In response to calls to improve the quantitative training of undergraduate biology students, there have been increased efforts to better integrate math into biology curricula. One challenge of such efforts is negative student attitudes toward math, which are thought to be particularly prevalent among biology students. According to theory, students’ personal values toward using math in a biological context will influence their achievement and behavioral outcomes, but a validated instrument is needed to determine this empirically. We developed the Math–Biology Values Instrument (MBVI), an 11-item college-level self-­report instrument grounded in expectancy-value theory, to measure life science students’ interest in using math to understand biology, the perceived usefulness of math to their life science career, and the cost of using math in biology courses. We used a process that integrates multiple forms of validity evidence to show that scores from the MBVI can be used as a valid measure of a student’s value of math in the context of biology. The MBVI can be used by instructors and researchers to help identify instructional strategies that influence math–biology values and understand how math–biology values are related to students’ achievement and decisions to pursue more advanced quantitative-based courses.

In a world filled with big data, mathematical models, and statistics, the development of strong quantitative skills is becoming increasingly critical for modern biologists. Teachers in this field must understand how students acquire quantitative skills and explore barriers experienced by students when developing these skills. In this study, we examine the interrelationships among gender, grit, and math confidence for student performance on a pre–post quantitative skills assessment and overall performance in an undergraduate biology course. Here, we show that females significantly underperformed relative to males on a quantitative skills assessment at the start of term. However, females showed significantly higher gains over the semester, such that the gender gap in performance was nearly eliminated by the end of the semester. Math confidence plays an important role in the performance on both the pre and post quantitative skills assessments and overall performance in the course. The effect of grit on student performance, however, is mediated by a student’s math confidence; as math confidence increases, the positive effect of grit decreases. Consequently, the positive impact of a student’s grittiness is observed most strongly for those students with low math confidence. We also found grit to be positively associated with the midterm score and the final grade in the course. Given the relationships established in this study among gender, grit, and math confidence, we provide “instructor actions” from the literature that can be applied in the classroom to promote the development of quantitative skills in light of our findings.

Undergraduate life science majors are reputed to have negative emotions toward mathematics, yet little empirical evidence supports this. We sought to compare emotions of majors in the life sciences versus other natural sciences and math. We adapted the Attitudes toward the Subject of Chemistry Inventory to create an Attitudes toward the Subject of Mathematics Inventory (ASMI). We collected data from 359 science and math majors at two research universities and conducted a series of statistical tests that indicated that four AMSI items comprised a reasonable measure of students’ emotional satisfaction with math. We then compared life science and non–life science majors and found that major had a small to moderate relationship with students’ responses. Gender also had a small relationship with students’ responses, while students’ race, ethnicity, and year in school had no observable relationship. Using latent profile analysis, we identified three groups—students who were emotionally satisfied with math, emotionally dissatisfied with math, and neutral. These results and the emotional satisfaction with math scale should be useful for identifying differences in other undergraduate populations, determining the malleability of undergraduates’ emotional satisfaction with math, and testing effects of interventions aimed at improving life science majors’ attitudes toward math.

Undergraduate biology education reform aims to engage students in scientific practices such as experimental design, experimentation, and data analysis and communication. Graphs are ubiquitous in the biological sciences, and creating effective graphical representations involves quantitative and disciplinary concepts and skills. Past studies document student difficulties with graphing within the contexts of classroom or national assessments without evaluating student reasoning. Operating under the metarepresentational competence framework, we conducted think-aloud interviews to reveal differences in reasoning and graph quality between undergraduate biology students, graduate students, and professors in a pen-and-paper graphing task. All professors planned and thought about data before graph construction. When reflecting on their graphs, professors and graduate students focused on the function of graphs and experimental design, while most undergraduate students relied on intuition and data provided in the task. Most undergraduate students meticulously plotted all data with scaled axes, while professors and some graduate students transformed the data, aligned the graph with the research question, and reflected on statistics and sample size. Differences in reasoning and approaches taken in graph choice and construction corroborate and extend previous findings and provide rich targets for undergraduate and graduate instruction.

