Author:

Finley Sims (Minnesota State University Mankato); Makiah Otto (Minnesota State University Mankato); Gifty Jijo (Minnesota State University Mankato); Emily Russo (Minnesota State University Mankato); Megan O'Connor ( Minnesota State University Mankato); Jana Weber ( Minnesota State University Mankato); Keenan Hartert (Minnesota State University Mankato)*

Rising tuition rates across American colleges and universities contribute to the mounting financial strain on students (Clark et al., 2019; Hossain et al., 2022). In response to rising costs, we suspected that students would seek to bolster their financial security by working additional hours per week, consequently leading to less available time (Lessky & Unger, 2022; Moores et al., 2019). These observations have only been made in longitudinal studies across a full academic career, with none focusing on a single class as our data do (Pike et. al. 2009). Financial strains that lead to higher stress, distressed sleep schedules, and ultimately less time devoted to academics pose a troubling cycle for students that commit substantial portions of their time to employment. We observed this relationship within a 162-student cohort comprised of 2, 200-level Genetics courses at Minnesota State University Mankato, a high-population, state-subsidized institution. 

Comparing students committed to 20+ hours per week (42.0% of students) vs. those faced with lesser commitments revealed significant differences in overall course/exam performance. Those working 20+ hours per week scored significantly fewer total class points (p = 0.0008, t-test), exam points across all 3 (P = 0.0010, P = 0.0016, P = 0.0004, MHC-ANOVA), and were more likely to incur a failed assignment sooner during the class than their counterparts (p = 0.003, Kaplan-Meier survival Logrank analysis). Cox Regression analysis identified significant survival detriments for students that failed to attend at least 90% of classes (P < 0.0001) and those working 20+ hours per week (P = 0.0040). Both factors were also associated with one another (P = 0.038). Indeed, failing to attend class resulted in a DFW rate of 49.5% vs. only 7.45% for those who did attend regularly (P < 0.0001), and 20+ hour employment commitments were significantly associated with lower average exam scores (P = 0.0002) and overall class performance (P = 0.0008). No other factors, financial or demographic, were deemed significantly associated with failure across the cohort. 

A third cohort of 91 students was measured in Fall 2024, this time with an intervention in place. These students were invited to attend “Prefect” sessions: post-laboratory practice questions supplemented with live instructor and multiple peer-leader feedback. The primary issue with reaching working students is that supplemental practice hours, such as office, open, or tutoring hours, were not possible to attend because of those same employment commitments. Prefect sessions were held in the remaining time of the weekly 3-hour lab, already blocked off in their schedule for months previous. Attending at least 3 Prefect sessions, one before each of the 3 exams, was associated with increased average exam marks for all students (P = 0.0139, N = 32/91 attending) and more so for 20+ hour working students (P = 0.0079, N = 14/29 attending). Sadly, so few low-attending students made it to enough Prefect sessions to qualify for measurement (N = 3), and 2 of these 3 still failed the course. Interestingly, 8 of 14 High Prefect attendance students did not meet for at least 3 office/open hour review visits, indicating that without the dedicated lab portion, these students may not have been able to find sources of review. Most importantly, working students in this cohort were the first since this study’s inception in 2022 that did not significantly underperform their peers that were employed less for overall class % (P = 0.273) nor average exam % (P = 0.137).

Key caveats that must be addressed in this study include that all 3 cohorts were led by the same instructor, the exam questions were never completely similar, we cannot account for how employment hours were utilized by each student, and self-reported data from students are susceptible to their own inherent biases. Equally, only 29 students qualified as 20+ hours workers of the 91 in this cohort. Validation of these results with a new cohort in Fall 2025 is critical. Lastly, the inherent psychology of higher-achieving students that were working 20+ hours may simply be the factor driving their success, perhaps only indicated by Prefect participation. 

We conclude that offering optional, supervised practice questions for a Biology class as a “Prefect” during extra lab time may serve as an effective means of targeting vulnerable student populations working 20+ hours per week and addressing their needs, equally shedding light on the key factors that we can target to support others. These data are an important step towards identifying and treating the underlying factors associated with reduced student exam performance, retention, well-being, and may serve as an emerging benchmark for higher education to consider as institutions seek to retain and support students, especially in times of financial uncertainty for higher education and the country as a whole. 

Pre-Conference Workshops

Emily Rosenzweig, Ph.D.   Associate Professor of Developmental Psychology Columbia University                                                                    Is this job worth it? A new approach to studying college students' motivation for persisting in life sciences careers.

Emily Rosenzweig is an Associate Professor of Developmental Psychology in the Department of Human Development at Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research examines students’ motivation for making academic and career choices during adolescence and youth, with particular focus in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. She has published numerous articles about students’ motivation in education and psychology journals including Science Advances, International Journal of STEM Education, and the Journal of Educational Psychology. Her work has received funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Psychological Association. She was recently awarded the 2025 Richard E. Snow Award for Early Contributions to Educational Psychology from the American Psychological Association, Division 15. Outside of research, she enjoys reading novels and playing “science” with her two preschool-aged daughters (which mostly involves cleaning up food coloring out of the rug).

 

SABER Buddies meet in the Mayo Auditorium after the keynote presentation. The room must be vacated by 6:05 pm

Please see the attached file for poster titles, abstracts, and authors.
Please also visit Padlet to see all posters and leave comments and questions for the authors.

Note about Special Interest Group (SIG) Meetings - 2 sessions - your choice to stay in one or move to another for the second session. Note that there is also an option to schedule dinner with SIG members for additional meeting time.

Author:

Clara Smith (Brigham Young University)*; Jade Sorensen (Brigham Young University); Isaiah Aduse-poku (Brigham Young University); Jamie Jensen (Brigham Young University)

Study Context: Effective teaching in biology requires both content and pedagogical expertise. Although more graduate programs incorporate formal pedagogical training, participation remains optional despite research showing its value (Rushtin et al., 1997; Tanner & Allen, 2006; Gardner & Jones, 2011). As a result, many graduate students, future scientists, and professors lack formal pedagogy training (Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Handelsman et al., 2004). Grounded in Mezirow’s (1991) Transformative Learning Theory (TLT), this study explored how formal pedagogical training may shift individuals’ perspectives on teaching, learning, and professional identity. TLT suggests individuals experience perspective transformation when confronted with a “disorienting dilemma” that challenges their beliefs. In this context, scientists prioritizing content expertise may find pedagogical training unsettling, as it questions the assumption that content alone ensures effective teaching. This study compares individuals with and without formal pedagogical training to explore potential transformations in pedagogical and science expertise, perceptions of teaching and learning, and professional identity.
Study Design: Our research team developed a survey using Likert-scale items from pre-existing surveys and questions we created specifically for our survey. It was administered to undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members in a university biology department. Each group comprised two subpopulations: individuals who had participated in formal teacher training and those who had not. The survey assessed perceptions of pedagogical expertise, subject matter expertise, educator identity, and the perceived importance of pedagogy in learning. 
To explore the effects of pedagogical training, we addressed the following research questions: 
1. How does formal pedagogical training influence individuals’ self-reported pedagogical expertise and perceptions of subject matter?
2. To what extent do individuals with formal pedagogical training differ in their views on the importance of pedagogy in effective science teaching compared to those without such training?
3. Does participation in pedagogical training correlate with differences in educator and scientist identity among undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members?
Analyses and Interpretations: Descriptive and inferential statistics, including t-tests and ANOVA, compared responses between individuals with and without pedagogical training. Factor analysis identified how pedagogical training influenced beliefs about teaching and learning. Group comparisons determined significant differences between populations.
Preliminary findings suggest that having participated or not in formal pedagogical training influences an individual’s understanding of teaching and learning and its perceived value. Additionally, there was a difference in how they identified themselves in the scientific and education communities. The data supports TLT’s view that encountering new pedagogical concepts challenges prior assumptions, leading to a transformation in teaching philosophy and identity.
Contribution: Our findings show that formal pedagogical training significantly influences perceptions of teaching, learning, and professional identity as educators and scientists. Consistent with TLT, participants with pedagogical training exhibit shifts in teaching philosophy and professional identity, suggesting that exposure to new pedagogical frameworks can lead to perspective transformation.
These results emphasize the importance of integrating pedagogical training into undergraduate and graduate programs, creating a curriculum that values content expertise and effective teaching. Expanding faculty development initiatives could support instructors in refining their pedagogical knowledge, which will continue to improve science education overall. Future research could include using this survey at additional institutions to compare the effects of pedagogical training across various institutions to understand the role of additional factors (i.e., Student demographics, research focus of faculty, institutional culture, etc.). Additionally, future research could include focusing on the effectiveness of pedagogical training for scientists who do not currently teach but may participate in science communication, mentoring, or public outreach.

Author:

Hector Loyola Irizarry (Florida International University)*; Roxana Gonzalez (University at Buffalo); Melissa McCartney (University at Buffalo); Rocio Benabentos (Florida International University); Jessica Siltberg-Liberles (Florida International University)

Study Context: There is a need to prepare biology undergraduates for the STEM workforce (National Science Board, 2021). Participation in undergraduate research experiences (UREs) is linked with positive student outcomes, including increased science identity (Newell & Ulrich, 2022; Robnett et al., 2015), self-efficacy in research (Chemers et al., 2011; Robnett et al., 2015), and ability to think like a scientist (Hunter et al., 2007), which can result in increased career interest in STEM. However, there is a current lack of large, quantitative studies that evaluate the direct effect of URE participation in career readiness.
Study Design: To address this gap, we analyzed responses from a large dataset obtained in Spring 2024 from biology undergraduates at a public, R1 institution in southeast United States (n=1327). The study was grounded in Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), which argues that career development encompasses three central factors: (1) career goals (and strategies to reach them); (2) self-efficacy, a person’s belief that they can successfully fulfill tasks to make career decisions; and (3) outcome expectations, the belief that certain behaviors would be useful to achieve a desired career outcome (Lent et al., 1994). Therefore, we measured career readiness using a combination of two assessments grounded in SCCT: one focused on career goals and strategies (González et al., In Review) and one focused on career self-efficacy and outcome expectations (McCartney & Lee, In Revision). To measure participation in UREs, we asked students whether they had participated in a research experience, defined as a “guided scientific investigation, either as part of a course or by joining a research team”. Students who responded “Yes” were then prompted to select all that apply from a variety of types of UREs.
Analyses and Interpretations: Only 328 (24.7%) students indicated having participated in a URE. Of these, 108 (32.9%) indicated that their research experience included at least one course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE). Consistent with previous studies, we observed that students that reported URE participation had increased involvement in the biology department (Mann-Whitney, p=1.40e-9), increased science identity (Mann-Whitney, p=4.13e-11), increased likelihood to have a career goal in research (Chi-Squared=28.42, p=3.02x10-5, df=5), and an increase in all three measured factors of biology identity: interest (Mann-Whitney, p=3.34e-7), recognition (Mann-Whitney, p=3.66e-8), and performance-competence (Mann-Whitney, p=3.91e-9). Participation in research was significantly associated with a higher number of career strategies used (Mann-Whitney, p=2.96e-16), higher outcome expectations regarding ‘Career Decision-Making’ (Mann-Whitney, p=0.011) and higher career self-efficacy (Mann-Whitney, p=0.002). We did not observe any significant differences between students who reported participating in a CURE and those who reported research experiences that were not CUREs, meaning the benefits for student career readiness obtained through performing research are not exclusive to apprenticeship-style research experiences.
We were also interested in the relationship between the effort to join a research lab and career readiness. Students self-classified into one of four categories: ‘In a research lab’ (143, 10.8%), ‘Attempted to join a research lab’ (177, 13.3%), ‘Have not attempted to join a research lab, but would like to try’ (696, 52.5%), and ‘Have no interest in joining a research lab’ (307, 23.1%). Students with no interest in joining a research lab had significantly lower career self-efficacy than the other three groups (Kruskal-Wallis, p=1.9e-6), suggesting that a student’s motivation to participate in research is linked with their belief that they can successfully make career decisions.
Contributions: Here, we present the results of a quantitative analysis that connects participation and interest in undergraduate research experiences with biology students’ career readiness. Our results suggest that there are clear benefits for biology students’ career readiness to participate in UREs, regardless of whether these are course-based or not. However, students with no interest in research also report low career self-efficacy, highlighting a need to better integrate research and career development experiences into undergraduate biology curricula. This could increase awareness of and interest in such experiences, ultimately leading to an increase in biology students’ career readiness for the STEM workforce.

Author: 

Aura Fajardo Grandidge (University of Rhode Island)*; Angela Google (University of Rhode Island)

Study context
High-impact practices (HIPs) such as undergraduate disciplinary research, learning communities, active learning, and first-year seminars have been promoted as ways to support science identity as well as STEM persistence efforts, particularly for at-risk populations (Graham et al., 2013; Peters et al., 2019; The Boyer 2013 Report, 2021; National Academies Report, 2024). However, many studies only focus on one or two interventions at a time (Ives et al., 2024), and studies that apply multiple HIPs within the context of the first year experience are limited (Schnider et al., 2021, Rodriguez et al., 2024). In this study, we followed two cohorts of at- risk first semester biology majors as they navigated challenges and transitions while being part of a pilot Research Learning Community (RLC) designed using interventions to support their science identity. We used a phenomenological approach to investigate the “bridges” (positive experiences and institutional agents that supported their first semester journey) and “barriers” (challenges students experienced) while starting their experiences as biology majors at a predominately white mid-size public research institution. 
Research Questions
1. What are the “bridges and barriers” to the persistence of at-risk Biology students during their first semester as they experience multiple evidence-based interventions?
2. How do these first semester interventions impact the science identity development of biology majors?
Research Design
RLCs were made up of two cohorts of first year students (n=26). Criteria for inclusion prioritized first generation status, Pell grant eligibility, math placement scores below an intermediate algebra level, and no AP/IB/dual enrollment credits. This combination of factors placed our participants statistically at-risk of not persisting in STEM (Gayles &Ampaw, 2011; Chen, 2013; Dika & D’Amico, 2016). The design of the RLC was informed by the persistence framework (Graham et al., 2013) and included an early course-based research experience (CURE), enrollment in an active learning introductory Biology Course, a first-year seminar, an applied precalculus course, and a writing or communications course.
To address the research questions, we performed field observations and retrospective semi- structured interviews to triangulate observed phenomena. Interviews included consenting members of the RLC who persisted as Bio majors, those who left the major, and those who left the institution after their first semester. We used phenomenology as a methodological design to evaluate how students’ lived experiences shaped their science identity development (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In addition, we characterized student experiences and interactions as bridges or barriers to STEM persistence. 
Analysis and interpretations
RQ1: Bridges and barriers
Bridges: Thematic analysis (Saldaña, 2021) of retrospective interviews of persisting and non-persisting students indicate that interventions that put at risk students in classrooms with equity-minded instructors who practice intrusive advising have a positive effect. These practices help combat student’s feelings of inadequacy/confusion while navigating university systems (Marco-Bujosa et al., 2024)
Barriers: Preliminary results illuminate three important themes: 1. The Confidence Issue, 2. The Tyranny of (STEM) Content, and 3. Financial challenges. Although these themes are not directly connected to the interventions, they lead many of our students to become overwhelmed, disengaged, and to fall into the world of “doomscrolling and bedrotting.” These are terms students used to describe isolating behaviors that include staying in their rooms agonizing about catching up with the work that keeps accumulating, while they are tied to their devices.
RQ2: Identity
Retrospective interviews revealed that interventions did not have the desired boost in all aspects of science identity. Although students acknowledged that they were engaged in authentic science experiences (performance), and they interacted with institutional agents that recognized them as members of the science community, many are unable to see themselves as “science people” until they are able to overcome the confidence barrier.
Contributions
This project illuminates challenges first-year at-risk biology students face while experiencing a series of evidence-based interventions, as well as the role that DBER faculty can play in driving positive first-year curricular changes. During this presentation, we will highlight lessons learned from students who persisted -and those who did not. We will also provide suggestions to help us re-engage at-risk students through the confidence issue, as well as how to better time interventions to minimize “doomscrolling and bedrotting” behaviors.

Author:

Ashley Heim (Syracuse University)*; Sudiksha Khemka (Syracuse University); Livia Lathen (Syracuse University)

Study Context: Critical thinking is an important competency ubiquitous across most undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses (Bissell & Lemons, 2006). Students need critical thinking skills both in and beyond the classroom, and critical thinking is consistently ranked as one of the most important outcomes of post-secondary education (Gencer & Dogan, 2020; Stein et al., 2007). However, there is not one single definition agreed upon by researchers and practitioners, making it challenging to observe, elicit, and assess critical thinking effectively in the STEM classroom ([anonymized], 2022). As critical thinking is a foundational learning goal in most STEM courses, the backward design framework (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) suggests that instructors should develop and implement assessments and learning activities aligned with critical thinking learning objectives for students. Yet the extent to which STEM instructors operationalize critical thinking using backward design in their classrooms is unclear. Our goal was to clarify this knowledge gap using a survey-based approach informed by backward design as well as epistemic frame theory (Shaffer, 2012)—a theory which can be applied to STEM instructors based on the idea that patterns of relationships among knowledge, skills, and values allow STEM instructors to make decisions about how and what to teach.

Research Design: This study focused on one primary research question: How do university STEM instructors operationalize critical thinking in their classrooms using backward design? We developed a 13-question, primarily open-response survey in Qualtrics asking university STEM instructors to describe their definitions of critical thinking and to provide an example of how they implement critical thinking in one of their STEM courses as learning goals or objectives, assessments, and learning activities. We also asked respondents to provide information on their discipline, teaching experience, current position, STEM course of focus, and demographics. We recruited instructors via various STEM education listservs and received responses from 54 individuals (27 in biology, 4 in chemistry, 20 in physics, and 3 in math).

Analyses and Interpretation: We conducted thematic analysis to inductively code interview responses into emergent themes (Creswell, 2013), which were used to develop a rich description of how STEM instructors define critical thinking and how each tenet of backward design (i.e., learning goals and objectives, assessments, and learning activities) is operationalized in university STEM courses. We also used descriptive statistics to summarize closed-response survey questions (e.g., demographics, teaching experience) and describe our respondent sample. We found that STEM instructors, regardless of discipline, provided similar definitions of critical thinking and reasons for its importance which often aligned with ideas shared by STEM undergraduates in previous work ([anonymized], in review). We also found overlapping yet distinct facets of critical thinking present in the learning goals, assessments, and activities across STEM disciplines (e.g., more of a focus on quantitative reasoning in physics compared to biology). Interestingly, while many instructors provided examples of assessments and learning activities from their courses related to critical thinking, a large subset explained they did not have explicit learning goals or objectives related to critical thinking in their STEM courses. This suggests a misalignment in what undergraduates are doing versus what they are expected to learn and achieve in the STEM classroom, and may provide insight into why critical thinking implementation and assessment is difficult to explore in the university STEM classroom.

Contribution: Our novel findings suggest that while university STEM instructors often share similar definitions of critical thinking, the ways in which they operationalize critical thinking in the classroom via backward design can vary. The misalignment or absence of learning goals or objectives related to critical thinking—even if relevant assessments and learning activities are used in class—could present students with inconsistent expectations for what they should be learning and achieving in their STEM courses. Emergent themes from instructors’ survey responses support the need to transform or develop university STEM courses to improve alignment: (1) with Vision and Change core competencies related to critical thinking (i.e., process of science; Clemmons et al., 2020) and (2) of backward design tenets (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) focused on critical thinking skills. Ultimately, the nearly universal inclusion of critical thinking as a learning outcome in STEM courses requires the universal implementation of backward design—by instructors, departments, and institutions—to ensure we are supporting our STEM students in developing these vital skills.

Author:

Janet Branchaw (University of Wisconsin - Madison)*; Amanda Butz (University of Wisconsin - Madison); Joseph Ayoob (University of Pittsburgh)

Training individuals to become researchers is a complex process that involves the development of deep disciplinary knowledge, specific technical and professional skills, and psychosocial attributes, skills and behaviors that support integration and belonging in disciplinary research communities, including the biology education research community. Scholars across disciplines have conducted studies to identify and understand how professional researchers develop in various domains. Likewise, professional societies have gathered expert researchers in their disciplines to articulate the competencies needed to become a researcher in their field (e.g., Clemmons, 2020; NPA, 2007-09). In general, the published frameworks and competency lists generated by these efforts apply to a limited range of career stages (e.g., graduate students) and often focus on just one or a few competencies (e.g., technical skills) in a single discipline. When analyzed as a whole, however, they reveal a comprehensive view of researcher development that can inform the creation of a framework to align and support research training that provides coordinated and contiguous support across career stages in any discipline. By analyzing published frameworks from multiple disciplines, we developed a comprehensive Researcher Development Framework (RDF) that outlines a set of researcher learning outcomes for undergraduate, graduate and postdoc researchers across a broad range of competencies. With input from the research training community, evidence of validity for the new framework has been gathered.

Through a systematic literature review (Cooper, 1998), our team identified 123 published researcher development frameworks and lists of competencies; 56 of them met the 3 inclusion criteria and were used to develop the comprehensive framework. Each contributing framework or list 1) was supported by evidence of validity, 2) addressed undergraduate, graduate, and/or postdoc career stages, and 3) was published since 2000 to ensure its relevance to today’s research training environment. The research team deconstructed each framework and list into individual components (e.g., competencies), which yielded 1,453 unique training elements. Analysis and iterative coding of the 1,453 elements by 3 independent researchers yielded 43 themes of 1,343 coded elements. Training elements that were non-specific (e.g., personal attributes) or not relevant to research training (e.g., classroom teaching) were removed. The elements in each theme were organized into groups based on similarity, which were used to draft an initial set of 79 researcher development learning outcomes. 

Feedback on the content and importance of the original 79 drafted learning outcomes, as well as the career stage(s) at which each of the learning outcomes is typically addressed across disciplines was collected via a national survey of trainees and faculty/staff (n = 169); the majority of responses came from faculty/staff (75%). Most responses (89%) indicated the learning outcomes were moderately or extremely important, and only 19 learning outcomes (24%) were statistically different in importance across disciplines. Overall, respondents reported that 52% of the learning outcomes were addressed in graduate school, 27% at the undergraduate level, and 13% during postdoctoral training. Only 8% of responses classified learning outcomes as not emphasized in training, most of which addressed the impact of cultural factors on and emerging from research. Based on feedback from the survey, revisions, additions, and deletions were made to yield 78 revised learning outcomes.

To organize the 78 learning outcomes and collect additional feedback, 29 faculty/staff and postdoc researchers from across disciplines participated in 9 card sorting sessions to group the learning outcomes. Each group organized the learning outcomes slightly differently, but when analyzed together, 9 areas of researcher development emerged: 1) Foundational Disciplinary Knowledge, 2) Research Thinking and Reasoning Skills, 3) Practical Research Skills, 4) Ethical and Responsible Research Practices, 5) Research Communication Skills, 6) Interpersonal Skills as a Researcher, 7) Personal Attributes as a Researcher, 8) Knowledge and Skills to Pursue a Research or Research-Related Career, 9) Knowledge and Skills to Administer and Manage Research Projects and Teams. The final step in developing the framework is sorting the learning outcomes into the 9 areas of researcher development. Data are currently being collected from in-person card sorting sessions as well as from individuals across the country using an online card sorting tool. These data will be combined and analyzed to finalize the new framework, which will be submitted for publication in Spring 2025 along with tools to support its use by research mentees, mentors, program directors, and institutions.

Author:

Trevor Tuma (University of Georgia)*; Chelsea Lee (University of Georgia); Eduardo Paez (University of Georgia); Carter Montgomery (University of Georgia); Jheel Dhruv (University of Georgia); Benjamin Listyg (University of Georgia); Erin Dolan (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: Participation in undergraduate research has advanced as a key strategy for enhancing student interest and retention in scientific career pathways (AAAS, 2011; Graham et al., 2013; Russell et al., 2007). Undergraduate research offers numerous benefits, including increased abilities to think and work like a scientist, greater integration into the scientific community, and improved persistence in STEM majors and careers (Eagan et al., 2013; Estrada et al., 2018; Hernandez et al., 2018; Rodenbusch et al., 2016). One of the most consistent outcomes associated with participating in undergraduate research is improved scientific self-efficacy (Adedokun et al., 2013; Robnett et al., 2015). Bandura’s (1997) canonical social cognitive theory defines self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully complete a task. Undergraduate research provides a context for students to engage in research tasks, develop their research skills, and ultimately feel more confident in their ability to do research. However, these experiences can vary widely in their goals, intensity, and structure, as well as in the type of research tasks students conduct (Gentile et al., 2017). Furthermore, research experiences are not universally beneficial (Cooper et al., 2019; Limeri et al., 2019) and some students experience reductions in their scientific self-efficacy following involvement in research (Limeri et al., 2024). Less is known about the features of undergraduate research, including the tasks students do during these experiences, that can foster or hinder students’ scientific self-efficacy. 

STUDY DESIGN: To address this gap, we asked: How do the tasks students do during their undergraduate research experiences relate to changes in their scientific self-efficacy? We recruited a sample of 711 undergraduate students at nine institutions as they conducted either course-based undergraduate research (CURE) (n = 507) or apprenticeship-style, faculty mentored research (URE) (n = 204) (Maldonado Mendez, in revision). Undergraduates represented a range of socio-demographics backgrounds, academic years, and varying levels of prior research experience. Using quantitative surveys, we measured their scientific self-efficacy (Estrada et al., 2011) at the beginning and end of the research term. Using experience sampling (Gabriel et al., 2019), we collected student reports of the research tasks they conducted up to three times a week throughout the term. 

ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATIONS: We first examined how students’ scientific self-efficacy changed from pre to post during their research. We found that 78% of students grew in their scientific self-efficacy from the beginning to end of their research experience, while 16% of students dropped in their scientific self-efficacy and 6% of students experienced no change. We conducted qualitative content analysis of 3,537 text descriptions (2,213 from CURE students and 1,414 from URE students) to understand the nature and types of tasks undergraduates carried out during their research. Undergraduates reported performing eleven distinct types of research tasks, including conducting experiments, performing data analysis, engaging in analytic work, reading literature, writing research reports, interacting with others, gaining knowledge, revising or troubleshooting their work, planning their research, managing research activities, presenting their research, and finalizing research projects. Chi-squared analyses indicated that the tasks undergraduates completed during their research related to patterns of change (or not) in their scientific self-efficacy. For example, students with declines in their scientific self-efficacy reported fewer tasks related to writing and finalizing aspects of their research (e.g., creating a poster) than students who experienced scientific self-efficacy gains. Students who finalize aspects of their research may feel more confident in their research abilities, as successfully completing a challenging task serves as a key mastery experience – one of the most consistent predictors of self-efficacy (Usher et al., 2008). 

CONTRIBUTION: Our research suggests that one potential mechanism underlying changes in undergraduate researchers’ scientific self-efficacy is the nature of research tasks they conduct. Our results provide important insights on features of research experiences that may contribute to either positive or negative outcomes for undergraduates. Ultimately, this work will be beneficial for practitioners who are interested in purposefully designing undergraduate research experiences to include research tasks that can maximize students’ scientific self-efficacy growth. This work will also be of interest to scholars seeking to understand the processes through which undergraduate research leads to desirable student outcomes. 

Author:

Anum Khushal (University of Nebraska, Lincoln)*; Joseph Dauer (University of Nebraska Lincoln); Brian Couch (University of Nebraska Lincoln); Robert Mayes (Georgia Southern University)

With increasing amount of data in life science research and interdisciplinary nature of biology, biologists are expected to explain natural phenomena based on deep understanding of mechanisms that drive them. This highlights the need to provide quantitative reasoning (QR) instruction to biology students to enhance their model-based reasoning and meta-modeling abilities (Papaevripidou et al. 2007; Svoboda and Passmore 2011). In addition to helping students in making sense of biology phenomena, QR skills prepare them for future careers, help them deal with unseen challenges, and enable them to apply mathematical tools to solve the problems in daily life situations. Biology educators are working to improve students’ QR skills by introducing math-integrated biology courses and conducting extensive research in teaching and learning of QR in biology (Hester et al., 2018; Schuchardt & Schunn, 2016; Speth et al., 2010). There is dearth of research on learning environments of QR-integrated classrooms. Our study aims at characterizing the learning environment of undergraduate biology classrooms whereby instructors intentionally incorporate QR in their instruction. Our study aims at addressing this literature gap by characterizing the learning environment of biology classrooms. This study is guided by two models: pedagogical content knowledge and quantitative reasoning framework. We hypothesized that instructors create learning environments that are conducive to the four dimensions of QR framework, including quantitative act, modeling practices, quantitative interpretation and metamodeling. 
Participants included twenty undergraduate biology instructors from a variety of US institutes, integrating QR into biology. Based on the guiding models, a semi structured interview protocol was developed and used to collect qualitative data highlighting instructors’ goals and objectives, teaching strategies, experiences, and challenges for QR-integrated lessons. The interview data was analyzed using inductive and deductive coding approach (Saldana, 2021). The codebook was developed to keep a record of the codes (Saldana, 2021; MacQueen et al., 1998). As a result of coding, we came up with themes and categories that align and provide evidence for the instructor’s goals and objectives, teaching strategies, experiences and challenges in QR integrated biology classroom, which were further analyzed by thematic analysis to see the patterns and differences among different instructors. 
We found that some instructors used all four QR dimensions while others focused more on two dimensions such as quantitative act and interpretation. The instructors tailor QR integration approach to suit the complexity of the biology topic, ensuring that QR is effectively incorporated into the curriculum, with activities ranging from fundamental (quantitative acts and interpretation) to advanced QR implementation (modeling practices and metamodeling). Further, it was found that the instructors created opportunities for students to mitigate math anxiety, integrate math and biology concepts, and assisted students to use their math knowledge to understand real-world biology phenomena. Additionally, instructors engaged students in active learning strategies and provided students with experience of learning in gradual complexity. These findings provide guidelines for instructors to integrate QR into undergraduate biology instruction. It also highlights the importance of QR dimensions in promoting QR among students. Additionally, our study provides guidelines for further research regarding QR in life science courses at college level. 

Author:

Josie Otto (Colorado State University)*

Being in “the field,” or a location outside of the lab or classroom, is often an integral component of ecology research, yet it poses many risks and challenges to those involved. Historically, fieldwork has been structured around assumptions of physical endurance and traditional norms, often excluding individuals with disabilities (Chiarella and Vurro, 2020; Clark and Jones, 2015; Rudzki and Kohl, 2023), chronic illnesses (Kingsbury et al., 2020; Klehm et al., 2021), and other marginalized identities (Cronin et al., 2024; Demery and Pipkin, 2021). However, many academic departments seldom offer comprehensive training on fostering safe and inclusive field cultures (Clancy et al., 2014; Davis et al., 2021). This gap frequently leaves students without the necessary knowledge or skills to advocate for their own needs or the needs of others in potentially dangerous situations. Increasing diversity in the ecological workforce is critical for addressing the complex environmental challenges of the 21st century (Mejia and Griffis-Kyle, 2020), yet exclusionary fieldwork norms and inadequate safety training continue to limit participation. Therefore, preparing students to cultivate safer, more inclusive field cultures is essential for ensuring equitable participation in STEM. To address these challenges, IDEAS in the Field was offered as a 14-week graduate seminar in Fall 2024 to equip students with the knowledge and tools necessary to foster safe and inclusive field environments. The course aimed to enhance the visibility, intentionality, and scope of inclusive field cultures, ensuring that students could apply these principles in their own research settings. All students were preparing for an upcoming field season, with many responsible for leading undergraduate research assistants. The course was structured into three modules: (1) Misconduct and Inclusivity, covering harassment, discrimination, and the experiences of BIPOC and LGBTQ+ researchers; (2) Accessibility and Health, addressing disability, chronic illness, and wellness needs; and (3) Safety and Codes of Conduct, focusing on communication, risk assessment, and logistics. After the course concluded, the curriculum was evaluated by analyzing student engagement with course content through safety plans, discussion board posts, and weekly reflections. A thematic analysis of course artifacts identified two key areas of learning: 1) Valuing Diversity and Lived Experiences in Field Research — Students recognized identity-based safety concerns and integrated inclusive planning into their safety protocols, including culturally aware safety measures, gender-inclusive accommodations, and considerations for BIPOC and disabled researchers. Reflections and discussions revealed an increased awareness of how historical and systemic barriers impact participation in field research, with students citing specific changes they would implement in their own field teams to foster greater inclusivity. 2) Defending and Prioritizing a Safe and Inclusive Field Culture — Students emphasized the necessity of structured risk mitigation strategies, harassment prevention measures, and mental health considerations. Many final safety plans included explicit codes of conduct, pre-campaign safety training, and structured debriefing sessions to reinforce safety practices in fieldwork. As students progressed through the course, discussions reflected a shift from an individual responsibility mindset to a broader emphasis on institutional accountability in field safety. Findings suggest that structured coursework on field safety fosters increased awareness of risk factors, encourages proactive planning, and strengthens student ability to advocate for inclusive field practices. This course effectively provided students with the tools to recognize systemic challenges and develop concrete solutions for improving safety and accessibility in field settings. These results emphasize the need for institutionalized field safety training within ecology programs to enhance student preparedness, bridge demographic gaps in the field, and create a research culture that prioritizes both physical and psychological safety in fieldwork environments.

Author:

Fiona Freeland (East Carolina University)*; Heather Vance-Chalcraft (East Carolina University)

Study Context: In recent years, employers across numerous disciplines have emphasized the importance of strong teamwork abilities among prospective hires. However, within undergraduate education, little explicit training exists for teaching students how to work effectively in teams. With collaboration having previously been outlined as a primary component of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) (Auchincloss et al., 2014), these courses can serve as an ideal setting for the incorporation of explicit team science training to further develop teamwork abilities within STEM undergraduate students. This work and associated analyses are guided by the communities of practice framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991), which suggests that when individuals share a task, learning is enhanced through the formation of collaborative relationships, with each individual using their specific knowledge and skills to build upon that of other team members.
Study Design: We incorporated communication and research planning tools developed from the field of team science within 8 biology CUREs and sought to determine 1. Did cohesive teams form within the CUREs? 2. Are there differences in the strength of team formation between the CUREs and an inquiry-based (IB) introductory biology lab course which completed group work but did not have explicit training in teamwork? To measure team development, a social network survey was administered to students at the beginning and end of the semester which asked students to identify with whom they had social connections. Responses from these surveys were converted to weighted adjacency matrices which evaluated several types of social interaction such as whom students felt they trusted, learned from, or had social support. In addition to the survey, focus groups were conducted in both the CUREs and IB courses, which asked students to describe their interactions with both their team and class members and determine if there was alignment between the network analysis and student perspectives.
Analyses and Interpretation: To address the research objectives, social network analysis was used to both visualize and quantify changes in the level of connectedness of individuals within these classes (Grunspan et al., 2014). The whole-network density, or number of total connections within the class divided by the total number of possible connections, was calculated for each individual course both pre- and post- survey completion. Mixed ANOVAs with multiple comparison tests were then conducted to determine if differences existed both pre-/post- and between the CURE and IB courses. Within the CURE classes, there were significantly denser networks post- than pre- for student responses regarding psychological safety (p<.001), communication (p<.001), and social support (p=.01) indicating that teams formed within these classes. While there were no significant differences between the CURE and IB class networks at the beginning of the semester, CURE classes that had incorporated team science training had significantly denser networks for these same factors than the IB courses at the end of the semester (p=.002, p<.001, p=.004 respectively). This indicates that CURE students who had team science training developed a greater number of connections to individuals within their class over the course of a semester in comparison to IB courses. 
To interpret the focus group responses, a codebook was developed iteratively using inductive coding, with interrater agreement achieved between two coders on a subset of transcripts prior to coding the remaining focus groups. These focus group responses support the findings of the network analysis, with CURE students more frequently self-identifying with the label of “team” to describe their partners, discussing higher instances of interteam interaction, and mentioning greater overall positive experiences with teamwork.
Contribution: These results highlight how explicit team science training can assist with the development of more cohesive and interconnected teams in CURE classes. Previous literature indicates that the number of connections within an organization is tied to information flow (Obstfeld, 2005) as well as research productivity (Love et al., 2021). Therefore, this enhanced collaboration within the CURE classes may reflect the establishment of communities of practice. As a result, explicit team science training within CUREs may promote learning by emphasizing collaborative aspects of CURE participation (Auchincloss et al., 2014) and enhancing project research outcomes while providing an opportunity for students to develop a skill desired by employers. This integration of team science principles for more effective teamwork in classes is relevant not only to CURE instructors but also other courses with group work.

