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 diverse research studies: one addresses the relationships between active learning and teaching evaluations; one presents an observation tool for documenting metacognition in the classroom; and the last explores things teachers can say to encourage students to employ scientific reasoning during class discussions.

The Inclusive Environments and Metrics in Biology Education and Research (iEMBER) network is a newly forming national community of practice that engages diversity, equity, and inclusion stakeholders in interdisciplinary collaborative projects. iEMBER was initiated with incubator funding from the National Science Foundation program for Research Coordination Networks in Undergraduate Biology Education. In June 2017, biology education researchers, social scientists, biologists, and program and policy administrators, all with interests in diversity, equity, and inclusion, met to lay the foundation for the iEMBER network. iEMBER provides a distinct forum to coordinate efforts through networking, professional development, and the initiation of collaborative research. iEMBER advances science, technology, engineering, and mathematics reform focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion through the initiation of research teams at the iEMBER biennial conference and outreach efforts at discipline-specific meetings and conferences. The focus of iEMBER is on understanding how to create inclusive, supportive, and engaging environments to foster the success of all biology students and trainees. This report focuses on the structure of the iEMBER network, two takeaways that emerged from the 2017 conference (interdisciplinary networking/collaboration and intradisciplinary broadening participation strategies), and ways for prospective members to engage in ongoing dialogue and future events. Learn more at http://iember.org.

Across all sciences, the quality of measurements is important. Survey measurements are only appropriate for use when researchers have validity evidence within their particular context. Yet, this step is frequently skipped or is not reported in educational research. This article briefly reviews the aspects of validity that researchers should consider when using surveys. It then focuses on factor analysis, a statistical method that can be used to collect an important type of validity evidence. Factor analysis helps researchers explore or confirm the relationships between survey items and identify the total number of dimensions represented on the survey. The essential steps to conduct and interpret a factor analysis are described. This use of factor analysis is illustrated throughout by a validation of Diekman and colleagues’ goal endorsement instrument for use with first-year undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics students. We provide example data, annotated code, and output for analyses in R, an open-source programming language and software environment for statistical computing. For education researchers using surveys, understanding the theoretical and statistical underpinnings of survey validity is fundamental for implementing rigorous education research.

Classroom observation protocols can provide an exceedingly rich form of data. However, this is a double-edged sword, as researchers often struggle to take full advantage of the detailed data outputs. In this essay, we introduce a new approach to the analysis of classroom observation data, termed “classroom as genome” (CAG). We illustrate how real-time classroom observation data and genomic data can be viewed as quite analogous, both conceptually and in terms of downstream analysis. We provide both abstract and concrete examples of how the tools of genomics and bioinformatics can be applied to classroom observation outputs. We also show how this philosophy of analysis allows for the layering of information from multiple observation protocols onto the same classroom data. The CAG approach enables biology education researchers to explore detailed patterns within observed classrooms in a highly scalable manner.

Graduate schools around the United States are working to improve access to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in a manner that reflects local and national demographics. The admissions process has been the focus of examination, as it is a potential bottleneck for entry into STEM. Standardized tests are widely used as part of the decision-making process; thus, we examined the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) in two models of applicant review: metrics-based applicant review and holistic applicant review to understand whether it affected applicant demographics at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. We measured the relationship between GRE scores of doctoral applicants and admissions committee scores. Metrics-based review of applicants excluded twice the number of applicants who identified as a historically underrepresented minority compared with their peers. Efforts to implement holistic applicant review resulted in an unexpected result: the GRE could be used as a tool in a manner that did not reflect its reported bias. Applicant assessments in our holistic review process were independent of gender, racial, and citizenship status. Importantly, our recommendations provide a blueprint for institutions that want to implement a data-driven approach to assess applicants in a manner that uses the GRE as part of the review process.

Biology education research (BER) is a growing field, as evidenced by the increasing number of publications in CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE) and expanding participation at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) annual meetings. To facilitate an introspective and reflective discussion on how research within LSE and at SABER has matured, we conducted a content analysis of LSE research articles (n = 339, from 2002 to 2015) and SABER abstracts (n = 652, from 2011 to 2015) to examine three related intraresearch parameters: research questions, study contexts, and methodologies. Qualitative data analysis took a combination of deductive and inductive approaches, followed by statistical analyses to determine the correlations among different parameters. We identified existing research questions, study contexts, and methodologies in LSE articles and SABER abstracts and then compared and contrasted these parameters between the two data sources. LSE articles were most commonly guided by descriptive research questions, whereas SABER abstracts were most commonly guided by causal research questions. Research published in LSE and presented at SABER both prioritize undergraduate classrooms as the study context and quantitative methodologies. In this paper, we examine these research trends longitudinally and discuss implications for the future of BER as a scholarly field.

