I was invited to write this essay on the occasion of my selection as the recipient of the 2012 Bruce Alberts Award for Excellence in Science Education from the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). Receiving this award is an enormous honor. When I read the email announcement for the first time, it was more than a surprise to me, it was unbelievable. I joined ASCB in 1996, when I presented a poster and received a travel award. Since then, I have attended almost every ASCB meeting. I will try to use this essay to share with readers one of the best experiences in my life. Because this is an essay, I take the liberty of mixing some of my thoughts with data in a way that it not usual in scientific writing. I hope that this sacrifice of the format will achieve the goal of conveying what I have learned over the past 20 yr, during which time a group of colleagues and friends created a nexus of knowledge and wisdom. We have worked together to build a network capable of sharing and inspiring science all over the world.

Statistical significance testing is the cornerstone of quantitative research, but studies that fail to report measures of effect size are potentially missing a robust part of the analysis. We provide a rationale for why effect size measures should be included in quantitative discipline-based education research. Examples from both biological and educational research demonstrate the utility of effect size for evaluating practical significance. We also provide details about some effect size indices that are paired with common statistical significance tests used in educational research and offer general suggestions for interpreting effect size measures. Finally, we discuss some inherent limitations of effect size measures and provide further recommendations about reporting confidence intervals.

At the close of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research conference in July 2012, one of the organizers made the comment: “Misconceptions are so yesterday.” Within the community of learning sciences, misconceptions are yesterday's news, because the term has been aligned with eradication and/or replacement of conceptions, and our knowledge about how people learn has progressed past this idea. This essay provides an overview of the discussion within the learning sciences community surrounding the term “misconceptions” and how the education community's thinking has evolved with respect to students’ conceptions. Using examples of students’ incorrect ideas about evolution and ecology, we show that students’ naïve ideas can provide the resources from which to build scientific understanding. We conclude by advocating that biology education researchers use one or more appropriate alternatives in place of the term misconception whenever possible.

Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives are underrepresented in science and engineering fields. A comparison of race–ethnic differences at key transition points was undertaken to better inform education policy. National data on high school graduation, college enrollment, choice of major, college graduation, graduate school enrollment, and doctoral degrees were used to quantify the degree of underrepresentation at each level of education and the rate of transition to the next stage. Disparities are found at every level, and their impact is cumulative. For the most part, differences in graduation rates, rather than differential matriculation rates, make the largest contribution to the underrepresentation. The size, scope, and persistence of the disparities suggest that small-scale, narrowly targeted remediation will be insufficient.

Case-based learning and problem-based learning have demonstrated great promise in reforming science education. Yet an instructor, in newly considering this suite of interrelated pedagogical strategies, faces a number of important instructional choices. Different features and their related values and learning outcomes are profiled here, including: the level of student autonomy; instructional focus on content, skills development, or nature-of-science understanding; the role of history, or known outcomes; scope, clarity, and authenticity of problems provided to students; extent of collaboration; complexity, in terms of number of interpretive perspectives; and, perhaps most importantly, the role of applying versus generating knowledge.

The scale and importance of Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action challenges us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology instruction. I propose that we have clarified the “vision” but lack research-based models and evidence needed to guide the “change.” To support this claim, I focus on several key topics, including evidence about effective use of active-teaching pedagogy by typical faculty and whether certain programs improve students’ understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts. Program evaluation is especially problematic. While current education research and theory should inform evaluation, several prominent biology faculty–development programs continue to rely on self-reporting by faculty and students. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty-development overviews can guide program design. Such studies highlight viewing faculty members as collaborators, embedding rewards faculty value, and characteristics of effective faculty-development learning communities. A recent National Research Council report on discipline-based STEM education research emphasizes the need for long-term faculty development and deep conceptual change in teaching and learning as the basis for genuine transformation of college instruction. Despite the progress evident in Vision and Change, forward momentum will likely be limited, because we lack evidence-based, reliable models for actually realizing the desired “change.”

We offered four annual professional development workshops called STAR (for Scientific Teaching, Assessment, and Resources) modeled after the National Academies Summer Institute (SI) on Undergraduate Education in Biology. In contrast to the SI focus on training faculty from research universities, STAR's target was faculty from community colleges, 2-yr campuses, and public and private research universities. Because of the importance of community colleges and 2-yr institutions as entries to higher education, we wanted to determine whether the SI model can be successfully extended to this broader range of institutions. We surveyed the four cohorts; 47 STAR alumni responded to the online survey. The responses were separated into two groups based on the Carnegie undergraduate instructional program categories, faculty from seven associate's and associate's-dominant institutions (23) and faculty from nine institutions with primarily 4-yr degree programs (24). Both groups expressed the opinion that STAR had a positive impact on teaching, student learning, and engagement. The two groups reported using techniques of formative assessment and active learning with similar frequency. The mix of faculty from diverse institutions was viewed as enhancing the workshop experience. The present analysis indicates that the SI model for training faculty in scientific teaching can successfully be extended to a broad range of higher education institutions.

