. We found that students experienced gains in scientific self-efficacy pre- to post-URE, similar to results reported for in-person UREs. We also found that students experienced gains in scientific identity, graduate and career intentions, and perceptions of the benefits of doing research only if they started their remote UREs at lower levels on these variables. Collectively, students did not change in their perceptions of the costs of doing research despite the challenges of working remotely. Yet students who started with low cost perceptions increased in these perceptions. These findings indicate that remote UREs can support students’ self-efficacy development, but may otherwise be limited in their potential to promote scientific integration.

Core concepts provide a framework for organizing facts and understanding in neuroscience higher education curricula. Core concepts are overarching principles that identify patterns in neuroscience processes and phenomena and can be used as a foundational scaffold for neuroscience knowledge. The need for community-derived core concepts is pressing, because both the pace of research and number of neuroscience programs are rapidly expanding. While general biology and many subdisciplines within biology have identified core concepts, neuroscience has yet to establish a community-derived set of core concepts for neuroscience higher education. We used an empirical approach involving more than 100 neuroscience educators to identify a list of core concepts. The process of identifying neuroscience core concepts was modeled after the process used to develop physiology core concepts and involved a nationwide survey and a working session of 103 neuroscience educators. The iterative process identified eight core concepts and accompanying explanatory paragraphs. The eight core concepts are abbreviated as communication modalities, emergence, evolution, gene–environment interactions, information processing, nervous system functions, plasticity, and structure–function. Here, we describe the pedagogical research process used to establish core concepts for the neuroscience field and provide examples on how the core concepts can be embedded in neuroscience education.

Quantitative skills are a critical competency for undergraduates pursuing life science careers. To help students develop these skills, it is important to build their self-efficacy for quantitative tasks, as this ultimately affects their achievement. Collaborative learning can benefit self-efficacy, but it is unclear what experiences during collaborative learning build self-efficacy. We surveyed introductory biology students about self-efficacy-building experiences they had during collaborative group work on two quantitative biology assignments and examined how students’ initial self-efficacy and gender/sex related to the experiences they reported. Using inductive coding, we analyzed 478 responses from 311 students and identified five group work experiences that increased students’ self-efficacy: accomplishing the problems, getting help from peers, confirming answers, teaching others, and consulting with a teacher. Higher initial self-efficacy significantly increased the odds (odds ratio: 1.5) of reporting that accomplishing the problems benefited self-efficacy, whereas lower initial self-efficacy significantly increased the odds (odds ratio: 1.6) of reporting peer help benefited self-efficacy. Gender/sex differences in reporting peer help appeared to be related to initial self-efficacy. Our results suggest that structuring group work to facilitate collaborative discussions and help-seeking behaviors among peers may be particularly beneficial for building self-efficacy in low self-efficacy students.

Undergraduate biology students’ molecular-level understanding of stochastic (also referred to as random or noisy) processes found in biological systems is often limited to those examples discussed in class. Therefore, students frequently display little ability to accurately transfer their knowledge to other contexts. Furthermore, elaborate tools to assess students’ understanding of these stochastic processes are missing, despite the fundamental nature of this concept and the increasing evidence demonstrating its importance in biology. Thus, we developed the Molecular Randomness Concept Inventory (MRCI), an instrument composed of nine multiple-choice questions based on students’ most prevalent misconceptions, to quantify students’ understanding of stochastic processes in biological systems. The MRCI was administered to 67 first-year natural science students in Switzerland. The psychometric properties of the inventory were analyzed using classical test theory and Rasch modeling. Moreover, think-aloud interviews were conducted to ensure response validity. Results indicate that the MRCI yields valid and reliable estimations of students’ conceptual understanding of molecular randomness in the higher educational setting studied. Ultimately, the performance analysis sheds light on the extent and the limitations of students’ understanding of the concept of stochasticity on a molecular level.

Expectancy-value theory of motivation (EVT) suggests that student values influence their likelihood of putting in the effort required to learn, and these values can be shaped by student characteristics, such as their experiences, sociodemographics, and disciplinary norms. To understand the extent to which these characteristics relate to students’ values, we surveyed 1162 graduating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students across four universities using the previously developed and validated Survey of Teaching Beliefs and Practices for Undergraduates (STEP-U). The STEP-U survey included Likert questions to capture students’ values of 27 cross-disciplinary skills and the frequency with which they experienced 27 instructional methods thought to develop particular skills. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) showed an understandable factor structure for both students’ perceived value of cross-disciplinary skills and frequency of classroom experiences. Using multiple regression, we identified differences in values that were associated with classroom experiences, STEM discipline, participation in undergraduate research, and student sociodemographics. Findings were generalizable across institutions and disciplines. The theoretical framework (EVT), the broad data collection (four institutions with multiple disciplines), and the type of data analyses (e.g., EFA) used provide theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions and suggest additional directions for future research.

Abstract concepts dominate university science teaching, and much of this content is taught without sufficient connection to students’ prior knowledge or everyday experiences. As this can be problematic for students, the aim of this research was to determine the utility and effectiveness of a professional development module on using analogies to make these important connections for learning. We conducted qualitative content analysis of analogies in teaching plans designed by 75 graduate teaching assistants who participated in the module between 2018 and 2021. The module is part of a course on Teaching Science at University (TSU) and pairs cognitive science with a structured analogy design tool, originally developed for K–12 education. Most course participants used the tool systematically and developed analogies linking abstract science target concepts with students’ everyday experiences; however, some analogies contained a high cognitive load or unaddressed anthropomorphic logic that might negatively impact learning. Participants’ reflections on their learning in the module suggested a new awareness of the need for planning and for active student discussion of analogies, particularly where they break down. This research has shown that TSU’s stepwise guidance using a structured pedagogical tool for planning and teaching with analogies is highly suitable for higher education.

