Could co-teaching be a mechanism to support the adoption of evidence-based teaching strategies? Co-teaching has been proposed as a lever for fostering pedagogical change and has key attributes of a successful change strategy, but does research indicate co-teaching effectively shifts instructional practices? Based on our review of the emerging evidence, we wrote this essay for multiple audiences, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructors, education development professionals, leaders who oversee teaching, and researchers. We define co-teaching in the context of STEM higher education and summarize what is known about the pedagogical changes that co-teaching could support and the potential mechanisms behind these changes. We share recommendations based on the available evidence for those who need productive ideas right now. We also lay out a variety of future directions for research about co-teaching as a lever for pedagogical change. Achieving widespread and impactful pedagogical change is a monumental undertaking facing STEM higher education, and multiple approaches will be needed to meet this challenge. Co-teaching has potential to shift ways of thinking and pedagogical practices among undergraduate STEM faculty, but how co-teaching is enacted is likely crucial to its impact, as is the context in which it occurs.

Our understanding of how active learning affects different groups of students is still developing. One group often overlooked in higher education research is students with disabilities. Two of the most commonly occurring disabilities on college campuses are attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and specific learning disorders (SLD). We investigated how the incorporation of active-learning practices influences the learning and self-advocacy experiences of students with ADHD and/or SLD (ADHD/SLD) in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 STEM majors with ADHD/SLD registered with a campus disability resource center at a single university, and data were analyzed using qualitative methods. Participants described how they perceived active learning in their STEM courses to support or hinder their learning and how active learning affected their self-advocacy. Many of the active-learning barriers could be attributed to issues related to fidelity of implementation of a particular active-learning strategy and limited awareness of universal design for learning. Active learning was also reported to influence self-advocacy for some participants, and examples of self-advocacy in active-learning STEM courses were identified. Defining the supports and barriers perceived by students with ADHD/SLD is a crucial first step in developing more-inclusive active-learning STEM courses. Suggestions for research and teaching are provided.

The assessment of instructional quality has been and continues to be a desirable, yet difficult endeavor in higher education. The development of new teaching evaluation frameworks along with instruments to measure various aspects of teaching practices holds promise. The challenge rests in the implementation of these frameworks and measures in authentic settings. Part of this challenge is for instructors, researchers, and administrators to parse through and select a meaningful set of tools from the plethora of existing instruments. In this study, we aim to start clarifying the landscape of measures of instructional practice by exploring the complementarity of two existing instruments: the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) and the Learner-Centered Teaching Rubrics (LCTR). We collected classroom observations and course artifacts from 28 science instructors from research-intensive institutions across the United States. Results show the need to use both instruments to capture nuanced and comprehensive description of a faculty member’s instructional practice. This study highlights the messiness of measuring instructional quality and the need to explore the implementation of teaching evaluation frameworks and measures of instructional practices in authentic settings.

Undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classrooms are not race-neutral spaces, and instructors have the power to center racial equity and inclusion in their instructional practices. Yet how instructors think about race and racism can impact whether and how they adopt inclusive practices. We examined how 39 undergraduate STEM instructors noticed anti-Black racialized events that were experienced by students in classroom narratives. We created narrative cases that described multiple common, harmful anti-Black racialized experiences based on extant research and guidance from an expert advisory board. Instructors responded to cases by describing the problems they noticed. Using frameworks of racial noticing and color-evasive racial ideology, we conducted qualitative content analysis of instructor responses. Color-evasive racial ideology was pervasive, with most responses (54%) avoiding any discussion of race, and few responses acknowledging race or racism in more than one event (10%). We characterized six forms of color-evasiveness. This study adds to a growing body of literature indicating that color-evasion is pervasive in STEM culture. Instructors would benefit from professional development that specifically aims to counter color-evasiveness and anti-Blackness in teaching. Furthermore, STEM disciplines must pursue systemic change so that our organizations value, expect, promote, and reward the development and enactment of a critical racial consciousness.

Civic engagement is an individual’s active participation that is intended to improve a community’s socioeconomic status or help shape its future. Undergraduates who engage with a community during formal course work are more likely to participate civically later in life. This outcome is important for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) students since they use STEM knowledge to make informed decisions about public health, national security and the environment. STEM courses that incorporate this idea actively engage students in helping communities, and yet, assessment of the civic outcomes in these courses, such as measuring important predictors of future civic engagement, has been inconsistent and challenging. To address this need, we designed and assessed a new survey by adapting and testing items from previously existing civic engagement measures. The result was a 14-item survey comprising the following scientific civic constructs, that predict future scientific civic engagement: value, self-efficacy, action, and knowledge. This survey has potential to provide insight into the development of scientific civic engagement for STEM disciplines among undergraduate populations and can be used with additional scales of interest, allowing for researchers to assess relationships between predictors of scientific civic engagement and other constructs.