Natural selection is a central concept throughout biology; however, it is a process frequently misunderstood. Bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications provides a contextual example of the relevance of evolutionary theory and is also commonly misunderstood. While research has shed light on student misconceptions of natural selection, minimal study has focused on misconceptions of antibiotic resistance. Additionally, research has focused on the degree to which misconceptions may be based in the complexity of biological information or in pedagogical choices, rather than in deep-seated cognitive patterns. Cognitive psychology research has established that humans develop early intuitive assumptions to make sense of the world. In this study, we used a written assessment tool to investigate undergraduate students’ misconceptions of antibiotic resistance, use of intuitive reasoning, and application of evolutionary knowledge to antibiotic resistance. We found a majority of students produced and agreed with misconceptions, and intuitive reasoning was present in nearly all students’ written explanations. Acceptance of a misconception was significantly associated with production of a hypothesized form of intuitive thinking (all p ≤ 0.05). Intuitive reasoning may represent a subtle but innately appealing linguistic shorthand, and instructor awareness of intuitive reasoning’s relation to student misunderstandings has potential for addressing persistent misconceptions.

The aspiration of biology education is to give students tools to apply knowledge learned in the classroom to everyday life. Genetic modification is a real-world biological concept that relies on an in-depth understanding of the molecular behavior of DNA and proteins. This study investigated undergraduate biology students’ conceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) when probed with real-world, molecular and cellular, and essentialist cues, and how those conceptions compared across biology expertise. We developed a novel written assessment tool and administered it to 120 non–biology majors, 154 entering biology majors, 120 advanced biology majors (ABM), and nine biology faculty. Results indicated that undergraduate biology majors rarely included molecular and cellular rationales in their initial explanations of GMOs. Despite ABM demonstrating that they have much of the biology knowledge necessary to understand genetic modification, they did not appear to apply this knowledge to explaining GMOs. Further, this study showed that all undergraduate student populations exhibited evidence of essentialist thinking while explaining GMOs, regardless of their level of biology training. Finally, our results suggest an association between scientifically accurate ideas and the application of molecular and cellular rationales, as well as an association between misconceptions and essentialist rationales.

Although instruction on meiosis is repeated many times during the undergraduate curriculum, many students show poor comprehension even as upper-level biology majors. We propose that the difficulty lies in the complexity of understanding DNA, which we explain through a new model, the DNA triangle. The DNA triangle integrates three distinct scales at which one can think about DNA: chromosomal, molecular, and informational. Through analysis of interview and survey data from biology faculty and students through the lens of the DNA triangle, we illustrate important differences in how novices and experts are able to explain the concepts of ploidy, homology, and mechanism of homologous pairing. Similarly, analysis of passages from 16 different biology textbooks shows a large divide between introductory and advanced material, with introductory books omitting explanations of meiosis-linked concepts at the molecular level of DNA. Finally, backed by textbook findings and feedback from biology experts, we show that the DNA triangle can be applied to teaching and learning meiosis. By applying the DNA triangle to topics on meiosis we present a new framework for educators and researchers that ties concepts of ploidy, homology, and mechanism of homologous pairing to knowledge about DNA on the chromosomal, molecular, and informational levels.

Recent calls to action urge sweeping reform in science education, advocating for improved learning for all students—including those majoring in fields beyond the sciences. However, little work has been done to characterize the differences—if any exist—between students planning a career in science and those studying other disciplines. We describe an attempt to clarify, in broad terms, how non–STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majors differ from life sciences majors, and how they are similar. Using survey responses and institutional data, we find that non–STEM majors are not unilaterally science averse; non–STEM majors are more likely than biology majors to hold misconceptions about the nature of science, yet they are not completely ignorant of how science works; non–STEM majors are less likely than biology majors to see science as personally relevant; and non–STEM majors populations are likely to be more diverse—with respect to incoming knowledge, perceptions, backgrounds, and skills—than a biology majors population. We encourage science educators to consider these characteristics when designing curricula for future scientists or simply for a well-informed citizenry.