The excessive “jargon” load in biology may be a hurdle for developing conceptual understanding as well as achieving core competencies such as scientific literacy and communication. Little work has been done to characterize student understanding of biology-­specific jargon. To address this issue, we aimed to determine the types of biology jargon terms that students struggle with most, the alignment between students’ perceived understanding and performance defining the terms, and common errors in student-provided definitions. Students in two biology classes were asked to report their understanding of, and provide definitions for, course-specific vocabulary terms: 1276 student responses to 72 terms were analyzed. Generally, students showed an overestimation of their own understanding. The least accurate self-assessment occurred for terms to which students had substantial prior exposure and terms with discordant meanings in biology versus everyday language. Students were more accurate when assessing their understanding of terms describing abstract molecular structures, and these were often perceived as more difficult than other types of terms. This research provides insights about which types of technical vocabulary may create a barrier to developing deeper conceptual understanding, and highlights a need to consider student understanding of different types of jargon in supporting learning and scientific literacy.

This paper discusses the results of two experiments assessing undergraduate students’ beliefs about the random nature of molecular environments. Experiment 1 involved the implementation of a pilot adaptive assessment (n = 773) and focus group discussions with undergraduate students enrolled in first- through third-year biology courses; experiment 2 involved the distribution of the redesigned adaptive assessment to the same population of students in three consecutive years (n = 1170). The overarching goal of the study was to provide a detailed characterization of learners’ perceptions and beliefs regarding molecular agency, environments, and diffusion and whether or not those beliefs change over time. Our results indicated that advanced learners hold as many misconceptions as novice learners and that confidence in their misconceptions increases as they advance through their undergraduate education. In particular, students’ understanding of random/Brownian motion is complex and highly contextual, suggesting that the way in which we teach biology does not adequately remediate students’ preconceived notions of molecular agency and may actually reinforce them.

The Vision and Change report provides a nationally agreed upon framework of core concepts that undergraduate biology students should master by graduation. While identifying these concepts was an important first step, departments also need ways to measure the extent to which students understand these concepts. Here, we present the General Biology–Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science (GenBio-MAPS) assessment as a tool to measure student understanding of the core concepts at key time points in a biology degree program. Data from more than 5000 students at 20 institutions reveal that this instrument distinguishes students at different stages of the curriculum, with an upward trend of increased performance at later time points. Despite this trend, we identify several concepts that advanced students find challenging. Linear mixed-effects models reveal that gender, race/ethnicity, English-language status, and first-generation status predict overall performance and that different institutions show distinct performance profiles across time points. GenBio-MAPS represents the first programmatic assessment for general biology programs that spans the breadth of biology and aligns with the Vision and Change core concepts. This instrument provides a needed tool to help departments monitor student learning and guide curricular transformation centered on the teaching of core concepts.

Embedding active learning is a common mechanism for meeting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform goals. Researchers have identified student benefits from such strategies, yet these benefits may not be universal for all students. We sought to identify how students at a nontraditional university perceive introductory biology and chemistry courses, and whether perceptions relate to course type, performance, or student status. We surveyed students (n = 601) using open-ended prompts regarding their perceptions of factors that impact their learning and interest, and about specific learning strategies. Generally, students did not differ in what influenced their learning or interest in course content, and students mostly perceived active learning positively. Attitudes toward active learning did not correlate to final course scores. Despite similar perceptions and attitudes, performance differed significantly among student groups—postbaccalaureates outperformed all others, and traditional-age students outperformed non-traditional-age students. We found that, even with active learning, underrepresented minority students underperformed compared to their peers, yet differentially benefited from nonsummative course factors. Although students generally perceive classroom environments similarly, undetected factors are influencing performance among student groups. Gaining a better understanding of how classroom efforts impact all of our students will be key to moving beyond supposing that active learning simply “works.”