Author:

Joe Dauer (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)*; Kent Rittschof (Georgia Southern University); Brian Couch (University of Nebraska-Lincoln); Robert Mayes (National Science Foundation); Anum Khushal (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

Quantitative models have taken on a major role in the field of biology, given the explosion of both experimental data related to complex global problems and the software and inexpensive hardware that permit data analysis and simulation. Efforts to cultivate authentic science practices in students have focused on developing model-based reasoning skills and meta-modeling abilities by engaging students in the modeling process. Quantitative modeling is a fundamental skill for biology students and requires instructors to thoughtfully integrate key quantitative dimensions into biology teaching to prepare students for biology careers. Quantitative modeling includes skills like quantifying variables, translating among tables, graphs, and functions, the process of developing and revising models, and knowing why scientists model. While the biology community recognizes the importance of quantitative modeling in biology, there remains a gap in describing the prior knowledge and abilities of biology students and whether their knowledge and abilities develop during a university (undergraduate) biology curriculum. The Quantitative Modeling Biology Undergraduate Student (QM BUGS) assessment provides a means to estimate measures of students’ understanding of modeling practices, metacognition of modeling, and confidence in their ability to perform various modeling practices. Using a published assessment of quantitative modeling in biology, we explored biology students’ (n=930 students) modeling practices (i.e., prior knowledge, abilities), metacognition about modeling, and confidence in modeling. When administered to a broader suite of university biology students (n=21 universities), the assessment can yield insights into the prior knowledge and abilities U.S. students possess to understand biological phenomena from a quantitative perspective. We explored two research questions: (1) Do students’ understandings of quantitative modeling differ by sub-skills of quantitative modeling? (2) Does the level of course (i.e., first-year, second-year, etc.) impact student performance?
Student participants were recruited from biology courses taught by 26 biology instructors ranging from introductory 100-level to advanced 400-level courses. Students were predominantly freshmen (45%), female (60%), white (55%), and enrolled in 100-level courses (74%). The QM BUGS assessment consists of 20 closed-form, dichotomous (correct/incorrect) items representing modeling practices, made up of sub-skills of quantitative acts (QA), quantitative interpretation (QI), and quantitative modeling (QM). Analysis also included examination of 5 partial credit (6 levels) meta-modeling items, and 11 rating-scale (5 levels) quantitative biology capability confidence (QBCC) items. 
Students correctly answered an average of 44% (M = 8.8 of 20 items). Students performed comparatively well on the QA items (55%) including items related to understanding variables used in models like identifying and measuring variables. The students performed more poorly on QI (40%) and QM (38%) items related to interpreting, creating, and using models to understand biological phenomena. Performance was not associated with course level. Students possessed a high level of metacognition about the nature and purpose of models for science and were highly confident, even overconfident, in their abilities to use models in science. 
While it is accepted that biology research involves quantitative reasoning, biology university students in this study typically had strengths in lower difficulty skills and performed more poorly on higher difficulty items representing modeling practices that suggested more sophisticated level of reasoning, e.g., translating between different data formats, connecting graphical interpretations with biological phenomena, and interpreting non-linear relationships. The challenging items in QI and QM suggest areas where biology students are likely to receive little instruction and practice. Our work agrees with recent findings about students’ metacognitive knowledge of modeling that biology university students typically have strengths in their knowledge of the nature and purpose of models in science but have lower knowledge and lower abilities to construct, interpret, and use models.
While it is accepted that biology research involves quantitative reasoning, students in higher education have a small foundation of knowledge in quantitative modeling. Equipping students in secondary and higher education with the skills to perform quantitative interpretation and construction of useful biological models will better prepare them for biology research and careers.

Author:

Stephanie Mathews (North Carolina State University)*; Carlos Goller (North Carolina State University); Michael Wolyniak (Hampden-Sydney College ); Uma Swamy (Florida International University); Anjali Misra (University of California, Santa Cruz); Michael Moore (University of Arkansas at Little Rock); Jeremy Hsu (Chapman University); Dina Newman (Rochester Institute of Technology)

Study Context:
About 15 years ago, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) sponsored a large-scale rethinking of undergraduate biology education, resulting in the 2011 report, Vision and Change: A Call to Action (V&C). V&C outlines core concepts and core competencies for biology undergraduates and promotes evidence-based pedagogy, undergraduate research, and inclusive practices. The report sparked efforts to transform undergraduate biology education, including the open-access journal of peer-reviewed teaching resources for undergraduate biology: CourseSource, as well as multiple tools for course design aligned with V&C have been published, including the BioCore Guide and the BioSkills Guide (Brownell et al. 2014; Clemmons et al. 2020). However, it is unclear how much biology educators know about V&C and what motivates educators' development of their teaching philosophy and practices. 
Study Design: 
We leveraged the Promoting Active Learning and Mentoring (PALM) Network, a group that introduced evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) to instructors through mentoring, journal clubs, and a community of practice, to investigate how much V&C has influenced educator knowledge and motivation. Through focus groups, 16 mentors and 22 fellows were asked about their motivations to join PALM, familiarity with V&C, how they learned about V&C, and how PALM and/or V&C shaped the development of their teaching philosophies and strategies. A codebook was developed for each research question and the focus group interview transcripts were analyzed and independently coded by pairs of researchers. 
Analyses and Interpretation:
Participants joined PALM to learn better teaching practices, but they also highlighted the community of educators as a motivating factor to join PALM. Most participants were familiar with V&C, with only three stating they were unfamiliar with V&C. Participants learned about V&C from a variety of sources including colleagues and professional societies. The majority of participants cited V&C as a contributing source in developing their teaching philosophy: 94% of the Mentors (15 people) and 77% of the Fellows (17 people). Situated Expectancy Value Theory (SEVT) was used as a framework to understand instructor motivation for choices about educational practices (Wigfield and Eccles 2000; Eccles and Wigfield 2020). V&C provided expectancy (authority and guidance for course structure), while PALM contributed to greater instructor self-efficacy in implementing EBIPs, and both PALM and V&C contributed to inspiration for using EPIPs (task value), overall resulting in reformed teaching philosophies and practices aligned with V&C. 
Contribution
SEVT principles were used to create a model of motivation, where V&C and PALM together promoted philosophies and practices aligned with the principles of V&C. Both the mentoring relationship and the wider network were important for supporting fellows to embrace the principles of V&C, and even experienced Mentors found themselves making positive changes due to their participation in PALM. Thus, this model highlights the importance of mentorship and community to successfully drive biology education reform.

Author:

Paula Adams (Auburn University)*; Ryan Dunk (Howard University); Ballen Cissy (Auburn University)

STUDY CONTEXT: Understanding the relationship between science and society is an important component of STEM education (Vision and Change; AAAS 2011). However, traditional undergraduate instruction often emphasizes scientific practice and avoids potentially controversial issues at the intersection of science and society, such as representation in STEM, historical unethical research experiments, genetics of gender and sexuality, and environmental justice (Beatty et al. 2023, Costello et al. 2023). This study builds on the framework of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings 1992), to measure the frequency of implementation of socially relevant topics in biology and other STEM classrooms. Through our previous work in biology classrooms, we have found that while students prefer materials that emphasize societal topics compared to traditional course content, approximately half were unfamiliar with the topics before the lessons (Beatty et al. 2021). Additionally, students were unable to make connections between science and society without explicit instruction (Adams et al. 2023). However, little work has been done to assess the interest in and frequency of the incorporation of socially relevant content into other STEM fields. 

RESEARCH DESIGN: We surveyed undergraduate students across STEM fields (biology, chemistry, and physics) (N = 2,491) at a large university in the southeast to assess and compare the perceived (1) importance, (2) benefits & downsides, and (3) relevance of specific socially relevant topics within each surveyed discipline. To measure perceived importance, we asked students a series of Likert scale questions, including “How important is it for students to have exposure to a scientific curriculum that includes societal topics?,” “If you could choose, how often would societal topics be addressed in this course?,” and “In this course how often are societal topics addressed?.” They were then asked to expand upon the benefits and downsides of incorporating more societal topics into their courses with open-ended questions. We then asked students to bin 11 societal topics into three categories based on how frequently they are covered in their course (“Top 3”; “Also Covered”; “Not Covered”) and the relevance to their course (“Top 3”; “Also Relevant”; “Not Relevant”). The topics included “Representation in STEM,” “Research Ethics,” and “Public trust in science.” We then asked students to explain how each of their top 3 choices are covered and relevant to the course. 

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: We analyzed qualitative questions using open and thematic coding. We then quantified and compared the responses across STEM disciplines. We analyzed Likert-scale survey questions and compared responses across disciplines. We found that a majority of biology students (59%) report that it is important to have exposure to a scientific curriculum that includes societal topics compared to less than half of chemistry (47%) and physics students (42%). Biology students also report a higher frequency of societal topics being addressed in class (67%) compared to chemistry and physics, where students report that societal topics are never covered 54% and 62% of the time respectively. However, across all majors, students report that they think societal topics should be addressed more often than they are with a 0.21-0.4 point increase on a 7-point Likert scale. Across all students, the primary benefit to including societal topics is the “real world connection” to the material they are learning. The primary downside reported by students is that societal topics would “take class time away” or that they “do not belong” in science. The benefits and downsides were reported similarly across all majors. When asked to report which topics were most covered, relevant, or interesting, biology students most often reported “Human Health” or “Human Reproduction”, whereas physics and chemistry students reported topics such as “Ethical use of STEM” and “Research Ethics.”

CONTRIBUTION: This work shows that perceived importance, relevance, and interest in societal topics in STEM varies across disciplines. Biology students report higher importance for learning about these topics followed by chemistry and then physics. Biology students are also most likely to show interest in topics related to human health, whereas chemistry and physics students show more interest in research ethics and related topics. However, all students think that science and society should have a larger emphasis in their courses than it currently does. These findings call for an increase in our commitment to including societally relevant topics into undergraduate courses. In our national efforts to broaden participation in biology and make it more accessible to all, our focus on understanding the specific interests of students in biology and other STEM disciplines should be of general interest to SABER attendees.

Author:

Dimitri Smirnoff (University of Minnesota)*

Study Background:
Underrepresentation of Indigenous students within STEM fields (NASEM, 2023) is partly due to the colonial foundations of Western science and the resultant undervaluation, denigration and erasure of Indigenous knowledge (Lees et al., 2021). The exclusion of Indigenous Science Knowledge (ISK) from Western biology education omits an entire body of knowledge (Kimmerer, 2002). This exclusion may adversely affect Indigenous students’ sense of belonging and persistence in science (Greenall & Bailey, 2022) while negatively impacting non-Indigenous students who acquire an incomplete understanding of the world (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005). Science educators can create more comprehensive and inclusive learning environments for all students through the incorporation of ISK into their curricula (Greenall & Bailey, 2022). Resources exist which advocate for the inclusion of Traditional Ecological Knowledge into undergraduate biology education (Kimmerer, 2002) and summarize practical strategies for doing so from the literature (Greenall & Bailey, 2022). However, this work can be daunting and unfamiliar for biology educators, and little is known about their journey towards learning about and advocating for inclusion of ISK. 

Description of Research Ideas and Desired Feedback:
We seek to better understand what motivates biology educators to engage in this work, what obstacles stand in their way, what resources might accelerate their journey, and what questions remain unanswered. The facilitators will benefit by gaining a more nuanced understanding of people’s experiences engaging with Indigenous ways of knowing in the context of biology education. Participants will benefit from structured reflection and building community with and learning from others interested in this work. 

Participatory Component:
Roundtable participants will be provided short excerpts from Indigenous scholarship paired with a series of discussion questions, e.g. “when considering incorporating ISK into your classes, (1) what motivates you (2) what obstacles do you face, and (3) what support would help you engage and persist?” Participants will have an opportunity to reflect individually, with a partner and the group. Participant feedback will be gathered via written responses and facilitator notes. To support community building beyond the roundtable, participants will be encouraged to exchange contact information.

Contribution:
Counteracting the erasure of ISK caused by settler colonialism requires the ethical incorporation of ISK into classrooms in partnership with Indigenous communities (Lees et al., 2021; Greenall & Bailey, 2022). Prior to commencing this work, we—as educators—must begin with self-education, introspection, and critical awareness raising as well as forming community with other learners. Otherwise, we risk causing harm or emotional labor for those with whom we are trying to partner. Our roundtable creates space to learn about and engage in this process.

Authors:

Mallory Rice (California State University San Marcos)*; Cissy Ballen (Auburn University)

Scientific terminology plays a critical role in shaping students’ understanding of ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB). However, some commonly used terms carry harmful historical contexts or unintended associations that may contribute to the exclusion of systematically excluded students in EEB (XXX et al. 2023). A recent study identified over 200 terms in EEB as harmful, with scholars from marginalized groups significantly more likely than their dominant-majority counterparts to report feeling harmed by discipline-specific terms in EEB (XXX et al. 2025). Despite growing awareness of the exclusionary impact of language in EEB, little is known about how undergraduate students perceive and engage with these terms in classroom settings. We are developing a teaching module that critically examines one of the harmful terms identified by XXX et al. (2025), exploring its historical context, its potential harm, and alternative language that enhances both inclusivity and scientific accuracy. This module will be piloted across undergraduate biology courses at a range of institution types. Through pre- and post-assessments, we aim to evaluate how students perceive and interact with discussions of terminology in EEB, whether engaging with the module influences their understanding of the term’s scientific and social implications, and how these effects vary across course levels and institutional contexts.

This roundtable will focus on gathering feedback to refine and test the module before it is piloted in undergraduate biology courses. The module consists of an out-of-class component (e.g., homework) and an in-class component (e.g., discussion activity). During the roundtable, attendees will engage in a discussion of discipline-specific terms in biology that carry harmful historical contexts, followed by engaging with a draft of the module and the pre- and post-assessment questions for students. 

This study is still in the planning phase, and we welcome the participation of SABER attendees as partners and/or instructors in the study as well as feedback on refining both the module and assessment framework. In the one-page handout, we will present our draft module and preliminary study design and invite discussion on classroom implementation and potential challenges in framing inclusive language within science curricula with special consideration given the current political climate. Our goal is to ensure that the module is both pedagogically effective and feasible for widespread adoption in undergraduate biology courses. Attendees will engage in small-group discussions to critique and contribute to the study’s design, helping to shape how we assess the impact of inclusive language on student learning and engagement. We anticipate this conversation will provide critical insights for refining our approach before the pilot phase and inform broader efforts to foster inclusivity in EEB education.

Citations are anonymized to maintain the review process.

Author:

Deborah Donovan (Western Washington University)*; Daniel Pollard (Western Washington University)

Study Context: Biological thinking and argumentation are central to how humans categorize social identities such as race. However, undergraduate biology curricula rarely address the scientific concepts necessary for understanding these identities. There is no biological basis for categorizing human races by traits or genetics (Templeton 2013). Nevertheless, scientists have historically contributed to racial misconceptions (Cerdeña et al. 2022). Educational interventions can help address these misconceptions and reduce racial bias (Donovan et al. 2019, Gouvea 2022), highlighting the importance of curricular development in this area.

To support teaching and assessment on this topic, we are developing a validated instrument to measure students’ understanding of the biological basis of race. This tool will enable individual instructors to assess learning pre- and post-instruction and allow Biology Departments to track student conceptual progress over time.

Research Ideas and Desired Feedback: We are following Adams and Wieman’s (2011) framework for developing and validating assessment instruments. Our process began with identifying key content areas based on observations of student work. We then administered an initial survey, including an open-ended question probing students’ understanding of race, and coded responses to identify themes. These findings informed the development of learning outcomes and a Likert-style assessment covering four main topics: 1) Scientific history of racism, 2) Racial categorization and genetics, 3) Racial categorization and trait variation, and 4) Race, risk factors, and healthcare. We sought feedback from experts in our department and in the field, piloted the assessment across multiple Biology courses in Fall 2024, conducted initial item analyses, and refined the instrument based on student interviews.

For this roundtable, we aim to gather further expert input on the revised instrument, particularly on:
• Content coverage: Are there important topics missing? Are any topics unnecessary?
• Clarity and accuracy: Are any questions unclear or misleading? Are questions accurate?

Participatory Component: The assessment and targeted questions for participants fit on one page. After a brief overview of our work and the specific feedback we seek, participants will review the assessment and respond to guiding questions.

Contribution: This validated instrument will serve as a tool for both individual instructors and Biology Departments to measure student learning, inform curricular improvements, and track long-term instructional impact. By iteratively refining both the assessment and instructional approaches, we aim to enhance students’ understanding of the biological basis of race in a scientifically accurate and socially responsible manner.

Author:

Jeffrey Olimpo (Lehigh University)*; Jacob Adler (Purdue University); Melissa Aikens (University of New Hampshire); Carrie Jo Bucklin (Texas State University); Amr El-Zawily (University of Saskatchewan); Regina McGrane (University of Iowa); Anita Schuchardt (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities); Jackie Shay (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Study Background: Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have emerged as a promising solution to the limitations imposed by more traditional, apprenticeship-style UREs [Auchincloss et al., 2014]. Although there is an assumption that the CURE model is facilitated by “senior researchers” [Rodenbusch et al., 2016], the pervasive inclusion of CUREs in biology laboratory curricula nationwide has necessitated a shift in instructional responsibility from faculty to teaching assistants (TAs). Importantly, CUREs may provide the first and only research-oriented experience for undergraduates [Esparza et al., 2020], further emphasizing the critical role of TAs in CURE contexts. Despite these observations, the prominent role of TAs in undergraduate biology education is rarely addressed or acknowledged [Shortlidge et al., 2023]. As the goal of engaging students in CUREs continues to become more mainstream in undergraduate STEM education, ensuring the preparedness of TAs to facilitate such courses becomes increasingly more relevant. To that end, the CURE Teaching Assistant Professional Development to Enhance Scientific Teaching, Research, and Mentoring Capacity (TAPESTRy) network was established, with the primary goal of advancing CURE TA professional development (PD) knowledge and best practices. More acutely, this network engages CURE TA PD facilitators in the creation and field-testing of CURE TA PD resources that will be disseminated to the STEM education community. This roundtable will focus on strategies that can be employed to identify and/or develop such resources at attendees’ home institutions as well as tips and tricks to promote effective CURE TA PD more broadly.

Description of Research Ideas and Desired Feedback / Participatory Component: Despite the central role that TAs play in furthering student learning and success in CUREs, limited attention has been afforded to CURE TA PD efforts, especially on a national scale. To address this gap, we intend to (a) share our experiences designing and implementing CURE TA PD as part of the TAPESTRy experience, (b) collaborate with attendees to generate a non-exhaustive list of goals for CURE TA PD that expand upon the literature base in this area, and (c) support attendees in outlining one activity or intervention that they may deploy in their contexts to further CURE TA PD. These foci will be captured on a shared Google Doc “handout” to increase accessibility and opportunities for feedback/engagement. 

Contribution: Teaching a CURE may present an unparalleled opportunity for graduate students to gain exposure to multiple aspects of faculty positions as well as to enhance their research and/or teaching skills. Thus, by promoting PD for CURE TAs, our intent is to contribute to the professional growth of TAs while simultaneously cultivating the pedagogical knowledge and intellectual capital needed to assist undergraduates in developing their research skills.

Author:

Joseph Harsh (James Madison University)*; Kristen Connors (James Madison University); Tim Bloss (James Madison University); Jada Allen (James Madison University); Grace Batts (James Madison University); Jillian Clark (James Madison University); Andrew Harman (James Madison University); Jacqueline Kossey (James Madison University); Steven Cresawn (James Madison University)

Approximately 40% of US college students transfer during their undergraduate career, with many beginning at community colleges that disproportionately serve first generation and/or traditionally underrepresented groups in the sciences. As transferring students often experience “transfer shock”, an effect that leads to decreased performance, innovations that promote safe transitions are effective in helping student adaptation and retention at new institutions. This roundtable will introduce a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) developed to offset the potential challenges faced by transfer students joining our major by facilitating the transition and enculturation into the biology department at a large primarily undergraduate R2 institution while developing essential scientific skills for success in later courses. With the intent of encouraging faculty participation in transfer student focused CUREs (or tCUREs), a common framework was constructed to promote achievement and persistence transportable across variable discipline-specific implementations. Drawing on extant literature, our framework outlines generalizable design features and activities that build a sense of belonging, build self-efficacy and identity in science, and provide student support. Our design promotes community-building and evidence-based inclusive teaching practices, encourages transfer student engagement with faculty and other department members, raises students’ awareness of departmental opportunities and resources, and promotes external enrichment activities. As part of an ongoing study, mixed item exit survey and focus group data have been gathered over two semesters from participants in a devoted tCURE section for transfer students (n=31) and a comparable section containing both transfer and non-transfer students (n=27). Early findings indicate that while all transfer students rated similar gains in research skills and scientific self-efficacy, tCURE participants reported higher gains in science identity and sense of belonging in science and the department than their counterparts. tCURE students reported benefitting from the course’s community through specific framework elements intentionally designed to facilitate their transition into the department. This work adds to our understanding of how CUREs can support the integration of transfer students into their new science units by helping offset common transitional difficulties. During this roundtable, participants will be provided handouts with the three framework components (sense of belonging, self-efficacy/identity, and support) and asked to work within groups to critically evaluate and provide feedback as to areas of strength and improvement. This activity will lend valuable community insight to guide future course refinements, while providing a model and resources to faculty interested in designing and implementing a research course for biology transfer students in their home departments.

This welcome meeting is open to any participants who consider themselves to be Discipline-Based Education Research Scholars-in-Training

Gordon Uno, University of Oklahoma

Gordon Uno, University of Oklahoma

Note about Special Interest Group (SIG) Meetings - 2 sessions - your choice to stay in one or move to another for the second session. Note that there is also an option to schedule dinner with SIG members for additional meeting time.

McGraw-Hill Education has supported teachers and students for over 140 years.  Our tools are deeply rooted in learning science, with metacognition and personalized learning at their core. Students receive targeted study guides based on what they don’t yet understand, while instructors have access to 280+ vetted active learning activities and 200+ animations, fully assignable and embedded into lecture-ready PowerPoints. Backed by trusted authors who believe in our tools and tested by faculty and students, our resources are designed to deepen understanding and drive measurable success. Learn more about these tools during our lunch demo.  

Un-stick Stuck Students using AI, Audio, and Adaptivity  

Join W.W. Norton & Co., independent and employee-owned publishers, to provide feedback on new tools that help students persist and course-correct when learning tough concepts. We'll show you the cool things we're working on, including our signature approach to GenAI, and your input will help shape the future of these student success tools.

Author:

Nicole Chlebek (Florida International University)*; Catherine Guinovart (Florida International University); Bryan Dewsbury (Florida International University)

Study Context: Indigenous Peoples face barriers to 1) holding agency over their ways of being, 2) maintaining recognition of their knowledge gathering systems, and 3) being included in scientific research (Eglash et al., 2020). These challenges stem in part from colonial influences in Western science, which have severed and silenced Indigenous cultures, ancestry, and Wisdoms, omitting them from mainstream scientific research (Wynter, 2021). An implication of this today is that Indigenous Peoples, like other marginalized groups, often feel alienated from science and research spaces. Despite this, Indigenous scholars worldwide have developed research approaches that prioritize Indigenous people and their ways of knowing through decolonial and culturally relevant frameworks (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). Some scholars pose that integrating Indigenous and Western methodologies can nurture Indigenous students ability to “walk in both worlds” —building scientific skills without sacrificing their ways of knowing (Aikenhead & Elliot, 2010), ultimately fostering an Indigenous Research Identity (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). While existing literature explores best practices for localized decolonial research (Jimenez Estrada, 2005), little is known about its application in practice and its impact on Indigenous people involved.
This study asks: How are Indigenous students impacted when learning to perform decolonial research? Over 3 years, we conducted an ethnographic case study documenting the experiences of Mayan undergraduate students as they participated in a community action research project. The project examined the effects of implementing a biology curriculum in their home language in 5 primary schools in Quintana Roo, Mexico.
Study Design: Our research team included 3 project leaders—a local Maya linguist and educator and two US-based PhD students—who collaborated with 14 Mayan undergraduate students at a local Mayan university. We held workshops to train the undergraduate students in qualitative research skills, while having them contribute to project design. Students then introduced the curriculum to the schools, trained teachers, conducted pre- and post-semester interviews with primary students, coded and analyzed data, and presented their findings to participating communities.
Our methodology was informed by decolonial and culturally relevant teaching and learning theories (Ladson-Billings, 1995). We explored how the undergraduates’ cultural and research identities evolved through their participation, using a triangulation of data collection methods, including pre- and post-study interviews, paired interviews, focus groups, stakeholder mapping, and personal memoing. Rather than imposing established Western frameworks of identity, we allowed students to define and articulate their own concept of identity.
Analysis & Interpretations: Open coding, structural analysis, and narrative analysis revealed that before the project, many students felt disconnected from their cultural identity. Though they attended a Mayan university and spoke Maya, they often felt “not Maya enough” or held negative perceptions of being Maya. While they were comfortable performing research tasks, they initially saw themselves as helpers and assistants rather than researchers. Throughout their participation in the project, however, not only did students’ perception as researchers strengthen, but their increased confidence as researchers also reinforced their cultural identity.
The meaningful factors that fostered identity growth were the undergraduates’ connection with the broader impacts of the research on the communities to preserve Maya language and foster biology education for primary students. Also, developing strong relationships with the study communities, peer student researchers, and the leadership team, carried great weight for the students, helping them to see themselves as leaders in their work and the value of being Maya in research. 
Contribution: First, sharing these students' experiences amplifies and affords a platform to Indigenous voices in a field that has historically marginalized them. Second, these findings offer a foundation for future decolonial research collaborations in science and education research fields. The narratives from this project challenge conventional research by offering a counterstory that empowers Indigenous researchers and their collaborators to shape knowledge-gathering practices to fit their specific needs (Wynter, 2021). Our study can offer guidelines for future scientists to create inclusive research methodologies that uplift marginalized peoples, fostering diverse perspectives that can broaden our understanding of the world through science.

Author: 

Kris Troy (University of California, Santa Barbara )*; Royce Olarte (University of California, Santa Barbara); Petra Kranzfelder (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Study Context: Among STEM disciplines, Biology is unique because examples of sex and sexual diversity are common in nature, such as examples of organisms that defy the supposed sex binary or exhibit same sex mating behaviors (Roughgarden, 2004; Bagemihl, 1999). Given that students may encounter these examples in class, one might expect LGBTQ+ individuals to find them welcoming, and for biology students to be in general more educated about sex and sexual orientation than other STEM students. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case (Coley & Tanner, 2012; Hughes, 2018; Maloy et al. 2022; Busch et al. 2023). Trans*, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming (TGNC) students report harmful themes as effects of heteronormative and gender essentialist messaging in the biological sciences, but the TGNC students who encountered examples of natural sex or sexual diversity in their courses also reported using those examples to positively bolster personal narratives surrounding their identity (Casper et al. 2022). Prior work has explored how instructors might use such examples to positively affect their students (Zemenick et al. 2022) and about the process and challenges instructors go through to transform their curriculum to be more inclusive of TGNC students (Driessen et al. 2024). However, no prior research has interrogated how instructors think about and understand these natural examples as relevant to social discourses surrounding the LGBTQ+ community.

Study Design: To understand to what extent instructors are aware of examples of sex and sexual diversity in nature, and to characterize how they conceive of those examples as related to human society and the LGBTQ+ community, we conducted hour long semi-structured interviews in with 13 instructors of various career stages and demographic backgrounds from one department in one midwestern, research-focused R1, primarily white institution. By focusing on a single institution, we isolated the variation in perception between instructors while controlling for characteristics like local politics and departmental culture. Following an iterative and inductive phenomenographical framework (Tight, 2016), our analysis aimed to identify the range of instructor conceptions and the structural relationships among them. Coders familiarized themselves with the data separately, noting key initial impressions and highlighting relevant quotations. Through clustering and categorization, distinct ways of experiencing and understanding were grouped into hierarchical categories of description. The final stage of analysis involved constructing an outcome space—a hierarchical representation illustrating the logical relationships between categories. To enhance trustworthiness, intercoder reliability and research team discussions were employed. In addition to our phenomenographical analysis, we performed a thematic analysis of any perceived barriers that prevented instructors from discussing these topics in the classroom. 

Analyses and Interpretations: After assessing the range of conceptions, we found that instructors were overwhelmingly aware of natural examples of sex and sexual behaviors that they felt represented natural diversity, and they already understood that those examples could have relevance and meaning for LGBTQ+ people—for example, one participant stated, “Because biology is used to justify bigotry, it is our responsibility to bring that conversation into the classroom”. Despite having a plurality of personal perspectives on the subject, the majority of instructors were in agreement that their content knowledge was specifically relevant for social conversations about gender and sexual orientation. Most participants felt that, as a biologist and an instructor, they have a specific responsibility to disseminate factual information about sex, sex determination mechanisms, hormones, and mating behaviors regardless of social implications, with one saying, “I am trying to morph my content so it would be more accurate…it's not really just to be politically correct”. We found that the most cited concerns related to course constraints of time or curricular relevance, a fear of reprisal or of causing harm to students, and a feeling that their own personal demographic identity made them an unsuitable messenger.

Contribution: This novel study represents an early step in understanding the systemic conditions that reinforce heteronormative and gender essentialist misconceptions in the biological sciences. We hope that understanding the conceptions of instructors and the barriers they perceive will help biology departments create a supportive environment and tailor instructor trainings to affirm them in their role as disseminators of factual information and supporters of their students. Future studies will explore the variation of— and comparisons between— instructor conceptions assessed in this study and conceptions about other socially sensitive topics and marginalized populations.

 Author:

Haider Ali Bhatti (University of California, Santa Cruz)*; Roxanne Beltran (University of California, Santa Cruz); Lina Arcila Hernandez (University of California, Santa Cruz); Paige Kouba ( University of California, Santa Cruz); Lalitha Balachandran (University of California, Santa Cruz); Erika Zavaleta (University of California, Santa Cruz)

1. STUDY CONTEXT:
To better examine both the validity and fairness of assessments, education researchers can use differential item functioning (DIF) analysis (AERA et al., 2014). DIF analysis investigates if and how different groups of respondents with similar overall ability levels display item-level differences in their responses (Zumbo, 2007), providing deeper insights than traditional group comparisons (e.g., paired t-tests). The value of DIF has been shown in biology concept inventory development (Martinková et al., 2017), but there is a need to extend its application to assess affective measures critical to student learning (e.g., self-efficacy, science identity, sense of belonging) (Trujillo & Tanner, 2014). Here we present a novel application of DIF analysis in the context of field biology course assessment to better measure how key demographic groups develop self-efficacy, providing validity and fairness insights that traditional group comparisons may miss.

2. STUDY DESIGN:
We performed two sets of analyses to examine how three types of biology courses may differentially impact student self-efficacy development across key demographics. We first conducted traditional group comparisons between demographic groups using pre/post mean differences and paired t-tests. We then conducted DIF analysis using ordinal logistic regression models that controlled for overall self-efficacy levels, yielding multiple measures of impact including statistical significance and effect size (R² and odds ratios). This dual approach allowed us to enhance conventional assessment methods for group comparisons with DIF’s ability to more accurately detect item-level biases that might be masked in traditional analyses.
In both approaches, we compared students classified as: nondominant versus dominant, URM versus non-URM, first-in-family versus continuing-generation, female versus male, and Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) versus non-EOP. We analyzed pre/post survey responses from a traditional lecture course (n=81), an introductory field course (n=190), and an intensive field course (n=293). We assessed self-efficacy through items measuring confidence in species identification, experimental design skills, oral presentation abilities, and field research capability. Based on prior work showing field courses' potential to promote inclusion (Hernández et al., 2024; Zavaleta et al., 2020), we hypothesized that the field courses would demonstrate more equitable self-efficacy development across demographic groups as compared to the traditional lecture course.

3. ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS:
In the introductory field course, t-tests showed URM students initially rated their species identification confidence lower than non-URM peers (-0.392 mean difference, p=0.011). DIF analysis then quantified these students’ subsequent development: URM students became 2.33 times more likely to demonstrate positive change compared to non-URM peers (R²=0.018). The intensive field course showed similar results. DIF analysis revealed that URM students began 49% less likely to give high ratings than non-URM students (R²=0.009) but finished 2.15 times more likely to show increased ratings (R²=0.012). For nondominant versus dominant comparisons, t-tests identified positive gains in experimental design confidence in the introductory field course (+0.290 mean difference, p=0.007). DIF analysis quantified this development: nondominant students became 2.25 times more likely to show improvement than their dominant peers (R²=0.017). Gender comparisons revealed persistent gaps through both analyses. Females were 68% less likely to give high oral presentation ratings in the lecture course and 61% less likely to give high experimental design ratings in the introductory field course. Both approaches showed no significant differences based on first-generation or EOP status across any items or courses.

4. CONTRIBUTION:
Our study advances assessment in biology education research by demonstrating how DIF analysis can quantify the magnitude and direction of intervention impacts across student populations. By pairing conventional methods with DIF analysis, we establish a more accurate methodology for evaluating educational interventions that better matches the complexity of student learning. This work extends beyond just field course assessment, offering the education research community a powerful method for better examining how different student populations experience evidence-based practices being implemented throughout the field. As we continue implementing reform in undergraduate biology education, enhanced assessment approaches will be essential for optimizing learning impacts across all student populations.

Author:

Alex Waugh (Michigan State University)*; Tessa Andrews (University of Georgia); Kathryn Green (Clarke County High School)

STUDY CONTEXT. Active learning has the potential to increase undergraduate students' learning of fundamental concepts and foster development of scientific thinking skills (e.g., Freeman et al. 2014; Theobald et al. 2020). While active learning can significantly improve student outcomes, the quality of implementation varies (e.g., Dancy et al. 2016). An instructor’s pedagogical knowledge of how people learn likely influences nuances of active-learning implementation (e.g., Andrews et al., 2019). For instance, instructors who emphasize generative reasoning in their teaching may do so because they have different knowledge of how people learn compared to instructors who focus on activity and recall (Andrews et al., 2019). Yet, despite the potentially important role of pedagogical knowledge, its development, and its influence on instruction has yet to be empirically investigated (Andrews et al., 2022). 

RESEARCH DESIGN. This study pursued two research objectives. First, we examined how instructors’ pedagogical knowledge of how people learn aligns with the ICAP framework—a research-based theory that connects overt student behaviors (e.g., taking notes, sharing reasoning in groups) to learning (Chi & Wylie, 2014). Second, we aimed to illuminate possible avenues of knowledge development and nuances of how pedagogical knowledge influenced teaching practices. We investigated the longitudinal development of pedagogical knowledge among 11 undergraduate life sciences instructors (n = 11) across forty total semesters (range = 2-7 semesters). Participants were in their first few years of teaching, used active learning, and taught courses with 50+ students. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants before and after they taught a video-recorded lesson. Pre-lesson interviews elicited the pedagogical knowledge used in planning lessons. Post-lesson interviews used stimulated recall, in which participants were shown short video clips from their recorded lesson, to elicit pedagogical knowledge used while teaching and reflecting (Alonzo & Kim, 2016). We also collected instructional materials and video-recordings to assess how knowledge development influenced their instruction. 

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS. Pre- and post-lesson interviews provided raw data for qualitative content analysis, in which we characterized the pedagogical ideas instructors used to plan, implement, and reflect on active-learning lessons (Saldaña, 2003). We then systematically compared the ideas that each participant used in their teaching semester after semester. We complemented these analyses with a case study approach that examined the details of development in two participants who gained new ideas and how these ideas influenced their teaching practices (Yin, 2009). 
We identified and characterized seven distinct ideas about how people learn that participants used in their teaching, including ideas that aligned with passive, active, and generative cognitive engagement outlined in the ICAP framework. For example, at the active and passive levels, participants relied on the ideas that students learn when they have the opportunity to engage actively and struggle with tasks in the classroom as opposed to just listening to lectures. At the generative levels of the ICAP framework, participants used the knowledge that learning occurs when students explain their reasoning, have the opportunity to reflect on what they do and do not know, and when instructors refrain from explaining the content before students have had a chance to share their ideas. Systematic longitudinal comparisons revealed that participants did not consistently develop generative pedagogical ideas as they gained experience, indicating that experience alone may not foster pedagogical knowledge development. Case studies of two participants who developed generative pedagogical knowledge illustrated how pedagogical knowledge influences active-learning design and implementation in ways that impact the learning opportunities created for students. For example, after gaining the idea that refraining from explaining ideas to students creates opportunities for them to learn by sharing reasoning, an instructor spent more time hearing student reasoning during small group interactions.

CONTRIBUTION. This study contributes the first detailed characterization of pedagogical knowledge about how people learn among STEM faculty and how this knowledge can develop. It also demonstrated that advances in pedagogical knowledge can support more effective instruction. Of interest to SABER, teaching experience alone was insufficient for instructors to develop pedagogical knowledge aligned with research and theory about how people learn. Therefore, an important implication of this work is that instructors need opportunities to develop teaching expertise, which may depend on institutions providing, incentivizing, and rewarding involvement in research-based teaching professional development.

Author: 

Alexandra Machrone (Florida International University)*; Melissa McCartney (SUNY Buffalo)

Study Context:
Undergraduate students’ sense of belonging in science disciplines is shaped by departmental climate, faculty-student interactions, and broader institutional and cultural structures (Allen et al., 2021; Dias, 2022; Hooks, 2009; Strayhorn, 2019). While existing research has broadly explored these factors, less is known about how faculty and students perceive climate and culture differently within and across science departments. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (2000), this study examines how students and faculty in biology, chemistry, and physics departments describe the climate and culture in their academic departments. Additionally, this study introduces a novel application of the concepts of bottom-up and top-down ecosystem regulation—typically used in ecological studies—to investigate the drivers of institutional change and the mechanisms shaping departmental climate and culture.

Study Design:
We conducted semi-structured interviews with undergraduate students (n = 15) and faculty members (n = 15) from biology, chemistry, and physics departments across multiple institutions to explore experiences and perceptions of departmental climate and culture. Interview transcripts were coded using Bronfenbrenner’s five ecological systems—microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem—along with an additional self system to capture internalized experiences. We also incorporated the ecological framework of bottom-up (student-driven or grassroots initiatives) and top-down (institutional policies or actions led by those in positions of authority) regulation to better understand systemic change. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify key patterns and highlight differences between student and faculty perspectives both within and across scientific disciplines.

Analyses and Interpretations:
Preliminary analysis revealed stark contrasts between student and faculty perceptions of departmental climate and culture. Students predominantly referenced the microsystem (14.6% of codes), mesosystem (26.3% of codes), and exosystem (37.8% of codes), highlighting faculty mentorship, peer relationships, and immediate departmental interactions. Mentions of the chronosystem, bottom-up, and top-down regulation by students each accounted for less than 1% of codes.
In contrast, faculty emphasized broader institutional and policy-level factors, with a strong focus on the macrosystem (34.2% of codes) shaping academic culture. Faculty references to the chronosystem, as well as top-down and bottom-up dynamics, represented approximately 10% of codes most likely because faculty have a broader view of change dynamics.
Thematic analysis revealed key areas where departmental policies, interpersonal interactions, and cultural norms either fostered inclusive, supportive environments or sustained non-inclusive and unwelcoming conditions for both students and faculty. Additionally, analysis uncovered a disconnect between faculty and student perceptions of academic climate and its impact on students’ sense of belonging.
Differences across disciplines (biology, chemistry, and physics) were far less pronounced than those observed between students and faculty, suggesting that disciplinary context has a limited influence on the aspects of climate and culture affecting these groups.

