How can researchers in K–12 contexts stay true to the principles of rigorous evaluation designs within the constraints of classroom settings and limited funding? This paper explores this question by presenting a small-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to test the efficacy of curricular supplemental materials on epigenetics. The researchers asked whether the curricular materials improved students’ understanding of the content more than an alternative set of activities. The field test was conducted in a diverse public high school setting with 145 students who were randomly assigned to a treatment or comparison condition. Findings indicate that students in the treatment condition scored significantly higher on the posttest than did students in the comparison group (effect size: Cohen's d = 0.40). The paper discusses the strengths and limitations of the RCT, the contextual factors that influenced its enactment, and recommendations for others wishing to conduct small-scale rigorous evaluations in educational settings. Our intention is for this paper to serve as a case study for university science faculty members who wish to employ scientifically rigorous evaluations in K–12 settings while limiting the scope and budget of their work.

Bioinformatics education can be broadly defined as the teaching and learning of the use of computer and information technology, along with mathematical and statistical analysis for gathering, storing, analyzing, interpreting, and integrating data to solve biological problems. The recent surge of genomics, proteomics, and structural biology in the potential advancement of research and development in complex biomedical systems has created a need for an educated workforce in bioinformatics. However, effectively integrating bioinformatics education through formal and informal educational settings has been a challenge due in part to its cross-disciplinary nature. In this article, we seek to provide an overview of the state of bioinformatics education. This article identifies: 1) current approaches of bioinformatics education at the undergraduate and graduate levels; 2) the most common concepts and skills being taught in bioinformatics education; 3) pedagogical approaches and methods of delivery for conveying bioinformatics concepts and skills; and 4) assessment results on the impact of these programs, approaches, and methods in students’ attitudes or learning. Based on these findings, it is our goal to describe the landscape of scholarly work in this area and, as a result, identify opportunities and challenges in bioinformatics education.

At the University of Maine, middle and high school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers observed 51 STEM courses across 13 different departments and collected information on the active-engagement nature of instruction. The results of these observations show that faculty members teaching STEM courses cannot simply be classified into two groups, traditional lecturers or instructors who teach in a highly interactive manner, but instead exhibit a continuum of instructional behaviors between these two classifications. In addition, the observation data reveal that student behavior differs greatly in classes with varied levels of lecture. Although faculty members who teach large-enrollment courses are more likely to lecture, we also identified instructors of several large courses using interactive teaching methods. Observed faculty members were also asked to complete a survey about how often they use specific teaching practices, and we find that faculty members are generally self-aware of their own practices. Taken together, these findings provide comprehensive information about the range of STEM teaching practices at a campus-wide level and how such information can be used to design targeted professional development for faculty.

Disparities in health and healthcare are a major concern in the United States and worldwide. Approaches to alleviate these disparities must be multifaceted and should include initiatives that touch upon the diverse areas that influence the healthcare system. Developing a strong biomedical workforce with an awareness of the issues concerning health disparities is crucial for addressing this issue. Establishing undergraduate health disparities courses that are accessible to undergraduate students in the life sciences is necessary to increase students’ understanding and awareness of these issues and motivate them to address these disparities during their careers. The majority of universities do not include courses related to health disparities in their curricula, and only a few universities manage them from their life sciences departments. The figures are especially low for minority-serving institutions, which serve students from communities disproportionally affected by health disparities. Universities should consider several possible approaches to infuse their undergraduate curricula with health disparities courses or activities. Eliminating health disparities will require efforts from diverse stakeholders. Undergraduate institutions can play an important role in developing an aware biomedical workforce and helping to close the gap in health outcomes.

This study tests the hypothesis that undergraduates who peer teach genetics will have greater understanding of genetic and molecular biology concepts as a result of their teaching experiences. Undergraduates enrolled in a non–majors biology course participated in a service-learning program in which they led middle school (MS) or high school (HS) students through a case study curriculum to discover the cause of a green tomato variant. The curriculum explored plant reproduction and genetic principles, highlighting variation in heirloom tomato fruits to reinforce the concept of the genetic basis of phenotypic variation. HS students were taught additional activities related to mole­cular biology techniques not included in the MS curriculum. We measured undergraduates’ learning outcomes using pre/postteaching content assessments and the course final exam. Undergraduates showed significant gains in understanding of topics related to the curriculum they taught, compared with other course content, on both types of assessments. Undergraduates who taught HS students scored higher on questions specific to the HS curriculum compared with undergraduates who taught MS students, despite identical lecture content, on both types of assessments. These results indicate the positive effect of service-learning peer-teaching experiences on undergraduates’ content knowledge, even for non–science major students.

Basic phylogenetics and associated “tree thinking” are often minimized or excluded in formal school curricula. Informal settings provide an opportunity to extend the K–12 school curriculum, introducing learners to new ideas, piquing interest in science, and fostering scientific literacy. Similarly, university researchers participating in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) outreach activities increase awareness of college and career options and highlight interdisciplinary fields of science research and augment the science curriculum. To aid in this effort, we designed a 6-h module in which students utilized 12 flowering plant species to generate morphological and molecular phylogenies using biological techniques and bioinformatics tools. The phylogenetics module was implemented with 83 high school students during a weeklong university STEM immersion program and aimed to increase student understanding of phylogenetics and coevolution of plants and pollinators. Student response reflected positive engagement and learning gains as evidenced through content assessments, program evaluation surveys, and program artifacts. We present the results of the first year of implementation and discuss modifications for future use in our immersion programs as well as in multiple course settings at the high school and undergraduate levels.