Providing feedback to students as they learn to integrate individual concepts into complex systems is an important way to help them to develop robust understanding, but it is challenging in large, undergraduate classes for instructors to provide feedback that is frequent and directed enough to help individual students. Various scaffolds can be used to help students engage in self-regulated learning and generate internal feedback to improve their learning. This study examined the use of enhanced answer keys with added reflection questions and instruction as scaffolds for engaging undergraduate students in self-regulated learning within an introductory biology course. Study findings show that both the enhanced answer keys and reflection questions helped students to engage in metacognition and develop greater understanding of biological concepts. Further, students who received additional instruction on the use of the scaffolds changed how they used them and, by the end of the semester, were using the scaffolds in significantly different ways and showed significantly higher learning gains than students who did not receive the instruction. These findings provide evidence for the benefit of designing scaffolds within biology courses that will support students in engaging in metacognition and enhancing their understanding of biological concepts.

High-structure courses or flipped courses require students to obtain course content before class so that class time can be used for active-learning exercises. While textbooks are used ubiquitously in college biology courses for content dissemination, studies have shown that students frequently do not read their textbooks. To address this issue, we created preclass reading guides that provided students with a way to actively engage with the required reading for each day of class. To determine whether reading guide completion before class is associated with increased performance, we surveyed students about their use of reading guides in two sections of a large-enrollment (400+ students) introductory biology course and used multiple linear regression models to identify significant correlations. The results indicated that greater than 80% of students completed the reading guides before class and that full completion of the reading guides before class was significantly positively correlated with exam performance. Reading guides in most cases were used similarly between different student groups (based on gender, ethnicity, and aptitude). These results suggest that optional preclass reading guides may help students stay on track to acquire course content in introductory biology and thus result in improved exam performance.

Achievement gaps between underrepresented minority (URM) students and their white peers in college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classrooms are persistent across many white-majority institutions of higher education. Attempts to reduce this phenomenon of underperformance through increasing classroom structure via active learning have been partially successful. In this study, we address the hypothesis that the achievement gap between white and URM students in an undergraduate biology course has a psychological and emotional component arising from stereotype threat. Specifically, we introduced a values affirmation exercise that counters stereotype threat by reinforcing a student’s feelings of integrity and self-worth in three iterations of an intensive active-learning college biology course. On average, this exercise reduced the achievement gap between URM and white students who entered the course with the same incoming grade point average. This result suggests that achievement gaps resulting from the underperformance of URM students could be mitigated by providing students with a learning environment that removes psychological and emotional impediments of performance through short psychosocial interventions.

Institutions have developed diverse approaches that vary in effectiveness and cost to improve student performance in introductory science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses. We developed a low-cost, graduate student–led, metacognition-based study skills course taught in conjunction with the introductory biology series at Miami University. Our approach aimed to improve performance for underachieving students by combining an existing framework for the process of learning (the study cycle) with concrete tools (outlines and concept maps) that have been shown to encourage deep understanding. To assess the effectiveness of our efforts, we asked 1) how effective our voluntary recruitment model was at enrolling the target cohort, 2) how the course impacted performance on lecture exams, 3) how the course impacted study habits and techniques, and 4) whether there are particular study habits or techniques that are associated with large improvements on exam scores. Voluntary recruitment attracted only 11–17% of our target cohort. While focal students improved on lecture exams relative to their peers who did not enroll, gains were relatively modest, and not all students improved. Further, although students across both semesters of our study reported improved study habits (based on pre and post surveys) and on outlines and concept maps (based on retrospectively scored assignments), gains were more dramatic in the Fall semester. Multivariate models revealed that, while changes in study habits and in the quality of outlines and concept maps were weakly associated with change in performance on lecture exams, relationships were only significant in the Fall semester and were sometimes counterintuitive. Although benefits of the course were offset somewhat by the inefficiency of voluntary recruitment, we demonstrate the effectiveness our course, which is inexpensive to implement and has advantage of providing pedagogical experience to future educators.