Contribution:
By integrating Bronfenbrenner’s framework with an ecological perspective on bottom-up and top-down regulation, this study offers a novel approach for examining multi-level drivers of institutional change. The findings provide valuable insights into the current climate and culture within science departments, revealing both shared and differing experiences across disciplines. These results offer a foundation for improving faculty development, refining departmental policies, and informing institutional strategies aimed at fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for undergraduate science students.

Author:

Philimon Zaagbil (University of Georgia)*; Logan Fiorella (University of Georgia); Ryan Wood (University of Georgia); Paula Lemons (University of Georgia)

Study Context:
Undergraduate science education aims to equip students with coherent knowledge of concepts and the ability to transfer that knowledge to novel problems. Yet many science undergraduates complete their degrees without a strong grasp of foundational concepts and have difficulty applying their learning in new contexts. Metabolic pathway dynamics and regulation (MPDR) is one such foundational concept shown to challenge undergraduates due to the need to interpret visual representations, integrate concepts from biology and chemistry, and apply systems thinking. We compared the impact on MPDR student learning for two research-based pedagogies: explicit instruction followed by problem-solving (I-PS) and problem-solving followed by explicit instruction (PS-I). These approaches are grounded in cognitive load theory and the productive failure hypothesis, respectively. Despite substantial support for both approaches, it remains unclear if one is inherently more effective or if their effectiveness depends on learners’ prior knowledge. 

Study Design:
To address this educational problem for MPDR and the gap in the instructional-science literature, we conducted a randomized controlled study with 282 upper-level undergraduate biochemistry students in which participants received either I-PS or PS-I instruction for MPDR. Based on our guiding theories, we hypothesized that these upper-level students would demonstrate better learning outcomes when instructed with the PS-I approach than the I-PS approach. We assessed learning using students’ written solutions to posttest problems that resembled (near-transfer) and differed from (far-transfer) the problems students solved during the lesson. We used content analysis to generate codes and scores for each student solution and applied standard statistical tests to compare the I-PS and PS-I groups. We also conducted qualitative analyses that enabled us to richly characterize and compare the types of solutions generated by students in the two groups.

Analyses and Interpretations:
I-PS students significantly outperformed PS-I students on the problems solved during the lesson, as predicted by both cognitive load theory and the productive failure hypothesis. We found no statistically significant differences between I-PS and PS-I students on near- and far-transfer problem solving, a result that neither supports nor refutes the cognitive load theory and productive failure hypothesis. Our rich characterization of students’ posttest solutions suggests that PS-I students generate a broader range of ideas compared to the I-PS students. Further, our data suggest that factors beyond the sequence of instruction contribute to the variability in student learning outcomes and suggest that additional research is needed into how these instructional materials cue student thinking and if those cues vary based on whether instruction or problem solving comes first. 

Contribution:
This talk will be of interest to practitioners who teach MDPR in the context of introductory biology or biochemistry courses, instructional-design researchers, and researchers who study students’ conceptual change and skill development. Our findings offer guidance for how to design MPDR lessons that cue students to reason about complex systems using principles from biology and chemistry. This guidance can serve as the basis for instructional design beyond MPDR. Our findings also indicate future avenues of research, such as qualitative descriptions of the knowledge development that occurs during each phase of I-PS and PS-I lessons.

Author:

P Prathibha (Auburn University)*; Emily P Driessen (University of Minnesota); Melissa K Kjelvik (Michigan State University); Elizabeth H Schultheis (Michigan State University); Ash T Zemenick (University of California, Berkeley); Marjorie G Weber (Unniversity of Michigan); Cissy J Ballen (Auburn University); Robin A Costello (University of Buffalo)

STUDY CONTEXT: Incorporating scientist role models into undergraduate biology courses is a powerful, evidence-based way to support student persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Costello et al., 2025; Schinske et al., 2016). However, educational resources featuring scientist role models can unintentionally have negative impacts on student attitudes towards science (Gladstone & Cimpian, 2021; Verniers et al., 2024). For example, according to attribution theory (Graham, 2020; Weiner, 1985), exposing students to obstacles faced by scientists can convey to students that success (and failure) in science can be due to uncontrollable factors (e.g., obtaining null results, facing gender and racial discrimination) and is therefore unachievable for many students. In this study, we examined how highlighting obstacles faced by counter-stereotypical scientists affects student perceptions about the attainability of success in science.
RESEARCH DESIGN: We experimentally manipulated whether undergraduate biology activities featured obstacles faced by counter-stereotypical scientist role models in their science careers and investigated the following research questions: (1) How do students describe the obstacles they would face in science and why?; (2) How does exposure to scientists’ obstacles influence how students describe the obstacles they would face in science?; and (3) How do students who possess excluded identities in science describe the obstacles they believe they would face as scientists? To answer these questions, we focused on the last semester of data collected as part of a larger study exploring the impacts of counter-stereotypical scientist role models on student outcomes. Thirty-four biology instructors across twenty-nine universities in the US implemented biology activities that varied in how they featured counter-stereotypical scientist role models. These biology activities featured authentic research from a scientist and either (a) did not emphasize the scientist, (b) featured a photo of the scientist, or (c) featured photos and a brief Q&A emphasizing the obstacles the scientist faced in science. To understand how treatments impacted student perceptions of obstacles in science, we asked students “Do you think you would face obstacles as a scientist?” For students who answered yes to this question, we followed with two open-ended prompts: “What obstacles would you face as a scientist?” and “Why would you face those obstacles?” 
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: The majority of students (865 out of 1013 students, 85%) indicated that yes, they would face obstacles as a scientist. To understand the obstacles students perceived they would face as a scientist and why, we read through student responses to our open-ended prompts and used inductive coding to categorize responses. The challenging process of science emerged as the most common theme in student responses to both the prompts on what obstacles they would face (65.4%) and why they would face those obstacles (48%). Students also mentioned they would face obstacles due to personal traits (22.4%), societal discrimination (17%), and the fact that everyone faces challenges in science (20%). A small proportion of students expressed a positive attitude towards the obstacles they would face (<1%) and why they would face those obstacles (6.3%). Using mixed-effects logistic regression model with Bonferroni correction (adjusted alpha=0.0036), we found that the extent that the activities highlighted obstacles faced by scientist role models did not influence students’ perceptions of the obstacles they would face as scientists and why (p>0.0036). Across treatments, we found that students with excluded gender identities (women, non-binary, transgender students) had lower odds of mentioning the process of science as an obstacle (odds=0.481, p<0.001) but higher odds of mentioning societal discrimination both as an obstacle (odds=9.96, p<0.001) and as a reason for facing obstacles in science (odds=4.56, p<0.001). We did not observe the same pattern among students with excluded racial identities (p>0.0036).
CONTRIBUTION: We found that highlighting the obstacles faced by counter-stereotypical scientists does not negatively impact student perceptions of the obstacles they would face in science. Instead, our findings specifically imply that biology students are already aware of the challenges scientists face. The implication of our research for SABER attendees teaching undergraduate biology courses is that instructors should share stories about the challenges scientist role models have faced in their scientific careers. Our results show that doing so will not negatively impact students’ perceptions of a career in science.

Author:

Grace Borlee (Colorado state university)*; Carolina Mehaffy (Colorado State University); Daniel Birmingham ( Colorado State University); Niccole Nelson ( Colorado State University); Erica Simpson (Colorado State University); Khuc Phan (Colorado State University)

Study Context:
Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) provides access to research for students in lieu of a traditional research laboratory. CUREs were developed in response to the Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education report (AAAS 2010). CURE labs make STEM education more inclusive (Bangera and Brownell 2014 and Estrada et al. 2018) increasing persistence (Hanauer et al. 2017), sense of belonging (Corwin et al. 2015 and Jordan et al. 2014), and identity in science (Borlee et al. 2024); however, there still is a need to increase these benchmarks. We explored the inclusion of intergenerational learning, defined as “planned ongoing activities that purposefully bring together different generations to share experiences that are mutually beneficial” (Rapson 2014) in the CURE lab. Researchers have documented that intergenerational learning has many benefits for older adults such as ego integrity, self-esteem, generativity, self-confidence, and life satisfaction (Alexander et al. 2011). Some universities are making strides in building these relationships with older adult community members but there are no studies describing the incorporation of older adult community partners in intensive research projects. We will examine intergenerational learning through the theoretical framework of the intergenerational learning theory (Kaplan 2002), communities of practice (Wegner 1998), and contact theory (Pettigrew 1998). We hypothesize that an intergenerational learning experience in a CURE will positively impact psychosocial and learning gains for students. 
Study design:
We piloted a novel intervention for CURE labs, where undergraduate students (n=19) enrolled in an upper-level microbiology CURE are paired with older adult community members (n=19). Students and community members meet biweekly to discuss their research projects. By the end of spring 2025, we will have completed three different CUREs that included this intervention. A mixed-methods approach, utilizing surveys (pre- and post-course), reflection journals, and interview data, will be used to evaluate this intergenerational experience embedded in CURE labs. Students completed the TIMSI survey (Estrada et al. 2011) to evaluate science identity, self-efficacy, value orientation; networking (Hanauer and Hatfull 2015); imposter phenomenon (Clance and Imes 1978); and trust in science (Nadelson et al. 2014). Older adult community members completed surveys for generativity (McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992), willingness to engage in acts that promote the well-being of younger generations, and trust in science (Nadelson et al. 2014). RQ1: Will undergraduate students’ science identity, science self-efficacy, science value orientation, and science networking increase while levels of imposter phenomenon decrease during an intergenerational relationship? RQ2: Will generativity and trust in science increase in community members who engage with undergraduate students enrolled in a CURE lab?
Analysis and Interpretations:
Given the small sample size, descriptive statistics will be used for all survey data. The first student cohort had an average increase in their trust in science (pre-course M=67.50, post-course M=70.38), self-efficacy (pre-course M=18.25, post-course M=23.50), and science identity (pre-course M=17.00, post-course M=19.75) after partaking in the CURE lab. Furthermore, students reported more scientific networking with professors (pre-course M=1.00, post-course M=3.88) and other students from their institution (pre-course M=2.38, post-course M=4.13) following the CURE lab. Imposter phenomenon, however, was relatively unchanged (pre-course M=70.25, post-course M=70.38), as was science networking with parents (pre-course M=3.00, post-course M=3.25) and students outside of their institution (pre-course M=3.00, post-course M=3.00). Among community members, neither generativity (pre-course M=17.77, post-course M=17.67) nor trust in science (pre-course M=66.57, post-course M=66.70), appreciably changed following the CURE lab partnership experience. Inductive coding and analysis will be applied to students’ and community members’ reflection journals and interviews and is ongoing. 
Contribution:
This study examines a unique pairing of older adult community members with undergraduate students enrolled in CURE courses. Data from this intergenerational experience suggests that students’ levels of science identity, self-efficacy, value orientation, trust in science, and networking increase when participating in this intergenerational experience. Undergraduate students enrolled in the CURE lab exhibit high baseline levels of imposter phenomenon which were not reduced through engagement with older adult community members. Conversely, trust in science and generativity did not increase in community members during this experience. 
Additionally, these partnerships foster stronger ties between science and the community through science communication.

Author:

Joel Schneider (University of Minnesota)*; O. Turner (Colorado State University); Tehya Daniels (University of Minnesota); A. Kelly Lane (University of Minnesota); A.M. Aramati Casper (Colorado State University); Sarah L. Eddy (University of Minnesota)

STUDY CONTEXT:
LGBTQ+ students describe that hostile norms in STEM lead to negative experiences (Marosi et al. 2024); and this burden of harm is even greater for students whose experience of gender does not align with sex assigned at birth (“trans-spectrum”) than their cisgendered queer peers (Garvey & Rankin 2015). Biology is furthermore unique among STEM disciplines in that core content directly informs students’ ideas of sex/gender, meaning it plays a pivotal role in these harms. However, despite that life has great diversity in sex/gender and orientation, overly reductionist sex/gender narratives dominate biology textbooks, and little is known about such narratives in biology classrooms (Bazzul & Sykes 2011, Casper et al. 2022). Therefore, to target improvements to life science teaching needed to build more welcoming and accurate curricula, our work probes how narratives about sex/gender manifest in biology classrooms and impact trans-spectrum students.

The theoretical framework we used in this study is master narrative theory (McLean & Syed 2015), which describes how shared cultural messages (“master narratives”) impact personal identity development. Due to the rigidity of these narratives, deviating from them can lead to negative consequences; and prior work has demonstrated the utility of applying this framework to understand mechanisms of harm around trans-spectrum identity (Bradford & Syed 2019).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS & DESIGN:
(1) What are the master narratives about sex/gender present in undergraduate biology classrooms, and how do they manifest? (2) Through what mechanisms do those narratives impact trans-spectrum students?

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 trans-spectrum undergraduate life science students across the US. Participants had taken at least 3 life science courses and were of various racial/ethnic backgrounds and sexualities. We used qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon 2005) to code interview transcripts and identify themes, with collaborative consensus processes to improve trustworthiness (Hill et al. 2005). We compared participant stories to our framework to identify how master narratives operated in their classroom experiences, thereby providing insight into modes of harm.

ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION:
Four authors coded and analyzed the data in multiple rounds, independently reading transcripts, taking memos, and constructing descriptions of students’ experiences. We built codes both deductively by scaffolding around the characteristics and processes defined by master narrative theory, and inductively through identifying which narratives were salient to students. In each interview we applied the codebook to consensus, iteratively refining it toward broader themes.

We noticed a range of sex/gender and orientation master narratives in the data, both through students’ explicit identifications and in evidence of implicit internalization. Narratives included binary sex, gender irrelevance to biology, and compulsory sexuality—among others—and each had direct ties to content and structures in their biology classrooms. Trans-spectrum students experienced a myriad of harms in their courses, such as loss of belonging, uncertainty and lack of safety, reduced access to career supports, and disassociating from learning. At times, a lack of inclusion arose through instructor practices, as two students said, “the professor is supposed to be the leader of the classroom… but that precedent [of inclusivity] was never set” and “if [teachers] don’t initiate the [sex/gender diversity] conversation… are they going to accept me?” Biology content and peer interactions also played roles, with topics like genetics and anatomy being common challenges: “They don’t actually say [binaries only], but once you keep teaching and repeating the same thing… it feels like you are insisting on a point, and it gives [peers] an avenue to talk.” Students described nuanced tactics they used to negotiate with the master narratives, using perceived risks to decide where to resist or concede. Master narratives about the neutrality of science played a unique role in their decisions, at times exacerbating their feelings of invisibility and unnaturalness, and other times providing a useful shield to deflect attacks on their queerness and validate their science identity.

CONTRIBUTION:
This study centers trans-spectrum voices and reveals how undergraduate biology classrooms can harm trans-spectrum students through a variety of interwoven mechanisms. We illustrate how sex/gender master narratives operate in ways unique to biology, a critical finding given that few prior studies have separated biology from other STEM fields nor focused on trans-spectrum students. Through this work we spotlight direct needs for instructional change, as well as provide tools for instructors to cultivate more inclusive classrooms through examining what processes and narratives are at play in their own contexts.

Author:

Aeryn VanDerSlik (Michigan State University)*; Mary Pat Wenderoth (University of Washington); Jennifer Doherty (Michigan State University)

STUDY CONTEXT Diffusion is central to understanding how particles, such as ions, hormones, and gases, move across biological spaces. To reason mechanistically about diffusion, students must understand that diffusion results from the constant, random motion of particles. Prior studies of students’ understanding of diffusion found students are successful in reasoning that particles move from high to low concentrations, but struggle to understand the role of random motion (Odom & Barrow, 1995).
While much work has been done to characterize students’ misconceptions about the diffusion mechanism (e.g., Fisher et al., 2011), few studies have sought to understand why students struggle (but see Chi, 2005). We approach this question from a Knowledge in Pieces (KiP) perspective. KiP is a theoretical framework which postulates students’ knowledge consists of a network of dynamic and context-sensitive elements activated and reorganized throughout the process of reasoning and learning.
KiP posits that students have many productive pieces of prior knowledge that they can activate when reasoning, but they may reason incorrectly because of the non-normative coordination of this knowledge. Previous studies have shown that question context often plays a key role in determining what knowledge students activate (Nehm & Ha, 2011). Our research questions are: 1) What types of knowledge elements (KEs) do students use when solving diffusion problems? and 2) Does question context impact the types of KEs that students use?

STUDY DESIGN Undergraduates (n=212) in a non-majors survey of human physiology course completed a homework assignment that contained one of three diffusion questions that varied in context (animal, plant, non-living). Each question posed a scenario with a figure depicting concentrations of molecules in each space with molecules represented as dots. The students were asked to predict and explain where they thought a labeled molecule of gas would be found before and after equilibrium. 

ANALYSIS/INTERPRETATION RQ1 Using Knowledge Analysis guided by the KiP framework, we identified six patterns in the types of KEs used. We discuss the three most interesting types below. In the most common type students activated KEs about molecules having directed movement from high to low concentrations towards equilibrium (n=105). Activating KEs pertaining to constant random motion was the least common type (n=5). In the third interesting type, students activated both “high to low/equilibrium” and “random motion” KEs (n=43). These students reasoned that molecules move from high to low before equilibrium, but move randomly once equilibrium is reached. 
Although high to low KEs are necessary and productive in many contexts, they are not sufficient for mechanistically explaining diffusion. Random motion KEs may have been absent from students' knowledge networks or had a lower “cuing” priority compared to other diffusion KEs (diSessa, 1993). Even students who had random motion KEs struggled to integrate them with “high to low/equilibrium” KEs. Most students are able to apply “high to low/equilibrium” KEs to diffusion contexts because of how tightly linked they are to concentration difference problems in students' knowledge networks. Repeated coactivation strengthens these connections and may hinder students from integrating the more abstract random motion KEs.

ANALYSIS/INTERPRETATION RQ2 To determine if question context impacted the types of reasoning that students used, we used ordinal regression with students’ incoming GPA and question context as fixed effects. Reasoning types were ordinally ranked by their alignment to the normative mechanistic explanation. While incoming GPA impacted the type of reasoning (higher GPA was correlated to more normative explanations), we found context did not impact reasoning type. Our results and explanation are aligned with research findings on bulk flow (Authors et al., 2023). We hypothesize that because the questions explicitly depict the concentrations of gases inside and out of a membrane, students saw each item as a question about concentrations and activated those KEs.

CONTRIBUTIONS This study contributes to the BER literature by offering an alternative explanation to the misconception lens for why students do not invoke the concept of random motion in diffusion reasoning. Misconception research largely frames students’ difficulties as incorrect ideas that must be replaced by instruction (e.g., Tekkaya, 2003). In contrast, a KiP perspective argues that students' challenges arise from difficulties in coordinating their knowledge about random motion with their knowledge of equilibrium. By broadening our understanding of the KEs students activate when reasoning about diffusion, our findings can inform instructional strategies that support productive knowledge coordination to help students connect their intuitive understanding of high to low with randomness at a particle level.

Author:

Shavindi Ediriarachchi (University of Georgia)*; Susan Hester (University of Arizona); Navya Bingi (University of Georgia); Molly Bolger (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: 
STEM persistence refers to the progression of college students in STEM fields, eventually graduating and entering the STEM workforce. This topic is particularly important to consider for PEER (Persons Excluded due to Ethnicity or Race) students, as members of these groups face many barriers to persisting in STEM. Systemic barriers within traditional academic systems contribute to lower persistence rates (Santiago et al., 2023; Mora, 2022). Factors related to social integration into science have a strong positive influence on PEER students' intentions to pursue STEM careers (Estrada et al., 2018; Park et al., 2019). Here, we focus on how science-practice based interventions, like undergraduate research or course-based research experiences, may support STEM persistence. Such interventions support authentic engagement in science and foster social integration (Flynn, 2016; Estrada et al., 2016, 2021, 2022; Corwin et al., 2015). While existing literature shows a relationship between science-practice based interventions and STEM persistence, few studies have directly tested how a curriculum designed to support engagement in science practices may support STEM persistence. To bridge this gap, we present a quantitative study that compares a science-practice-based laboratory curriculum to a traditional laboratory curriculum, using a blinded selection method. Our longitudinal study traces long-term STEM persistence at a Hispanic Serving Institution in the American Southwest. 
STUDY DESIGN: 
Our research addressed the following question: Does a science-practice-based laboratory curriculum affect STEM persistence? 1,741 students consented to participate in our study by providing access to their academic records. To use a blind-selection method, students were allowed to select a section of the course without knowledge of which curriculum they would experience. This resulted in two groups of students experiencing two different curricula: the Authentic Inquiry through Modeling in Biology (AIM-Bio) curriculum, which emphasized collaborative efforts among students accomplishing scientific modeling in a classroom setting (Hester et al., 2018; Bolger et al., 2021) or the Traditional (Trad-Bio) Curriculum, emphasizing the utility of experiments to reinforce the conceptual knowledge taught by instructors. Students in our sample were 38% PEER, 26% First-Generation, and 72% female. Statistical testing demonstrated the equivalence of the two groups, in terms of demographic factors. Data collection included the following variables: ethnicity, first-generation status, residency, sex, year of intervention, major, and longitudinal retention and enrollment data. Models also included section number as a random variable to avoid the potential confound of instructor effect. 
ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS:
We conducted logistic regression analyses with three model settings to predict one-year STEM persistence: a single independent variable, a single variable with curriculum interaction and a composite model with all variables and interactions. We discovered a statistically significant interaction (p ≤ 0.05) between PEER status and curriculum. This indicated a positive relationship between a student being PEER and the curriculum being AIM-Bio. To follow up on this discovery, we conducted two-sample z-tests to compare one-year STEM persistence rates among AIM-Bio and Trad-Bio. We found that Hispanic students who participated in AIM-Bio exhibited a higher one-year persistence rate compared to their counterparts in Trad-Bio. This difference was statistically significant according to a two-sample Z-proportions test. Expanding from this finding we also examined 2-year STEM persistence rates and found the gap between Hispanic students in AIM-Bio and those in Trad-Bio had widened, but this trend was not statistically significant, possibly due to the lower sample size available for this later time point. Thus, we have extended our data collection and will present updated findings at the SABER conference. As an additional follow-up analysis, we calculated odds ratios for one-year STEM persistence showing that PEER students who took AIM-Bio had increased odds of one-year STEM-persistence, compared to their Trad-Bio counterparts. 
CONTRIBUTION: 
Our study demonstrates a positive relationship between STEM persistence and science-practice participation during an introductory laboratory course. Our use of a blind-selection method avoids the bias of self-selection and allows us to causally attribute the difference in persistence to laboratory curriculum. Our study directly measured persistence over time, instead of relying on students’ intentions to persist, distinguishing it from most relevant studies. Finally, our study uniquely revealed a statistically significant influence on STEM persistence specifically for Hispanic students, with important implications for supporting these students through curricular innovation.

Author:

Madhvi J. Venkatesh (Vanderbilt University)*, Barbara Fingleton (Vanderbilt University), Abigail M. Brown (Vanderbilt University); Janani Varadarajan (Vanderbilt University); Kathleen L. Gould (Vanderbilt University)

Study context: Funding agencies and the literature on biology education have stressed the importance of training students in essential competencies required for a large range of STEM career pathways (Verderame et al., 2018; Bosch and Casadevall, 2017; Gutlerner and Van Vactor, 2013; AAAS, 2011). To better align with this goal, the leaders of a large (60-80 students/year) biomedical graduate program at an R1 institution redesigned the required curriculum for their first-semester doctoral students. The revised curriculum seeks to guide student development in the following seven areas identified by the National Postdoc Association (NPA, 2009) and national agencies (NIH, 2023; NASEM, 2018): (1) scientific knowledge, (2) research skills, (3) communication, (4) professionalism, (5) leadership and management skills, (6) career development skills, and (7) responsible conduct of research. The curriculum consists of six courses covering foundational biological content, professional development topics, biostatistics, and python programming that are sequenced to scaffold the development of competencies and independent learning. This project seeks to understand how the curriculum impacts’ students’ performance in research skills, communication, and professionalism as well as their self-efficacy in all seven areas noted above.

Study/research design: Data was collected from 213 students over three academic years through course assignments and pre-/post- surveys. 20% of the study participants self-identified as Hispanic/Latinx, Middle Eastern on Arab, Black or African American, American Indian, or Alaska Native and 17% self-identified as first-generation college students. Student deliverables (problem sets, research proposals, oral presentations, discussion participation, coding assignments, and metacognitive reflections) were evaluated using either quantitative scoring or milestone-based competency assessments. The pre- and post- self-efficacy surveys consisted of 53 Likert-scale items developed from scales of research self-efficacy (Kardash, 2000), communication self-efficacy (Anderson, 2016), and an institutional individual development plan. The post-survey also included free text response questions where students could identify the components of the curriculum that they found most beneficial for their development.

Analysis and interpretations: Aggregate data from milestone-based course assessments showed student improvement through the semester in the areas of research skills, communication, and professionalism, with 95% of students meeting or exceeding target competency levels by the end of the semester. Confirmatory factor analysis of the self-efficacy data showed a reasonable fit (CFI = 0.861, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.061). Students begin with the highest self-efficacy levels in professionalism and responsible conduct of research, but approximately 80% still report positive self-efficacy changes in these areas. The greatest number of students report the greatest self-efficacy improvements in scientific knowledge and research skills, with approximately 90% reporting positive changes and 40% reporting significant improvement in both areas. Conversely, nearly half of the students did not report positive self-efficacy changes in written communication skills and career development skills, despite these being some of the lowest-ranked self-efficacy factors in the pre-survey. The qualitative data indicated that students felt that reading the scientific literature, participating in paper discussions, writing research proposals, and presenting their proposal ideas were the most impactful components of the curriculum. These activities align with the large self-efficacy increases in scientific knowledge and research skills. While students reported that writing research proposals was an impactful activity and most students reached target competency levels in written communication, many students did not report self-efficacy increases in written communication. This may indicate that additional training, practice, and feedback in scientific writing may be beneficial for building students’ self-efficacy in this area.

Contribution: An understanding of the performance and self-efficacy outcomes of this curriculum can help others contributing to biomedical graduate education design and implement curricula to promote students’ competency development. Given that skill gaps that are left unaddressed widen over the course of graduate training (Feldon et al, 2016), models for promoting competency development in large groups of diverse students are important for achieving equitable outcomes in graduate training. Additionally, the inclusion of self-efficacy data from the start of graduate training can help identify areas where students may benefit from more training in undergraduate biology curricula to better prepare them for graduate training or other STEM careers.

Author:

Hope Ferguson (University of Tennessee)*; Elisabeth Schussler (University of Tennessee)

Study Context: Research on graduate education often links student success or attrition to known program challenges (e.g., qualifying exams, mentoring, or financial constraints) (Batty et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2020; Hardre et al., 2019; Gardner, 2009; Alberts et al., 2014). However, these challenges of graduate school do not capture all the experiences individuals may have to navigate. Notably, the impacts of chronic health conditions, which are personal and often hidden, remain largely uninvestigated in graduate education. 
Chronic health conditions (CHC)—such as autoimmune disorders, mental health, and neurodevelopmental disorders—are long-term conditions that develop slowly, increase in severity, and whose symptoms can only be managed (Lebel et al., 2020). Research on CHC in higher education has predominantly focused on undergraduates (Burgstahler et al., 2016; Shinohara et al., 2021) despite approximately 11% of the graduate student population reporting a CHC (NSF, 2023; 2024). How graduate students receive support or accommodations, whether they disclose their CHC to advisors or peers, and if they perceive stigma are gaps in graduate education literature. 
This study examines the experiences of life science graduate students managing CHC by using Critical Disabilities Studies (CDS) as a theoretical framework. CDS critiques the framing of disability as an individual problem; instead, it argues that disability is socially and culturally constructed (Vandekinderen et al., 2013). CDS highlights how factors like systemic barriers, attitudes, and academic policies may contribute to inequities (Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009). Through this lens, this study shifts the focus from individual challenges that require resilience to how institutional norms, policies, and expectations may create barriers for those managing CHC.

Study Design: This study was guided methodologically by Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). IPA uses an in-depth examination of participant experiences with a particular phenomenon to explore how participants reflect on and make meaning of their experiences (Emery & Anderman, 2020). Guided by IPA, this study asks: What are the experiences of life science graduate students managing chronic health conditions within their programs? 
Participants were recruited through a Qualtrics survey distributed through two professional organization life science listservs. Respondents indicated if they were willing to be interviewed, and from this pool, 10 semi-structured interviews with life science graduate students with a CHC were conducted. The interviews asked about participants’ experiences within their programs, disclosure practices, accommodations, perceptions of support, and roles as researchers and teachers. 

Analysis and Interpretation: To conduct the analysis, interview transcripts were read and broken into “meaning units” that communicated the essence of the participant’s experiences. These meaning units were then categorized into themes to be placed into narrative summaries (Elliott & Timulak, 2021). A second interview with each participant was conducted to serve as a member check of these interpretations (Birt et al., 2016). 
Participants' experiences highlighted three themes. First, participants described fears of stigmatization and needing to “prove” their place. For example, one participant stated, “…You're telling me I don't belong because of your weird values... it's like, well, if I just try harder,...then maybe someday I'll fit in, and I'll be good enough…” Second, students carefully assessed when and how to disclose their conditions, often revealing only what they believed would be understood or accepted. For example, another participant stated, “...I have sought out support services in other ways. We have, like a learning center that I have talked to on the premise of ADHD…I didn't share with them that I had CPTSD…” Third, participants noted that institutional support structures were inadequate, as accommodations were primarily designed for undergraduates, failing to address graduate students' needs while juggling multiple roles as researchers, teachers, and students. For example, another participant stated, “...They can only help me with classes I take…they are very good at giving help if all you need is more time on a test…The problem is that when you actually have more issues…”

Contributions: These findings suggest that current academic structures do not currently–or fully–accommodate graduate students with CHC, suggesting a need for more graduate-specific policies and accommodations. This study adds to BER by documenting how stigmatization, disclosure decisions, and institutional support structures shape the experiences of graduate students with CHC. The implications of this work point to institutions, faculty, and graduate students needing to work together to create more supportive and accessible academic environments.

Author:

Hannah Thompson (Michigan State University )*; Mary Pat Wenderwoth (University of Washington); Jennifer Doherty (Michigan State University)

STUDY CONTEXT
Mechanistic reasoning is a foundational skill in STEM that is challenging for students to develop (Bachtair et al., 2022). To support the development of mechanistic reasoning, educators have called for teaching biology using cross-cutting principles, such as flux (Modell, 2000). The principle of flux is foundational to understanding biological phenomena from breathing and nutrient exchange to water movement. Students’ use of the principle of flux (the movement of substances down a gradient) to guide their reasoning has been shown to support productive mechanistic reasoning (Doherty et al., 2023). However, students who can, do not always use this principle,raising a critical question: why don’t students always use flux reasoning when appropriate? We use coordination class theory (CCT) (diSessa & Sherin, 1998) as our framework. 
CCT is a powerful theory of conceptual change that entails how knowledge is structured and reorganized over time. A coordination class is a knowledge system that enables individuals to filter incoming information and generate relevant inferences for reasoning about a concept (diSessa & Sherin, 1998). We assert that flux is a coordination class as flux encompasses multiple components that can be applied to multiple systems across multiple scales. Understanding flux as a coordination class allows us to examine how students identify relevant information and draw connections across contexts. By using CCT we aim to understand how students engage and use the principles of flux in biology to guide their reasoning and gain insight to the barriers that prevent students adopting flux as a reasoning tool. 

RESEARCH DESIGN 
The goals of this study were two-fold: 1) characterize students’ developing flux coordination classes and 2) assess the span (i.e.,range of contexts it is used) of students’ developing coordination classes. We interviewed undergraduates (n=35) enrolled in either non-majors, introductory or advanced biology courses at a 4-year R1 or a community college. Interviewees were asked to reason about four flux-centered phenomena involving pulmonary or plant physiology, encompassing two levels of flux: 1) diffusion and 2) bulk flow. One of the pulmonary phenomena was a clinical case. 
Interview transcripts were analyzed using Knowledge Analysis to identify knowledge elements (KE) students used when reasoning about flux phenomena (diSessa et al., 2016). We identified each instance when students invoked KEs related to flux in their reasoning and tracked students’ use of these KEs across all four phenomena. Two investigators coded each transcript for KEs until consensus was reached. We report specifically on students’ use of two KEs central to flux reasoning: 1) things move from high to low and 2) magnitude of flux is proportional to gradient (F∝G).

ANALYSES/INTERPRETATIONS
We found a group of students (n=7) who used both key flux KEs in all four contexts, demonstrating developing flux coordination classes with a wide span. The wide span of these developing flux coordination classes show flux as a productive resource for reasoning across phenomena. Moreover, this suggests the developing coordination class of these students include KEs that link flux to a wider range of other KEs and contexts. Another group of students used both key flux KEs only in scenarios that involved diffusion (n=5) or bulk flow (n=7). The limited span of these coordination classes suggests these students’ developing coordination classes only associate flux with specific contexts. Fourteen students did not use the F∝G KE in any context, though some of these students sometimes reasoned that substances would move from high to low. 
Two particularly interesting case studies emerged. In the first, a student used the key flux KEs to reason about three of the phenomena but when presented with the clinical case, they did not use flux. In the second, the student used flux to reason about both diffusion items but only one of the two bulk flow items. In future work, we aim to understand how students’ context-specific use of flux relates to their broader understanding of biological phenomena and whether instruction can increase the span of these developing coordination classes. 

CONTRIBUTIONS
The study is the first detailed characterization of the span of students’ developing coordination classes in biology. Prior work has focused mainly on characterizing coordination classes in the domain of physics (diSessa, 2014). Our work provides insight into the challenges that diverse contexts provide when students apply a concept such as flux across systems, that is, how diverse contexts may limit the span of developing coordination classes. Our work can inform instructional approaches that support more robust application of the principle of flux by addressing how students' coordination class span is often limited to diffusion or bulk flow and identifying strategies to expand their reasoning across both processes. 

Author:

Claire Freimark (University of California Irvine)*; Kevin Garcia (University of California Irvine); Celia Faiola (University of California Irvine); Ana Garcia Vedrenne (University of California Irvine)

STUDY CONTEXT: Participation in undergraduate research has many benefits, including improved retention in STEM majors and careers. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) can promote equity by integrating research into the curriculum. This reduces barriers such as time commitments and lack of awareness of cultural norms that prevent students from participating in undergraduate research (Bangera & Brownell, 2014). CUREs are associated with a number of positive student outcomes, including increased interest in science, academic performance, and engagement (Auchincloss et al, 2014). However, the nature of CUREs can cause students to struggle with the uncertainty of the scientific process. One factor that can influence how a student responds to this and other struggles is their mindset. Growth mindset, or the belief that intelligence can be improved with effort, is associated with higher self-esteem, academic performance, and persistence through challenges (Smiley et al, 2016). Fixed mindset is the belief that intelligence is a stable, unchanging trait and can cause students to avoid challenges and have poorer academic performance. Previous studies in non-CURE courses have shown that students’ growth mindset tends to decrease and fixed mindset tends to increase over time, particularly for first-year students (Dai & Cromley, 2014). Additionally, a study by Limeri et al (2020) in an organic chemistry II course found that the decrease in growth mindset was strongest for students who encountered a struggle and failed to overcome it. We ask whether these patterns in mindset change would be observed in a two quarter first-year CURE. This course differs from the previous study in that it enrolls primarily first-year students, is a biology course, and students are majority non-white with a higher proportion of first-generation students. The objectives of this study are to (1) characterize how students’ mindsets change throughout a CURE, (2) determine how perception of struggle affects mindset in a CURE, (3) determine whether trends in mindset over time differ among demographic groups, (4) characterize the types of struggles students experience in a CURE and strategies they use to overcome them. 

STUDY DESIGN: We adapted the surveys used by Limeri et al (2020) to assess the effect of struggle on student mindset in a biology CURE. We administered the mindset survey to over 1500 students in the CURE three times during the quarter. We calculated growth and fixed mindset scores for each student at each timepoint. Students completed a struggle survey at the end of the quarter to reflect on perceived struggles and whether they overcame them. Survey responses from 387 students passed quality control tests and were included in analysis. Included participants were mostly female (77%), with Asian (48%) and Hispanic / Latino (27%) being the most common racial groups. We calculated average initial, final, and change in growth and fixed mindset scores, and compared them by struggle and demographics. Additionally, we interviewed 20 students to gain insight into their experiences in the CURE, particularly the struggles they faced and strategies they used to overcome them. Survey open responses and interview transcripts were thematically coded to extract themes. 

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: On average, students experienced a small, but significant, decrease in growth mindset over the quarter. Additionally, we found students’ fixed mindset did not change, compared to the increase often experienced over time (Limeri et al, 2020; Dai & Cromley, 2014). This suggests that some aspect of our course, such as the diverse student population, primarily first-year students, CURE structure, or pedagogical practices like specifications grading and the token system, might mitigate the changes in mindset typically experienced by students over time. While we found no effect of struggle on change in mindset, students who indicated continued struggle appear to have overall higher fixed and lower growth mindset. There also were differences based on demographics including race/ethnicity and gender. In the interviews and survey open responses, students commonly reported struggling with group conflicts, research software and tools, and confusing or unclear expectations and instructions. To overcome these struggles, students reported working with their team, getting assistance or feedback from instructors, and putting in individual effort. 

CONTRIBUTIONS: This study provides further evidence contributing to the body of literature describing improved student outcomes from CUREs and evidence-based pedagogical practices. It suggests that CUREs might mitigate potentially harmful changes in mindset that undergraduate students often experience over their first year. Additionally, it documents struggles students may experience during CUREs, and possible strategies to overcome them.