Based on theoretical frameworks of scientist stereotypes, possible selves, and science identity, written assignments were developed to teach science content through biographies and research of counter-stereotypical scientists—Scientist Spotlights (www.scientistspotlights.org). Previous studies on Scientist Spotlight assignments showed significant shifts in how college-level biology students relate to and describe scientists and in their performance in biology courses. However, the outcomes of Scientist Spotlight assignments in secondary schools were yet to be explored. In collaboration with 18 science teachers from 12 schools, this study assessed the impacts of Scientist Spotlight assignments for secondary school students. We used published assessment tools: Relatability prompt; Stereotypes prompt; and Performance/Competence, Interest, and Recognition (PCIR) instrument. Statistical analyses compared students’ responses before and after receiving at least three Scientist Spotlight assignments. We observed significant shifts in students’ relatability to and descriptions of scientists as well as other science identity measures. Importantly, disaggregating classes by implementation strategies revealed that students’ relatability shifts were significant for teachers reporting in-class discussions and not significant for teachers reporting no discussions. Our findings raise questions about contextual and pedagogical influences shaping student outcomes with Scientist Spotlight assignments, like how noncontent Instructor Talk might foster student shifts in aspects of science identity.

Biology instructors use concept assessments in their courses to gauge student understanding of important disciplinary ideas. Instructors can choose to administer concept assessments based on participation (i.e., lower stakes) or the correctness of responses (i.e., higher stakes), and students can complete the assessment in an in-class or out-of-class setting. Different administration conditions may affect how students engage with and perform on concept assessments, thus influencing how instructors should interpret the resulting scores. Building on a validity framework, we collected data from 1578 undergraduate students over 5 years under five different administration conditions. We did not find significant differences in scores between lower-stakes in-class, higher-stakes in-class, and lower-stakes out-of-class conditions, indicating a degree of equivalence among these three options. We found that students were likely to spend more time and have higher scores in the higher-stakes out-of-class condition. However, we suggest that instructors cautiously interpret scores from this condition, as it may be associated with an increased use of external resources. Taken together, we highlight the lower-stakes out-of-class condition as a widely applicable option that produces outcomes similar to in-class conditions, while respecting the common desire to preserve classroom instructional time.

College science courses continue to transition from traditional lecture to active learning, which has been shown to have both alleviating and exacerbating effects on undergraduate mental health. Notably, existing studies have primarily examined the relationship between active learning and anxiety, and no studies have specifically assessed the relationship between active learning and depression. To address this gap, we conducted hourlong exploratory interviews with 29 undergraduates from six institutions who identify as having depression and who had been enrolled in at least one active-learning college science course. We probed how undergraduates’ depression affects their experiences in active learning, and in turn, what aspects of active-learning practices exacerbate or alleviate students’ depressive symptoms. Students described that their depression negatively impacted their cognitive domains, which could make learning and social interactions challenging. Additionally, we found that the underlying aspects of active-learning practices that impact students’ depression fall into four overarching categories: opportunities to compare oneself with others, socializing with others while learning, frequent formative evaluation, and engagement in learning. Each of these aspects of active learning could alleviate and/or exacerbate depressive symptoms. This work supports recommendations to create more inclusive active-learning courses for students with depression.

Mastery of quantitative skills is increasingly critical for student success in life sciences, but few curricula adequately incorporate quantitative skills. Quantitative Biology at Community Colleges (QB@CC) is designed to address this need by building a grassroots consortium of community college faculty to 1) engage in interdisciplinary partnerships that increase participant confidence in life science, mathematics, and statistics domains; 2) generate and publish a collection of quantitative skills–focused open education resources (OER); and 3) disseminate these OER and pedagogical practices widely, in turn expanding the network. Currently in its third year, QB@CC has recruited 70 faculty into the network and created 20 modules. Modules can be accessed by interested biology and mathematics educators in high school, 2-year, and 4-year institutions. Here, we use survey responses, focus group interviews, and document analyses (principles-focused evaluation) to evaluate the progress in accomplishing these goals midway through the QB@CC program. The QB@CC network provides a model for developing and sustaining an interdisciplinary community that benefits participants and generates valuable resources for the broader community. Similar network-building programs may wish to adopt some of the effective aspects of the QB@CC network model to meet their objectives.

Undergraduate research experiences have been widely demonstrated as a beneficial and essential component of the college experience. However, many community colleges face barriers and lack of support in implementing such research programs, which means a significant number of community college students miss out on these impactful experiences. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) represent a feasible way to increase access to research experiences within community colleges. To investigate whether these CURE opportunities resulted in comparable to 4-year university CURE students, a CURE program was developed across various disciplines in a large community college and the impact on community college students was assessed. Analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data showed that students reported improvement in research skills, increases in confidence, and increases in educational aspirations. Peer interactions and instructor relationships in CUREs were identified as key factors associated with increases in research skills. Key factors associated with increases in educational aspirations included confidence in research-based courses, seeking additional research opportunities, and building a meaningful relationship with the instructor, but only if confidence increased as well. Our findings indicate that CUREs positively impact student outcomes in the community college setting and may provide increased access to research experiences.