Phylogenetic trees are widely used visual representations in the biological sciences and the most important visual representations in evolutionary biology. Therefore, phylogenetic trees have also become an important component of biology education. We sought to characterize reasoning used by introductory biology students in interpreting taxa relatedness on phylogenetic trees, to measure the prevalence of correct taxa-relatedness interpretations, and to determine how student reasoning and correctness change in response to instruction and over time. Counting synapomorphies and nodes between taxa were the most common forms of incorrect reasoning, which presents a pedagogical dilemma concerning labeled synapomorphies on phylogenetic trees. Students also independently generated an alternative form of correct reasoning using monophyletic groups, the use of which decreased in popularity over time. Approximately half of all students were able to correctly interpret taxa relatedness on phylogenetic trees, and many memorized correct reasoning without understanding its application. Broad initial instruction that allowed students to generate inferences on their own contributed very little to phylogenetic tree understanding, while targeted instruction on evolutionary relationships improved understanding to some extent. Phylogenetic trees, which can directly affect student understanding of evolution, appear to offer introductory biology instructors a formidable pedagogical challenge.

Primary literature is essential for scientific communication and is commonly utilized in undergraduate biology education. Despite this, there is often little time spent training our students how to critically analyze a paper. To address this, we introduced a primary literature module in multiple upper-division laboratory courses. In this module, instructors conduct classroom discussions that dissect a paper as researchers do. While previous work has identified classroom interventions that improve primary literature comprehension within a single course, our goal was to determine whether including a scientific paper module in our classes could produce long-term benefits. On the basis of performance in an assessment exam, we found that our module resulted in longitudinal gains, including increased comprehension and critical-thinking abilities in subsequent lab courses. These learning gains were specific to courses utilizing our module, as no longitudinal gains were seen in students who had taken other upper-division labs that lacked extensive primary literature discussion. In addition, we assessed whether performance on our assessment correlated with a variety of factors, including grade point average, course performance, research background, and self-reported confidence in understanding of the article. Furthermore, all of the study conclusions are independent of biology disciplines, as we observe similar trends within each course.

What early experiences attract students to pursue an education and career in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)? Does hands-on research influence them to persevere and complete a major course of academic study in STEM? We evaluated survey responses from 149 high school and undergraduate students who gained hands-on research experience in the 2007–2013 Aspiring Scientists Summer Internship Programs (ASSIP) at George Mason University. Participants demonstrated their strong interest in STEM by volunteering to participate in ASSIP and completing 300 h of summer research. The survey queried extracurricular experiences, classroom factors, and hands-on projects that first cultivated students’ interest in the STEM fields, and separately evaluated experiences that sustained their interest in pursuing a STEM degree. The majority of students (65.5%, p < 0.0001) reported extracurricular encounters, such as the influence of a relative or family member and childhood experiences, as the most significant factors that initially ignited their interest in STEM, while hands-on lab work was stated as sustaining their interest in STEM (92.6%). Based on these findings collected from a cohort of students who demonstrated a strong talent and interest in STEM, community-based programs that create awareness about STEM for both children and their family members may be key components for igniting long-term academic interest in STEM.

Undergraduate science education curricula are traditionally composed of didactic instruction with a small number of laboratory courses that provide introductory training in research techniques. Research on learning methodologies suggests this model is relatively ineffective, whereas participation in independent research projects promotes enhanced knowledge acquisition and improves retention of students in science. However, availability of faculty mentors and limited departmental budgets prevent the majority of students from participating in research. A need therefore exists for this important component in undergraduate education in both small and large university settings. A course was designed to provide students with the opportunity to engage in a research project in a classroom setting. Importantly, the course collaborates with a sponsor's laboratory, producing a symbiotic relationship between the classroom and the laboratory and an evolving course curriculum. Students conduct a novel gene expression study, with their collective data being relevant to the ongoing research project in the sponsor's lab. The success of this course was assessed based on the quality of the data produced by the students, student perception data, student learning gains, and on whether the course promoted interest in and preparation for careers in science. In this paper, we describe the strategies and outcomes of this course, which represents a model for efficiently providing research opportunities to undergraduates.

In their 2012 report, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology advocated “replacing standard science laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses”—a challenging proposition that presents practical and pedagogical difficulties. In this paper, we describe our collective experiences working with the Genomics Education Partnership, a nationwide faculty consortium that aims to provide undergraduates with a research experience in genomics through a scheduled course (a classroom-based undergraduate research experience, or CURE). We examine the common barriers encountered in implementing a CURE, program elements of most value to faculty, ways in which a shared core support system can help, and the incentives for and rewards of establishing a CURE on our diverse campuses. While some of the barriers and rewards are specific to a research project utilizing a genomics approach, other lessons learned should be broadly applicable. We find that a central system that supports a shared investigation can mitigate some shortfalls in campus infrastructure (such as time for new curriculum development, availability of IT services) and provides collegial support for change. Our findings should be useful for designing similar supportive programs to facilitate change in the way we teach science for undergraduates.

Early research experiences must be made available to all undergraduate students, including those at 2-yr institutions who account for nearly half of America's college students. We report on barriers unique to 2-yr institutions that preclude the success of an early course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE). Using a randomized study design, we evaluated a CURE in equivalent introductory biology courses at a 4-yr institution and a 2-yr institution within the same geographic region. We found that these student populations developed dramatically different impressions of the experience. Students at the 4-yr institution enjoyed the CURE significantly more than the traditional labs. However, students at the 2-yr institution enjoyed the traditional labs significantly more, even though the CURE successfully produced targeted learning gains. On the basis of course evaluations, we enhanced instructor, student, and support staff training and reevaluated this CURE at a different campus of the same 2-yr institution. This time, the students reported that they enjoyed the research experience significantly more than the traditional labs. We conclude that early research experiences can succeed at 2-yr institutions, provided that a comprehensive implementation strategy targeting instructor, student, and support staff training is in place.