Author:

Kira Treibergs (Cornell University)*; MacKenzie Stetzer (University of Maine); Alyssa Olson (University of Nebraska Lincoln); Kelly Schmid (Cornell University); Tiffany Adjei-Opong (Cornell University); Raudiyat Onimode (Cornell University); Erin Eldermire (Cornell University); Keenan Noyes (Michigan State University); Brian Couch (University of Nebraska Lincoln); Michelle Smith (Cornell University)

Study Context 

The Vision and Change (V&C) report, published in 2011, marked a pivotal moment in efforts to transform undergraduate biology education by emphasizing the integration of core concepts, competencies, and student-centered approaches to teaching (AAAS). While previous research has focused on V&C's influence on specific pedagogical practices (Freeman et al., 2014; Couch et al., 2019), broader transformations associated with V&C are less well understood. A 2018 follow-up V&C report (AAAS) provided a theoretical framework for synthesizing evidence of change by proposing specific, testable hypotheses about V&C's impact on curriculum and pedagogy. In this scoping review, we use these hypotheses as a framework to evaluate progress toward V&C goals through two decades of published lesson plans in undergraduate biology. Lesson plans offer detailed artifacts of pedagogical practice that reveal how teaching has evolved through documented learning goals, teaching strategies, and assessments.
Study Design 
We used a scoping review methodology to analyze undergraduate educational resources in the life sciences (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). We identified 9,792 unique references by searching bibliographic databases and teaching repositories. Through rigorous screening and eligibility assessment following PRISMA-ScR guidelines and registered in a protocol on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/my2v5/), we identified 650 articles that represent undergraduate biology lesson plans published between 2000-2022. To guide our synthesis, we posed three questions: 1) How have curricula and pedagogy changed over the two decades surrounding V&C's publication? 2) To what extent do existing teaching practices align with V&C principles? 3) What are the strengths and gaps in current educational resources? To address these questions, we developed a mixed-methods approach combining manual coding with computational text analysis. For manual coding, two authors independently analyzed each lesson plan for implementation context, teaching strategies, and assessment methods, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. For text analysis we explored the presence of key terms related to V&C concepts, competencies, and student-centered teaching approaches. This dual approach allowed us to both characterize individual lessons and identify broader patterns of change.
Analyses and Interpretations 
Our synthesis revealed significant changes in teaching practices in the two-decade period surrounding V&C. Lesson publication rates showed a clear inflection point, with segmented regression analysis identifying 2013 as a significant point of change (p=0.0004), after which annual publication rates increased 4.25-fold. The majority of lessons (91.5%) were open access, suggesting broad commitment to resource sharing. Analysis of lesson content showed increasing incorporation of V&C core competencies over time. For example, weighted logistic regression models demonstrated annual increases in "Nature of Science" (6.8%, p=0.003), "Communicate and Collaborate" (6.8%, p=0.001), and "Science and Society" (9.8%, p<0.001). Similarly, student-centered practices became more common within published lessons, with significant annual increases in active learning (14.1%, p<0.001), formative assessment (8.0%, p<0.001), and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs, 32.8%, p<0.001). These trends reflect changes in published teaching materials, providing valuable insight into how instructors are documenting and sharing their teaching approaches.
Contribution 
This review advances understanding of how undergraduate biology education has evolved in alignment with V&C goals by providing a comprehensive analysis of teaching materials spanning the V&C initiative. Our findings validate key hypotheses from the 2018 V&C report, particularly those concerning the creation of more active learning resources for faculty and changes in curriculum and pedagogy. While documenting substantial progress in transforming teaching practices, our synthesis also reveals opportunities for growth in the creation of future lesson plans, calling for the development of more lessons for large enrollment and online courses, and addressing V&C concepts of "Systems," and "Energy & Matter". These findings provide the biology education community with both an evidence-based assessment of the breadth of current resources and directions for future development efforts. Our methodological approach offers a promising model for other STEM disciplines to assess educational transformation through published teaching materials.

Author:

Madison Livingston (University of Georgia)*; Jaidyn Schultz (University of Georgia); Claire Sullivan (University of Georgia); Keerthi Veeramachaneni (Georgia Institute of Technology); Karen Wells (University of Georgia); Colin Harrison (Georgia Institute of Technology); Dax Ovid (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: While active learning (AL) is associated with equitable student outcomes (Theobald et al., 2019), there is a need to assess how incorporating AL corresponds to shifts in social and cultural elements in the classroom (Ha Choi et al., 2025). One approach to understanding social and cultural changes in a classroom learning environment is to consider instructor language. Instructor Talk (IT) is the non-content, non-logistical language that instructors address to an entire class (Seidel et al., 2015). This type of language is largely remembered by students and can positively or negatively shape the learning environment (Author, 2021). Seidel and colleagues (2015) classified IT using a grounded theory approach based on student resistance, stereotype threat, and instructor immediacy (Seidel & Tanner, 2013; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Witt et al., 2004). A Positively and Negatively Phrased framework was developed to categorize language based on its impacts on students and classroom culture (Harrison et al., 2019).
These frameworks have been used to categorize instructor and graduate TA language, as well as student memories of non-content language (Gelinas et al., 2022; Lane et al., 2021; Author, 2021). However, research has yet to explore how an intentional shift in pedagogical practices – namely, the incorporation of AL – impacts the composition of IT and student memories of non-content instructor language.

STUDY DESIGN: This study addresses a gap in the literature by analyzing recordings from two semesters of an upper-level undergraduate life-science course, comparing the composition of IT before (Before AL) and after an AL redesign (After AL) to student memories of non-content instructor language from these two iterations of the course. Instances of IT were identified from transcripts and were categorized based on the existing frameworks, and student memories and perceptions of non-content instructor language were solicited through an end-of-semester survey. This is the first study to directly compare counts of IT instances from class transcripts to the recorded number of student memories from survey responses. 
This study also explores a proposed sampling method by Harrison et al. (2019) to examine if only analyzing the first 15 minutes of a lecture would provide a proportional representation of the entire class period. Additionally, this study aims to analyze if the frequency of IT changes throughout the semester.

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: We performed independent sample t-tests using the Mann-Whitney U Test and accounted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni Correction. Before AL, there were significantly more instances of Sharing Self-judgment or Pity (P=.004) per class. After AL, there were significantly more instances of Building the Instructor-Student Relationship (P<.001), Demonstrating Respect for Students (P<.001), Boosting Self-Efficacy (P=.002), Building a Biology Community Among Students (P=.005), Using Student Work to Drive Teaching Choices (P=.01), and Discussing How People Learn (P=.012) per class.
To evaluate the IT sampling method developed by Harrison et al. (2019), we compared the actual frequency of IT within the first 15 minutes of each class to the expected frequency of IT (33% of instances per class), distinguishing between Positively and Negatively Phrased IT. Across both semesters, the actual frequency of Positively Phrased IT was overrepresented in the first 15 minutes of each class compared to what was expected. Consistent with previous findings, we observed that Before AL, Negatively Phrased IT was overrepresented in the first 15 minutes (Harrison et al., 2019). However, an interesting shift occurred After AL, where Negatively Phrased IT was, on average, underrepresented in the first 15 minutes.
There were no significant changes in the composition of student memories (P=.88; Chi-Square Test of Independence) despite several significant changes in the actual composition of IT after the AL redesign. We further compared the proportions of student memories versus the actual IT proportions both Before and After the AL redesign. Students remembered more phrases categorized as Dismantling the Instructor-Student Relationship (30% before AL; 20% After AL) than actually appeared in the recorded IT instances (10% Before AL; 2% After AL). Building the Instructor-Student Relationship was also overrepresented in student memories After AL (40%) relative to recorded IT instances (26%).

CONTRIBUTION: This study has been fundamental in addressing several gaps in the literature around how language changes with teaching practice, what students remember, and testing more accessible sampling methods to analyze IT. Instructor language shapes classroom learning environments, and by comparing the composition of recorded IT instances to student memories, we can foster a more positive learning environment in life-science courses and inform professional development for Instructor Talk.

Author:

Tara Slominski (North Dakota State University)*; Iris Ren (Boston University); Jennifer Momsen (North Dakota State University)

Study Context: Courses that rely heavily on out-of-class formative assessment and penalize late/missing work may serve traditional students well, but may be a field of landmines for the growing number of students who are balancing their role as a student with demands from work or community commitments. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2020) found that more than 70% of undergraduate students identified with at least one nontraditional characteristic (e.g., attending college part time or working over 35 hours per week). While national reports indicate that students are balancing multiple roles and responsibilities, there is little research exploring the influence of these roles on learning. This exploratory study unpacks the experiences and behaviors of working undergraduate biology students through the lens of cost. 

Under the expectancy-value motivation framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; 2020), a student’s motivation to learn reflects the interaction of task expectation and value, mediated by the costs. For example, while a high-structure course can facilitate numerous, evidence-based opportunities to support learning, the high number of out-of-class assignments can exacerbate the costs of engaging in learning. This research explores how working students balance the costs of engaging in an undergraduate biology course with the demands of supporting themselves financially. Our research questions include: (1) What are the costs of working on undergraduate biology students’ academic experience? (2) What academic behaviors are most impacted by the costs associated with working? (3) What influences students’ decision to take on the added cost of working? 

Research Design: We surveyed students in an introductory anatomy and physiology (A&P) course at a large, Midwestern R1 institution in Spring 2025. Our survey included 4 items designed to measure the costs of working while enrolled. These four items were modeled after items often used to measure costs through the lens of expectancy-value theory (Flake et al., 2015). We included 11 items designed to reveal why our students are working while taking classes and to characterize the influence working has on their academic behaviors. Our survey also includes a series of demographic items to explore how other identities (e.g., nontraditional status) may correlate with working status. 

Results and Interpretations: Of the 209 students who completed our survey (RR = 0.79), 78% identified as currently working and 28% of those students reported working more than 20 hours per week. We found nontraditional students were working more hours per week compared to their traditional peers (p < 0.05). Nearly all working students (93%) indicated they use the money they earn to pay for their basic living expenses (e.g., rent, car payments, groceries, etc.). Further, for 60% of working students, their ability to remain enrolled in college was conditional (29%) or potentially conditional (31%) on their ability to work during the semester. These findings were echoed in the results of our open response item which asked working students “What would you like your instructors to know about what it’s like for you when you are balancing your responsibilities at work and school?”. Students shared personal perspectives and experiences that explain why, for many, they regularly find themselves facing a choice: do I prioritize my grade or my financial stability? Our data also raise important questions regarding the content validity of existing instruments used to measure the cost construct. For example, only 29% of working students reported that the demands of their job interfere with their role as a student (a format often used to measure cost), while a far greater proportion reported being unable to attend office hours (52%), missing review sessions (66%), and studying for major assessments (45%) due to commitments at their job. 

Contribution: Our data indicate A&P students’ academic behaviors are mediated by working status, and have direct implications for research focusing on the equitable implementation of high-structured curricula. While these data come from a large, R1 institution, NCES data (2020) indicate this institution type has a lower proportion of nontraditional students compared to other institution types. Therefore, we believe these findings are relevant to all members of the BER community, especially those teaching at the introductory level. Lastly, there is little research focused on working undergraduate learners, especially in biology education; this study offers new methodological and theoretical considerations for researchers interested in studying this growing student population. These findings are an important first step in understanding why working and nontraditional students are leaving biology and STEM fields and lays the groundwork for future research needed to inform instructional and programmatic change.

Author:

Tara Slominski (North Dakota State University)*; Iris Ren (Boston University); Jennifer Momsen (North Dakota State University)

Study Context: Courses that rely heavily on out-of-class formative assessment and penalize late/missing work may serve traditional students well, but may be a field of landmines for the growing number of students who are balancing their role as a student with demands from work or community commitments. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2020) found that more than 70% of undergraduate students identified with at least one nontraditional characteristic (e.g., attending college part time or working over 35 hours per week). While national reports indicate that students are balancing multiple roles and responsibilities, there is little research exploring the influence of these roles on learning. This exploratory study unpacks the experiences and behaviors of working undergraduate biology students through the lens of cost. 

Under the expectancy-value motivation framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; 2020), a student’s motivation to learn reflects the interaction of task expectation and value, mediated by the costs. For example, while a high-structure course can facilitate numerous, evidence-based opportunities to support learning, the high number of out-of-class assignments can exacerbate the costs of engaging in learning. This research explores how working students balance the costs of engaging in an undergraduate biology course with the demands of supporting themselves financially. Our research questions include: (1) What are the costs of working on undergraduate biology students’ academic experience? (2) What academic behaviors are most impacted by the costs associated with working? (3) What influences students’ decision to take on the added cost of working? 

Research Design: We surveyed students in an introductory anatomy and physiology (A&P) course at a large, Midwestern R1 institution in Spring 2025. Our survey included 4 items designed to measure the costs of working while enrolled. These four items were modeled after items often used to measure costs through the lens of expectancy-value theory (Flake et al., 2015). We included 11 items designed to reveal why our students are working while taking classes and to characterize the influence working has on their academic behaviors. Our survey also includes a series of demographic items to explore how other identities (e.g., nontraditional status) may correlate with working status. 

Results and Interpretations: Of the 209 students who completed our survey (RR = 0.79), 78% identified as currently working and 28% of those students reported working more than 20 hours per week. We found nontraditional students were working more hours per week compared to their traditional peers (p < 0.05). Nearly all working students (93%) indicated they use the money they earn to pay for their basic living expenses (e.g., rent, car payments, groceries, etc.). Further, for 60% of working students, their ability to remain enrolled in college was conditional (29%) or potentially conditional (31%) on their ability to work during the semester. These findings were echoed in the results of our open response item which asked working students “What would you like your instructors to know about what it’s like for you when you are balancing your responsibilities at work and school?”. Students shared personal perspectives and experiences that explain why, for many, they regularly find themselves facing a choice: do I prioritize my grade or my financial stability? Our data also raise important questions regarding the content validity of existing instruments used to measure the cost construct. For example, only 29% of working students reported that the demands of their job interfere with their role as a student (a format often used to measure cost), while a far greater proportion reported being unable to attend office hours (52%), missing review sessions (66%), and studying for major assessments (45%) due to commitments at their job. 

Contribution: Our data indicate A&P students’ academic behaviors are mediated by working status, and have direct implications for research focusing on the equitable implementation of high-structured curricula. While these data come from a large, R1 institution, NCES data (2020) indicate this institution type has a lower proportion of nontraditional students compared to other institution types. Therefore, we believe these findings are relevant to all members of the BER community, especially those teaching at the introductory level. Lastly, there is little research focused on working undergraduate learners, especially in biology education; this study offers new methodological and theoretical considerations for researchers interested in studying this growing student population. These findings are an important first step in understanding why working and nontraditional students are leaving biology and STEM fields and lays the groundwork for future research needed to inform instructional and programmatic change.

Author:

Erika Offerdahl (Washington State University)*; Lillian Senn (Washington State Univeristy)

Study Context: 

The study is a year-long faculty professional development program designed to increase faculty understanding and implementation of research-based practices (RBIPS) demonstrated to promote undergraduate students’ growth mindset. The study leverages two distinct literatures. The first has theorized the effect of disciplinary culture (i.e. STEM vs non-STEM) on faculty teaching values and behaviors (Austin, 1990) and empirically verified that differences in teaching practice can be predicted by disciplinary culture (Lee, 2007). This literature suggests that disciplinary differences are predictive of the ways in which faculty teach. This study also draws on growth mindset literature. Social psychologists have shown that growth mindset messages improve student performance and reduce performance gaps (Canning et al. 2024) and that faculty with fixed mindsets can negatively impact student motivation and academic performance (Muenks et al., 2024, Canning et al., 2019). In summary, differences in teaching practices are influenced by discipline, and that these differences have direct implications for student success – particularly for students in STEM. 

Efforts to transform STEM education have predominantly focused on increasing faculty use of RBIPS through professional development. These efforts have successfully increased active learning by some faculty (Manduca et al. 2017) the adoption is short lived (Henderson et al., 2012). Additionally, the majority of STEM faculty continue to employ didactic methods (Stains et al. 2018). Most studies have focused on department climate as a mediating factor in the uptake of RBIPS. Yet recent K-12 literature suggests that leveraging values about teaching leads to increased adoption of new teaching strategies like growth mindset interventions (Hecht et al. 2023). 

We adopt the diffusion of innovation (DOI) model to frame our research question and analyses. As applied to undergraduate biology (Rogers 2003, Andrews et al. 2016), DOI is a useful framework for understanding the cultural and contextual factors that contribute to instructional decisions and practices because inherent to this model is the recognition of the potential effects of culture and context (Tolba and Mourad, 2011). 

Study Design
How are beliefs of STEM vs non-STEM faculty affected by a professional development experience designed to increase faculty growth mindset beliefs?

Four cohorts of faculty (n=112) participated in a year-long professional development experience consisting of direct instruction on sociopsychological theories and RBIPs to promote student growth mindset followed by a semester of intense mentorship during which participants implement growth mindset practices. Pre/post responses were collected on two subscales from the iULTrA (adapted from Limeri et al. 2023) measuring growth and fixed mindsets and the blameworthiness scale (Ryazanov et al. 2018) which has been used in conjunction with the growth mindset subscales of the iULTrA to measure false growth mindset beliefs (Canning, in press). Faculty department affiliation was collected and parsed as STEM or non-STEM according to definitions of the National Science Foundation. 

Analyses and Interpretations 

Pre and post responses were analyzed and compared between STEM (n=49) and non-STEM (n=63) faculty. Initial analyses focused on the blameworthiness scale. Mann-Whitney U tests on pre-survey responses revealed no statistically significant difference between STEM and non-STEM faculty for all four cohorts. Gains on the blameworthiness scale were calculated for all participants and compared between STEM and non-STEM. STEM participants demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the degree to which they conferred blame for failure to students on a single, isolated assignment. Yet both STEM and non-STEM attributed less blame on students for repeated failure on assignments. Previous work with the blameworthiness scale suggests that this is a signal this as an indicator of false growth mindset.

Contribution: 
These data contribute to the greater understanding of STEM faculty professional development. The program was designed to train faculty on how to implement growth mindset teaching practices, but did not first activate personal teaching values. Recent research from K-12 suggests this is critical to the adoption of and implementation with fidelity, of these practices. This study calls for additional studies to investigate the conditions under which STEM faculty in general, and biology faculty in particular, are likely to implement RBIPs with fidelity. 

Our sample size precludes examining biology faculty separate from other STEM fields. Yet the literature on disciplinary differences would suggest that biology faculty share more other STEM faculty than non-STEM faculty (Austin 1990). Therefore, this study likely be of interest to the those in the biology community engaged in faculty development. 

Author:

Christopher Anderson (Dominican University); Arti Ayachti (Dominican University); Alyssa Braun (Dominican University); Carissa Buber (Dominican University); Scott Kreher (Dominican University)*

A core concept of the natural sciences, including biology, is the use of empirical evidence in testing hypotheses and construction of explanations. As a consequence of the centrality of empirical evidence, experimental design skills and understanding of the logical basis of experimental design are central recommendations in learning guides, such as Vision and Change and the U.S. National Research Council Framework for K-12 students. However, in previous discipline –based education research, we and others have found that undergraduate students have major gaps in their understanding of the logical basis of experimental design, even after exposure to controlled experiments in teaching labs (Shi et al., 2011; Kreher et al., 2021). Furthermore, extensive research from cognitive psychologists has demonstrated that understanding controlled experiments is a cognitively difficult task (Chen and Klahr, 1999). Without deliberate teaching, people can be left with inadvertent gaps in their understanding of a fundamental concept in biology and the natural sciences (Kuhn, 1989). This last point deserves special consideration: while all students who complete STEM degrees should achieve understanding of experimental design, all people should have some understanding of the logical basis of experimental design and should be able to apply these logical concepts to their everyday lives, which is a form of scientific literacy. We are designing activities to facilitate student understanding of experimental design, with a goal of transfer of learning to scientific literacy, drawing on the constructivist theory of learning and theories and evidence on transfer of learning.

Our ongoing research project has four objectives:
1. Better research on how undergraduate students in introductory biology understand controlled experiments.
2. Creation of intervention activities, that can be deployed in lecture and lab, to improve experimental design skills.
3. Testing for transfer of learning between experimental design skills and scientific literacy skills.
4. Build on other frameworks related to understanding of experimentation and science process skills, such as the AIM-bio curriculum (Hester et al., 2018), three-dimensional learning assessment (Laverty et al., 2016), and the Advancing Competencies in Experimentation learning goals (Pelaez et al., 2016).

We had a successful session at SABER in 2024 and want to continue the discussion of our project. The session handout will outline the items below:

1. Invite participants to try our activities to gather feedback on usefulness, and to invite participants to use activities in their classrooms.
2. Present our literature review summary on transfer of learning, especially in STEM, to determine if we are missing key literature and approaches.
3. Have discussion with participants to refine and distill set of learning objectives related to experimental design, especially with consideration to foundational, logical concepts.

Author:

Sarah Miller (University of North Georgia)*

Deep understanding of primary scientific literature (PSL) is essential to scientific exploration because it is one of the most reliable ways to convey new ideas. Peer-reviewed academic journal articles set the standard for reliable PSL, purporting to share research results in an accurate way to contribute to scientific discovery. In this way, PSL fuels pioneering research and acts as one check to hold scientists accountable to pursuing quality experimentation. PSL is thus an invaluable research tool for scientists. 
Unfortunately, PSL is notoriously difficult to understand, especially for undergraduates beginning to explore a scientific field. Though PSL provides many direct benefits to students, such as boosting scientific reasoning and critical thinking skills, many biology undergraduates find reading PSL to be frustrating, time-consuming, and difficult (Howard et al., 2021). This presents a problem: how do we teach budding scientists how to utilize one of their most valuable tools?
One promising avenue is metacognitive development. Metacognition is the practice of thinking about thinking (Jacobs & Paris, 1987). Previous studies have shown that use of metacognitive strategies increases general reading comprehension, and that interventions to teach students thinking skills increases reading comprehension in children of all ages (Baker, 2004; Cross & Paris, 1988; Jacobs & Paris, 1987). Some studies have indicated that implementing metacognitive instruction in undergraduate-level introductory biology classes increases learning gains (Sabel et al., 2017). Previous studies have also indicated that students with metacognitive abilities can identify points of confusion and strategize ways to resolve them (Dye & Stanton, 2017). While studies have been conducted to investigate metacognition in general reading tasks and STEM problem-solving (Baker 2004; Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Schraw et al., 2006), few studies have investigated the use of metacognitive strategies while reading PSL. This presents an important opportunity for research in science education. 
Thus, the purpose of the present study is to investigate the relationship between metacognitive strategies and reading PSL by asking the following question: How does usage of metacognitive regulation strategies by experts (faculty) and novices (students) differ when reading primary scientific literature (PSL)? To answer this question, we looked at the metacognitive regulation strategies used by biology faculty (N=6) and undergraduates (N=11) while reading PSL. Think-aloud interviews were transcribed and deductively coded using the constant comparison method and Schraw and Dennison’s (1994) metacognition in reading framework. This qualitative analysis allowed us to identify and compare metacognitive strategy differences between expert and novice interviews. The results of this study reveal three key differences in metacognitive regulation strategy use between experts and novices: 1) overall, experts exhibited greater metacognitive engagement than novices, with experts using over 37% more metacognitive strategies on average per interview than novices, 2) experts employed outside knowledge 136% more on average per interview than novices, and, 3) monitoring was the most prevalent metacognitive strategy type used by both experts and novices when reading PSL, representing over 40% of the total metacognitive regulation strategies used by both experts and novices.
The prevalence of monitoring strategies may prove to be a particularly important aspect of metacognition in PSL. Some metacognitive frameworks pinpoint monitoring as an essential pre-requisite for effectively implementing other metacognitive strategies, such as evaluating, planning, and IMS. For example, Hacker et al. (1998) illustrates monitoring in reading as a key factor that feeds into metacognitive decisions. This view is corroborated by Metcalfe and Finn’s (2008) finding that, when students have poor monitoring skills, they make poor control decisions. While Stanton et al. (2021) illustrates monitoring as only a subset of metacognitive regulation strategies, she asserts the importance of monitoring in affecting the use of other strategies in biology education. Our findings reinforce these results, emphasizing monitoring strategies as important for expert-like reading of PSL. In turn, the prevalence of monitoring strategy usage by experts when compared to novices while reading PSL suggests that development of this skill in undergraduates is important for increased comprehension of scientific texts. More broadly, this study serves as a starting point in investigating the role of metacognition in reading PSL. However, it is vital that future research continues to investigate this relationship and test metacognitively based reading interventions that facilitate metacognition. In this way, educators can learn how to teach budding scientists to effectively utilize one of their most valuable tools: analysis of PSL.

Panelists: Mike Waltman, Dr. Gillian Roehrig, Dr. Tom Meagher. Moderator: Dr. Ashli Wright   Description: The place-based subcommittee has invited a panel to explore the local K-12 STEM education context and how it can inform post-secondary biology education research and how collaboration with secondary educators can spark co-inquiry for reciprocal benefit. During this interactive panel discussion, Dr. Roehrig, Dr. Meagher, and Mr. Waltman will share insights from their work with urban and rural Minnesota STEM students and educators to begin a dialogue about how the SABER community might build  beneficial connections with secondary STEM educators in our local communities. 

Author:

Kristine Squillace Stenlund (UMN)*; Anita Schuchardt (University of Minnesota)

Study Context
An essential skill for biology students (AAAS, 2010), mathematics in science classrooms is commonly used as a tool for calculating an answer. Connections with the scientific phenomenon (sensemaking) are often not emphasized which may explain why students can struggle to connect mathematical representations to scientific phenomena or apply their knowledge in new contexts (Authors, 2021; Eichenlaub & Reddish, 2019; Taasoobshirazi & Glynn, 2009). Instructor attributes (e.g, beliefs, and self-efficacy) affect how they design instruction (Alhendal et al., 2016; Mangahas, 2017) and therefore may affect how instructors integrate mathematics into biology. Current teaching approaches and attitudes to mathematics sensemaking in science is an under researched area. This data has the potential for providing insights into student struggles and potential interventions. Of particular interest is 2-year college instructor attitudes and beliefs toward sensemaking because 2-year colleges have become a significant sector within the US higher educational system (NSF-NCSES, 2021). 

Design
A prior survey on 4-year college instructor perceptions and instruction of mathematical expressions in biology (Authors, 2018) was adapted to apply to 2-year college instructors. Exploratory factor analysis grouped 31 Likert scale questions into 6 categories (Mathematics Self-efficacy, Algorithmic, Mathematical sensemaking, Biological sensemaking, Fixed mindset and Perceived difficulty). Two additional questions solicited instructor rankings of learning objectives they considered important and amount of time they spent on these objectives.

For 2-year college instructors, 
RQ1: What are their perceptions of their self-efficacy and use of sensemaking for mathematics in biology classes? 
RQ2: What are their perceptions of student efficacy and use of sensemaking for mathematics in biology classes?
RQ3: What are their learning objectives for mathematics in biology classes?
RQ4: How do they spend instructional time when teaching mathematics in biology classes?

Analysis and interpretation
Survey responses (n=77) were quantitatively analyzed for patterns associated with instructors' perceptions of self-efficacy and sensemaking and reports on instruction of mathematics in their 2-year college biology classrooms. Mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each factor. Comparisons between self-perceptions and perceptions of students were conducted (paired t-test, Bonferroni correction, α=.008). 

RQ1: Instructors value sensemaking of mathematics associated with biology. Instructors are not satisfied if they or their students can use a mathematical equation as an algorithmic tool without understanding the mathematical or biological ideas. (Mi=3.2; Ms=3.1). They feel sensemaking makes it easier for both them and their students to understand the overall phenomenon (Mi=5.0; Ms=4.6 and Mi=5.4; Ms=5.2 respectively). 

RQ2: Instructors report high perceptions of self-efficacy using mathematical representations in biology compared to perceptions of student efficacy (Mi=5.4, Ms=2.8, t(1,76)=18.93, p<0.008, d=2.76). Instructors perceived that they had an easier time learning mathematics in biology compared to their students (Mi=2.4; Ms=3.8, t(1,76)=-7.56, p<0.008, d=0.86). Instructors somewhat agree that they are naturally good at math and there is nothing they can do to change it (Mi= 3.3). However, they disagree that students’ ability to use mathematical equations in biology is fixed (Ms=2.0). 

RQ3: The two most important learning objectives reported were, making connections between the variables in the expression and the biological phenomenon (32%), and expressing specific ideas about the biological phenomenon using a mathematical representation (27%).

RQ4: Instructors report using a higher portion of class time on explaining equation variables (18.2%), how to use equations (18.2%) and giving students time to practice using equations (19.4%). These results suggest a discrepancy between learning objectives and activities and that activities are focused on mathematical tool applications.

Contributions
This study reveals that 2-year college instructors perceive that sensemaking of mathematics as opposed to using mathematics as a tool is equally important for both themselves and their students. However, there is a mismatch between course objectives and instruction for mathematics in biology. This discrepancy may be due to an apprehension about incorporating new techniques into the classroom (Corwin et al., 2019) or lack of familiarity with possible teaching approaches. Workshops that provide instructional activities have been shown to foster sensemaking (Authors, 2016) and may help bridge this gap. Notably, these workshops will also need to address instructor perceptions about student efficacy which they report as lower than their own.

Author:

Jennifer Bankers-Fulbright (Augsburg University)*

STUDY CONTEXT: Introductory biology courses are the gateway to a biology major. Ideally, these courses should enhance enthusiasm for and understanding of real-world applications of biology. Unfortunately, students typically self-report decreases in both of these attitudes by the end of the courses. (Ding 2015, Semsar 2017.) These student attitudes are critical for significant learning and roughly map to the Caring, Human Dimension, and Integration components of Fink’s model for effective undergraduate course design (Fink 2013). Fink proposes six major components (the other three being Fundamental Knowledge, Application, and Learning How to Learn) that synergize to facilitate significant student learning in a classroom. If an instructor does not design all of these into their course, the likelihood of students truly learning the “content” substantially decreases. Thus, we were interested in increasing student self-reported enthusiasm for and perceptions of real-world applications of biology in our introductory courses.

Little in the literature focuses specifically on enhancing these aspects of the student experience in STEM courses, and the little that exists focuses on substantial instructional changes (e.g., a change to inquiry-based learning).(Brewe 2009, Otero 2008, Perkins 2005). Our goal was to test whether or not we could achieve similar increases in student attitude using a less complicated intervention that would be easy and fast for instructors to add to their existing courses. The simplest and most flexible idea was adding prompted free-writes after key topics in each of our introductory biology courses. We created intervention and mock intervention prompts to be used by students. The intervention prompt focused specifically on connecting the biology topic just covered to the students’ lives, whereas the mock intervention prompt asked students only about the topic’s relevance to biology.

STUDY DESIGN: Two introductory biology sections were assigned to use the intervention (n= 63) and another two sections were assigned the mock intervention (n=56). All sections were asked to include 6 prompted free-writes during the semester after teaching key concepts in class. The free-writes were offered after the same topics in each course and were limited to 3 minutes of continuous writing, either on paper or electronically. Instructors gave minimal credit for completing these activities, but the papers were not read or evaluated. 

We used a subset of questions from the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Biology (CLASS-BIO) tool to assess student attitudes toward real-world application (RW) of and enthusiasm (E) for biology.(Semsar 2017) All students completed the survey during the first and the final week of class to allow for pre-post comparison. Approximately 50% (n=59) of students successfully completed both the pre- and post-CLASS-BIO surveys, and only these students’ responses were used for analysis. Of these, 46% (n=27) experienced the intervention and 54% (n=32) the mock intervention. Historical data from introductory biology courses (Fall 2018, Spring 2019, and Fall 2019; n=91) were used as an additional control for student attitudes. CLASS-BIO responses were converted into numerical data and analyzed according to the tool’s instructions (www.colorado.edu/sei/class). Data are presented as the percent change in pre- and post-survey averages. Significant changes were determined using Student’s t-test (paired, two-tailed, same variance) using Microsoft Excel. 


ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: Prior to this study, students in our introductory biology courses reported no significant changes in their perceptions of the real-world applications of biology (-1%) or their enjoyment of biology (-1%) pre- and post-survey. Students who responded to the intervention prompt in their introductory biology course showed a significant increase in both of these perceptions (RW =+11%; p ≤ 0.05 and E=+19%; p ≤ 0.01). Interestingly, although students who responded to the mock-intervention prompt in their course did not show a significant increase in their perceptions of real world applications of biology (+4%), they did show a significant increase in their enthusiasm (+13%; p ≤ 0.05). 


CONTRIBUTION: These data suggest that a few prompted free-writing interventions over the course of a semester is sufficient to significantly increase introductory biology student recognition of the relevance of biology in the real-world and their enthusiasm for biology. This is a surprisingly robust positive impact given that this intervention requires minimal instructor and student effort. Importantly, this type of intervention may be an easy way for instructors to ensure that their student-facing course design addresses Fink’s components of Caring, Human Dimension, and Integration to facilitate student learning (Fink 2013).

Author:

Emily Driessen (Auburn University)*; Abbi Kivett (Univeristy of Minnesota); Cas Stromberg (Univeristy of Minnesota); Joel Schneider (University of Minnesota); Aramati Casper (Colorado State University); Sarah Eddy (Univeristy of Minnestoa); Kelly Lane (Univeristy of Minnesota)

Study Context:
The presentation of sex/gender topics in biology, within humans and across the tree of life, is oversimplified and perpetuates harmful and false narratives of gender essentialism. Gender essentialism is the theory that gender and gender roles are natural and biologically driven based on sex (Donovan et al., 2024; Hubbard & Monnig, 2020; Štrkalj & Pather, 2021). Teaching anti-essentialist narratives and the diversity and complexity of sex is necessary to ensure both accurate scientific understanding and inclusion (Donovan et al., 2019; Hughes & Kothari, 2021; Maloy et al., 2022; Schindel et al., 2016; Zemenick et al., 2022). Preliminary research with biology instructors has studied how they reformed their sex/gender curriculum to be more accurate and inclusive; they used strategies such as explaining sex is not binary, discussing the differences between sex/gender, and researching trans and intersex peoples’ perspectives of and experiences with hormone replacement treatment and gender-affirming surgery (Driessen et al., 2024). In the present qualitative study, we build on these efforts by expanding to a national sample and examining not just how but also why biology instructors are working to reform their sex/gender curriculum to be more accurate and trans-spectrum and intersex inclusive. We centered this study around the Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform framework (Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002) to focus on the relationships between the instructor’s reformed practice in the classroom (e.g., teaching sex/gender topics in a way that is accurate and inclusive), their thinking behind using these practices (e.g., self-efficacy, practical theories), and the contextual factors in which they teach (e.g., institutional, subject area). 

Research Design: 
We investigated the following two research questions: (1) What contextual factors do instructors consider when teaching using these accurate and inclusive instructional practices? (2) What instructor knowledge and thinking impacts their use of accurate and inclusive instructional practices? We recruited a national sample of 22 undergraduate biology instructors who teach sex/gender topics by sending a screening survey to biology education and biology society listservs. We collected course materials from each participant, focusing on the materials used in units about sex, gender, reproduction, sexual selection, inheritance, and the endocrine system. We conducted stimulated recall interviews by interviewing each instructor using their sex/gender course materials to promote discussion (Fox-Turnbull, 2009). We recorded and transcribed these interviews to prepare them for analysis.

Analyses and Interpretations:
We used document and reflexive thematic analysis to iteratively distill the course materials and interview transcripts into themes and codes (Bowen, 2009; Braun & Clarke, 2019). Here, we focus on three themes, one contextual factor and two instructor thinking themes. Contextual factor theme 1, subject area mediates relevancy, explains that the type of biology topics instructors teach (e.g., introductory biology, endocrinology, human anatomy) impacted the degree to which some instructors felt certain accurate and inclusive sex/gender teaching strategies were applicable. Instructor thinking theme 1, the line between ‘science’ and ‘science adjacent’ content, demonstrates that some instructors focused on teaching sex (i.e., a “science” topic) more accurately and then either briefly differentiated between sex/gender or did not address gender because gender is “not biology.” Other instructors argued biology is linked to society and politics, and these instructors made connections between sex/gender topics and their societal impacts. Instructor thinking theme 2, concerns about assigning students to discuss these topics in groups, highlights the fact many of these instructors taught their courses using group work but worried that group discussions of these topics would cause student arguments or student discomfort. Due to this fear, some instructors did not have students discuss sex/gender topics in groups, while, for other instructors, their fears were outweighed by the importance they place on students discussing these topics with each other. 

Contribution:
The present study identifies key contextual factors and instructor thinking patterns that we can use to identify tension points that impact instructor decision-making in their courses. These tension points are important to understand in order to develop targeted reform approaches that the biology education community will use in their own contexts. This study can spur future research that measures the efficacy of specific intersex and trans-inclusive teaching strategies for (1) increasing student sense of belonging and student retention; (2) promoting more accurate student understanding of the diversity of sex/gender, and (3) instructor professional development for teaching inclusively.

Author:Kate Wright (Rochester Institute of Technology)*; Meredith Michetti (Rochester Institute of Technology); Dina Newman (Rochester Institute of Technology); Crystal Uminski (Rochester Institute of Technology)

Study Context: Genetic information flow is a core idea in frameworks for both K-12 and undergraduate biology education (AAAS, 2011; NGSS, 2013). Understanding the link between genetic phenomena and the underlying molecular processes which drive them can be challenging for learners (Castro-Faix, 2022; Haskel-Ittah, 2018; Marbach-Ad, 2000) which may be due, at least in part, by the abstract nature of genes and alleles. Hence, visual representations, like Punnett squares, are often used to make abstract ideas in genetics more concrete. Punnett squares illustrate potential outcomes for a given cross between two individuals with a known genotype. While the genotype of an individual may help predict eventual phenotype, complex regulatory and environmental factors ultimately control gene expression and manifestation of phenotype; these mechanisms can be difficult for many learners (Haskel-Ittah, 2020). In the US, learning activities involving Punnett squares often start in middle school and continue through college biology, making them familiar representations to most learners. Familiarity, however, does not always equal deep conceptual understanding. We frame our exploration into how students create, decipher and understand the conventions of Punnett squares using the Conceptual-Reasoning-Mode (C-R-M) framework (Schönborn & Anderson, 2009, 2010). To correctly interpret and use Punnett squares, learners must have conceptual knowledge about genetics (C), understanding of the symbols used (M) and the appropriate reasoning for how they use the boxes (R) within the square.