Scientific workforce diversity is critical to ensuring the realization of our national research goals and minority-serving institutions play a vital role in preparing undergraduate students for science careers. This paper summarizes the outcomes of supporting career training and research practices by faculty from teaching-intensive, minority-serving institutions. Support of these faculty members is predicted to lead to: 1) increases in the numbers of refereed publications, 2) increases in federal grant funding, and 3) a positive impact on professional activities and curricular practices at their home institutions that support student training. The results presented show increased productivity is evident as early as 1 yr following completion of the program, with participants being more independently productive than their matched peers in key areas that serve as measures of academic success. These outcomes are consistent with the goals of the Visiting Professorship Program to enhance scientific practices impacting undergraduate student training. Furthermore, the outcomes demonstrate the benefits of training support for research activities at minority-serving institutions that can lead to increased engagement of students from diverse backgrounds. The practices and results presented demonstrate a successful generalizable approach for stimulating junior faculty development and can serve as a basis for long-term faculty career development strategies that support scientific workforce diversity.

Successfully recruiting students from underrepresented groups to pursue biomedical science research careers continues to be a challenge. Early exposure to scientific research is often cited as a powerful means to attract research scholars with the research mentor being critical in facilitating the development of an individual's science identity and career; however, most mentors in the biological sciences have had little formal training in working with research mentees. To better understand mentors’ experiences working with undergraduates in the laboratory, we conducted semistructured interviews with 15 research mentors at a public university in the Midwest. The interviewed mentors were part of a program designed to increase the number of American Indians pursuing biomedical/biobehavioral research careers and represented a broad array of perspectives, including equal representation of male and female mentors, mentors from underrepresented groups, mentors at different levels of their careers, and mentors from undergraduate and professional school departments. The mentors identified benefits and challenges in being an effective mentor. We also explored what the term underrepresented means to the mentors and discovered that most of the mentors had an incomplete understanding about how differences in culture could contribute to underrepresented students’ experience in the laboratory. Our interviews identify issues relevant to designing programs and courses focused on undergraduate student research.

Internships are an effective way of connecting high school students in a meaningful manner to the sciences. Disadvantaged minorities have fewer opportunities to participate in internships, and are underrepresented in both science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors and careers. We have developed a Summer Academic Research Experience (SARE) program that provides an enriching academic internship to underrepresented youth. Our program has shown that to have a successful internship for these disadvantaged youth, several issues need to be addressed in addition to scientific mentoring. We have found that it is necessary to remediate and/or fortify basic academic skills for students to be successful. In addition, students need to be actively coached in the development of professional skills, habits, and attitudes necessary for success in the workplace. With all these factors in place, these youths can become better students, compete on a more level playing field in their internships, and increase their potential of participating actively in the sciences in the future.

Grantsmanship is an integral component of surviving and thriving in academic science, especially in the current funding climate. Therefore, any additional opportunities to write, read, and review grants during graduate school may have lasting benefits on one's career. We present here our experience with a small, student-run grant program at Georgetown University Medical Center. Founded in 2010, this program has several goals: 1) to give graduate students an opportunity to conduct small, independent research projects; 2) to encourage graduate students to write grants early and often; and 3) to give graduate students an opportunity to review grants. In the 3 yr since the program's start, 28 applications have been submitted, 13 of which were funded for a total of $40,000. From funded grants, students have produced abstracts and manuscripts, generated data to support subsequent grant proposals, and made new professional contacts with collaborators. Above and beyond financial support, this program provided both applicants and reviewers an opportunity to improve their writing skills, professional development, and understanding of the grants process, as reflected in the outcome measures presented. With a small commitment of time and funding, other institutions could implement a program like this to the benefit of their graduate students.

Most American colleges and universities offer gateway biology courses to meet the needs of three undergraduate audiences: biology and related science majors, many of whom will become biomedical researchers; premedical students meeting medical school requirements and preparing for the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT); and students completing general education (GE) graduation requirements. Biology textbooks for these three audiences present a topic scope and sequence that correlates with the topic scope and importance ratings of the biology content specifications for the MCAT regardless of the intended audience. Texts for “nonmajors,” GE courses appear derived directly from their publisher's majors text. Topic scope and sequence of GE texts reflect those of “their” majors text and, indirectly, the MCAT. MCAT term density of GE texts equals or exceeds that of their corresponding majors text. Most American universities require a GE curriculum to promote a core level of academic understanding among their graduates. This includes civic scientific literacy, recognized as an essential competence for the development of public policies in an increasingly scientific and technological world. Deriving GE biology and related science texts from majors texts designed to meet very different learning objectives may defeat the scientific literacy goals of most schools’ GE curricula.