Increasing the participation of students of African descent and other minoritized populations in the scientific workforce is imperative in generating a more equitable biomedical research infrastructure and increasing national research creativity and productivity. Undergraduate research training programs have shown to be essential tools in retaining underrepresented minority (URM) students in the sciences and attracting them into STEM and biomedical careers. This paper describes an innovative approach to harness students’ entrepreneurial desire for autonomy and creativity in a Summer Research Institute (SRI) that has served as an entry point into a multiyear, National Institutes of Health Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (NIH BUILD)-funded research training program. The SRI was designed as an 8-week, student-centered and course-based research model in which students select their own research topics. We test here the effects of SRI training on students’ science self-efficacy and science identity, along with several other constructs often associated with academic outcomes in the sciences. The data shown here comprise analysis of four different training cohorts throughout four subsequent summers. We show significant gains in students’ science self-efficacy and science identity at the conclusion of SRI training, as well as academic adjustment and sense of belonging. SRI participants also displayed substantially improved retention in their science majors and graduation rates.

There has been an increased push for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students and scientists to be trained in science communication. Science communication researchers have outlined various models of how scientists interact with nonscientists—including deficit, dialogue, and inclusive approaches. We wanted to analyze whether published science communication curricula for STEM students and scientists exhibit features of inclusive science communication. We analyzed n = 81 published science communication trainings. We found an increase in such publications over the past two decades. We coded the trainings according to the science communication model they most closely follow, finding 40.7% deficit, 39.5% dialogue, and 19.8% inclusive. Trainings for STEM undergraduates were the least likely to provide training in the inclusive model. Finally, only 27.2% of publications included evaluation of the efficacy of the curriculum using an external scale or framework. These findings present opportunities: while it is positive that there are more published science communication curricula, science education and communication researchers should develop and publish more-inclusive science communication trainings for STEM students. Additionally, undergraduate students can and should begin their training in science communication with a focus on inclusivity not deficits. Finally, science education researchers should develop more standards for evaluating the efficacy of inclusive science communication training.

Undergraduate research is lauded as a high-impact practice owing to the array of benefits that students can reap from participating. One unexplored construct that may affect student intent to persist in research is research anxiety, defined as the sense of worry or apprehension associated with conducting research. In this study, we surveyed 1272 undergraduate researchers across research-intensive, master’s-granting, and primarily undergraduate institutions to assess the relationship among student demographics, research anxiety, and intent to pursue a research career. Using structural equation modeling, we identified that women and students with higher grade point averages (GPAs) were more likely to report higher levels of research anxiety compared with men and students with lower GPAs, respectively. Additionally, research anxiety was significantly and negatively related to student intent to pursue a research-related career. We coded students’ open-ended responses about what alleviates and exacerbates their anxiety and found that experiencing failure in the context of research and feeling underprepared increased their research anxiety, while a positive lab environment and mentor–mentee relationships decreased their anxiety. This is the first study to examine undergraduate anxiety in the context of research at scale and to establish a relationship between research anxiety and students’ intent to persist in scientific research careers.

We evaluate the impact of a low-stakes easy-to-implement course-level intervention, Scientist Spotlight assignments, which feature personal and professional stories of diverse scientists. This work extends previous studies by examining whether shifts in relatability differ across student identities, particularly students who identify as first-generation students, a population that has not been the focus of previous investigations of this intervention. Using paired pre- and postcourse data from four implementations in an introductory biology course, we report a significant, positive shift in undergraduate students’ self-reported ability to relate to scientists, and concomitant shifts in how students describe scientists after completing four or six Scientist Spotlight assignments.

Importantly, our data demonstrate a disproportionate, positive shift for first-generation college students and for students who identify as female, a novel contribution to the body of literature investigating the Scientist Spotlight intervention. This study, along with previous reports of similar shifts in varying institutional contexts across different populations of learners, provides a strong argument that instructors interested in diversifying their course content to include representations of diverse scientists to enhance students’ ability to identify a range of “types of people” who do science can do so successfully through incorporation of a small number of Spotlight assignments.

Depression is one of the leading mental health concerns among science undergraduates, and rates of student depression increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revealing one's depression in an academic science environment can be helpful, because it can result in increased support from others. However, depression is considered a concealable stigmatized identity, meaning that it can be kept hidden and may carry a stigma. A national pivot to online learning owing to COVID-19 not only increased the need to bolster student mental health, but also presented a novel learning environment. However, it is unclear to what extent students revealed their depression in science courses and why. We surveyed 1179 undergraduates with depression at a research-intensive institution about whether they had revealed their depression to an online college science instructor. Very few undergraduates (5.9%) had revealed their depression to online science instructors; students who identify as LGBTQ+, have lower grade point averages, or experience more severe depression were more likely to reveal their depression to an instructor. Undergraduates reported potential benefits from doing so, including building a connection with the instructor and receiving accommodations. This work provides insight into steps science instructors can take to foster inclusive course environments for students with depression.