Research Questions: Our work aims to explore students’ ideas involving Punnett squares and how they can be helpful in uncovering misunderstandings of foundational ideas in genetics. We specifically asked: “How do undergraduate biology students create and interpret Punnett squares, and what does their understanding of Punnett squares indicate about their mental models of inheritance?”

Study Design: We gathered data from two different study populations. We interviewed 19 undergraduate biology students, all of whom had taken at least one year of college biology and asked them to draw and explain what a Punnett square was and how the process of meiosis related to their Punnett square drawing. To gather additional data, we administered the same prompt in a written format to 47 students during the first week of a 300-level genetics course. Two coders worked independently, to analyze drawings, interview transcripts, and open responses using an emergent coding scheme. 

Analysis and Interpretation: In addition to interesting and surprising errors in Punnett square drawings and/or in the interpretation of the symbols for alleles, we found numerous students focused their explanations solely on “traits” and “phenotypes”; not genotypes or alleles. For instance, 58% of interviewees (n = 11) said that Punnett squares showed how the traits or phenotypes contributed by parents (or gametes), led to the traits or phenotypes that would be inherited (or expressed) by the offspring. In other words, students offered explanations in terms of the features they “see” rather than the more abstract and invisible alleles underlying the process. This trend was duplicated in the written responses; 35% of the students (n = 17) described their Punnett square only in terms of traits and/or phenotypes, while 13% (n = 6) explained that gene/alleles were being contributed (by gametes/parents) which resulted in various phenotypes or traits of the offspring. We also found that 10% of the open-ended responses claimed that “crossing over” was directly illustrated in the Punnett Square. Through the lens of the C-R-M framework, our findings suggest that, even in advanced courses, students may need additional support to correctly understand the symbolism in Punnett squares (M) and the appropriate reasoning for how to use these tools (R).

Contribution: Punnett squares are visual tools for illustrating the possible allelic combinations for an offspring based on parental genotypes. We argue that parental alleles are inputs of the system and offspring allelic combinations are the outputs. The combination of inherited alleles plus regulatory factors contributes to eventual phenotypes or traits, but phenotypes and traits are not direct outputs of a genetic cross. When learners conceptualize phenotypes and traits as either inputs, outputs or both, they are missing an important piece to a molecular explanation about genetic inheritance. Our findings contribute to ongoing work investigating how learners connect molecular and inheritance models to explain genetics phenomena (Castro-Faix & Duncan, 2022) and highlights an important issue for those teaching concepts of inheritance; Punnett square models are deceptively simply but fundamentally misunderstood by many learners. 

Author:

Brianna Santangelo (California State University, Sacramento)*; Eliza J. Morris (California State University, Sacramento); Mikkel Herholdt Jensen (California State University, Sacramento)

STUDY CONTEXT:
Active learning pedagogies, including peer-led team learning (PLTL) (Salomone & Kling, 2017; Crouch & Mazur, 2001), are known to lead to better student outcomes on exams, formative assessments, and course grades compared to traditional lectures (Freeman et al., 2014). Despite the benefits, many instructors hesitate to embrace active learning, relying primarily on lecturing, with active learning used as a supplement (Dancy et al., 2024). Challenges include limited resources, lack of support (Foote et al., 2016), and large classes with a single instructor, which complicate implementation of active learning. The Integrated Peer Leadership Program (IPLP) blends the collaborative, inquiry-based approach of POGIL with the peer-facilitated structure of PLTL, which is grounded in the framework of social constructivism. In this format, small groups of students engage in guided, inquiry-driven tasks, while a peer facilitator oversees multiple teams, promoting active participation and critical thinking. Both formats have been successfully implemented independently at the college level in numerous STEM disciplines, including biology (Eberlin et al., 2008). The IPLP has shown promising results in an introductory science classroom with a single instructor and offers a potential low-cost way to implement peer-led learning in large classes (Morris et al., 2021). However, no study has directly compared IPLP with other formats, such as the Learning Assistant (LA) format, within the same student body. This study compares the cost and efficacy of IPLP and LA formats over multiple semesters at the same institution.
STUDY DESIGN:
This study compares two active learning formats—LAs and IPLP—in terms of institutional costs and student benefits. We implemented both formats at a Hispanic-serving institution in an introductory physics course, each section enrolling 80-90 students per semester. Both formats had the same instructional time (50 minutes, three times a week) and identical lab components (three hours, once a week). Institutional costs were measured through LA salary, instructor time, and consumables. Instructor time was categorized into five components: class time, preparation time, grading time, contact time, and meeting time with LAs/Peer Leaders. Student benefits were assessed through grade distributions, normalized gains on a physics concept inventory, and sense of belonging, analyzed at the course level and disaggregated by People Excluded due to Ethnicity or Race (PEER) and non-PEER students.
ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS:
Chi-square analyses of grade distributions revealed no significant difference between PEER and non-PEER students in either the IPLP (p=0.65) or LA formats (p=0.29). Comparisons between the two formats revealed no significant differences in grade outcomes for PEER (p=0.62) or non-PEER students (p=0.45). Students in both formats showed gains comparable to or exceeding the historical 23% Force Concept Inventory (FCI) gain for lecture formats (Hake, 1998). PEER students in the LA format showed a relative FCI gain of 23±6%, while PEER students in IPLP showed a gain of 40±13% (p=0.11). Non-PEERs in the LA format gained 30±6%, while non-PEERs in IPLP gained 41±4% (p=0.04). These results suggest both formats yield superior learning compared to traditional lecturing, and IPLP may even convey greater gains than the LA format. 
The IPLP format had significantly lower institutional costs. Over three semesters, the LA format incurred an additional cost of $14,240 in LA salaries. While both formats had the same classroom time, the LA instructor required more preparation time (20-30 extra hours/semester), grading time (10-20 extra hours/semester), and more meeting time (5-15 extra hours/semester) than IPLP, highlighting the larger institutional investment for the LA format. Both PEER and non-PEER students reported similar sense of belonging, with no significant differences.
CONTRIBUTIONS:
This study is the first to compare IPLP to other formats in terms of impact and cost. It adds to the education research literature by advancing our understanding of the relative benefits and resource needs of active learning formats. Our findings show that IPLP can provide comparable and possibly superior student benefits to the LA format while reducing costs, making it a sustainable alternative for large courses with limited resources. We expect our results will be of specific interest to the biology education research community, as the IPLP format can be implemented across STEM disciplines, where active learning is crucial for student success. Our findings also have implications for the teaching of introductory college biology, as they provide a model for facilitating PLTL-inspired active learning without additional monetary resources or instructional support in large classes. Further research on IPLP’s impact in biology-specific contexts could provide insights into peer-supported learning in large courses.

Author:

Bailey Von der Mehden (University of Tennessee, Knoxville)*; Laurel Philpott (University of Tennessee, Knoxville); Elisabeth Schussler (University of Tennessee, Knoxville)

STUDY CONTEXT: Increasing undergraduates’ self-efficacy is one way to enhance their course performance and persistence, yet it’s unclear how certain factors, like receiving feedback, may impact the development of students’ self-efficacy (Schunk, 1984; Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 1996; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013). Self-efficacy (SE) is a person’s belief that they can succeed at a specific task, and SE is positively related to motivation for that task (Bandura, 1986). Motivation refers to the factors that drive a student to succeed (Pintrich 2000a, b). SE levels can change as students receive task feedback, including assessment scores (Beatson et al., 2018; Ouweneel et al., 2013). Most undergraduate biology courses have several summative assessments (e.g., exams or quizzes) throughout the semester, which often comprise a substantial portion of students’ final grade in the course. Given this, we posit that grades on summative assessments serve as a salient feedback measure to inform course SE and influence students' motivation for future exams.
The present study builds on SE and goal orientation theories to describe the relationships between SE, and two types of motivation: performance (‘extrinsic goal orientation’ or EGO) and mastery (‘intrinsic goal orientation’ or IGO) (Pintrich, 2000a, b). 
While studies have found student SE levels can shift in response to task performance (Bandura, 1997; Lent et al., 1986; Zimmerman et al., 1992), few have examined how SE, IGO, and EGO levels vary and are related to each other as students progress through a course. Previous research has also overlooked critical time points such as pre-course baseline measures and post-assessment feedback. By examining how these relationships change over time in response to feedback, we aim to uncover time points that could be strategically leveraged by instructors to strengthen students' SE throughout the semester. In turn, this could drive increased motivation and better academic outcomes, ultimately enhancing student success. 
STUDY DESIGN: Our study addresses these gaps by assessing SE, IGO, and EGO levels pre-course and then re-assessing these levels after two separate exams. We addressed the following research questions: 1) How do SE, IGO, and EGO change after assessment grades are returned in introductory biology? 2) How do the relationships between SE, IGO, EGO, and final grades change after assessment grades are returned in introductory biology?
We evaluated these questions in the context of four lecture sections of introductory majors’ organismal biology at a research-intensive institution in fall of 2023. Instructors distributed the same survey at three time points: one at the beginning of the semester and two after students received their grades from their first two course assessments. Only students who responded to all three surveys were included in the final dataset (n =123).
Three sub-scales of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire were used to measure SE, IGO, and EGO using Likert scale items. Students were also asked for consent for researchers to access their final course grade.
ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: We calculated descriptive statistics for students’ SE, IGO, and EGO scores at each time point. To address RQ1, we ran ANOVAs and Tukey post-hoc tests for each construct.
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify the relationships between SE, IGO, EGO, and final course grades at each survey time point. SEM is a statistical method that examines hypothesized relationships between latent (e.g., constructs) and observed (e.g., grades) variables (Maruyama, 1998). We used SE theory with goal orientation theory to hypothesize that increased SE would be related to positive increases in IGO, EGO, and final grades and that an increase in each type of motivation would be related to higher final grades. We then constructed a SEM for each time point to address RQ2.
We found that SE and IGO scores decreased among the student participants after the first assessment grades were provided, while EGO scores were unchanged. We found that the strength of the relationship between SE and final course grades increased over time. Contrary to what was predicted by theory, IGO and EGO did not mediate the relationship between SE and grades, suggesting that motivation did not directly impact final academic performance.
CONTRIBUTION: SE scores became stronger predictors of final grades as the course progressed, which is a novel contribution to the literature on SE and introductory biology courses. Our findings suggest that the time period after students receive feedback may be a critical point for SE intervention. Our findings may have implications for future intervention studies and other pedagogical choices aimed at increasing students’ SE in introductory biology and, as such, will be relevant to many SABER attendees.

Author:

Helen Wagner Coello (Florida International University)*; Bryan Dewsbury (Florida International University)

STUDY CONTEXT: Transitioning to college is a pivotal experience often marked by social integration and academic adaptation challenges (Terenzini et al., 1994; Worsley et al., 2021). However, much of the existing literature on first-year experiences relies on generalized surveys or controlled interventions, which may lack depth and fail to capture the complexity of individual student experiences (Van Griensven et al., 2014). Alternatively, fully narrative inquiry designs provide rich, detailed accounts but often face challenges in generalizability and may be influenced by researcher and participant biases (Morse, 2015). Our mixed-methods approach addresses these gaps by combining the breadth of quantitative analysis with the depth of qualitative insights, offering a comprehensive understanding of the diverse experiences students encounter during their transition to college. This study examines 468 "Letters to a Future First-Year Student" (LTFF), reflective essays written by first-year undergraduate biology students at the end of their first semester, providing advice to their future peers. By using a mixed-methods approach, we aim to uncover latent patterns in how these students experience and advise on their college journey. We aimed to explore how students navigate challenges, build relationships, and adjust academically.

STUDY DESIGN: This study poses the central question: "What latent profiles emerge from student reflections on navigating college?" The LTFF essays were analyzed using an inductive open coding approach, which allowed themes to emerge organically from the students’ narratives, ensuring that our analysis remained closely tied to their lived experiences (Saldaña, 2021). There was a total of 24 critical themes identified, including making friends, self-discovery, managing heavy workloads, and developing improved study techniques. To quantitatively assess these themes, each essay was binary-coded (1 = theme present; 0 = theme absent). The study design employs a two-pronged quantitative strategy to capture the diversity of student experiences during the transition: a Latent Class Analysis (LCA) conducted using Jamovi (v2.6.2) with the SnowRMM module, and an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) executed in JASP (v0.19.1) using a tetrachoric correlation matrix and weighted least squares factoring method to accommodate the binary data. Robust model fit was ensured by assessing lowest SABIC, AIC, and recommended entropy (0.7).

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: The LCA identified four distinct latent classes that represent unique profiles of first-year experiences. For instance, one subgroup labeled “Socializer 2: Productive Balance” is characterized by high levels of social integration (80.21%) and work-life balance (60.55%), while another labeled “Non-Socializer: Strategic Achievement” was characterized mostly by self-discovery (51.26%) accompanied by academic challenges (49.16%). The EFA corroborated these findings by validating a coherent seven-factor structure underlying the binary-coded themes, where only theme loadings above 0.45 were displayed to focus on meaningful relationships. Together, these analyses provide compelling, data-driven evidence that different priorities ranging from work-life balance to academic support influence how students in different LCA classes adapt to college life. The combination of LCA and EFA provides a nuanced understanding of the interplay between social and academic factors in student transitions.

CONTRIBUTION: This work contributes to biology education research (BER) by pioneering the application of latent variable techniques to reflective, narrative data. By identifying and categorizing these four distinct student subgroups, this study has enriched our understanding of the varied transitions first-year students experience. The findings offer practical insights for designing targeted interventions in first-year programs and academic advising, ensuring that support structures can be tailored to specific student needs. The replicable framework developed here, integrating binary coding with LCA and EFA, serves as a valuable model for future investigations in diverse educational settings. Therefore, it offers valuable strategies for educators to build student success, retention, and meaningful engagement through both systemic support and individual development. The intersectional findings of this study advance our understanding of how students navigate their first year and add to the evolving need for evidence-based intervention designs in biology education research. The practical methodologies used (LCA and EFA) expand the approaches available to researchers, presenting actionable insights for institutions committed to creating supportive learning environments for students. This work is of direct relevance to the SABER community as it ensures that support structures can be optimized to meet specific student needs when developing future science education programs.

Author:

Crystal Uminski (Rochester Institute of Technology)*; Christian Cammarota (Rochester Institute of Technology); Brian A. Couch (University of Nebraska - Lincoln); L. Kate Wright (Rochester Institute of Technology); Dina L. Newman (Rochester Institute of Technology)

Study context: Visual models are a necessary part of molecular biology education because submicroscopic compounds and processes cannot be directly observed. Accurately interpreting the biological information conveyed by the shapes and symbols in these visual models requires engaging visual literacy skills (Offerdahl et al. 2017). Visual literacy skills are encompassed within the scientific practice “Developing and Using Models” that is part of the three-dimensional framework for science education (National Research Council, 2012) and are reflected in several core competencies from the Vision and Change framework for undergraduate biology education, such as “Ability to Use Modeling and Simulation” and “Ability to Communicate and Collaborate with Other Disciplines” (AAAS, 2011). For students to develop expertise in applying visual literacy skills, they need to have structured experiences using and creating visual models (Schönborn & Anderson, 2010), but there is little evidence to gauge how often undergraduate biology students are provided such opportunities (Quillin & Thomas, 2015). To get a broader picture of visual literacy practices in introductory-level molecular biology courses, we can analyze the content on instructors’ exams. What is included on exams can indicate the type of content instructors have taught in their courses and can signal what instructors consider important for their students to learn (Scouller, 1998). 

Research question: Our work here aims to provide a snapshot of visual literacy in molecular biology courses by addressing the following research question: How often and in what ways are students asked to cognitively engage with visual models on exams from introductory-level molecular biology courses?

Study design: We collected one exam from each of 66 instructors who taught lower division undergraduate biology courses with a focus on molecular biology concepts. We determined the ways in which students were asked to engage with visual models using two coding protocols. We coded each exam item for alignment to the scientific practice “Developing and Using Models” using the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (Laverty et al., 2016) and for alignment to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) using the Bloom’s Dichotomous Key (Semsar & Casagrand, 2015). 

Analysis and interpretation: Only 16% of exam items (n = 435of 2687) provided students the opportunity to engage with a visual model. While there were very few items with visual models in comparison to the total number of items in the pool, most exams (91%, n = 60 of 66) contained at least one visual model. We found that only 6% of items with a visual model (n = 26 of 435) asked students to use model-based reasoning in ways that fully aligned with the scientific practice “Developing and Using Models.” These items that fully aligned to the scientific practice also assessed higher-order Bloom’s levels. In contrast, the majority of exam items with a visual model targeted lower-order cognitive skills (87%, n = 378 of 435), with most items asking students to identify or add labels to familiar figures (e.g., stages of mitosis). Although exam items with visual models have the potential to elicit higher-order cognitive skills through model-based reasoning, instructors mainly used models for assessing lower-order memorization-based tasks. 

Contribution: Visual literacy skills are encompassed within national frameworks for biology education (NRC, 2012; AAAS, 2011) and visual literacy skills appear in nearly a third of nationally-endorsed learning objectives for introductory biology (Hennessey & Freeman, 2024), yet we found that visual literacy skills are rarely assessed on undergraduate biology exams. Our findings highlight that despite the importance of visual models in molecular biology, students may not have many opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of these models on assessments. In the limited number of cases in which exam items asked students to engage with models, such items often only targeted lower-order cognitive skills using tasks like labeling familiar structures. While labeling can help students learn about molecular structures (Rotbain et al., 2005), labeling alone does not address the suite of visual literacy skills that is needed for expertise in molecular biology. Our work signals a greater need for assessments to incorporate visual literacy skills and to engage students in higher-order cognitive skills that allow them to demonstrate their understanding of why and how models are useful tools in biology.

See short talks file

Author:

Kelly Hennessey (University of Washington )*

Study Context: Introductory biology for majors is a foundational STEM course with significant enrollment nationwide. The increasing need for qualified STEM professionals highlights the necessity of evidence-based course design that integrates explicit, community-endorsed learning objectives. Learning objectives (LOs) are essential for implementing backward design - widely considered the gold standard in course design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). However, introductory biology for majors lacks nationally endorsed, lesson-level LOs that would help instructors align daily teaching practices with the broader conceptual frameworks outlined in Vision and Change (AAAS, 2011) and elaborated in the BioCore Guide (Brownell et al., 2014) and BioSkills Guide (Clemmons et al., 2020). Many introductory biology courses remain structured around content coverage rather than structured learning outcomes. When LOs are absent or poorly written, students struggle to distinguish more-important from less-important information and to see connections between topics - two characteristics that cognitive scientists have identified as hallmarks of underprepared, novice learners. This study addresses this gap by developing a set of nationally endorsed lesson-level LOs, designed through an iterative, community-based process involving over 800 instructors.
Study Design: Our research question is: What specific lesson-level LOs are essential for introductory biology courses, as determined through community consensus? This addresses a critical educational problem in biology education: the lack of nationally endorsed, lesson-level learning objectives that bridge the gap between broad conceptual frameworks (like Vision and Change) and daily classroom instruction. This research used a multi-phase development process to construct, evaluate, and refine LOs for introductory biology. The study engaged a diverse group of educators and discipline-based education researchers (DBER) in multiple rounds of an iterative process of feedback and revision. The learning objectives were sorted by topic, evaluated for cognitive level (lower-order vs higher-order cognitive skills), aligned with Vision and Change concepts and competencies, and refined through four rounds of expert review. The resulting 352 candidate LOs were then evaluated via a national survey involving over 700 biology instructors where instructors rated each as "essential" or "non-essential" for introductory biology. The study applied the Backward Design framework to ensure that these LOs could be effectively integrated with instructional strategies and assessments.
Analyses and Interpretations: Our survey analysis identified natural break points in endorsement levels at 52.1% and 76.0%, establishing low, medium, and high support categories. Instructors were significantly more likely to rate lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) LOs as essential compared to higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) LOs. Based on these results, we recommend 163 core LOs for introductory biology from an initial set of 352, establishing a core set for introductory biology - comprising LOCS LOs that received high endorsement and HOCS LOs that received medium or high endorsement. Importantly, over 76% of these recommended objectives exist in complementary LOCS-HOCS pairs that support scaffolded learning. These LOs align with Vision and Change recommendations and the BioCore and BioSkills Guides, providing a framework that supports effective teaching practices. Impact metrics indicate significant community interest, with the full abstract downloaded 11,624 times and the full manuscript accessed 3,017 times. This underscores the relevance and adoption potential of these LOs in STEM education reform.
Contribution: This completes a decade-long effort to create a cohesive framework for undergraduate biology education, by providing instructors the first set of nationally endorsed, lesson-level LOs for introductory biology. These LOs complement, refine and extend the broader goals articulated in Vision and Change framework and subsequent guides by offering granular objectives that can directly guide daily instruction and assessment. The resulting set of nationally endorsed LOs should help liberate faculty from pressure to "cover it all," allowing them to focus on essential vocabulary and concepts while supporting the analytical and professional skills that many programs state as major learning goals. These LOs support course design that helps students overcome key barriers to learning identified by cognitive scientists. The implications for teaching are significant: instructors can now implement evidence-based backward design using community-validated LOs, potentially improving both course consistency and student outcomes. This work has particular relevance for the Biology Education Community as it provides a foundation for future research on learning progressions and the effectiveness of aligned course design.

Author:

Michael Moore (University of Arkansas at Little Rock)*; Richard Harvey (St. Louis University); Alex Eden (Florida International University); Elizabeth Martinez (Illinois Math and Science Academy); Chelsea Nardi (Empirical Education); Erin Carrillo (Virginia Commonwealth University)

Study Context
Inclusion is a major topic of discussion in BER. Topics such as how to be an inclusive educator (Dewsbury & Brame, 2019), create an inclusive classroom (Tanner, 2012), or how different instructional techniques impact student inclusion perceptions (Trujillo & Tanner, 2014) are just a few of the topics that BER researchers. Inclusion is also a major funding interest through programs such as the Eddie Bernice INCLUDES program through the National Science Foundation. Additionally, as DEI programs and positions have come under fire, the national conversation around inclusion and its power has increased. It is because of all of this attention that we ask the question what does inclusion mean? We were particularly interested in exploring how inclusion was defined in undergraduate STEM education as much of the current conversation on inclusion is happening not only in BER but across all DBER disciplines.

Study Design
To answer this question, our team did a scoping review following the Prisma-Scoping Review protocol (Page et al., 2021). Four databases were selected for their breadth of literature coverage. We limited our search parameters to 2016 and beyond because in 2016 was the year when the INCLUDES grant and others like it were first created. Other search parameters were undergraduate and STEM education and all its variants (i.e. chemistry, physics, math, engineering, and science). After our initial search, we identified an initial 200 articles on undergraduate STEM education that contain some form of the word inclusion such as inclusive, includes, and inclusion. We found that a majority of the articles do not operationalize the term inclusion or use proxy constructs, such as belong, to make claims about inclusion. To screen the articles, we considered whether the article: A) operationalized the word inclusion, B) if a definition was present, did the authors utilize a theoretical frame in which to situate their inclusion definition?, and C) did they assess inclusion in any form? Articles that had at least operationalized the word inclusion were retained for further analysis and those that did not were discarded.

Analysis and Interpretations
Upon initial screening of the articles, it was discovered that only 12 defined inclusion. This small number of articles was not enough to ascertain common themes among disciplinary definitions of inclusion or trends in the disciplinary conceptualization of inclusion. We could not develop a nomological net. Even when a definition is present, most studies propose to use inclusion-adjacent measurements such as Science Identity Theory (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Therefore to help researchers and practitioners choose a theoretical framework, we decided to: A) discuss a diversity of inclusion definitions from other disciplines that have been grounded in inclusion theory such as “Inclusion is 'the removal of barriers that prevent the full participation and contribution of individuals in social and organizational settings, where diversity is considered an asset rather than an obstacle.” from Mor Barak (2000) and B) provide a decision tree to help practitioners and researchers choose which framework is best suited for their inclusion work consisting of steps: 1) decide level of analysis: Emotional Experience (individual) vs. Structural Processes (institutional), 2) decide Contextual scope, and 3) decide distinctive Nomological networks.

Contributions
This work contributes to biology education research in the following ways: 1) it provides exemplars of inclusion grounded in theory so that researchers can align their inclusion definitions with current theory. 2) It provides a framework for researchers and practitioners to choose a theoretical grounding thereby helping them decide what types of analysis might apply to their research. This will be important as the national conversation on inclusion continues to evolve and grow.

Author:

Robin Costello (University at Buffalo (SUNY))*; Ruksana Amin (Auburn University); Emily Driessen (University of Minnesota); Melissa Kjelvik (Michigan State University); Elizabeth Schultheis (Michigan State University); Rachel Youngblood (Auburn University); Ash Zemenick (University of Michigan); Marjorie Weber (University of Michigan); Cissy Ballen (Auburn University)

STUDY CONTEXT: Undergraduate biology instructors may be hesitant to implement teaching strategies explicitly aimed at promoting inclusive classroom environments due, in part, to fears of student resistance (Beatty et al., 2023). Student resistance, defined by Seidel and Tanner (2013) as a suite of behaviors that reflect student frustration, detachment, and disengagement, has been documented in response to active learning (Shekhar et al., 2019) but has not previously been investigated in response to inclusive teaching pedagogies. According to the Directional Motivated Reasoning and Identity Protective Cognition frameworks (Kahan et al., 2007), students resist classroom activities when they threaten their own pre-existing beliefs and the values held by their identity-based affinity groups. Applying these frameworks within the current sociopolitical climate towards DEI, we expect student resistance to inclusive teaching to be prevalent, especially among students who do not possess identities excluded from science. In this study, we quantify student resistance to inclusive biology activities featuring scientist role models with counter-stereotypical identities.

STUDY DESIGN: We investigated the following research questions: (1) What percent of students demonstrate resistance to inclusive biology activities featuring counter-stereotypical scientist role models?; (2) Is student resistance associated with the extent to which information is provided about the scientist role models?; and (3) Are students who do not possess excluded identities more likely to demonstrate resistance? To answer these questions, we performed post-hoc analyses on data collected as part of a project exploring the impacts of scientist role models on students. For this project, 43 instructors at colleges and university across the United States implemented biology activities that varied in the extent to which they provided information about counter-stereotypical scientists. The activities provided either (i) no information about the scientists other than their name and pronouns, (ii) pictures of the scientists, or (ii) full scientist profiles, including pictures and brief Q&As. At the end of the activities, students responded to open-ended prompts asking students to “describe how you related to the featured scientist, if at all” and to explain what they “learned from this activity about the types of people who do science.” 

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION: We read through 6,453 responses from 3,420 students for signs of resistance and used inductive coding to categorize resistant student responses into resistance types. We found that students express minimal resistance to the inclusive biology activities (371 [5.75%] resistant responses from 323 [9.44%] students). Most observed resistance was not in reference to the featured counter-stereotypical scientists. In fact, only 16 student responses (0.25% of all responses) demonstrated resistance to the inclusive element of the activities. Instead, students more often expressed resistance to the science presented in the activities, to the work of doing the activities or filling out the survey, to the survey question asked, to the style of the activities, or they provided absurd responses that did not address the open-ended prompts. Using mixed effect logistic regression models, we further found that the extent to which the activities highlighted counter-stereotypical scientists did not impact the likelihood of expressing resistance (X22, 6453 = 1.21, p = 0.55). Finally, we calculated likelihood ratios and found that white men students were nearly twice as likely as their peers to express resistance to the inclusive biology activities. 

CONTRIBUTION: Overall, our findings suggest that instructor fears of student resistance towards inclusive teaching materials in undergraduate biology courses are largely unfounded. This conclusion clearly calls for instructors to move past their fears of resistance and to implement evidence-based educational resources that promote inclusive classroom environments, including materials that highlight the lived experiences of scientists with counter-stereotypical identities. Our findings build on previous literature exploring student resistance in undergraduate biology classrooms, which has focused almost exclusively on resistance to active learning strategies. Our focus on measuring student resistance to inclusive teaching practices should be of general interest to SABER attendees currently navigating the sociopolitical climate around DEI in the classroom.

Tina Marcroft (SDSU and UCSD)*; Stanley Lo (University of California, San Diego); Regis Komperda (San Diego, State University)

Author:

Felicity Miranda (Arizona State University)*; Mary Kahraman (Arizona State University ); Katelyn Cooper (Arizona State University ); Sara Brownell (Arizona State University)

Study Context:
Active learning (AL) science courses increase social interactions, which can foster student learning (Freeman et al., 2014), but can also amplify identity-based challenges among undergraduates. A study of LGBTQ+ biology undergraduates, with data collected in 2015, showed that LGBTQ+ students faced unique struggles in active learning college science courses due to a combination of required social interactions and a prevailing cis-heteronormative climate (Cooper & Brownell, 2016). Since then, there have been significant societal changes, including the legalization of gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015) and a growing recognition of LGBTQ+ identities in higher education. As of 2022, approximately 28% of undergraduate and graduate students identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, queer, or questioning (ACHA, 2022). Further, several initiatives have aimed to promote inclusion for LGBTQ+ undergraduates in biology courses (Jackson et al., 2024; Schinske et al., 2017). Despite these advances, challenges persist. In 2024, 49 bills were passed by the U.S. State Legislature targeting LGBTQ+ rights, signaling an ongoing struggle for acceptance and equity, particularly for trans and non-binary individuals (ACLU, 2024). Given this evolving landscape, we examined the experiences of LGBTQ+ undergraduates in AL science courses across the U.S. in 2024. Our research questions are: (1) To what extent do students’ LGBTQ+ identities function as concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) in AL science courses? (2) In what ways do components of active learning, including social interactions, impact students’ expression of their LGBTQ+ identities? (3) To what extent do undergraduates perceive the scientific community as a welcoming or unwelcoming place for LGBTQ+ individuals?

Study Design:
We conducted a nationwide semi-structured interview study with 30 undergraduate students who were currently enrolled in at least one active-learning science course from 8 U.S. institutions. Active learning was defined for students as engagement in a course through activities such as group work, iClicker questions, and/or discussions. The semi-structured interview protocol was informed by the CSI framework (Quinn and Chaudoir, 2009) and refined by conducting 3 think-aloud cognitive interviews (Trenor et al., 2011). The author team used inductive coding (Clarke & Braun, 2017) techniques to establish themes that emerged from the data. Each coder then reviewed a randomly selected set of 6 interviews to establish inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s κ = 0.81), suggesting strong agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977) and one person coded the remaining interviews.

Analyses and Interpretations:
The study found that LGBTQ+ students continue to engage in complex identity management strategies in AL classrooms. Over half of study participants concealed their LGBTQ+ identity in AL, citing stereotype threat and cisheteronormative expectations. Selective disclosure was common, with students gauging peer acceptance before revealing their identity, consistent with CSI literature on identity safety cues (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Gender identity disclosure was particularly challenging as transgender and nonbinary students reported that coming out about one’s sexuality was perceived as more politically acceptable than coming out as gender diverse. Gender-nonconforming students described AL as forcing inauthentic social interactions because they were unable to be their true selves when working with others. Despite these challenges, some students found disclosure empowering, citing benefits such as experiencing solidarity among their peers and opportunities to combat stereotypes about the LGBTQ+ community. The study also found that few LGBTQ+ undergraduates have had out LGBTQ+ science instructors, but they emphasized the perceived importance of LGBTQ+ role models in science. Compared to a decade ago when most students perceived the scientific community as unwelcoming to LGBTQ+ students, we were encouraged to find that the majority of participants perceived the scientific community to be neutral or welcoming, despite being relatively reluctant to be open about their LGBTQ+ identities. 

Contribution:
This 2024 study expands on what was previously known about the experiences of LGBTQ+ undergraduates in AL biology courses (Cooper & Brownell, 2016). It highlights that the interactions among students in active learning courses continue to require LGBTQ+ students to deploy complex identity management strategies, as a cisheteronormative climate is still present. However, undergraduates describe that the scientific community is generally neutral or welcoming toward LGBTQ+ individuals. 

Author:

David Esparza (Cornell University)*; Laura Reilly-Sanchez (Cornell University); Michelle Smith (Cornell University)

Study Context. Undergraduate field courses offer immersive, hands-on experiences that foster student learning and engagement in biology (Fleischner et al., 2017). In addition to supporting an array of positive learning outcomes (Shinbrot et al., 2022), field biology courses have the potential to enhance students’ science identities—that is, the extent to which they see themselves as scientists (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Esparza & Smith, 2023; Treibergs & Esparza et al., 2022). Despite science identity being a critical predictor of student persistence and interest in STEM careers (Estrada et al., 2011; Stets et al., 2017), little is known about the specific factors (e.g., teaching practices) that shape identity development in field-based and other instructional settings. This study aims to fill that gap using the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Hazari et al., 2010), which posits that a student’s science identity is a composite of three subconstructs: (1) competence/performance, or the ability to understand and execute scientific tasks; (2) perceived recognition, or the degree to which one feels regarded as a scientist by others; and (3) interest, or the motivation and enthusiasm to engage in scientific tasks.

Study Design. To better understand the dynamics and influences regarding students’ science identities in field courses, we investigated the following research questions: 1) How do students’ disciplinary science identities change throughout undergraduate field biology courses; and 2) What factors do students identify as promotive or inhibitive of their science identities in these settings? To study this question, a convenience sample of students was recruited from introductory and advanced field biology courses (n =74) at a research-intensive university in the Northeastern United States. Employing a mixed-methods design, we collected both quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data to examine shifts in students’ science identities. Students completed a modified STEM identity survey (Cohen et al., 2021) at the beginning and end of the semester to measure changes in their identification with field biology. This survey was designed to align with the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Hazari et al., 2010), capturing shifts in competence/performance, perceived recognition, and interest. To complement these quantitative measures, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a subset of students, allowing for a nuanced exploration of how their field course experiences influenced each aspect of science identity.

Analyses and Interpretations. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to examine shifts in students’ identification as field biologists throughout the field course. Students’ overall identification with field biology significantly increased (V = 757.5, SD = 8.21) from the beginning (M = 49.10, SD = 8.21) to the end (M = 51.27, SD = 9.31) of the semester. Using similar methods with a Bonferroni correction, both perceived recognition and competence/performance significantly increased (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). Interest in field biology, however, showed no significant change (p > 0.05), likely due to a ceiling effect, as students reported high levels of interest at the start of the course which remained stable throughout. To better define the factors that contribute to science identity development, dual coding was applied to semi-structured interview data. Deductive coding aligned responses with the subconstructs of the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Hazari et al., 2010), while inductive coding identified specific emergent factors influencing each subconstruct. Findings indicate that internal factors (e.g., course-based research) played a predominant role, alongside external (e.g., social support from friends and family) and student-level factors (e.g., prior scientific or outdoor experience). 

Contribution. These findings add to and further refine our understanding of how undergraduate field biology courses can drive improvements in key aspects of students’ science identities. Our findings extend existing research by identifying specific internal, external, and student-level factors that influence identity development, providing a more detailed understanding of how field-based instruction impacts students' perceptions of themselves as scientists. This study provides clear, actionable implications for biology educators and education researchers. The identified factors, which range from course-based research opportunities to social support systems, offer deeper insight into the aspects of field instruction that promote or inhibit students’ science identities. These insights serve as a practical guide for field biology educators to design learning environments that foster students’ identification with biology and success in STEM.

Author:

Kasey Wozniak (Idaho State University)*; Anna Grinath (Idaho State University ); Heather Ray (Idaho State University); Devaleena Pradhan (Idaho State University)

Study Context:
Opportunities to authentically engage in the disciplinary work of biologists is critical for biology learning. Undergraduate research experiences (URE) increase interest in STEM careers, promote diverse career pathways for marginalized students, and increase the enrollment in graduate education among underrepresented groups (Walker et al. 2023). However, access to these experiences is currently limited because some students are unable to commit additional time outside of their coursework, there are known barriers to students approaching faculty and faculty being hesitant to accept inexperienced undergraduates into their research labs, or it is often late in their degree program (Handelsman et al. 2022). In the last 10 years, science faculty have worked to address this access problem by designing course-based research courses.
Hanauer et al. (2012) developed course design recommendations based on a study focused on 3 different URE structures, but VIP was not a context for the study. This led us to ask, “What course design elements of a VIP course fosters student’s project ownership?”

Research Design:
This research study aimed to describe course design elements of a VIP course that fostered students’ project ownership. The research question was addressed through a single naturalistic case study that spanned the 3rd and 4th semesters of the VIP course study context. Studying the course as a single case allows for triangulation of multiple data sources (Creswell and Poth 2018). All undergraduate students enrolled during either semester (n=7) and the faculty co-instructors (n=2) were invited and 100% agreed to participate in the research study. The undergraduate participants’ longevity in the VIP course ranged from 1 to 5 semesters. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with all undergraduate and faculty participants. We used the qualitative analysis software ATLAS.ti 23 to code instances of project ownership and documented what aspects of the course were important for each project ownership instance by applying our a priori coding framework based on Hanauer et al. (2012). The themes that emerged from coding the undergraduate student interviews were triangulated for validity with the themes that emerged from the faculty interviews.

Analyses and Interpretations:
Three main themes emerged: vertical structure, presentation opportunities, and course flexibility. 

The first finding describes how the vertical structure creates unique opportunities for undergraduates at various points in their academic career to take up project ownership. The vertical structure is created by bringing together faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students, each able to enroll in multiple semesters at various points in their academic career, to collaborate on a multi-semester research project. The following quote shows how the vertical structure was beneficial for one student. 
“During the [proposal] project, having graduate students was hugely beneficial because they excel in reading those research articles and really already have a strong grounding in the research that we are doing. And so just having people there who are already ahead of the curve really progresses and accelerates my own learning.” [Undergraduate student, 3 semesters]

Both students and faculty also recognized how opportunities to present research to their peers and faculty in the department were significant for undergraduate students’ project ownership.