We investigated the effects of our Bio-ITEST teacher professional development model and bioinformatics curricula on cognitive traits (awareness, engagement, self-efficacy, and relevance) in high school teachers and students that are known to accompany a developing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. The program included best practices in adult education and diverse resources to empower teachers to integrate STEM career information into their classrooms. The introductory unit, Using Bioinformatics: Genetic Testing, uses bioinformatics to teach basic concepts in genetics and molecular biology, and the advanced unit, Using Bioinformatics: Genetic Research, utilizes bioinformatics to study evolution and support student research with DNA barcoding. Pre–post surveys demonstrated significant growth (n = 24) among teachers in their preparation to teach the curricula and infuse career awareness into their classes, and these gains were sustained through the end of the academic year. Introductory unit students (n = 289) showed significant gains in awareness, relevance, and self-efficacy. While these students did not show significant gains in engagement, advanced unit students (n = 41) showed gains in all four cognitive areas. Lessons learned during Bio-ITEST are explored in the context of recommendations for other programs that wish to increase student interest in STEM careers.

Laboratory education can play a vital role in developing a learner's autonomy and scientific inquiry skills. In an innovative, mutation-based learning (MBL) approach, students were instructed to redesign a teacher-designed standard experimental protocol by a “mutation” method in a molecular genetics laboratory course. Students could choose to delete, add, reverse, or replace certain steps of the standard protocol to explore questions of interest to them in a given experimental scenario. They wrote experimental proposals to address their rationales and hypotheses for the “mutations”; conducted experiments in parallel, according to both standard and mutated protocols; and then compared and analyzed results to write individual lab reports. Various autonomy-supportive measures were provided in the entire experimental process. Analyses of student work and feedback suggest that students using the MBL approach 1) spend more time discussing experiments, 2) use more scientific inquiry skills, and 3) find the increased autonomy afforded by MBL more enjoyable than do students following regimented instructions in a conventional “cookbook”-style laboratory. Furthermore, the MBL approach does not incur an obvious increase in labor and financial costs, which makes it feasible for easy adaptation and implementation in a large class.

Self-assembly is the fundamental but counterintuitive principle that explains how ordered biomolecular complexes form spontaneously in the cell. This study investigated the impact of using two external representations of virus self-assembly, an interactive tangible three-dimensional model and a static two-dimensional image, on student learning about the process of self-assembly in a group exercise. A conceptual analysis of self-assembly into a set of facets was performed to support study design and analysis. Written responses were collected in a pretest/posttest experimental design with 32 Swedish university students. A quantitative analysis of close-ended items indicated that the students improved their scores between pretest and posttest, with no significant difference between the conditions (tangible model/image). A qualitative analysis of an open-ended item indicated students were unfamiliar with self-assembly prior to the study. Students in the tangible model condition used the facets of self-assembly in their open-ended posttest responses more frequently than students in the image condition. In particular, it appears that the dynamic properties of the tangible model may support student understanding of self-assembly in terms of the random and reversible nature of molecular interactions. A tentative difference was observed in response complexity, with more multifaceted responses in the tangible model condition.

Students in introductory biology courses frequently have misconceptions regarding natural selection. In this paper, we describe six activities that biology instructors can use to teach undergraduate students in introductory biology courses how natural selection causes evolution. These activities begin with a lesson introducing students to natural selection and also include discussions on sexual selection, molecular evolution, evolution of complex traits, and the evolution of behavior. The set of six topics gives students the opportunity to see how natural selection operates in a variety of contexts. Pre- and postinstruction testing showed students’ understanding of natural selection increased substantially after completing this series of learning activities. Testing throughout this unit showed steadily increasing student understanding, and surveys indicated students enjoyed the activities.

To examine how well biology majors have achieved the necessary foundation in evolution, numerous studies have examined how students learn natural selection. However, no studies to date have examined how students learn developmental aspects of evolution (evo-devo). Although evo-devo plays an increasing role in undergraduate biology curricula, we find that instruction often addresses development cursorily, with most of the treatment embedded within instruction on evolution. Based on results of surveys and interviews with students, we suggest that teaching core concepts (CCs) within a framework that integrates supporting concepts (SCs) from both evolutionary and developmental biology can improve evo-devo instruction. We articulate CCs, SCs, and foundational concepts (FCs) that provide an integrative framework to help students master evo-devo concepts and to help educators address specific conceptual difficulties their students have with evo-devo. We then identify the difficulties that undergraduates have with these concepts. Most of these difficulties are of two types: those that are ubiquitous among students in all areas of biology and those that stem from an inadequate understanding of FCs from developmental, cell, and molecular biology.