Hybrid and online courses are gaining attention as alternatives to traditional face-to-face classes. In addition to the pedagogical flexibility afforded by alternative formats, these courses also appeal to campuses aiming to maximize classroom space. The literature, however, reports conflicting results regarding the effect of hybrid and online courses on student learning. We designed, taught, and assessed a fully online course (100% online) and a hybrid-and-flipped course (50% online 50% face-to-face) and compared those formats with a lecture-based face-to-face course. The three formats also varied in the degree of structure; the hybrid course was the most structured and the face-to-face course was the least structured. All three courses were taught by the same instructor in a large Hispanic-serving research university. We found that exam scores for all students were lowest in the face-to-face course. Hispanic and Black students had higher scores in the hybrid format compared with online and face-to-face, while white students had the highest performance in the online format. We conclude that a hybrid course format with high structure can improve exam performance for traditionally underrepresented students, closing the achievement gap even while in-person contact hours are reduced.

Past studies on the differential effects of active learning based on students’ prior preparation and knowledge have been mixed. The purpose of the present study was to ask whether students with different levels of prior preparation responded differently to laboratory courses in which a guided-inquiry module was implemented. In the first study, we assessed student scientific reasoning skills, and in the second we assessed student experimental design skills. In each course in which the studies were conducted, student gains were analyzed by pretest quartiles, a measure of their prior preparation. Overall, student scientific reasoning skills and experimental design skills did not improve pretest to posttest. However, when divided into quartiles based on pretest score within each course, students in the lowest quartile experienced significant gains in both studies. Despite the significant gains observed among students in the lowest quartile, significant posttest differences between lowest and highest quartiles were observed in both scientific reasoning skills and experimental design skills. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that courses with guided-inquiry laboratory activities can foster the development of basic scientific reasoning and experimental design skills for students who are least prepared across a range of course levels and institution types.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have the potential to improve undergraduate biology education by involving large numbers of students in research. CUREs can take a variety of forms with different affordances and constraints, complicating the evaluation of design features that might contribute to successful outcomes. In this study, we compared students’ responses to three different research experiences offered within the same course. One of the research experiences involved purely computational work, whereas the other two offerings were bench-based research experiences. We found that students who participated in computer-based research reported at least as much interest in their research projects, a higher sense of achievement, and a higher level of satisfaction with the course compared with students who did bench-based research projects. In open-ended comments, similar proportions of students in each research area expressed some sense of project ownership as contributing positively to their course experiences. Their comments also supported the finding that experiencing a sense of achievement was a predictor of course satisfaction. We conclude that both computer-based and bench-based CUREs can have positive impacts on students’ attitudes. Development of more computer-based CUREs might allow larger numbers of students to benefit from participating in a research experience.

Navigating scientific challenges, persevering through difficulties, and coping with failure are considered hallmarks of a successful scientist. However, relatively few studies investigate how undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students develop these skills and dispositions or how instructors can facilitate this development in undergraduate STEM learning contexts. This is a critical gap, because the unique cultures and practices found in STEM classrooms are likely to influence how students approach challenges and deal with failures, both during their STEM education and in the years that follow. To guide research aimed at understanding how STEM students develop a challenge-engaging disposition and the ability to adaptively cope with failure, we generate a model representing hypotheses of how students might approach challenges and respond to failures in undergraduate STEM learning contexts. We draw from theory and studies investigating mindset, goal orientations, attributions, fear of failure, and coping to inform our model. We offer this model as a tool for the community to test, revise, elaborate, or refute. Finally, we urge researchers and educators to consider the development, implementation, and rigorous testing of interventions aimed at helping students develop a persevering and challenge-engaging disposition within STEM contexts.

There has been little attention given to teaching beliefs of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs), even though they represent the primary teaching workforce for undergraduate students in discussion and laboratory sections at many research universities. Secondary school education studies have shown that teaching beliefs are malleable and can be shaped by professional development, particularly for inexperienced teachers. This study characterized inexperienced GTAs’ teaching beliefs about student learning and how they change with a science-specific pedagogy course that emphasized student learning. GTA teaching beliefs were characterized as traditional (providing information to students), instructive (providing activities for students), and transitional (focusing on student–teacher relationships). At the start of the course, traditional, instructive, and transitional beliefs were emphasized comparably in the concept maps and presentations of inexperienced GTAs. At the end of the course, although GTAs’ beliefs remained mostly teacher focused, they were more instructive than traditional or transitional. GTAs included teaching strategies and jargon from the course in their concept maps but provided minimal explanations about how opportunities for active student engagement would impact student learning. These results suggest there is a need to provide ongoing discipline-specific professional development to inexperienced GTAs as they develop and strengthen their teaching beliefs about student learning.