“It was like a glue that brought everybody together to work on that poster. So even though we were not working on collection of data, the act of making that poster and going through the process of doing that tremendously gave them this-- it took things to another level…” [Faculty instructor]

The students recognized how the course flexibility allowed them to shape the science and their roles in it while faculty instructors described how they embraced flexibility to foster student agency.

“We talked through, kind of, what was the best option and why. And so, it's been an evolving class, and I've enjoyed that every semester's been different, every lab meeting's been different, and that over the course of time, I've been able to be a voice in that and help, kind of, shape it to where I know that I would have appreciated if it were, kind of, me being the head in charge.” [Undergraduate student, 4 semesters]

Contribution: 
This study provides a significant contribution to the literature on designing VIP courses by describing course design elements that foster student’s project ownership to shape the research project and their roles. These findings describe specific ways that this VIP course put design recommendations into practice that fostered project ownership. Such research is important to build a collection of best practices for designing VIP courses shown to foster project ownership.

Author:

Nicole Kelp (Colorado State University)*; Delaney Worthington (Colorado State University); Hannah Gilliard (Colorado State University)

Study Context: When undergraduate STEM students develop science communication skills, they develop their own sense of identity and self-efficacy as scientists (Alderfer et al., 2023) as well as collaborative problem-solving skills in their future careers (Kelp et al., 2024; Nogueira et al., 2021). However, many science communication trainings for undergraduate STEM students do not provide training in skills for Inclusive Science Communication (Vickery et al., 2023) which promotes reflexivity on the communicator’s identities, backgrounds, and goals in order to facilitate equitable and effective community-engaged collaboration to solve socioscientific issues (Canfield et al., 2020; Chilvers, 2013; Jensen, 2022; Kelp, 2025). Thus, in this study, we aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate an intervention to help undergraduate STEM students develop reflexivity in inclusive science communication. 
Study Design: We developed an extracurricular, semester-long Mentorship and Application Program in Inclusive Science Communication (MAP-ISC). We recruited two cohorts (n=9 in Fall 2024 and n=15 in Fall 2025) undergraduate STEM students who identified with a variety of underrepresented identities, including those who identified as BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and/or disabled. Students participated in trainings, guided reflections, mentor-mentee activities, and focus group reflections to learn theory and practice in science communication. Students also learned about strategic science communication and completed a mini science communication research project regarding a socioscientific issue of their choice. Our research question was focused on analyzing how these activities promoted reflexivity throughout the science communication process. 
Analyses and interpretation: The first cohort of n=9 students has completed the MAP-ISC program. We measured student reflexivity through retrospective pre/post analysis (Geldhof et al., 2018) using the Planned Behaviors in Inclusive Science Communication (PB-ISC) scale (Worthington, 2024); we chose retrospective pre/post analysis given that students may not have fully understood the implications of inclusive science communication at the beginning of the program. We also measured student reflexivity via thematic analysis of student reflections and focus group discussions. For the quantitative analysis, we found statistically significant increases in ISC beliefs, self-efficacy, behaviors, and behavioral intents using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. For the qualitative analysis, we utilized collaborative autoethnography, in which student participants became researchers to analyze both individual and collective themes regarding their experience in the program. Collaborative autoethnography promotes researcher reflexivity as well as the community-based participatory research approach that promotes inclusivity (Miyahara & Fukao, 2022). Students reported themes related to learning about the importance of diverse perspectives, community connections, and emotions in science communication. For the second cohort of n=15 students, initial reflections reveal a desire to connect with other who share identities as well as use science to connect with others, and we will finalize analysis upon their program completion in spring 2025.
Contributions: This study is novel in that it highlights the innovation of collaborative autoethnography as a research approach to promote reflexivity, a key tenet of inclusive science communication. This study also highlights the utility of a mentorship and application program in training students in science communication skills. Components of the training could be utilized by instructors in courses to promote reflexivity in their students regarding how they engage in their communities regarding socioscientific issues.
References:
Alderfer, S., McMillan, R., Murphy, K., & Kelp, N. C. (2023). Frontiers in Education, 8. 
Canfield, K., Menezes, S., Matsuda, S. B., Moore, A., Mosley Austin, A. N., Dewsbury, B. M., Feliú-Mójer, M. I., McDuffie, K. W. B., Moore, K., Reich, C. A., Smith, H. M., & Taylor, C. (2020). Frontiers in Communication, 5. 
Chilvers, J. (2013). Science Communication, 35(3), 283–310. 
Geldhof, G. J., Warner, D. A., Finders, J. K., Thogmartin, A. A., Clark, A., & Longway, K. A. (2018). Evaluation and Program Planning, 70, 83–89. 
Jensen, E. A. (2022). Journal of Science Communication, 21(4), C04. 
Kelp, N. (2025). BioScience, biaf011. 
Kelp, N., Anderson, A. A., & Enyinnaya, J. C. (2024). Nature Human Behaviour, 1–4. 
Miyahara, M., & Fukao, A. (2022). System, 105, 102751. 
Nogueira, L. A., Bjørkan, M., & Dale, B. (2021). Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 337. 
Vickery, R., Murphy, K., McMillan, R., Alderfer, S., Donkoh, J., & Kelp, N. C. (2023). CBE-Life Sciences Education, 22(1).
Worthington, D., Graham, B., Gilliard, H., & Kelp, N. (2024). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23, ar48. 

Author:

Alexandra Cooper (University of Georgia)*; Danielle Philo (University of Arizona); Tessa Andrews (University of Georgia); Erin Dolan (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been championed for providing more opportunities for students to conduct research and make novel scientific contributions (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Brownell et al., 2012). However, we know little about how to effectively teach these courses to maximize student outcomes (Goodwin et al., 2022 & 2023). Teaching a CURE is distinct from other forms of instruction as instructors must act as both a teacher and research mentor who flexibly responds to the needs of their individual students and their scientific inquiries (Hammer et al., 2012; Feldman et al., 2008; Cooper & Bolger, 2024). This requires instructors to draw from knowledge of students, of pedagogy, and of science to make real-time decisions about how to support students in doing research. We hypothesized that CURE instructors use pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching research to their students. PCK is a theoretical framework that considers the ways instructors use their knowledge of how students learn particular content and skills to inform how they teach (Magnusson, 1999; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Carlson et al., 2019). Given our hypothesis, we designed and conducted a study to build a model of research teaching PCK. 

STUDY DESIGN: To characterize research teaching PCK, we asked: In what ways do instructors utilize competency-specific PCK when teaching a CURE? We recruited instructors through general calls to the CURE community through established CURE programs and CURE-related networks. We chose to study more experienced CURE instructors who were currently teaching a CURE, had taught their CURE for a minimum of three semesters, and had at least one first-author publication, because we expected them to have developed PCK for teaching research (Kind, 2009; Hale et al., 2016). A total of 65 instructors met our eligibility criteria and were invited to participate in an interview, with 40 instructors completing a 60-minute interview. Interviews were semi-structured and asked instructors to reason through 1-4 teaching scenarios that reflected common challenges students face in CUREs and elicited PCK specific to research teaching.

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: We used PCK as a deductive frame to describe the ways instructors draw from their knowledge to make decisions, including 1) how instructors indicated they would respond in each scenario (instructor actions) and 2) the underlying knowledge they demonstrated behind their intended response (instructor knowledge). Within this frame, we used inductive content analysis to analyze interviews and allow themes to emerge from the data (Merriam, 2014). Specifically, we developed instructor action and knowledge codes iteratively by discussing themes from a subset of the data and refining these ideas by consulting relevant literature about teaching science practices (Cooper & Bolger, 2024; Cooper et al., 2022) and topic-specific PCK (Alonzo & Kim, 2015; Waugh et al., 2025). Both instructor action and knowledge themes were coded by engaging in multiple rounds of content analysis, iteratively refining proposed themes, and consensus-reaching discussion by at least two researchers. 

Across the scenarios, we characterized 25 different instructor actions, which were aimed at supporting students with science practices, classroom tasks, or psychosocial experiences. We also characterized four instructor knowledge themes, two of which represented competency-specific PCK: knowledge about their students and knowledge of science as a practice. Within each scenario, instructors drew from their personal knowledge to decide what actions to use when responding to student difficulties. For example, one instructor responding to a scenario where a student struggled to interpret their data by helping them connect back to the bigger picture of their experiment. When making this decision, the instructor demonstrated competency-specific PCK by drawing from their knowledge of how their past students had engaged in a similar situation. Notably, instructors drew from different knowledge bases when making decisions, even when using the same action. This often included instructors drawing from more generalizable knowledge about teaching in addition to competency-specific PCK, for instance, drawing from their knowledge of student-centered approaches to keep the cognitive work with their students.

CONTRIBUTION: This study presents the first investigation of PCK for research teaching, expanding the construct of PCK to encompass competencies and describing how this construct manifests in CUREs. Our findings provide a new lens for considering instructor knowledge in studies of teaching science practices and laboratory instruction (e.g., Grinath & Southerland, 2019; Cooper et al., 2022). We anticipate these findings will be useful for training future CURE instructors.

Author:

Diyala Shihadih (Portland State University)*; Elizabeth Runkel Baez (Portland State University); Mitra Asgari (University of Missouri); Justin Berl (Portland State University); Adam Chouinard (Oregon State University); Stephanie Gutzler (Georgia State University); Kaleb Heinrich (University of Alabama); Star Lee (University of California Irvine); Erin Shortlidge (Portland State University)

There are persistent national calls to advance instructional practices in biology to be more evidence-based, aiming to increase the pool of diverse students graduating with a science degree (AAAS 2011, PCAST 2012). Teaching Assistants (TAs) play a vital role in undergraduate education. Sundberg et al. (2005) reported that biology TAs teach 71% of laboratory courses at comprehensive institutions and 91% of laboratory courses at research institutions, illustrating their importance in teaching early-stage biology students. Providing support for and training TAs in best practices can have a sustained impact on the culture and future of biology students. Yet, we know that TA training is inadequate (Schussler et al. 2015) and engaging in this work can be difficult and time-consuming, but little is known about what motivates instructors and others who do engage in systemic change efforts related to TA professional development.

Over one year, we worked with teams of TA teaching professional development (TA-TPD) practitioners from 10 institutions, through the NSF-funded Evolving the Culture of Biology (ECB) program (IUSE # 2142742), as they developed and improved TA-TPD at their respective institutions. Participants’ institutions ranged from predominantly undergraduate institutions to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and R1 institutions, at various stages in the development of their TA-TPD programming. 

We aim to study systemic change through the lens of scholar motivation, specifically using Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985), to delve into the motivations of scholars to engage in TA-TPD and the subsequent impacts of their motivation on how they approach TA-TPD reform. OIT characterizes both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, and looks at four distinct forms of extrinsic motivation: external regulation, introjection, identification, and integration, all of which fall into a spectrum of internalization (Ryan and Deci 2000). We hope this study can provide insight into how motivation relates to the actualization of TA-TPD. 

To this end, we asked:
What motivates scholars to engage in TA-TPD? 
How do scholars’ motivations impact how they approach TA-TPD development? 

We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants in the ECB program (n=24) to gain insight into their experiences working to reform and implement their reformed TA-TPD at their institutions. Interview questions were iteratively developed through multiple rounds of edits and mock interviews with TA-TPD practitioners in the field. Transcripts were coded by multiple researchers using iterative inductive and deductive methodology to identify overarching themes and develop a final codebook. Final interview transcripts were coded to consensus.

Preliminary findings suggest that OIT is a useful framework by which to understand practitioner motivations, with all participants presenting at least two forms of motivation, illustrating a diversity of motivations for engaging in TA-TPD. Most motivation literature focuses on supporting intrinsic motivation, illustrating that intrinsic motivation leads to high-quality learning and development in teachers (Wan-shuai Liu, et al. 2018). Our data expands on this research suggesting that internalized forms of extrinsic motivation are also necessary for a robust understanding of teaching and learning in order to develop a well-rounded approach to TA-TPD development. 

This work contributes to the literature on systemic change, specifically TA-TPD, offering insight into how we can better understand buy-in, engagement and follow-through of TA-TPD.

Author:

Jayme Dyer (Durham Technical Community College)*; Chris Mansfield (Durham Technical Community College); Liz Bailey (Brigham Young University); Gavin Bell (Brigham Young University)

STUDY CONTEXT

In STEM fields, persistent opportunity gaps remain between PEERs (People Excluded based on their Ethnicity or Race) and non-PEERs (Asai, 2020). PEER persistence in STEM over the last 30 years has remained intractably low compared to non-PEER students, despite widespread deployment of institutional initiatives designed to “fix the student” (Asai, 2020). Rather than focusing on deficits in student preparation, institutional policies that perpetuate systemic inequities are being examined. Traditional grading is one such policy that has recently come into the limelight (Feldman, 2018). The effect of low grades on student confidence is a leading factor in students’ decision to leave a STEM major (Seymour & Hunter, 2019), and thus grades may have a direct effect on persistence in STEM. Even after controlling for academic preparation, relative to their white classmates, PEERs are more likely to receive lower grades in introductory-level STEM courses (Denaro et al. 2022), and after receiving a low grade, PEERs are more likely to leave a STEM major (Hatfield et al. 2022). Adopting a Community Cultural Wealth theoretical framework (Yosso, 2005), we asked whether a novel grading policy that rewards different types of academic strengths may result in more equitable outcomes for our community college STEM students.

STUDY DESIGN

In our community college Biology, Math and Physics courses, we have implemented a novel grading policy. We calculate grades using a weighted average of several grading categories (e.g. Homework is 20%, Quizzes are 20%, etc), but rather than assigning one grading scheme, we use Multiple Grading Schemes (“MGS”) (Bailey et al. 2017). With MGS, three different grading schemes are applied that each emphasize a different aspect of the course; for example, one scheme weights homework more heavily, whereas another weights exams more heavily. At the end of the semester, each student’s grade is calculated using each scheme and they receive the highest grade. By providing varied paths to earn higher grades, we hypothesized that MGS might result in more equitable outcomes for student grades.

ANALYSES & INTERPRETATIONS

Using 6 semesters of final course grade data (n > 3500 students), we asked what percentage of students benefited from MGS. For this analysis, we set one grading scheme (the scheme used before implementation of MGS) as baseline and determined the percentage of students who received a higher letter grade in one of the other grading schemes (i.e. “benefited” from MGS). Using self-reported race categorization provided by our institution’s data office, we found that a higher proportion of PEERs benefited (13-16%) from MGS relative to white students (10%) (p<0.05). PEERs appear to especially benefit from MGS because, relative to white students, their performance is more variable between each grading category (i.e. homework vs exam vs lab scores), and when students perform differently across categories, the use of MGS increases the likelihood that their strongest areas will be weighted more heavily. Finally, we asked whether MGS harms students by allowing some students to pass the class who are not prepared for subsequent courses. Comparing students who earned a C using the baseline grading scheme to those who only earned a C in one of the other schemes (i.e. they would have failed without MGS), we find that both groups of students have similar pass rates in subsequent courses. 

CONTRIBUTION

Providing multiple paths to earn higher grades appears to disproportionately benefit PEERs without causing harm. Thus, we argue that Multiple Grading Schemes may be one tool to improve equity in STEM persistence in higher education. Additionally, our study poses important questions about how the perception of the relative weight of graded course components impacts student performance and grade-related stress.

Author:

Dina Newman (Rochester Institute of Technology)*; Crystal Uminski, Jennifer Osterhage, L. Kate Wright (Rochester Institute of Technology)

Visual representations in molecular biology often follow a set of shared conventions for using certain shapes and symbols to convey information about the size and structure of nucleotides, genes, and chromosomes. Understanding how and why biologists use these conventions is a key part of visual literacy (Schönborn & Anderson, 2006). Visual literacy is the ability to read, interpret, and create visual representations, and it encompasses the skills that biologists need to effectively communicate about molecular structures using models (Trumbo, 1999). To date, there have been few studies investigating students’ visual literacy about DNA. Thus, we conducted two studies to understand how students are using or misusing visual conventions in their drawings of DNA.
In the first study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 undergraduate students. To gauge students’ visual literacy skills, we asked them to draw nucleotides, genes, and chromosomes, and we analyzed their sketches for adherence to conventions for representing scale and abstraction. We found that 77% of students made errors in representing scale and 86% of students made errors in representing abstraction. Half of the students used conventional shapes and symbols for representing DNA in unconventional ways, signaling an incomplete understanding of DNA’s structure and function.
In the second study, we analyzed the drawings that students created on their “cheat sheets” for an introductory biology exam focused on concepts related to the central dogma. Cheat sheets are one-page student-generated reference materials permitted during the exam, and the content students choose to include on the cheat sheets signals what they believe is important to know for an exam. We found that of 171 students who had drawings of DNA or mRNA on their cheat sheet, just under half (43%, n = 74) had made at least one drawing that contained a factual error or used visual conventions in incorrect ways. The number of errors on the cheat sheets was surprising and signals that students do not always correctly interpret common diagrams even when given unlimited time and resources out of class to prepare cheat sheet drawings.
Our findings indicate that students may need additional instructional support to appropriately use conventions for representing DNA. We highlight opportunities for instructors to scaffold visual literacy into their teaching to help students better understand conventions for representing scale and abstraction.

Author:

Regan Levy (Michigan State University)*; Cyril Hobeika (Michigan State University); Faith Persyn (Michigan State University); Loreta Prenaj (Michigan State University); Rachel Barnard (Michigan State University); Shahnaz Masani (Michigan State University)

Context & Design: 
Despite comparable enrollment rates, Black and Hispanic students attain STEM degrees at significantly lower rates than white peers (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). Many factors, from the prioritization of Eurocentric epistemologies, to historical legacies of racism, make STEM classrooms exclusionary to historically minoritized students (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Despite these systemic barriers, STEM faculty often fail to recognize structural inequities, instead perpetuating race-evasive narratives that inaccurately attribute disparities to individual student characteristics and behaviors (Russo-Tait, 2022; Robertson et al., 2023). Further, those engaging in these narratives are less likely to notice discriminatory events in the classroom (King et al., 2023). 
To work towards equity, institutions have adopted the Learning Assistant (LA) model. LAs are near-peer educators, bridging hierarchies between students and instructors in STEM classrooms. Facilitating student-centered learning, LAs often engage in more direct interactions with students than faculty (Barron et al., 2021). Yet, LAs often do not receive sustained training on equitable teaching, and little is known about how they understand or enact equity. Further, undergraduate students can and do hold race-evasive beliefs, and those students are less likely to identify or challenge racial microaggressions (Banks & Horton, 2022). Thus, we ask: How do LAs explain the of role race and racism in their classrooms? 
We apply Bonilla-Silva's race-evasive racism framework to understand if or how LAs uphold dominant, exclusionary narratives, explaining away racial disparities without naming race or racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2021). Specifically, he identifies four frames- abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism that people in the US use when explaining racial inequities. Identifying the frames in LAs’ discourse and critically analyzing their context-specific use helps deconstruct how seemingly race-neutral explanations serve to obscure and legitimize structural inequalities in STEM. 
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 LAs from different STEM disciplines at a large, Midwestern Primarily White Institution. The interviews (60-90mins) asked LAs to reflect on topics related to equity and justice in the classroom. We analyzed sections of the interviews that pertained to race, conducting thematic analysis. Coding was iterative, with deductive and inductive phases to refine and expand our coding scheme. The final round of coding was performed by three researchers, with inter-rater reliability (85.7-91.6%) calculated for consistency. 
Analysis and Interpretations: 
We found that LAs used all four frames of race-evasive ideology when discussing their teaching experiences. For example, many LAs invoked abstract liberalism, describing their classrooms as merit-based and culturally neutral, discourse reminiscent of STEM faculty’s descriptions of their classes. Positioning their classrooms as acultural allowed LAs to explain away the lack of racial diversity, with one participant stating: 
“(T)he teaching team has always been like all white. And I don't think it's just because we lack diversity. I just think it's just the weird people that are super excited by this. It's not anything to do with the race. It's like our individual personalities are like ‘YES Biology!’.” 
This LA minimizes the role of racism and the lack of diversity, naturalizing the idea that certain races are intrinsically more interested in their STEM discipline. 
LAs that acknowledged that race or racism shape our learning environments, often did so in a narrow context- focusing solely on numerical representation or internalized stereotypes. This meant that students were positioned as in need of “fixing” or “assimilating”, rather than critiquing the classroom environment that perpetuates racial inequities. 
Finally, in the rare instance that LAs did mention systemic racism, they positioned themselves and their classes as separate from the system, absolving their complicity and responsibility to enact change. One LA stated: 
“Because I would say that the discrimination is systemic, I would say that that's still something that needs to be acknowledged in (my class). However, I think everyone in our teaching team is really great with being inclusive and respectful of everyone.”. 
Contributions: 
LAs are often described as inherently enacting inclusion and equity through their near-peer roles. Yet, there is still little in the BER literature base about how these instructors conceptualize racism and equity within their own spaces, and research that has been done on LA effectiveness is from the perception of students. Without explicit training they can engage in the same harmful narratives that perpetuate racial inequities. Our research emphasizes the need for critically conscious pedagogy training for LAs in the biology and STEM community.

Author:

Noelle Clark (University of Georgia)*; Kate Hill (Chapman University); Jeremy Hsu (Chapman University)

STUDY CONTEXT: Exams and quizzes are prevalent in college biology courses, with past work demonstrating how the wording of assessment questions can impact students’ attitudes and performance (Chiavaroli, 2017; Awofala, 2014; Ku & Sullivan, 2001). However, despite this work, there has only been limited past work examining how subject framing – i.e., which individual, if any, is being placed as the focal point of the question. Our past research has suggested that how scenario-based assessment questions are framed can greatly impact students' attitudes and how they interpret the question (Authors, 2023). Here, we build upon our past survey-based work by conducting interviews with undergraduate students to investigate why various subject framing of assessment questions leads to differences in students' affect and understanding.

We use the theoretical framework of discourse comprehension (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Under this framework, students build both a textbase and a situation model after reading an assessment question. When reading an assessment question, students must first form a textbase, representing a more surface-level processing of the question, and then use this textbase to construct a more complex situation model representing a deeper level of processing. When students build a textbase and situation model, they interact and connect their personal experiences to the text, thus creating a dynamic relationship to discourse (Diesen, 2022).

STUDY DESIGN: We addressed the following research questions:
1. What framing do students prefer in scenario-based assessment questions, and why?
2. How do the different framings of a given assessment question impact students' ability to read and process the scenario?
3. How does the framing of the subject of scenario-based questions influence student attitudes, and how well can they relate to the question?

In this study, we focus on the following subject framing versions – a counterstereotypical scientist (authentic), a classmate name (classmate-referential), or the second-person "you", referring to the reader (self-referential).

We conducted the work at a private R2 university in southern California with 11 participants in a molecular biology course. Interview questions were designed iteratively with multiple members of the research team and the protocol was validated through a cognitive response process interview (Misheva et al., 2023). We conducted semi-structured, validated interviews where interviewees were given three isomorphic scenario-based questions that varied who conducted the experiment: authentic, classmate referential, and self-referential version. After the participants had read each question, we asked questions to probe students' attitudes, visualize the question, and determine their ability to relate to the subject.

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: The interviews were then transcribed, and two researchers conducted thematic analysis using deductive and inductive coding, allowing us to incorporate both a priori themes from our previous work and identify new, emergent themes. First, both coders independently created codebooks and then merged these to form a consensus codebook, using constant comparison (Glaser, 1965). To establish reliability of the codebook, both coders coded a subset of interviews (n=2) and resolved disagreements through discussion, before one coder applied codes to the rest of the transcriptions, discussing each utterance with the second coder.

Most students stated that they most preferred the self-referential version and least preferred the authentic version. Our results indicate that the self-referential framing can help students build a textbase model more easily, enhance the relatability of the question, increase visualization ability, and reduce cognitive load and distraction while building the situation model. The classmate referential version also impacted students' preferences. The classmate referential version can help students build a textbase model more easily and provide a perceived sense of capability, relatability, and visualization. Finally, students least preferred the authentic framing in the scenario-based questions. The authentic version's extra words and information can impede a student's ability to build a textbase model. The authentic version can also increase cognitive load and perceived complexity while constructing the situation model. Finally, the researchers' names in the authentic version can cause decreased relatability and intimidation among the students.

CONTRIBUTION: This study generates new knowledge on how variation in assessment question subject framing influences students’ attitudes and thinking, how relatable a question is, and ability to visualize the scenario. In addition, our results are relevant for biology instructors by providing unique insight into how changing the subject of an assessment question can impact how students read and process the question.

Author:

Anisha Navlekar (Texas Tech University)*; Nia Baker (Texas Tech University); Mackenzie Ghaemmaghami (Texas Tech University); Imani Obasi (Texas Tech University); Sochinenyenwa Onubogu (Texas Tech University); Cassandra O'Pry (Texas Tech University); Robert Posey (Texas Tech University); Jessica Tan (Texas Tech University); Karen Walulu (Texas Tech University); Joshua Reid (Texas Tech University); Lisa Limeri (Texas Tech University)

Study context: Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) in laboratory-based biology courses often interact with undergraduates more closely than faculty (Rushin et al., 1997). Despite high direct engagement with students, GTAs are often not sufficiently trained in evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) (Connolly et al., 2016; Gardner and Jones, 2011; Stains et al., 2017). Providing teaching professional development for GTAs could improve undergraduate learning outcomes and also prepare GTAs for future faculty roles (Pelletreau et al., 2018). 
We created a professional development program called the Biology Teacher Scholars (BTS) program for GTAs in a biology department of an R1 university in south United States. In fall 2022, we piloted BTS with a cohort of 19 GTAs teaching a large-enrollment introductory biology lab course. The program included a pre-semester bootcamp of workshops on topics relevant to biology labs, a microteaching session to practice and receive non-evaluative feedback, monthly mentor meetings, reflective peer observation, and drafting a teaching philosophy. We evaluated the effectiveness of the BTS program guided by two theoretical frameworks. The teaching perspectives framework posits five perspectives (Pratt et al., 2000) – transmission (effective delivery of content), apprenticeship (guidance towards independence), developmental (teaching from the learner’s perspective), nurturing (valuing individual progress), and social reform (critically evaluating information). Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy framework describes one’s confidence in their ability to successfully complete a task. Teaching self-efficacy includes self-efficacy for using instructional practices and creating a positive learning environment (DeChenne et al., 2012). 
Study Design: We evaluated how the BTS program benefited participants through a mixed-methods study with two guiding questions: 
1) To what extent does participation in the BTS program contribute to changes in biology GTAs teaching perspectives and teaching self-efficacy?
2) What programmatic elements support GTA's development of teaching perspectives and teaching self-efficacy?
We surveyed participants at three time-points: before and after the bootcamp and at the end of the program with the Teaching Self-Efficacy survey (DeChenne et al., 2012) and Teaching Perspectives Inventory (Pratt et al., 2000). At the end of the semester, we surveyed biology GTAs who did not participate in the program as a comparison group. We interviewed participants to explore which program components supported participants’ teaching perspectives and self-efficacy.
Analyses and Interpretations: We analyzed surveys using R (version 4.2.2) and averaged responses among items to estimate a score for each construct. We used Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank tests to compare responses across time points and to compare participants to non-participants. We analyzed interview transcripts using a priori codes from the theoretical frameworks using the constant comparison method (Glaser, 1992) and consensus coding.
Our quantitative results revealed that only one teaching perspective changed across the semester in participating GTAs: social reform (V=8, p=.05). Compared to non-participants, BTS participants more strongly agreed with the social reform perspective at the end of the semester (W=209, p=.001). However, we also found a disconnect in beliefs, intents and actions among the teaching perspectives. Participants whose beliefs aligned with apprenticeship and nurturing, reported actions related to transmission despite not having strong beliefs for that perspective. Participants’ teaching self-efficacy increased significantly post-bootcamp, both in creating a learning environment (V=0, p=.01) and using various instructional strategies (V=0, p=.01). However, these improvements did not persist throughout the semester; at the end of the semester, BTS participants did not differ in self-efficacy from non-participant GTAs.
Our qualitative analyses revealed that the program improved GTA self-efficacy through monthly mentor meetings and non-evaluative feedback. Participants reported motivation to implement EBIPs due to the bootcamp session on growth mindset and reported reflecting on their teaching practices as a result. 
Contribution: Overall, we find that the BTS program supported GTAs with low self-efficacy and helped them solidify their teaching perspectives. Interestingly, we did not directly teach the social reform perspective during the program; rather, it seems that encouraging the participants to reflect on their teaching values helped them solidify their own perspectives, which happened to align with the social reform perspective. Our results indicated revisions are needed to better support participants self-efficacy gains throughout the semester. We plan revisions to the program to foster greater engagement with mentors in smaller, more focused mentoring groups throughout the semester.

Author:

Ariel Steele (University of Minnesota)*; Lydia Swanson (University of Minnesota); Joshua Reid (Texas Tech University); A. Kelly Lane (University of Minnesota)

STUDY CONTEXT
Effective mentorship is crucial to the academic success, professional development, and mental wellbeing of graduate students (Atkins et al., 2020; Austin, 2002; Austin & McDaniels, 2005; Barnes & Austin, 2009; Christe, 2013; Golde, 2005; Griffin et al., 2015; NASEM, 2018; Wofford & Blaney, 2021). In biology graduate education, primary advisors act as the thesis/dissertation chair and provide guidance on research, academic career development, and coursework, but they may not have expertise in all of these areas to serve as the sole mentor to their trainees. There are many facets to graduate student development that extend beyond research, and graduate students may require additional mentorship to support their development (Lane et al., 2019; NASEM, 2018; Reid & Gardner, 2020). Research has shown that multiple mentors can be beneficial to the development of instructors (Lane et al., 2022; Lane et al., 2019; Van Waes et al., 2016), first-year business doctoral students (Sweitzer 2004), early career liberal arts faculty (Baker, 2020), and graduate students of color in STEM (Griffin et al., 2020). Understanding how biology graduate students seek out mentors beyond their advisor, how they build those mentoring relationships, and what kind of support those mentors provide is critical to developing well-rounded graduate programs that prepare students for the various roles they play in their careers. This study uses social network theory to qualitatively investigate how graduate students in biology identify and build relationships with multiple mentors beyond their primary advisors. Social network theory examines relationships between individuals within a given context (Carolan, 2014) to develop an in-depth understanding of how graduate students identify, establish, and maintain their mentoring relationships, in addition to exploring what value graduate students gain from these relationships.

RESEARCH DESIGN
We used personal networks, also known as ego networks, to visually map the people graduate students identify as mentors (Van Waes & Van den Bossche, 2020; Lane et al., 2022). We conducted interviews with nine graduate students in biology about their mentoring relationships. In the interviews, each participant constructed an ego network using a concentric circle to sort their mentoring relationships. We then asked the participants to describe their relationships with their mentors, starting with the mentor identified as having the closest relationship (in the center of the concentric circle) and working out to the least close relationship. In the interviews, we asked about how they met that mentor, how often they interact, the support they receive, and the depth of conversations they have with their mentors.

ANALYSES & INTERPRETATION
We used content and thematic analysis to characterize the mentoring relationships of biology graduate students (Hseih & Shannon, 2006; Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, we summarized each of the participants’ relationships they discussed in the interview. We then identified the characteristics of each of those relationships, such as how often they met and how they connected. We then identified the types of support the mentors provided to the participants. The participants described three types of mentors: mentors that are faculty but not their primary advisor, mentors that are not faculty and not direct peers, and peers. For many of the participants, their mentors were either members of their dissertation committee, other graduate students, or their TA supervisor. The participants described receiving advice from their mentors ranging from research and writing support, to teaching support, career advice and professional development, advice on how to navigate the advisor-advisee relationship, social and emotional support, and advice on how to mentor undergraduate students. For example, participant Sam explained how Alex, who was the lab coordinator at their university, provided support and advice for how to mentor undergraduate students in research, which helped build Sam’s confidence in mentoring undergraduate students.

CONTRIBUTION
This study focuses on characterizing the mentoring relationships of biology graduate students beyond their primary advisor. We show how biology graduate students seek out mentorship from a variety of people, including other faculty members, non-faculty members, and peers to receive support on research, teaching, career development, emotional support, and advice on how to navigate the advisor-advisee relationship. Identifying the mentoring relationships graduate students create with mentors beyond their primary advisor can help us understand what additional support graduate students need for their development. This information is also important for graduate programs to use to identify and create a network of mentors that can support the unique needs of graduate students in their program.

Author:

Joshua Reid (Texas Tech University)*

Study Context
Teaching assistants (TAs) enrolled in a semester-long teaching professional development (TPD) course alongside their first teaching assistant experience. The program was designed around TPD best practices: active engagement of participants, relevance to roles, and reflection (Desimone & Garet, 2015). Teaching perspectives are the beliefs and intentions held by instructors that guide actions related to teaching and learning (Volkmann & Zgagacz, 2004). Five teaching perspectives have been identified in the literature: transmission, apprenticeship, nurturing, development, and social reform (Pratt & Collins, 2000). Each of these perspectives includes a combination of beliefs, intentions, and actions about how students learn, how learning occurs, and what learning looks like (Pratt 2000). 

Research Questions:
RQ1: What is the variation in teaching perspectives among TAs before and after participation in a reflective curriculum TPD? 
RQ2: How do teaching perspectives relate to how TAs define teaching, learning, and the role of grading in science?

Research Design
We used a mixed-methods design to collect our data. Data were collected across three semesters (Fall ‘22, Spring ‘22, Spring ‘23). We recruited graduate and undergraduate TAs enrolled in a TPD course at a large Southeastern research-intensive university. 

TPI survey description and interpretation notes and analysis
The Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI) captures instructors' commitment to particular teaching perspectives (Pratt & Collins, 2000). We collected TPI survey data from TAs pre-/post-semester and analyzed them using descriptive statistics and generalized linear mixed-effect models (GLMMs).

Open-ended questions data collection and analysis
Students responded to the following prompts both pre- and post-course:
(1) Define teaching and what it means to teach science
(2) Define learning and what does it mean to learn science
(3) How would you define grading and what role does grading play in teaching and learning of science? 

For the teaching prompt, we coded each response using the pre-established codes from Pratt (2001) that align with the teaching perspectives. For the learning prompt, we coded each response using Sfards (1999) metaphors of learning framework. For the third prompt, we used inductive coding techniques to discover patterns and themes among responses. 

Analyses and Interpretations
RQ1: Precourse, TAs (n=71) held nurturing perspectives (29.6%), followed by no clear dominant perspective (23.9%), apprenticeship (21.1%), developmental (12.7%), and transmission (12.7%). Nurturing as the primary dominant perspective was driven by the UTAs in the sample, with 38.9% of UTAs holding a nurturing perspective before the course. Postcourse, TAs (n=79) retained a nurturing perspective (30.4%), but some shifted to transmission (19%) and developmental (3.8%).
Changes in teaching perspectives were also noted in TA reflections. For instance, a student who initially held a transmission perspective stated “Teaching is the sharing and imparting of knowledge and information by an individual to another.” Their post-course reflection indicated a change in their perspective: “After this class, I believe teaching sciences is not just imparting specific facts. Teaching science is providing students with base level information to apply to higher level thinking and real-world problems.”

RQ2: Precourse, many participants defined teaching from transmission (n=15) and apprenticeship perspective (n=14). However, this shifted after the course to the majority of TAs' define teaching from a transmissionist perspective (n=16) and developmental (n=8). Using the Sfard (1999) two metaphors of learning framework, “Acquisition” was the most common code with n=194 coded definitions for pre-course and n=197 coded definitions for post-course. “Participatory” was the least common code with n=5 for pre-course and n=2 for post-course. Analysis of the grading prompt led to the development of three primary codes reflecting how TA’s spoke about the purpose of grading in the teaching and learning of science: (1) measure learning, (2) teacher feedback, and (3) student feedback. We are still analyzing this prompt. 

Contribution
Our study builds on previous research in teaching perspectives in instructors, with particular focus on TAs, who are responsible for much of undergraduate biology instruction. This study contributes to literature about effective practices in TPD for supporting change in teaching perspectives. Our data will refine our understanding of how TA ideas about teaching manifest in behaviors within their courses, and will inform how we may shift teaching perspectives and conversations about grading and its relationship to teaching and learning within the undergraduate science classroom.

Author:

Rosario Marroquin-Flores (James Madison University)*; Stephanie Grimes (Texas Tech University); Maverick Campbell (Texas Tech University); Lisa Limeri (Texas Tech University)

Study context. Traditional classrooms often do not meet the needs of diverse students because their values are not reflected in the course (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2019, 2020). Rightful presence is a justice-oriented pedagogical framework that foregrounds the values and sociocultural experiences of students to legitimize their membership within the classroom (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2019, 2020). By shifting away from power-mediated cultural norms and towards co-construction, we can create a classroom environment that fosters consequential learning (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2019). In the sciences, consequential learning can refer to opportunities where students use their scientific knowledge to create change in the communities they value, and in doing so, define what meaningful science looks like (Birmingham et al., 2017). We developed and piloted a biology service-learning course designed to align with the central tenets of the rightful presence framework. We hypothesized that the course would support the socioemotional needs of students and help them to find value in the course, thereby promoting motivation. 

Study design. The service-learning course was taught at a Hispanic-Serving Institution with Very High Research Activity as an upper-level special topics course in biology. Students (n = 26) enrolled in the course were invited identify and explore the biological effects of a real-world problem related to environmental justice and to develop a service project designed to address the problem. Learning objectives focused on science process skills, civic awareness, and critical reflection. At the end of the course, students were asked to write a reflection describing what they did/did not enjoy, how the course compared to other classes, and recommendations for improvement. End-of-course reflections were qualitatively analyzed using the following research questions as a guide: 
1. What unique benefits and challenges did students experience?
2. What components of the course support student motivation?
3. How can the course be improved to better foster learning?