Learning goals and objectives are a key part of instruction, informing curricular design, assessment, and learning. These goals and objectives are also applied at the programmatic level, with program learning outcomes (PLOs) providing insight into the skills that undergraduate biology programs intend for their students to master. PLOs are mandated by all major higher education accreditation agencies and play integral roles in programmatic assessment. Despite their importance, however, there have not been any prior attempts to characterize PLOs across undergraduate biology programs in the United States. Our study reveals that many programs may not be using PLOs to communicate learning goals with students. We also identify key themes across these PLOs and differences in skills listed between institution types. For example, some Vision & Change core competencies (e.g., interdisciplinary nature of science; connecting science to society; quantitative reasoning) are highlighted by a low percentage of programs, while others are shared more frequently between programs. Similarly, we find that biology programs at 4-year institutions likely emphasize PLOs relating to computational skills and research more than at 2-year institutions. We conclude by discussing implications for how to best use PLOs to support student learning, assessment, and curricular improvements.

Undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants (TAs) play large roles in introductory undergraduate education despite having little to no teaching experience or professional development (PD). Self-efficacy and teaching approach have each been studied as independent variables that impact teaching performance and student learning in the absence of practiced skill or developed knowledge. This study explored relationships between TAs’ teaching approaches and teaching self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured using the Graduate Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (GTA-TSES), and teaching approach was measured using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI). The following research questions guided the study: What is the relationship between TAs’ approaches to teaching and their self-efficacy? How do approaches to teaching and self-efficacy interact to impact the model of TA self-efficacy? Both ATI subscales correlated strongly with the GTA-TSES learning environment subscale and weakly with the instructional strategy subscale. High self-efficacy TAs demonstrated more concern with impacting student learning, which may contribute to a more student-centered teaching approach. Results indicate that TAs with more confidence in their teaching ability may have a more student-centered approach than teacher-centered approach to teaching. Implications include enhancing TA PD with peer mentoring, constructive feedback, and reflection and incorporating learning concerns in the model of TA teacher efficacy.

Analogical reasoning is an important type of cognition often used by experts across domains. Little research, however, has investigated how generating analogies can support college students’ self-regulated learning (SRL) of biology. This study therefore evaluated a contextualized cognitive learning strategy intervention designed to teach students to generate analogies as a learning strategy to aid learning within a university biology course. Participants (n = 179) were taught how to generate analogies as a learning strategy to learn about plant and animal physiology. We hypothesized the quality of students’ generated analogies would increase over time, and their analogical reasoning, knowledge of cognition (KOC; a component of metacognitive awareness), and course performance would be higher after intervention, controlling for associated pre-intervention values. Regression analyses and repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated a positive relationship between generated-analogy quality and analogical reasoning, and increased analogy quality after intervention. No change in reported KOC was observed, and analogy quality did not predict course performance. Findings extend understanding of strategies that can support college students’ biology learning. Researchers and practitioners can leverage our approach to teaching analogies in their own research and classrooms to support students’ SRL, analogical reasoning, and learning.

We developed labs on the evolution of antibiotic resistance to assess the costs and benefits of replacing traditional laboratory exercises in an introductory biology course for majors with a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE). To assess whether participating in the CURE imposed a cost in terms of exam performance, we implemented a quasi-experiment in which four lab sections in the same term of the same course did the CURE labs, while all other students did traditional labs. To assess whether participating in the CURE impacted other aspects of student learning, we implemented a second quasi-experiment in which all students either did traditional labs over a two-quarter sequence or did CURE labs over a two-quarter sequence. Data from the first experiment showed minimal impact on CURE students’ exam scores, while data from the second experiment showed that CURE students demonstrated a better understanding of the culture of scientific research and a more expert-like understanding of evolution by natural selection. We did not find disproportionate costs or benefits for CURE students from groups that are minoritized in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have the potential to impact student success and reduce barriers for students to participate in undergraduate research. Literature review has revealed that, while CUREs are being implemented at both community colleges (CCs) and bachelor’s degree–granting institutions, there are limited published studies on the differential impacts CUREs may have on CC students in allied health programs, career and technical education, and nursing pathways (termed “workforce” in this essay). This essay summarizes proposed outcomes of CURE instruction and explores possible reasons for limited reporting on outcomes for CC and workforce students. It also provides recommendations to guide action and effect change regarding CURE implementation and assessment at CCs. This essay is a call to action to expand the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics career development pathway to include workforce students, implement CUREs designed for workforce students, and assess the differential impacts CUREs may have on workforce student populations at CCs.