Little attention has been paid to understanding faculty–student productivity via undergraduate research from the faculty member’s perspective. This study examines predictors of faculty–student publications resulting from mentored undergraduate research, including measures of faculty–student collaboration, faculty commitment to undergraduate students, and faculty characteristics. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze data from 468 faculty members across 13 research-intensive institutions, collected by a cross-sectional survey in 2013/2014. Results show that biomedical faculty mentors were more productive in publishing collaboratively with undergraduate students when they worked with students for more than 1 year on average, enjoyed teaching students about research, had mentored Black students, had received more funding from the National Institutes of Health, had a higher H-index scores, and had more years of experience working in higher education. This study suggests that college administrators and research program directors should strive to create incentives for faculty members to collaborate with undergraduate students and promote faculty awareness that undergraduates can contribute to their research.

Mentors rarely receive education about the unique needs of underrepresented scholars in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. We hypothesized that mentor-training and peer-mentoring interventions for these scholars would enrich the perceived quality and breadth of discussions between mentor–protégé dyads (i.e., mentor–protégé pairs). Our multicenter, randomized study of 150 underrepresented scholar–mentor dyads compared: 1) mentor training, 2) protégé peer mentoring, 3) combined mentor training and peer mentoring, and 4) a control condition (i.e., usual practice of mentoring). In this secondary analysis, the outcome variables were quality of dyad time and breadth of their discussions. Protégé participants were graduate students, fellows, and junior faculty in behavioral and biomedical research and healthcare. Dyads with mentor training were more likely than those without mentor training to have discussed teaching and work–life balance. Dyads with peer mentoring were more likely than those without peer mentoring to have discussed clinical care and career plans. The combined intervention dyads were more likely than controls to perceive that the quality of their time together was good/excellent. Our study supports the value of these mentoring interventions to enhance the breadth of dyad discussions and quality of time together, both important components of a good mentoring relationship.

Many biomedical PhD trainees lack exposure to business principles, which limits their competitiveness and effectiveness in academic and industry careers. To fill this training gap, we developed Business and Management Principles for Scientists, a semester-long program that combined didactic exposure to business fundamentals with practical team-based projects aimed at solving real business problems encountered by institutional shared-­resource core facilities. The program also included a retreat featuring presentations by and networking with local life science entrepreneurs and final team presentations to expert judges. Quantitative and qualitative metrics were used to evaluate the program’s impact on trainees. A pretest–posttest approach was used to assess trainees’ baseline knowledge and mastery of module concepts, and each individual’s pretest and posttest responses were compared. The mean score improved by more than 17 percentage points. Trainees also took an online survey to provide feedback about the module. Nearly all participants agreed or strongly agreed that the module was a valuable use of their time and will help guide their career decisions and that project work helped drive home module concepts. More than 75% of trainees reported discussing the module with their research advisors, and all of these participants reported supportive or neutral responses. Collectively, the trainee feedback about the module, improvement in test scores, and trainee perception of advisor support suggest that this short module is an effective method of providing scientists with efficient and meaningful exposure to business concepts.

We conducted a study of 19 biology instructors participating in small, local groups at six research-intensive universities connected to the Automated Analysis of Constructed Response (AACR) project (www.msu.edu/∼aacr). Our aim was to uncover participants’ motivation to persist in a long-term teaching professional development effort, a topic that is understudied in discipline-based educational research. We interviewed each participant twice over a 2-year period and conducted qualitative analyses on the data, using expectancy-value theory as a framework for considering motivation. Our analyses revealed that motivation among instructors was high due to their enjoyment of the AACR groups. The high level of motivation is further explained by the fact that AACR groups facilitated instructor involvement with the larger AACR project. We also found that group dynamics encouraged persistence; instructors thought they might never talk with colleagues about teaching in the absence of AACR groups; and groups were perceived to have a low-enough time requirement to warrant sustained involvement. We conclude that instructors have persisted in AACR groups because the groups provided great value with limited cost. The characterization of instructor experiences described here can contribute to a better understanding of faculty needs in teaching professional development.