Analyses and interpretations. End-of-the-course reflections were qualitatively analyzed in two phases using thematic analysis. In each phase, three researchers analyzed the data individually, then met to discuss codes to consensus. We initially used an inductive approach to identify emergent themes, then used a deductive approach to look for evidence of motivation based on the self-determination theory (SDT) and the expectancy-value theory (EVT) of motivation. SDT suggests that students are more motivated when they have autonomy over their learning, feel competent, and feel connected to others (Ryan and Deci, 2000). EVT suggests that students are more motivated when they believe they can succeed, value the activities, and when the value outweighs the costs of participating (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). After all reflections were coded to consensus, we looked for overlap between inductively derived themes and student motivation. Coding units with text that fell into both an inductively derived theme and a construct of SDT or EVT were considered overlapping. Analysis was completed use Delve Qualitative Software.

In their reflections, students described the unique structure of the course, the process of the project development, feeling like they were making a difference, and specific learning gains. They also described experiencing several challenges, some of which were overcome, and others that could not be overcome. We also found evidence for both SDT and EVT. We found that the student-centered nature of the course and feeling like they were making a difference contributed to feelings of autonomy and relatedness to the community (SDT) for approximately 50% of the students. We found that feeling like they were making a difference and learning science process skills and career-related skills contributed to feelings of attainment and utility value (EVT) for approximately 50% of the students. Recommendations for improvement largely related to increased scaffolding and modified due dates. Our findings suggest that the course created a unique learning environment that aligned with the socioemotional needs of students and allowed them to draw on many forms of motivation.

Contribution. Service-learning is a high-impact pedagogical practice that can be used to promote consequential learning, but there has been little research on service-learning in STEM fields (Botelho, 2020). In this work, we identify elements of a STEM service-learning course that align with student values and contribute to motivation within the course. Our work suggests that creating a learning environment that empowers students to bring their values and cultural strengths into the classroom can create unique learning opportunities for students. Our findings can be used by scholars within the biology education research community to design and implement service-learning courses in STEM.

Author:

Emilee Baker (University of Minnesota )*; Sarah Eddy (University of Minnesota)

STUDY CONTEXT:
LGBTQ+ students describe harmful impacts to their belonging because of experiences in STEM education (Marosi et al. 2024). Students who experience gender in ways that do not align with sex assigned at birth (trans-spectrum) experience these impacts more than their cisgendered queer peers (Garvey & Rankin 2015). The normative standards of biology education can erase trans-spectrum identities (Casper et al. 2022); and yet, these students persist and resist, countering such standards. We sought to understand how students sought out or happened upon countersapces, which support trans-spectrum students' learning in biology. Counterspaces is an asset-based framework that facilitates in interrogating students' experiences of a setting while reflecting upon shared oppression and resistance narratives. We characterize counterspaces by connecting the space, individuals and community through various processes, including personal narrative identity work; micro and macro acts of resistance; and direct relational transactions between students, and instructors. 

Counterspace theory stems from critical race theory and identity development. It theorizes how well-being can improve by challenging deficit-oriented societal narratives specific to the experiences of marginalized students (Case & Hunter 2012). Research has documented the need for counterspaces on campuses because of oppression narratives experienced by students of color in STEM (King & Pringle 2018), Brown and Black students in doctoral education (Masta 2021), and queer students accessing graduate student associations (Cerexo & Bergfeld 2013). Additional research includes studying counterspaces in biology education research as a socialization process (Artiles et al. 2025) and defining a student’s sense of belonging in STEM (Gray et al. 2025).

RESEARCH DESIGN:
Centering the experiences of trans-spectrum students, we explored: 
What characteristics of counterspaces do trans-spectrum students recount when reflecting upon experiences in biology settings?
How does belonging to counterspaces affect trans-spectrum students’ experiences in learning spaces? 
Data came from 150 interviews conducted nationally with more than 50 trans-spectrum students who had completed at least three college-level biology courses. The interviews explored sex/gender narratives encountered in biology settings and the social context of the students experiences and relationships. Working within a qualitative paradigm, we used thematic analysis for coding, relying upon flexibility and informed by researcher reflexivity (Braun & Clarke 2006). We deductively coded for the processes of counterspaces, including narrative identity work, acts of resistance, direct relational transactions. Counterspaces were then identified by determining formal (e.g. constructed and managed by the university, department, or instructor) or informal (e.g. created and maintained by students) spaces and inductive characteristics, including membership, absence of or physical locations, and belief systems. 

ANALYSES & INTERPRETATIONS: 
Students accessed counterspaces and through relationships affirming personal narratives, challenging master narratives, and resisting collectively. Participants detailed formal counterspaces, including student clubs, biology classrooms and departments, and universities. Notable findings include the University and biology department as counterspaces because these spaces typically evade and perpetuate oppressive narratives. Within these counterspaces, access to role models and mentors transforms the educational opportunities for students. Participant 14 explains, “She’s [instructor] part of the community. She’s not hiding herself. It makes me more comfortable with the space as a whole. It's really important to see representation in higher places for who you are, because then you feel like you can do it.”

The most common informal counterspaces were study groups formed by students with shared identities or interests. Participant 19 explained how “we’re in this together” after witnessing “not really normal or okay things to say” in class and acknowledging this with “gender diverse” peers. The members of the “study group” reflected upon oppression narratives, including gender essentialism and cisheternormativity present in genetics classes and reproductive units. This process demonstrates narrative identity work and direct relational transactions, processes that arguably need to be present within a counterspace. 

CONTRIBUTION: 
We contribute to the research by refining counterspaces as defined by trans-spectrum students, exploring the increased access to educational experiences, and reimaging student narratives about success within biology spaces. Implications include suggestions for instructors and biology departments to facilitate the development of counterspaces to support student learning because of networks, establishing a sense of belonging, and transforming classrooms.

Author:

John Espinosa (UC Merced)*; Jackie Shay (UC Santa Barbara); Rosemarie Bongers (UC Merced); Mindy Findlater (UC Merced)

Study Context: At colleges and universities across the country, budget constraints have led to increases in class size, extending into discussion sections that exist to provide opportunities for small-group discussion and active learning. In large STEM lecture courses, undergraduate learning assistants (LAs) have been recruited to help facilitate active learning. This qualitative study explores the role of adding LAs into large discussion sections to support graduate teaching assistants (TAs) in these spaces, drawing on the theoretical framework of the Zone of Proximal Development to understand the dynamics of TA-LA interactions and their impact on TA development (Vygotsky, 1978). 

The integration of LAs into large-enrollment STEM courses has demonstrated multiple benefits for students, including improved academic performance, increased motivation, and reduced anxiety (Barrasso & Spilios, 2021; Ferrari et al., 2023). However, less is known about how LAs impact the experiences of graduate TAs. This qualitative study aims to fill this gap by examining whether the LA/TA model helps TAs feel supported when leading larger discussion sections. 

Study Design: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 TAs and 6 LAs as they navigated larger (>40 person) discussion sections in introductory biology classes at a minority-serving institution. Participants represented a range of levels of instructional experience and TAs had varying levels of support from LAs. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis, with initial coding followed by the development of broader themes. 

Analyses and Interpretations: Preliminary findings suggested that TAs appreciated the added support LAs provided, particularly in managing larger groups. However, TAs did not seem to explicitly change their teaching strategies based on the presence of LAs. The key themes emerging from the data included the use of LAs as near-peer mentors for students and the ways in which that complemented the role of the TA. Additionally, TAs had to adjust to working with an LA and needed guidance on how to best incorporate them into the class. 

Contribution: This study contributes to the growing body of literature on LA programs by focusing on their impact on graduate TAs, an often-overlooked stakeholder group. By exploring this dimension, we provide insight into how LA programs can be optimized to support both undergraduate learning and graduate student teacher development. Our findings have implications for the design of TA training programs, the implementation of LA programs, and the structuring of large discussion sections in STEM courses.

Author:

Cristine Donham (University of California, Santa Barbara)*; Matthew Madison (University of Georgia); Tessa Andrews (University of Georgia)

Context: This study examined how systemic injustices impacted undergraduates' sense of belonging in introductory biology courses. Sense of belonging refers to one's perception of being connected, comfortable, and accepted in an academic setting (Goodenow, 1993). A strong sense of belonging has been linked to benefits such as increased academic success and persistence (Strayhorn, 2013; O’Keefe, 2013). However, inequities in learning environments have undermined belonging for many, including women, students from marginalized communities, and first-generation students (Goplan, 2019; Cwik, 2022). Prior investigations of classroom belonging have been limited in scope to single contexts and have not examined how the intersection of marginalized identities impacts students’ experiences. We used a QuantCrit framing and a national sample to address this gap (Tabron, 2023; Gillborn, 2018).

Design: A QuantCrit approach recognizes the broader systemic forces shaping educational inequities, and assumes a priori that differences among groups reflect the impacts of systemic barriers rather than individual variables. We asked: how do the intersections of racism, sexism, and classism influence students’ sense of belonging in biology courses? We measured students’ belonging in 56 large biology courses across the US (n = 5,187) using a research-based instrument that assesses three components of belonging: connection to classmates, climate for sharing ideas, and comfort in seeking instructor help. Students also reported their gender, race/ethnicity, and parent education level. In alignment with QuantCrit principles, we disaggregated racial/ethnic data to reflect the diversity of identities. We examined 7 groups: Black, Indigenous American, Latine, Middle Eastern, White, and two Asian groups. Disaggregating Asian groups can unmask differences, as Southeast Asian groups (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong) tend to face greater challenges due to immigration histories and access to resources (Asian Group 1) (Santos, 2024; Nguyen, 2024).

Analysis and Interpretations: We used hierarchical linear models with students clustered within courses to examine how the intersection of racism and sexism and the intersection of racism and classism shaped students’ sense of belonging. Models used effect coding for race/ethnicity, gender, and first-gen status to avoid centering privileged groups by comparing all groups to an overall mean. Models controlled for class size and semester. We fit separate models for each component of sense of belonging.
Racism and classism had the greatest impact on students’ sense of connection to classmates. Women across racial/ethnic groups felt more connected to classmates than men, but racism led to a lower-than-average sense of connection for Black, Latine, and Indigenous women. Men experienced similar effects, with Indigenous, Asian Group 1, and Black men reporting a much lower-than-average sense of connection. Classism undermined first-gen students’ sense of connection to classmates across all racial/ethnic groups, with racism exacerbating this impact for Indigenous, Latine, both Asian groups, and Black students. Conversely, White and Middle Eastern first-gen students reported a higher-than-average sense of connection.
Sexism, racism, and classism negatively affected students’ perceptions of the classroom climate for sharing ideas. Sexism greatly undermined women’s comfort with sharing in class, with women in every racial/ethnic group reporting less comfort than men. Racism also compromised students’ comfort with sharing, most profoundly for Asian Group 1, Indigenous, and Latine women. Classism and racism also interacted to diminish students’ comfort in sharing. First-gen students felt less comfortable sharing than continuing-gen students across all racial/ethnic groups, with the most pronounced negative impact on Asian Group 1 and Latine students. 
The impact of racism, sexism, and classism on students’ comfort in seeking instructor help was complex. White, Middle Eastern, and Asian Group 2 men reported higher-than-average comfort seeking help from instructors, while White women had lower-than-average comfort seeking help. Continuing-generation Black and Asian Group 2 students had higher than average comfort seeking instructor help.

Contribution: Fostering environments where all students feel they belong is essential for promoting equity in biology. We expanded on prior work by examining how racism, sexism, and classism intersect to shape belonging in biology classrooms at a national scale. Our findings revealed that racism and classism strongly hindered connection with classmates, sexism limited women’s comfort in sharing ideas, classism undermined first-gen students comfort sharing, and racism exacerbated this barrier for women and first-gen students. For instructors, this suggests that peer connections may not form equally and participation is not just about confidence.

Author:

Eli Meir (SimBiotic Software)*; Zhongtian Huang (University of Pennsylvania); Ryan Baker (University of Pennsylvania); Stephanie Gardner (Purdue University)

Background
Graph construction is a critical skill for quantitative literacy and for data analysis and communication in almost all fields of biology (Gardner et al, 2024). Current thinking on biology teaching puts an emphasis on broadly used science skills, and graphing is one of these, central to quantitative competency, ability to interpret data, and communicating scientific results (Woodin et al, 2010; Pelaez et al, 2022; Bray Speth et al, 2010). Previous research has demonstrated that undergraduate students often have trouble constructing high quality graphs (Wiggins, 1990; Angra and Gardner, 2017). Yet while there is a long-established and large body of research on graph interpretation (e.g. Shah and Hoeffner, 2002), there is comparatively little known about student learning of graph construction (reviewed in Gardner et al, 2024). We do not know, for instance, whether students tend to improve their competence at graph construction during a typical undergraduate biology class, nor whether typical instruction in graphing tends to improve their competence.

Research Design
In this study we used a set of validated performance-based assessments of graph construction (citation’s withheld for anonymity) to survey 91 undergraduate biology classes from 75 different institutions. Institutions spanned the United States and had a diversity of populations and institution type. Data came from a total of 3,364 students, with the majority in introductory biology classes but some also taking upper-level classes. Many of these classes assigned two graphing assessments during the term, allowing for a comparison over time within the class. In some classes, instructors self-reported providing instruction on graphing in between the two assessments. 

We produced scores on seven activities that are involved in constructing graphs as well as a summary score of graphing competence for each student on each assessment they took. From this data, we used Mann-Whitney tests and t-tests to ask the following:
1. Are there changes in graphing competence from earlier to later in the term in an average biology class?
2. Do students in biology classes providing instruction on graph construction show higher post-instruction graphing competence?

Analysis
There was a significant increase in graphing competence from the first graph construction assessment given in a term to the second. This increase was very small, however (Cohen’s D = 0.19). There was no significant difference in scores on the second assessment in classes where the instructor provided graphing instruction compared to classes without such instruction.

Conclusions
While students slightly improve their graphing competence in many biology courses, the average change is quite small. The right instructional techniques can certainly help (e.g. Bray Speth et al, 2010), but our data show that most instructional practices on graph construction currently used in biology classes do little to improve student competence at graphing. Given the fundamental role of graphs in biology research and more broadly, these results are disappointing. We suggest they indicate a need for better, research- based tools for teaching students how to make good graphs. 

Author:

Dhanya Attipetty (University of Minnesota)*; Anita Schuchardt (University of Minnesota)

Study Context and Rationale: 
Learning how to use theory to structure research is an essential part of the journey to becoming a researcher (e.g., Kiley, 2009; Hiba, 2024). For many researchers (both novice and expert), using and developing a theoretical or conceptual framework for their study can be a difficult task (Casanave & Li, 2015; Kiley, 2015). An analysis of CBE Life Sciences Education papers published between 2015-2019, found that less than 25% of papers utilized theoretical or conceptual frameworks (Luft et al. 2022). Several papers have been published on how to support researchers in understanding (or using) theoretical and conceptual frameworks (Casanave & Li, 2015; Kiley, 2015). However, scholars tend to differ on characterization of theoretical and conceptual frameworks—often using these terms interchangeably (Wald & Daniel, 2020). Current information about frameworks is dispersed throughout the literature and few comprehensive articles exist, highlighting the need to consolidate existing knowledge on frameworks (Hiba, 2024). A systematic review of recent literature about frameworks is needed to identify how science and education research fields define frameworks and to gather strategies on using frameworks to structure research investigations.

Theoretical Lens
Legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) refers to how newcomers integrate into a community through active involvement in its practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Newcomers start with simple tasks and gradually take on more complex roles as they develop experience, which changes how they participate in a community of practice. As part of the journey to becoming a researcher, it is essential to learn the practice of using theory to structure research. In their study of doctoral candidates and their supervisors, Kiley (2015) states, “...an understanding of theory is believed to be critical in learning to be a researcher.” This systematic literature review uses legitimate peripheral participation as its theoretical lens to examine the use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks as a research practice and to create a product that will aid newcomers to research.

Research Design:
A systematic literature review involves conducting an extensive review of the literature using structured procedures (e.g. establishing search criteria, literature screening, data extraction) (Xiao & Watson, 2017; Dewey et al., 2021). The following search terms were entered as one entry into Google Scholar: <theoretical framework, research, conceptual framework>. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed journal papers published in English between 2009-2024. Exclusion criteria included books, or fields that were not related to education or science, such as nursing and management sciences. From the initial search, four seminal papers (e.g. discusses new ideas or frequently cited) were identified. Backward and forward snowballing was conducted for 10 cycles until saturation above 80% was reached. 131 relevant papers have been identified.

Analyses and Findings: 
Preliminary results found that scholars differentiated theoretical and conceptual frameworks by the following characteristics: research approach (deductive versus inductive), scope, level of abstraction, and framework purpose (e.g., Imenda, 2014; Luft et al., 2022). Disagreement on characterization of theoretical and conceptual frameworks occurred due to the influence of different disciplinary norms and expectations. For example, a number of scholars stated that deductive research approaches primarily use theoretical frameworks while inductive approaches develop their conceptual frameworks throughout the research process (e.g. Imenda, 2014). However, some scholars argued against distinguishing frameworks by research approach (Varpio et al., 2020). Scope is also a common characteristic used by scholars. Adom (2018) refers to the theoretical framework as a “broader set of ideas within which a study belongs” while a conceptual framework is made of the “narrower ideas a researcher utilizes in his/her study.” However, some scholars describe the opposite: Luft and colleagues (2022) state that, “Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas.” Compilation of differences and similarities across research disciplines (e.g., biology education) is continuing.

Contribution: 
This review offers a comprehensive view of how theoretical and conceptual frameworks are used and understood in science and education-related fields. Compilation of these characterizations of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in one document will aid interdisciplinary research by decreasing misunderstandings. Moreover, synthesizing advice on how to construct and use these frameworks will benefit both mentors and their mentees in using theoretical and conceptual frameworks to structure their research and manuscript writing.

Author:

Joseph Ruesch (Cornell University)*; Mark Sarvary (Cornell University)

Study Context
Effective communication of classroom policies is crucial for student success, particularly in a large introductory course, as individual discussion of policies for clarity becomes an improbable task. A well-established policy can enhance student engagement and reduce stress when things go wrong in the classroom (Ruesch and Sarvary 2024), yet this hinges on norm acceptance and clarity in communication (Farrington 2011). The principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) advocate for diverse methods of engagement, expression, and representation, allowing all students a better chance to succeed (Silver et al. 1998). By clearly communicating all information relating to policies, we also reduce the hidden curriculum and help all of our students know what is required of them (Bergenhenegouwen 1987; Alsubaie 2015). 
Furthermore, effective communication should integrate various channels, including syllabi, oral instruction, and visual aids, to support a diverse student body (Eberly et al. 2001; Paivio 2014). Using multimodal communication and making available verbal and nonverbal sources for this valuable information can ensure that students have access to the information when the need arises (Mayer 2024). This thoughtful communication aligns with differentiated instruction principles (Subban 2006; Suprayogi et al. 2017), helping educators meet the unique needs of their students while ensuring equitable access to resources (Hockings et al. 2012). The objective of this study was to explore how students consume course policy-related information and what communication strategy instructors can develop to create an inclusive learning environment following the UDL framework. While there are studies focusing on the syllabus (Eberly et al. 2001; Doolittle and Siudzinski 2010) multi-modal communication in the classroom has not been studied before. This research aims to address that gap in the literature.
Study Design and Analysis
Students had both policies communicated to them through visual and auditory means, including through the course website, the hallway display, access to slides on the learning management software (LMS), infographics, LMS announcements, hearing about it from their peers, laboratory instructor, lecturer, undergraduate teaching assistant or during office hours. In the end of the semester survey, students were asked how they learned about the two course policies related to assignment extensions. One of the policies was novel, while the other one has been established for multiple semesters. It was found that students learned about the two policies through the syllabus (78% and 71%), which was followed by the infographic seen during the lecture (35% and 31%) and then by hearing about the system from the lecturer (31% and 24%). A limited number of students became aware of the policy interventions through the course website, LMS announcements, digital displays near the lab rooms, or discussions during office hours with their undergraduate teaching assistants. It was seen that students in every communication channel were more likely to learn about the established policy as compared to the novel one. This was true despite most communication modalities containing information about both policies side-by-side. It implies an external impact may be at play in learning about course policies that are not measured in this study, such as the ability for information relating to a course to be shared by prior participants in the course (academic generational knowledge). This may be done via Reddit, word of mouth, old syllabi, etc. This sharing may have an impact on student retention as well as on the clarity of a policy. We saw that students found the established policy to have greater clarity than the newer policy (Chi-squared, p-value < 0.01), with 64% finding the old policy to be very clear (only 50% for the newer policy). 
In conclusion, effective communication of classroom policies is essential for fostering an inclusive and successful learning environment, particularly in large introductory courses. Our analysis highlights the enduring effectiveness of traditional communication methods, such as the syllabus, which remains a vital resource for students, even in the digital age. The discrepancies in clarity and understanding between older and newer policies underscore the importance of consistently revisiting and improving communication strategies. By integrating various channels for policy dissemination—including visual aids, oral instructions, and digital platforms—educators can better support diverse student needs and reduce confusion. Moving forward, it is crucial for instructors to assess and adapt their communication practices, ensuring that all students are equipped with the knowledge and resources they need for academic success. This approach not only enhances policy awareness but also serves to build a more engaged and confident student body.

Author:

Parker Ballard (Brigham Young University)*; Jamie Jensen (Brigham Young University)

Study Context
Lecture videos are a common instructional method in undergraduate education. However, watching a lecture video is often a passive learning experience. The theory of constructivism states that students learn by actively engaging with material to construct their own mental representations of new information (Olusegun, 2015). The 5E instructional model is rooted in the theory of constructivism and encourages instructors to provide opportunities for concept exploration prior to providing explanations (Bybee & Landes, 1990). Recent studies on video instruction have found the addition of embedded questions in video lectures can lead to learning gains and increased levels of self-efficacy (Kestin & Miller, 2022; van der Meij & Bӧckmann, 2021). Lacey et al. (2024) reported that biology students enjoyed interactive videos that utilized branched decision-making trees, even though significant learning gains weren’t observed. These studies have all found ways to make STEM video lectures a more active learning experience. However, there remains a lack of evidence-based video instructional methods that encourage concept exploration prior to explanation as proposed in the 5E instructional model.
Study Design
We designed a constructivist-inspired prediction activity to implement the 5E instructional model in a video-based curriculum and to investigate its impact on student quiz performance and feelings of concept mastery. The prediction activity allowed students to construct their own understanding and engage in concept exploration prior to being introduced to terms and concept explanations. Study participants were recruited from a large enrollment introductory biology lab course. Half of the lab sections were randomly assigned to the control condition and the other lab sections were assigned to the experimental condition. The control and experimental groups both watched a seven-minute lecture video about the anatomy of spinal nerves. Immediately following the video, both groups completed a 10-question quiz and brief survey. To assess retention over time, both groups were also quizzed a second time, five weeks after the initial learning experience. The only difference between the groups was that the experimental group participated in the brief constructivist-inspired prediction activity prior to watching the lecture video.
Analyses and Interpretations
The constructivist-inspired pre-video activity was found to improve quiz performance and retention. Independents samples t-tests were used to compare the quiz scores of the two study groups. The 136 participants in the experimental group (M = 6.51, SD = 2.357) had higher scores than the 135 participants in the control group (M = 5.73, SD = 2.435) for the 10-question quiz, taken immediately after the learning experience, t(269) = -2.659, p = .008. The experimental group (M = 3.24, SD = 1.756) also had higher scores than the control group (M = 2.57, SD = 1.488) for the longitudinal quiz administered five weeks later t(248) = -3.214, p = .001.
Participation in constructivist-inspired pre-video activities was associated with higher levels of concept mastery. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare differences between the two study groups. The experimental group felt more prepared to take the initial quiz following the learning experience than the control group t(265) = -4.998, p < .001. Prior to taking the initial quiz the experimental group had higher predictions for their quiz score percentage than the control group t(267) = -3.144, p = .002. The experimental group was also more confident in their ability to teach the concepts they had learned to a friend, and they reported they would be ready to teach after 29 minutes of studying compared to the 40 minutes needed by the control group.
Contributions
These findings add an evidence-based approach for implementing constructivist-inspired activities into a video-based curriculum. Our findings show that completing a brief exploration activity prior to watching a lecture video increased quiz performance and feelings of concept mastery. This approach led to a more efficient learning experience than traditional video instruction. While completion of the prediction activity did take three to five minutes, participants in the experimental group expected they would save 11 minutes of future study time compared to the control group. We used this approach to teach the anatomy of spinal nerves in this study. However, this method is widely applicable in biology education and other STEM courses that utilize pre-recorded instructional videos. Future research is needed to refine this approach and to investigate its effectiveness in other disciplines.

Author:

Adam Chouinard (Oregon State University)*; Diyala Shihadih (Portland State University); Star Lee (UC Irvine); Stephanie Gutzler (Georgia State University); Kaleb Heinrich (University of Alabama); Mitra Asgari (University of Missouri); Erin Shortlidge (Portland State University)

Teaching Assistants (TAs) play a crucial role in the teaching mission of many higher education institutions, but too often they are asked to do these jobs without adequate support (Gardner and Jones, 2011; Schussler et al., 2015). Graduate TA populations also comprise the faculty of the future, and thus providing TAs with a foundation of Teaching Professional Development (TPD) is important for their own career outcomes, as well as for broadly disseminating evidence-based teaching practices (EBTPs) as a means of ensuring effective and inclusive STEM education (Connolly et al., 2016). To catalyze a disciplinary transformation towards more frequent and effective TA-TPD throughout the nation, we developed the Evolving the Culture of Biology (ECB) program (NSF-IUSE: 2142742). In this year-long cohort model, institutional teams of three ECB Scholars design and implement a strategic plan to create or improve TA-TPD programs at their home institutions.

This study investigated (1) whether our teams of ECB Scholars set out to create or reform a TPD program, (2) which specific aspects of TA-TPD they chose to improve, and (3) which goals were likely to be met after a year of reform efforts. To answer these questions, we applied a formal framework for analyzing TA-TPD: the Web of TPD Reform (Chouinard et al., 2025; in review). The TPD Web is a novel instrument for reflecting on and critically evaluating TA-TPD programs; it consists of 16 comprehensive features, each with five levels of descriptions that map a program’s structure and effectiveness. After mapping the “Pre-ECB” state of their TA-TPD, teams of ECB Scholars used the TPD Web to set distinct “TPD Goals” for their reforms; after a year of implementing their reform plans, they completed the TPD Web a final time to report on the “Post-ECB” state of their program.

At the halfway point of the Evolving the Culture of Biology program, we present the findings from our first three cohorts of ECB Scholars (N=86) from diverse institution types (N=30) in three geographic regions (Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest). Scholar Teams had varied goals for improving TA-TPD: a third of institutions (10/30) aimed to create a new component of TA-TPD, while two-thirds (20/30) aimed to reform an existing offering. Of those focused on reforming existing TPD, they often identified different sets of features to prioritize. The most common features for reform were those focused on TPD implementation: Intentionality (N=19), Teaching Dimensions (N=18), Equitable Teaching (N=16), and Community (N=15). The least prioritized features were those pertaining to program structure: Funding (N=4), Spacing (N=4), Audience (N=2), and Selectivity (N=0). This demonstrates that ECB Scholars are strategically allocating their efforts towards aspects of TPD most within their control.

This approach also allows us to explore the goals that institutions did and did not meet in their reform efforts. Findings from Cohort 1 (collected in 2024) reveal that teams meet many of their reform goals, but not all: teams ranged from 44% to 100% of stated goals being met. The most common goals to be met were for Spacing, Coherence, and Active Learning (100% each), while the least likely were for Program Assessment (66%), Funding (33%), and Audience (0%). Interestingly, some teams made partial progress towards their goals, while others exceeded more modest goals they had set; additionally, some reform efforts led to gains in other features of the TPD Web that were not set as explicit goals, indicating that prioritizing effort in strategic areas can lead to emergent benefits for TPD programs.

To supplement these findings, Post-ECB data for Cohorts 2 and 3 will be collected in May 2025, and we will additionally present the TPD reform goal features that were most (and least) likely to be met for all three cohorts. By studying biology education reforms at diverse institutions throughout the nation, and by elucidating the strategies that are most likely to work, this research will inform future disciplinary and institutional transformation efforts on the national scale.

Thank you to our lunch sponsor, The College Board!                                                   Please see the Resources section of the conference app for lunch information. 

Demo Description

SimBio invites you to join a workshop highlighting our simulation-based textbook offerings at SABER on Saturday from 12:30 to 1:00 in Bruininks 512.

We will be giving participants a sneak preview of our new SimBio Active Learning System, which provides web-based, interactive alternatives to traditional intro bio and ecology textbooks. In this workshop, we will demonstrate how SimBio’s research-backed, inquiry-driven teaching tools help students learn notoriously difficult topics in biology using simulations, videos, formative feedback, and other active teaching techniques. After showing the system and a selection of our teaching materials, we will ask for input on whether our new system meets your teaching needs and will solicit ideas for improvements.

Faculty who participate and complete a post-workshop survey will receive a $25 gift card.

Sign up for the workshop here or at SimBio’s table at the SABER poster sessions. Snacks provided by SimBio. Please bring your laptop!

Sign-up Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SimBio_SABER2025

Interactive Cell Biology

Transform the way students learn with animations that bring cell biology to life. Join us for an in-depth look at Interactive Cell Biology, a groundbreaking resource designed to help students visualize complex cellular processes and grasp key concepts more effectively. In this focus group, you’ll experience firsthand how engaging animations, integrated assessments, and a comprehensive suite of study tools and teaching resources can create a more impactful learning experience.

In exchange for your time, and upon completion of the survey, we will pay $100 for your participation.

Author:

Christelle Sabatier (Santa Clara University)*; Michelle McCully (Santa Clara University); Elizabeth Dahlhoff (Santa Clara University); Dawn Hart (Santa Clara University); Hannah Nelson (Santa Clara University)

Background: Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education highlighted the importance of developing competencies in biology courses as students are learning core concepts (AAAS, 2011). The Biology department at Santa Clara University redesigned their introductory biology courses in 2018 to align with the recommendations of Vision and Change. The 3-quarter sequence focuses on key conceptual themes and invites students to explore those themes across biological scales through collaborative learning activities that focus on data analysis, modeling and science communication. We have struggled to find accessible textbook resources that adequately support all of our course learning objectives. Typical introductory textbooks are quite costly ($100-$300+) and are organized by biological scale (e.g. molecular/cellular, organismal, ecological) rather than organizing around the central themes of biology in a manner that integrates across biological scales. We also seek to provide practice problems aligned to our course learning outcomes, highlight the work of scientists from historically underrepresented groups in science, and present biological concepts through a humanizing lens (Meuler et al, Frontiers in Education, 2023). Lasty, we seek to provide information through a variety of modalities in the resource materials including videos, audio clips and engaging activities. 
Project Description: In 2022, we received support from an OER for Social Justice grant from the Department of Education’s Open Textbook Pilot program and embarked on developing an open access introductory biology textbook through PressBooks that will better serve the needs of our students and our curriculum. We are remixing content from existing open access biology resources including OpenStax Biology 2/e, adding sections that highlight the scientific contributions of diverse scientists, and developing case studies to help set up students for the collaborative learning in our class sessions. We are leveraging HTML5 content and applications packages (H5P) to provide readers with an immersive and engaging experience. This includes reading check-ins and other opportunities to actively engage with the topics dispersed throughout the text, which has been shown to promote student engagement and self-directed learning (Sinnayah et al, Adv. Physiol. Educ., 2021). Large language models (LLMs) are helping us in a workflow to develop many different engagement opportunities. Importantly, we are seeking student input and feedback throughout the development of this resource. We will be sharing our progress, assessment data and gathering feedback from the Biology Education community.

Author:

Catherine Ishikawa (California State University, Sacramento)*; Joya Mukerji (California State University, Sacramento); Kelly McDonald (California State University, Sacramento)

Study Background: STEM learning environments present opportunities and challenges for students with disabilities (SWD). Tedeschi and Limeri (2024) reviewed frameworks for studying SWDs’ STEM experiences, and mentioned that asset-based models like community cultural wealth (Yosso 2005) could complement challenge-focused models. A few studies have applied strengths-based frameworks to SWD in STEM (e.g., Khan 2018, Syharat et al. 2024), but the lack of concrete examples of how an asset- or strengths-based framework translates into classroom practice may relegate these frameworks to the theoretical realm.
Description of research ideas and desired feedback: As part of a larger survey looking at experiences of SWD in courses that included authentic research and design experiences, we asked students “In what way(s) might living with the condition(s) you selected contribute to your success in this course?” Most students who answered the question identified an asset, and these assets included cognitive skills or styles (e.g., creative or divergent thinking), practical skills developed out of necessity (e.g., organization and self-advocacy), increased motivation, and empathy. We would like to engage colleagues in a conversation about how to translate this knowledge about student assets into classroom practices that recognize, nurture, and reward these assets, and how to study effectiveness of these classroom practices.
Participatory component: Our one-page handout will present student-identified asset categories with examples, as well as a brief description of asset- and strengths-based instructional frameworks. After introducing the handout, participants will have time to individually reflect on and then discuss a question that helps make the asset-based approach more personal and less abstract (How might you recognize, nurture, or reward one or more of the assets described in a course you teach?). After establishing what asset-based approaches might look like, we will provide space for discussions about how to study their effectiveness and promote them more widely.
Contribution: Asset-based frameworks seek to recognize and value strengths that contribute to success in STEM careers but are not typically rewarded in grading structures. Collectively envisioning what asset-based pedagogy could look like, using student-generated assets as a springboard, may make an abstract concept more concrete. In turn, this could create opportunities to implement and study asset-based pedagogy and ultimately create a more diversely-talented STEM workforce.

Author:

Athena Owirodu (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill); Miara Bailey-Hall (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill); David McDonald (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill); Whitney Edwards (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill); Nikea Pittman (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill)*

Study Context: Biology PhD students are among the next generation of researchers, educators, and influencers in the science community. Despite widespread knowledge that scientists work and train in environments that perpetuate racial inequities, most STEM graduate classrooms do not discuss the social impact of race (Perez R et al., 2020). Educational reform calls for the development of student-centered graduate courses and acknowledges the benefits of integrating humanities in STEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). As a result, we developed two class sessions for PhD students in biology & biomedicine to discuss the intersections between race and STEM careers. This study uses the Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) to guide questions about participants' beliefs to succeed on learning-related tasks and to judge perceived importance of those activities. Here, tasks are defined as the ability to explain race as a variable in scientific studies or to describe the impact of race on interpersonal relationships in STEM.

Study design: First-year graduate students (n=417) enrolled at an R1 historically white institution in the southeastern U.S. have participated over four cohorts. To study the early impacts of these learning modules, students were invited to attend optional class sessions and complete pre-/post- surveys or attend focus groups. Instruction was integrated into a pre-existing weekly seminar course for incoming graduate students. Our research questions examine: 1) To what extent can we increase biology PhD students’ awareness of racial inequities in STEM? 2) Will knowledge gained motivate STEM graduate students to learn more about applying equitable practices in their own career?

Analyses and Interpretation: This is a mixed-methods study combining surveys with focus groups. Most recently, likert-scale survey questions were designed to measure changes in knowledge, interests, and practice. Focus groups are ongoing. To encourage discussion, a concept map of our study design will be presented. We are interested in hearing suggestions about 1) relevant educational frameworks not yet considered and 2) how to increase student voice/agency or ways for students to participate in co-design of learning materials.

Contribution: We present an approach to design learning modules on social implications of race on science. This study is novel in that it focuses on graduate-level instruction. We will collect data on how racial identity is discussed in PhD-level biology courses and identify students’ views related to impacts on their career development. Our goal is to share insights on how the project has progressed from inception to implementation. This is a timely discussion, as the learning modules remain active during times of uncertainty surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education.

Author:

Laurel Lorenz (Princeton University)*; Carlos Goller (North Carolina State University); Kimberly Cooney (Tennessee State University); Stacey Kiser (Lane Community College); Pankaj Mehrotra (University of the People); Mary Mulcahy ( University of Pittsburgh at Bradford); Sederick Rice (University of Arkansas Pine Bluff); John Richardson (Austin College); Heather Rissler (University of Kansas Medical Center); Sheela Vemu (Waubonsee Community College)

Diverse leaders and their unique perspectives are needed to create innovative solutions for complex global problems. However, the diversity of leadership in STEM is lacking. Across federally funded research centers, 86% of labs are directed by white men, 10% by men of color, 5% by white women, and none by women of color. Similar trends exist for non-director leadership roles (Association for Women in Science, 2019). To increase the diversity of future STEM leaders, we look to the leadership identity construction model, which suggests that becoming a leader requires two components (DeRue, 2010). First, a person needs to identify themself as a leader. Second, a person needs to be identified by others as a leader. We hypothesize that as individuals gain a heightened awareness that skills used in the classroom are leadership skills, students will expand who they view as leaders. To help students develop leadership skills, we are establishing a network of educators implementing the Project Leadership Program (PL). PL builds on pedagogical approaches of collaborative learning, POGIL, active learning, and metacognition to provide structure for leadership development through three components: active engagement of student teams, supportive instructor coaching, and feedback related to specific skills. When students use PL, each student selects a team role and leadership skill to focus on with their team. At the end of the week, students reflect on how they and their peers used effective leadership skills.

Reflecting on experiences increases awareness, which is one of the primary components of effective leadership and includes being aware of oneself, others, and the context of the situation. The act of practicing awareness itself cultivates the characteristics and traits of one who is aware, which is the purpose of including leadership practices in the STEM curriculum. Since leadership theory is its own academic discipline and most examples come out of the business world, the language that describes these leadership skills needs to reflect a STEM-focused audience and must also be flexible enough to intentionally cultivate inclusive language so that all participants, especially PEERs (persons excluded because of their ethnicity or race), feel ownership of the ideas of STEM leadership. During this roundtable discussion, we’ll share language describing leadership skills and ask for your feedback. We are interested in hearing which skills relate to classes you have taken (student) or learning goals in your classroom (instructor)? How might you adjust the language before using these skills in your class (instructor) or being motivated to develop these skills (student)? What might be barriers and opportunities for using leadership skills in the classroom (all)? Interested participants are invited to join our network. Our long-term goal is to learn whether explicitly teaching leadership skills increases the diversity of students seen as leaders.