Students often complain about their perceived disconnect between the time and effort spent studying and their subsequent performance on exams. Robert Bjork's research asserts that retrieval of stored information acts as a memory modifier, and that using tests as learning events creates “desirable difficulties that enhance learning.” To determine the effect of utilizing testing as a learning event in the introductory (majors) biology classroom, we used an online homework platform to give required quizzes throughout the course. Analysis of exam grades earned by those taking 100% of pre-exam quizzes indicates that not only does this group have a significantly higher exam average than the group of students who took 0% of the pre-exam quizzes, but they also have a significantly higher exam average than the class average. Through detailed, statistical analysis, the benefit of quizzing is demonstrated to be significant for students of diverse academic abilities. Pre-exam quizzing using an online homework platform is an effective way to increase student performance on exams and allows class time to be utilized for teaching activities.

We studied gains in student learning over eight semesters in which an introductory biology course curriculum was changed to include optional verbal final exams (VFs). Students could opt to demonstrate their mastery of course material via structured oral exams with the professor. In a quantitative assessment of cell biology content knowledge, students who passed the VF outscored their peers on the medical assessment test (MAT), an exam built with 40 Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) questions (66.4% [n = 160] and 62% [n = 285], respectively; p < 0.001);. The higher-achieving students performed better on MCAT questions in all topic categories tested; the greatest gain occurred on the topic of cellular respiration. Because the VF focused on a conceptually parallel topic, photosynthesis, there may have been authentic knowledge transfer. In longitudinal tracking studies, passing the VF also correlated with higher performance in a range of upper-level science courses, with greatest significance in physiology, biochemistry, and organic chemistry. Participation had a wide range but not equal representation in academic standing, gender, and ethnicity. Yet students nearly unanimously (92%) valued the option. Our findings suggest oral exams at the introductory level may allow instructors to assess and aid students striving to achieve higher-level learning.

The growing importance of genomics and bioinformatics methods and paradigms in biology has been accompanied by an explosion of new curricula and pedagogies. An important question to ask about these educational innovations is whether they are having a meaningful impact on students’ knowledge, attitudes, or skills. Although assessments are necessary tools for answering this question, their outputs are dependent on their quality. Our study 1) reviews the central importance of reliability and construct validity evidence in the development and evaluation of science assessments and 2) examines the extent to which published assessments in genomics and bioinformatics education (GBE) have been developed using such evidence. We identified 95 GBE articles (out of 226) that contained claims of knowledge increases, affective changes, or skill acquisition. We found that 1) the purpose of most of these studies was to assess summative learning gains associated with curricular change at the undergraduate level, and 2) a minority (<10%) of studies provided any reliability or validity evidence, and only one study out of the 95 sampled mentioned both validity and reliability. Our findings raise concerns about the quality of evidence derived from these instruments. We end with recommendations for improving assessment quality in GBE.

Phylogenetic trees provide visual representations of ancestor–descendant relationships, a core concept of evolutionary theory. We introduced “tree thinking” into our introductory organismal biology course (freshman/sophomore majors) to help teach organismal diversity within an evolutionary framework. Our instructional strategy consisted of designing and implementing a set of experiences to help students learn to read, interpret, and manipulate phylogenetic trees, with a particular emphasis on using data to evaluate alternative phylogenetic hypotheses (trees). To assess the outcomes of these learning experiences, we designed and implemented a Phylogeny Assessment Tool (PhAT), an open-ended response instrument that asked students to: 1) map characters on phylogenetic trees; 2) apply an objective criterion to decide which of two trees (alternative hypotheses) is “better”; and 3) demonstrate understanding of phylogenetic trees as depictions of ancestor–descendant relationships. A pre–post test design was used with the PhAT to collect data from students in two consecutive Fall semesters. Students in both semesters made significant gains in their abilities to map characters onto phylogenetic trees and to choose between two alternative hypotheses of relationship (trees) by applying the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor). However, learning gains were much lower in the area of student interpretation of phylogenetic trees as representations of ancestor–descendant relationships.

We report on the development of an item test bank and associated instruments based on the National Research Council (NRC) K–8 life sciences content standards. Utilizing hundreds of studies in the science education research literature on student misconceptions, we constructed 476 unique multiple-choice items that measure the degree to which test takers hold either a misconception or an accepted scientific view. Tested nationally with 30,594 students, following their study of life science, and their 353 teachers, these items reveal a range of interesting results, particularly student difficulties in mastering the NRC standards. Teachers also answered test items and demonstrated a high level of subject matter knowledge reflecting the standards of the grade level at which they teach, but exhibiting few misconceptions of their own. In addition, teachers predicted the difficulty of each item for their students and which of the wrong answers would be the most popular. Teachers were found to generally overestimate their own students’ performance and to have a high level of awareness of the particular misconceptions that their students hold on the K–4 standards, but a low level of awareness of misconceptions related to the 5–8 standards.