See roundtable file

Author:

Emily Bremers (University of Georgia)*; Olive McKay (University of Georgia); Julie Stanton (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: Metacognition is our awareness and regulation of our thinking for learning (Cross & Paris, 1988). Students use metacognition when they check what they do and do not know while learning (monitoring) and then appraise their approaches for learning after the fact (evaluating). Metacognition can also be used socially when a student monitors their group’s thinking or evaluates their group’s solution (Goos et al., 2002). Both individual and social metacognition are positively correlated with problem-solving skills and academic performance (e.g., Wang et al., 1990), however, little is known about the relationship between individual and social metacognition. Since life science students are expected to learn on their own and in groups, understanding the relationship between individual and social metacognition is necessary to develop metacognitive interventions that reflect the ways students learn. The goal of this study is to understand how life science students use individual and social metacognition in order to help foster students’ metacognition in these two settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: We asked, how does a student’s approaches for monitoring and evaluating on their own compare to how they monitor and evaluate during group work? We collected data from upper-level Cell Biology students. To assess social metacognition, we recorded four groups of three students while they collaborated in class on problem sets that required them to work together to interpret published cell biology data. We then conducted think-aloud interviews where the same participants solved cell biology problems aloud to assess their individual metacognition. The individual questions were isomorphic to the small group questions, meaning the questions assessed the same concepts, but in a novel way (Kotovsky et al., 1985). Individual and group recordings were transcribed. Two researchers iteratively coded the transcripts for individual and social metacognition to complete consensus using previously developed codebooks in MaxQDA (Halmo et al., 2022, 2024). We then developed a qualitative data analysis template aligned with our research question for each participant, which served as a research profile. These profiles allowed us to systematically compare a student’s individual and social metacognition based on our coding of their monitoring and evaluating. We then compared data across profiles, which allowed us to cluster participants based on their use of both types of metacognition. ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: We found the majority of the students in our sample used similar approaches to monitor and evaluate their problem-solving in individual and social settings. For example, one student would evaluate their thinking when solving alone saying, “I don't think that's the right answer.” They also used this metacognitive approach during group work, evaluating, “But then again, that doesn't make sense either.” While most students displayed similar levels and types of individual and social metacognition, we observed that a few students primarily showed evidence of metacognition individually or socially, suggesting a nuanced relationship between these two forms of metacognition. For example, some students showed more evidence of social metacognition. In general, we found that students more readily corrected and evaluated their group members’ ideas compared to correcting and evaluating their own ideas. We hypothesize that group work can provide students opportunities to practice their metacognition that they could transfer to individual problem-solving. While group work could be an environment for developing metacognition, we also observed negative group dynamics that may affect use of social metacognition. Only one student in our sample primarily showed evidence of individual metacognition. While this student used multiple approaches to monitor and evaluate individually, they did not use these same approaches when working in a group. During data collection, this participant described that they did not feel confident when working with others, suggesting they may have lower self-efficacy in groups. Additionally, we observed that this participant’s group had some negative dynamics, such as dismissing each other’s ideas. We hypothesize that self-efficacy and group dynamics may influence use of social metacognition. CONTRIBUTIONS: Students need to be able to use metacognition on their own and in groups to learn in their college biology courses. This qualitative work is the first study in the life sciences to compare the relationship between undergraduates’ individual and social metacognition in the same participants. While these data suggest that group work may help students practice their metacognition, we also identified factors that may affect use of social metacognition. Based on our findings, we offer instructor recommendations for holistically promoting metacognition during problem solving.

Author:

Mason Tedeschi (Texas Tech University)*; Muna Oriaku (Texas Tech University); Luke McFather (Texas Tech University); William Hummeldorf (Texas Tech University); Lisa Limeri (Texas Tech University)

Study context: The STEM workforce benefits from the presence of a broad variety of perspectives and ways of thinking (Page, 2007). Diversity in cognition, referred to as neurodiversity, includes but is not limited to those experiencing learning disabilities. According to the theory of complex embodiment, “disability” describes a condition created by a reciprocal relationship between internal factors, one’s surrounding environment, and prevailing cultural values (Siebers, 2008). For example, an expectation that wheelchair users are unlikely to participate in an academic setting may lead to buildings lacking functional accessible entrances, and those who manage to attend courses anyway will be considered unlikely to succeed. This combination of disabling factors reinforces inequity while making it appear to be a natural phenomenon. Disablement is often invisible to outside observers, especially for disabilities related to cognition. Reports indicate that despite enrolling in STEM majors at an equivalent rate to able-bodied counterparts that are similar in age, gender, and ethnic identity, disabled students experience disproportionate academic outcomes (Bakker et al., 2022; Lee, 2022). In 2021, 27.2% of adults in the United States reported a disability, but only 11% of STEM doctoral recipients reported a disability (CDC, 2024; NSF, 2023). Furthermore, neurodivergent college students report that their academic experiences cause psychological strain and social isolation (Evans et al., 2023; Hand, 2023; Miller & Downey, 2020). 

STEM educators have worked to create more accessible learning environments to improve the experiences of disabled students. For example, there have been studies implementing Universal Design for Learning, a set of guidelines aiming to address as broad a range of access needs as possible (Balta et al., 2021; Büdy, 2021). However, there is a need for a more holistic understanding of the factors affecting disablement among college STEM students. Drawing from the theory of complex embodiment, we aim to understand the interplay between internal disabling factors, environmental factors, and cultural factors that shape the lived experiences of neurodivergent students (Siebers, 2008). 



Study design: 

In this phenomenological interview study, we aim to answer the following questions: 1) What are the affordances and obstacles that neurodivergent undergraduate life science majors experience in their STEM courses? 2) What factors in the classroom environment enhance or diminish these affordances and obstacles? We used a screening survey to implement purposive maximum variation sampling, which allowed us to select for a range of neurotypes and intersecting identities, including both with and without formal diagnoses (Campell, 2020). We distributed the screening survey at a large Hispanic Serving Institution with very high research activity through academic advisors in life science departments and a university-wide email announcement. We interviewed 15 undergraduates, who all self-identified as neurodivergent and majored in a life science field. Interviews took up to one hour and asked about students’ lived experiences in their college STEM courses, focusing on factors that served as either supports or hindrances. 



Analyses and interpretations: 

A research team consisting of three undergraduate and one graduate student coded each transcript independently and then discussed to consensus. We created a codebook that organized the factors participants mentioned affected their experiences in college STEM courses. We used constant comparative coding, going back through previous transcripts whenever a new code emerged. During analysis, it became clear that most factors could be either an affordance or an obstacle depending on the context, rather than existing discretely. For example, a course structure that students found challenging could also be viewed as rewarding in cases of strong peer support or positive interactions with instructors. Prevailing cultural influences, such as pressure to be self-sufficient rather than receive help, influenced many students’ internal expectations for themselves, which in turn influenced how they approached their courses. Additionally, these cultural influences could affect the actions of instructors or peers, as well as common expectations built into their courses. 



Contribution: 

Identifying important factors in students’ experiences will make it possible for future research to explore relationships between these factors and outcomes. Ultimately, this research will allow instructors to build more support for neurodiverse students into foundational STEM courses. Our results indicate a need for a cultural shift in higher education to encourage students to seek support, which would likely have an impact beyond fostering neurodiversity.

Author:

Alyssa N. Olson (University of Nebraska - Lincoln)*; Kira A. Treibergs (Wheaton College); MacKenzie R. Stetzer (University of Maine); Michelle K. Smith (Cornell University); Brian A. Couch (University of Nebraska - Lincoln)

Study Context
Vision and Change called for undergraduate biology instructors to incorporate student-centered teaching practices in their courses (AAAS, 2011). One way biology educators have responded is by creating and disseminating open educational resources (OERs), which are free and accessible teaching or learning resources, such as structured teaching plans known as OER lessons (UNESCO, 2024). Studies have shown variation in how instructors modify and teach OER lessons, which can affect student conceptual knowledge (Pelletreau et al., 2018). To measure conceptual change and the impact of a period of instruction, instructors often use assessments: a published assessment or an assessment custom-made for their course. Concept assessments are published assessments that have validity and reliability evidence to support assessment results. They often cover a broader content range (e.g., for an entire course) but may not be highly aligned to what an individual instructor teaches. A customized assessment is developed by the instructor and is tailored to their teaching. Due to the time- and research-intensive nature of assessment development, customized assessments usually do not undergo a process to collect validity or reliability evidence. The two assessment types may differ in how aligned they are to a given lesson, potentially leading to discrepancies in the detection of learning gains which may influence findings of studies that examine changes in student conceptual knowledge. In this study, we use assessment validity theory (Messick, 1987, 1989) as a framework to examine how detection of learning differs based on the degree of alignment between a lesson and an assessment.

Study Design
This work is part of a larger study to examine how instructional practices impact student learning. The goal of this initial phase of the study is to optimize our assessment strategy so we can most accurately detect changes in conceptual knowledge. More specifically, this research aims to answer the following: how does alignment between an OER lesson and assessment content affect the degree to which student learning is detected?
Students in an introductory majors biology course (n=97) participated in an OER lesson on the central dogma of molecular biology (Pelletreau et al., 2021). To measure learning, we randomly assigned students to take one of two assessments pre- and post-lesson; a concept assessment (n=39) or a customized assessment (n=57). The concept assessment was a subset of questions from the central dogma concept inventory (CDCI; Newman et al., 2016). We coded each CDCI item according to its level of alignment to the lesson, and the 24 most aligned items were selected for our concept assessment. The customized assessment was developed based on implicit learning objectives from the lesson and thus is more aligned to the lesson content than the concept assessment.

Analyses and Interpretations
We found no difference between pre- and post-lesson assessment scores for the concept assessment group (t(38)=0.664, p=0.511) and a significant difference for the customized assessment group (t(56)=-3.639, p<0.001), suggesting a high level of alignment between a lesson and its corresponding assessment is necessary to detect learning gains. We found no significant pre-post differences on concept assessment items, while six items on the customized assessment show significant learning gains (p<0.05 to p<0.001), suggesting the significant difference in overall customized assessment scores was driven by six items. The six items were on concepts mentioned multiple times in the lesson or were key to understanding the lesson. Lastly, regression analysis showed no relationship between a student’s course exam score average and their assessment score change for the concept assessment group (r=0.21, p=0.207), and a significant positive relationship for the customized assessment group (r=0.45, p<0.001), indicating that students that perform better on course exams had larger learning gains than their lower performing peers for the customized assessment.

Contribution
There is a need to examine how alignment between a lesson and corresponding assessment impacts the degree to which student learning is detected. In this study, we found that only the highly aligned (customized) assessment captured learning gains. Additionally, conceptual change for the customized assessment group was driven by just six items. These findings suggest that the lesson and assessment must be highly aligned to capture student learning for a single-day lesson. Misalignment between lesson and assessment may prevent the assessment from detecting learning, even if it has other forms of validity, and thus a lack of alignment may be a threat to validity of test interpretations. This finding has implications for biology education researchers designing studies that use pre-post assessments to evaluate student learning gains or the impact of a short period of instruction.

Author:

Erin Rowland-Schaefer (Middle Tennessee State University)*

Study Context: Effective science communication is critical for bridging divides in society about culturally controversial science topics (CCSTs) like climate change and vaccines (Brownell et al., 2013) and has been identified as a critical skill for undergraduate science students to develop (AAAS, 2011). Since the diversity of undergraduate students exceeds that of scientists, they may have unique potential to be boundary spanners who can have meaningful science conversations with communities they are part of but that scientists typically do not reach (Aldrich, 1977). Although current research shows students are already attempting boundary spanning in their communities, (Bowen et al., 2023; Shah et al., 2022) we currently lack information about the extent to which students value communication, feel they can have effective conversations, and have knowledge about science communication principles. Further, we know very little about how students’ social identities such as political and religious affiliation or factors such as their major might influence these science communication variables. 

In this study we used Expectancy Value Theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Banerjee & Ho, 2020) to build and test a new survey instrument to measure the extent to which students value conversations about CCSTs, they feel capable to have these conversations effectively, and they know about science communication principles for CCSTs. We investigate how students of varying identities and majors differ on these variables in the southeast United States where there are high rates of political conservativism, religious affiliation, and significant ethnic minority populations, making it a potentially important region for boundary spanning about CCSTs. 

Research Design: We built and tested a 58-item survey to evaluate students’ value, self-efficacy, and knowledge for interpersonal science communication about culturally controversial science topics (CCSTs). We also collected political affiliation, religion, ethnicity, gender, and whether they were biology majors. The survey was completed by 867 undergraduate students enrolled in 26 biology courses at a southeastern research-intensive university. 

Analyses and Interpretation: We conducted exploratory factor analysis to identify constructs within our instruments for value and self-efficacy. Within these constructs, we used linear mixed-effects models to determine how student groups differ. Estimated marginal means were then compared using Tukey pairwise comparisons. We also conducted mediation analysis to determine how differences by religious affiliation could be explained by political affiliation. For our knowledge items, we calculated mean total score and identified items that students tended to answer incorrectly to identify key areas for improvement. 

We found that politically conservative students perceived less value than liberal students across multiple constructs related to interpersonal science communication about CCSTs, while politically liberal students reported lower emotional control in these conversations. Differences in value and self-efficacy by religious affiliation were explained by differences in political affiliation. Non-biology majors perceived less value and self-efficacy than biology majors. Finally, students scored overall poorly on our knowledge inventory, especially on items addressing the importance of trust-building. 

Contribution: The results of this study illustrate the need to engage students across political affiliations and majors, especially on science topics that are culturally controversial. Our non-biology majors and politically conservative students have the potential to serve as boundary spanners to communities with lower trust in science, but they are unlikely to serve this vital function without sufficient value, self-efficacy, and science communication knowledge. Future qualitative research could help identify why these students perceive less value and self-efficacy, and design instruction to meet those needs. We may also need to specifically target instruction towards preparing students to emotionally regulate during conversations about CCSTs, such as how to de-escalate or when to step away. Finally, students are lacking in knowledge about effective strategies for interpersonal science communication, and future work should target how we can most efficiently and effectively teach this topic to undergraduate students. By improving science communication skills for students that are well-positioned to build bridges to the broader community, we may expand the reach of the scientific community.

Author:

Stephanie Halmo (University of Washington)*; Mara Suddeth (University of Georgia); Joyce Izundu (University of Georgia); Asuagbor Asuagbor (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: Metacognition refers to an individual’s ability to reflect on their thinking processes. Social metacognition extends this definition to include the awareness and regulation of others’ thinking during group work (Stanton et al., 2021; Chiu & Kuo, 2009). For example, social metacognition occurs when students evaluate and monitor their own understanding (e.g., "Can you explain that?") or others' understanding (e.g., "Do you all understand?") aloud for others to hear (Bremers et al., 2024). Social metacognition naturally occurs in small group work, which has become a key part of undergraduate life science education, and can lead to improved reasoning (Halmo et al., 2022) and problem-solving (Bremers et al., 2024). However, we do not yet know how students perceive this practice and how group dynamics influence its use. To design effective training, we need to understand these perceptions. For example, direct corrections (a form of social metacognition) might improve reasoning but could be perceived as rude, potentially limiting its use. To address this gap in knowledge we used the sociolinguistic frameworks of politeness theory (Brown and Levison, 1987) and social power (Fiske and Berdahl, 2007) to explore the following research question: How do students perceive the use of social metacognition during group work in undergraduate life science courses?

STUDY DESIGN: We recruited students from entry-level biology labs and biochemistry courses. Small groups of 3-4 students who consented were audio and video recorded during 2-3 class sessions while working on a group assignment that was a regular part of their course. Afterward, each student participated in a one-hour stimulated recall interview, where they listened to 3-5 clips of their recorded group work featuring social metacognition (Calderhead, 2001). This approach provided individual perspectives on the use of social metacognition from each member in the group. In total, 12 students from 4 groups participated in the interviews, which were professionally transcribed and checked for accuracy.

ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively and iteratively using a holistic and narrative profile approach. Each researcher created a group profile summarizing group members’ perceptions of social metacognition, using politeness theory (Brown & Levison, 1987) and social power (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007) as theoretical lenses. Several themes emerged. First, students in biology and biochemistry courses used types of social metacognition, such as corrections and evaluative questions, previously identified in upper-level courses (Halmo et al., 2022; Bremers et al., 2024), showing these types of social metacognition are common across life science courses. Second, students overwhelmingly found the instances of social metacognition to be neutral and not offensive. For example, one student liked an evaluative question for being "blunt." Rarely did students perceive social metacognition as rude. Third, we gained insight into students' views on the politeness of direct corrections. One student explained that he didn’t explicitly say his group was wrong to avoid being rude but also avoided excessive politeness, as his correction might not be heard. A student in the same group noted caution is needed when correcting, saying, "no one likes it when someone points out that they’re wrong. So you just have to be very careful." One student reflected on an evaluative question she asked that encouraged her group member to provide additional reasoning and expressed a desire afterwards to “be more polite” and wove this desire into cultural and social norms around politeness, gender, and race. This suggests that social metacognition training should address cultural contexts and directly challenge notions of appropriateness to create an inclusive learning environment (Flores & Rosa, 2015). Lastly, we noted how students wield expert power in group settings. In one group, a student who had been trained as a peer learning assistant for another class, strategically asked evaluative questions to guide her peers’ reasoning. She said of this particular interaction, “I knew the answer [laughter], but… I was asking a question and then hopefully their answer was going to lead them to the right answer.” She realized that asking questions was more helpful than just giving answers. This conscious use of certain types of social metacognition may be an outcome of peer learning assistant programs (Breland et al., 2023).

CONTRIBUTION: Our qualitative study using stimulated recall interviews and holistic group profile analysis reveals how a small sample of life science undergraduates perceive the power and politeness of naturally-occurring social metacognition. This is the first study to explore student perceptions of social metacognition, providing essential information for developing effective social metacognition interventions.

Author:

Clara Smith (Brigham Young University)*; Jade Sorensen (Brigham Young University); Isaiah Aduse-poku (Brigham Young University); Jamie Jensen (Brigham Young University)

Study Context: Effective teaching in biology requires both content and pedagogical expertise. Although more graduate programs incorporate formal pedagogical training, participation remains optional despite research showing its value (Rushtin et al., 1997; Tanner & Allen, 2006; Gardner & Jones, 2011). As a result, many graduate students, future scientists, and professors lack formal pedagogy training (Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Handelsman et al., 2004). Grounded in Mezirow’s (1991) Transformative Learning Theory (TLT), this study explored how formal pedagogical training may shift individuals’ perspectives on teaching, learning, and professional identity. TLT suggests individuals experience perspective transformation when confronted with a “disorienting dilemma” that challenges their beliefs. In this context, scientists prioritizing content expertise may find pedagogical training unsettling, as it questions the assumption that content alone ensures effective teaching. This study compares individuals with and without formal pedagogical training to explore potential transformations in pedagogical and science expertise, perceptions of teaching and learning, and professional identity.
Study Design: Our research team developed a survey using Likert-scale items from pre-existing surveys and questions we created specifically for our survey. It was administered to undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members in a university biology department. Each group comprised two subpopulations: individuals who had participated in formal teacher training and those who had not. The survey assessed perceptions of pedagogical expertise, subject matter expertise, educator identity, and the perceived importance of pedagogy in learning. 
To explore the effects of pedagogical training, we addressed the following research questions: 
1. How does formal pedagogical training influence individuals’ self-reported pedagogical expertise and perceptions of subject matter?
2. To what extent do individuals with formal pedagogical training differ in their views on the importance of pedagogy in effective science teaching compared to those without such training?
3. Does participation in pedagogical training correlate with differences in educator and scientist identity among undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members?
Analyses and Interpretations: Descriptive and inferential statistics, including t-tests and ANOVA, compared responses between individuals with and without pedagogical training. Factor analysis identified how pedagogical training influenced beliefs about teaching and learning. Group comparisons determined significant differences between populations.
Preliminary findings suggest that having participated or not in formal pedagogical training influences an individual’s understanding of teaching and learning and its perceived value. Additionally, there was a difference in how they identified themselves in the scientific and education communities. The data supports TLT’s view that encountering new pedagogical concepts challenges prior assumptions, leading to a transformation in teaching philosophy and identity.
Contribution: Our findings show that formal pedagogical training significantly influences perceptions of teaching, learning, and professional identity as educators and scientists. Consistent with TLT, participants with pedagogical training exhibit shifts in teaching philosophy and professional identity, suggesting that exposure to new pedagogical frameworks can lead to perspective transformation.
These results emphasize the importance of integrating pedagogical training into undergraduate and graduate programs, creating a curriculum that values content expertise and effective teaching. Expanding faculty development initiatives could support instructors in refining their pedagogical knowledge, which will continue to improve science education overall. Future research could include using this survey at additional institutions to compare the effects of pedagogical training across various institutions to understand the role of additional factors (i.e., Student demographics, research focus of faculty, institutional culture, etc.). Additionally, future research could include focusing on the effectiveness of pedagogical training for scientists who do not currently teach but may participate in science communication, mentoring, or public outreach.

Author:

Noah Courtney (Cornell University)*; Michelle Smith (Cornell University); David Esparza (Cornell University)

Study Context: Community colleges (CC) are unique, vital institutions in higher education. They serve over 30% percent of US undergraduate students (AACC, 2023) with a large proportion holding underrepresented identities (Labov, 2012). To increase support for CC biology students, calls have been made to expand biology education research at more two-year institutions (Schinske et al., 2017). A key framework guiding undergraduate biology education is Vision and Change, which outlines essential concepts biology students should learn during a four-year degree. However, much of the research studying student learning through this framework has centered on four-year institutions, leaving gaps in our understanding of CC students’ biology conceptual understanding (Branchaw et al., 2020; Cen et al., 2024; Couch et al., 2019). To expand our knowledge about CC biology students’ learning, we explored their understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts (AAAS, 2011) using the GenBio-MAPS assessment (Couch et al., 2019). 

Study Design: We explored CC students’ conceptual understanding by asking: 1) How do CC biology students perform across the five Vision and Change core concepts? and 2) Do institutional-, course-, and student-level variables contribute to variation in CC biology students’ conceptual understanding? We analyzed GenBio-MAPS assessment data from 601 CC students attending nine institutions. Each GenBio-MAPS question is aligned with one of the five Vision and Change core concepts and one of three biological subtopics: cellular/molecular, ecology/evolution, and physiology. We used ANOVAs to identify differences across the five core concepts, and Tukey’s post-hoc testing to make pairwise comparisons between scores on each core concept. To explore variation in conceptual understanding, we used multilevel regression modeling with backward selection of student-level fixed effects (e.g., race, parent education). We accounted for nestedness with class, institution, and instructor random effects, tested for multicollinearity and intraclass correlation, and used AIC values to determine the best-fit model for interpretation.

Analyses and Interpretations: ANOVA testing indicated that students scored differently across the five core concepts (p < 0.0001), and post-hoc testing revealed that students scored higher on Systems items, and struggled the most with Information Flow items. Further, students scored highest on ecology/evolution items and lowest on cellular/molecular items (p < 0.001). These results suggest that CC students may need more support with Information Flow concepts, particularly in cellular/molecular topics. In addition to the three random effects, race, gender, and major were all significant in our best-fit model. These results mirror findings from four-year contexts, which identified opportunity gaps based on gender and race (Couch et al., 2019). However, as compared to research in four-year contexts, we found no significant differences related to parent education or first language. This raises interesting questions about how community colleges serve first-generation and English language-learning students, indicating that community colleges may offer a blueprint for the culture and resources needed to better support these students more broadly. Finally, we found that minimal variance was explained by fixed effects in the most optimal model (R2 = 7.8%), suggesting additional factors predominantly shape conceptual understanding. 

Contribution: This work expands the CC biology education literature base and provides valuable insights into CC biology students’ understanding of Vision and Change core concepts. To our knowledge, it is the largest study to examine their conceptual understanding in this understudied context (Creech et al., 2022). Our findings highlight specific concepts and topics where additional support is needed to enhance student learning in CC biology courses. Additionally, our modeling results raise interesting points about how CCs serve first-generation and English language-learning students. Supportive infrastructure for both groups has been reported in previous studies (e.g., Majer, 2019; Sacklin & Daniels, 2022), suggesting that CC’s may provide a blueprint for the culture and infrastructure needed to better support first-generation and English language learning students. Likewise, our results suggest that opportunity gaps affect conceptual understanding in fewer underrepresented groups compared to those identified in a national study of predominantly four-year institutions (Couch et al., 2019). This finding suggests that factors aside from students’ majors or demographics are responsible for most of the variance in their conceptual understanding. Collectively, this information can be used by biology educators, education researchers, and other interested stakeholders to study and develop targeted interventions and instructional strategies for CC students.

Author:

Mike Wilton (UCSB)*; Pavan Kadandale (UCI); Brian Sato (UCI); Sabrina Solanki (UCI); Meaghan Mcmurran (UCI)

Study Context/Motivating Problem:

A significant barrier to the diversification of STEM fields is the attrition of students who matriculate in STEM, but then switch majors or leave the university altogether. This attrition occurs largely within the first two years of the college experience and disproportionately affects minoritized students (Almatrafi et al., 2017; Tinto, 2006; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). An effective strategy to promote greater student success is mentorship, wherein a student receives tailored guidance from a more experienced individual. To provide this support to growing enrollments of undergraduate students, colleges are increasingly relying on near-peer mentorship to create these support structures. Near-peer mentorship generally involves pairing lower-division undergraduates with upperclassmen who have similar goals and backgrounds, with the mentor aiming to provide personalized, up-to-date guidance on navigating the complex university system. The research literature about near-peer mentorship shows promising results (Hansford et al., 2003; Nora and Crisp, 2007; Johnson et al., 1998; Zaniewski and Reinholz, 2016). However, the majority of studies do not use research designs that support causal inference and therefore extent to which these programs are effective remains unclear (Dennehy et al., 2017). 

This presentation will address this short-coming by presenting data from a peer mentorship program that leverages a causal inference study approach and is designed using an adapted mentorship theoretical framework (Eby et al., 2013; Kram, 1988; Nora and Crisp, 2007; Scandura,1992), wherein peer mentors provide academic (e.g. effective study approaches), instrumental (e.g. providing navigational capital), and psychosocial (e.g. promoting self efficacy) support to second year biology majors.

Study Design:

Research question - can a scalable, peer-mentorship program combat biology student attrition (as outlined above)? 

Using a randomized-control trial approach at two minority-serving (Hispanic-serving, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving, first generation, and low-income) R1 institutions, 111 undergraduate biology majors were randomly selected from ~400 applicants and enrolled in the fall quarter offering of PeeR Opportunities To EnGage and Excel (PROTEGE) mentorship course. Cadres of 4-6 second year students were paired with an upper-division student who provided mentorship based on the mentorship theoretical model (described above) that is linked to social and academic integration theory (Tinto, 1993). All biology students were surveyed (>90% response rate) in a pre/post fashion to assess the impacts of mentorship across psychosocial, instrumental, and academic supports (Eby et al., 2013; Scandura, 1992) as well as sense of belonging and academic self-efficacy, while academic outcomes of course grades and student retention in the major are provided by institutional research.

Analyses and Interpretations:

Survey and academic data are analyzed via regression to assess the impacts of the PROTEGE program. Regression analysis enables us to control for multiple variables, including student demographics (e.g. generation status), cumulative university grade point average, as well as student enrollment in PROTEGE. Our analyses demonstrate that mentees have greater sense of self-efficacy, a more diverse set of study approaches, and earn significantly higher grades in required biology courses, when compared to their applicant, non-PROTEGE control groups of students.

Contributions:

This study contributes to the literature by employing a causal inference design and demonstrating that near-peer mentorship effectively promotes student academic success in biology. Because this approach utilizes undergraduate students as peer mentors, it is adaptable across diverse institution types and is highly relevant to the biology education research community.

Beyond its research contributions, this work has clear practical implications for educators, as instructors can easily implement near-peer mentorship in their courses. Additionally, it lays the groundwork for future research on effective mentorship strategies, including investigations into impactful mentorship behaviors and the long-term effects of receiving or providing mentorship.

Author:

Benjamin Jackson (University of Georgia)*; Bryn Robinson (University of Georgia); Matthew Madison (University of Georgai); Tessa Andrews (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: Sense of belonging is an important predictor of student motivation, course performance, and career intention in STEM (Freeman et al., 2007; Edwards et al., 2021; Xu & Lastrapes, 2021). Sense of belonging refers to a student’s perception of being supported, connected, and accepted in the academic setting (Goodenow, 1993). Students who leave STEM majors or the university entirely report lower sense of belonging than peers who stay in STEM (Rainey et al., 2018). Critically, STEM learning environments fail to foster the same sense of belonging for women and those from marginalized racial/ethnic groups (Walton & Cohen, 2011; Rainey et al., 2018). Thus, we must consider what instructors can do to nurture a sense of belonging among all students.
One behavior hypothesized to relate to student sense of belonging is Instructor Talk, a framework of non-content language used in the classroom (Harrison et al, 2015; Seidel et al., 2019). Instructor Talk may foster belonging by increasing instructor immediacy, the perceived social distance between students and their instructors (Mehrabian, 1969; Witt et al., 2004), as well as by diminishing anxiety that one’s identity will lead to negative experiences based on past experiences of marginalization (Croizet & Clare, 1998, Murphy et al., 2007). However, prior work has not yet examined student outcomes in relation to Instructor Talk.

RESEARCH DESIGN: We asked: “How does Instructor Talk relate to student sense of belonging, and is that relationship moderated by students’ social identities?” We collected data about student sense of belonging in 56 introductory biology courses around the US (n = 5,187), using an established 8-item survey that we validated for our sample (Hoffman et al., 2003; Solanki et al., 2019). The survey assessed three components of sense of belonging: instructor support, connection to classmates, and climate for sharing. We also asked students to share information about their gender and race/ethnicity.
To characterize Instructor Talk, we generated transcripts of the first 15 minutes of three class periods and identified instances of Instructor Talk, using the methods of Harrison et al. (2019). Two researchers then independently coded each instance of positively-phrased Instructor Talk into one of five categories: Building the Instructor/Student Relationship, Establishing Classroom Culture, Explaining Pedagogical Choices, Sharing Personal Experiences, and Unmasking Science. Following independent coding, we discussed all disagreements to consensus.


ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS: 
In addition to testing the hypothesis that Instructor Talk predicts students’ sense of belonging, this work was novel because we (a) considered separate components of sense of belonging, which psychometric analyses strongly support as distinct; (b) examined categories of Instructor Talk separately and collectively; and (c) determined if any relationships between Instructor Talk and sense of belonging varied for students with different intersectional identities. We used hierarchical linear models to account for students clustered within classes. The response variables were components of sense of belonging and predictors included an interaction between frequency of Instructor Talk (categories and collectively) and student’s self-reported intersectional identity. Models also controlled for class size, semester of data collection, and percentage of class time in active learning. 
Positively-phrased Instructor Talk (collectively) was a significant predictor for two components of sense of belonging: instructor support (p = 0.009) and connections to classmates (p = 0.006), but not climate for sharing. For Instructor Talk categories, instances of Building the Instructor/Student Relationship significantly predicted connections with classmates (p = 0.008) and instructor support (p = 0.023), and Explaining Pedagogical Choices significantly predicted connections with classmates (p = 0.001). No other categories of Instructor Talk predicted any components of students’ sense of belonging. Notably, Instructor Talk was an equally reliable predictor of sense of belonging for all groups except Asian men.

CONTRIBUTION: This work is the first to study the hypothesized relationship between Instructor Talk and student sense of belonging. It is also unique in its consideration of individual components of sense of belonging, separate analyses of Instructor Talk categories, and testing whether relationships between teaching practices and student outcomes hold for all students. As such, it represents an important step in understanding how specific instructor behaviors may affect students. One implication of this work is that simple sentiments from the instructor in class may have a meaningful impact for students with a range of life experiences. 

STUDY CONTEXT
Global warming is often thought to be synonymous to climate change, leading many individuals to believe all regions on Earth will warm in a similar fashion (Renert, 2011). However, Earth’s rising temperatures can result in a range of cascading effects. For example, rising temperatures cause sea ice to melt and surface waters to become warmer and less dense, thus slowing deep water formation in polar regions of the ocean. As currents slow, less warmer water travels to the poles, resulting in cooler climates in regions of the Northern Hemisphere.
The dynamics of the North Atlantic Current can be represented using mathematical equations that carry scientific meaning (Stommel, 1961). Teaching such models is crucial to help more students understand the mechanisms of Earth’s climate through mathematics (Barwell, 2018). This model specifically shows how changes in salinity and temperature of water can impact the density and flow of currents, resulting in various tipping points in Earth’s climate system. Few studies have explored how students in mathematics classrooms engage in science and mathematics sensemaking of mathematical models representing environmental science phenomena. Since a mathematical model of the North Atlantic Current carries both mathematical and scientific meaning, I ask: How do students make sense of the mathematics and science of an environmental model?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
To understand how students engage with equations representing the dynamics of the North Atlantic Current, I analyzed students’ sensemaking—how individuals make meaning of new situations based on prior experience and knowledge (Odden & Russ, 2019). I employ the Sci-Math Sensemaking Framework (Authors, 2021) to understand how students make sense of equations. This framework has been used to characterize four different science sensemaking types and five different mathematics sensemaking types involved in making sense of mathematical equations.
STUDY DESIGN & ANALYSIS
Students developed equations representing the dynamics of the North Atlantic Current over the course of three 75-minute college algebra classes at a large, Midwestern university. Each group of 3-4 students were audio recorded and all student written work was collected. To analyze the data, I selected three groups of students according to an intensity and maximum variation sampling approach (Saldaña, 2013). All audio recordings were transcribed and coded according to the sensemaking types within the Sci-Math Sensemaking Framework.
RESULTS & INTERPRETATION
All three groups engaged in more mathematics sensemaking types compared to science. Group 1 had 79% of their instances as mathematics sensemaking (131 of 166), Group 2 had 73% as mathematics (90 of 166), and Group 3 had 70% as mathematics (99 of 144). The most common mathematics sensemaking type across each group was Math-Procedure sensemaking. However, Math-Procedure sensemaking was often used alongside other sensemaking types. For example, Math-Procedure sensemaking was often employed in conjunction with Math-Relation sensemaking as students engaged in proportional reasoning alongside completing calculations. More specifically, when determining the long run temperature of the system if the equatorial and polar regions of the ocean varied in size, a student in Group 3 said: "...since it's double [Math-Relation], would you do 35 times two plus five divided by 2 [Math-Procedure]?" Math-Procedure sensemaking also often occurred alongside Math-Structure sensemaking as students substituted in values into their equations to determine if their equations made sense. Furthermore, students in Group 1 and 3 even used Math-Procedure sensemaking alongside Math-Concept sensemaking to discuss how their equations generalized some of the calculations they completed. 
In terms of science sensemaking, students in each group primarily engaged in Sci-Label and Sci-Pattern sensemaking. More specifically, each group engaged in determining what scientific entity each variable or value their equations represent (i.e., Sci-Label sensemaking). Furthermore, all groups often made connections to the heating and cooling patterns of each system, thus engaging in Sci-Pattern sensemaking. 
CONTRIBUTIONS
This study demonstrated the myriad ways students can make sense of the mathematics and science behind a climate model. Thus far, the Sci-Math Sensemaking Framework has been employed in university science classrooms (primarily biology classrooms; Authors, 2021), and this study shows that students in a mathematics classroom can make connections to the environmental science context while engaging primarily in mathematics sensemaking. Future directions include examining differences in how students make sense of this ocean circulation model across different science and mathematics classroom settings. Knowledge about these differences will provide insight into how instructors can design lessons that promote interdisciplinary sensemaking.

Author:

Amber Armstrong (University of Minnesota)*; Anita Schuchardt (University of Minnesota); Erin Baldinger (University of Minnesota)

Author:

C.J. Zajic (University of Georgia)*; Trevor Tuma (University of Georgia); Erin Dolan (University of Georgia)

STUDY CONTEXT: Students who participate in undergraduate research experiences (UREs) experience numerous benefits, including an elevated sense of belonging and increased pursuit of graduate education and careers in research (Hernandez et al., 2018; Lopatto, 2007; Russell et al., 2007; Zydney et al., 2002). Unfortunately, UREs are not accessible to many undergraduates (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Mahatmya et al., 2017; Wayment & Dickson, 2008). Previous work has pointed to variations in the knowledge that students possess regarding how to successfully navigate the path to participate in UREs (Cooper et al., 2021). One potential avenue for undergraduate students to obtain the knowledge and resources needed for accessing UREs may be through relationships. Bourdieu defines social capital as the resources – both actual and potential – that come from having a durable network of formal and informal relationships (Bourdieu, 1986). Social capital is an important factor in undergraduate students’ ability to access and thrive UREs (Aikens et al., 2016; Cooper et al., 2021; Hurtado et al., 2008; Pierszalowski et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2016). However, little work has characterized students’ social capital and its utility for undergraduate science students’ access to UREs. 

STUDY DESIGN: To characterize and examine the utility of social capital in undergraduate science students’ access to UREs, we conducted and analyzed semi-structured interviews (n=21) with undergraduate science students who had started a new research experience within the past year. We focused on students who had recently started a new research experience as they were most likely to accurately recall the path they navigated to get there. Specifically, we asked students to describe who they needed to know and how these individuals helped them gain access to their research experience. The students in our sample spanned a diversity of institutional, geographic, and disciplinary contexts. Our sample included students who were participating in NSF REU programs, as well as students engaged in research with faculty at their home institutions. 

ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATIONS: A group of three researchers engaged in the process of inductive qualitative content analysis of transcripts from each of the 21 interviews. Given that Bourdieu’s conceptualization of social capital is largely focused on the resources available through social connections, we focused our characterizations of the forms of social capital relevant to accessing UREs accordingly. Specifically, we identified and refined codes related to the “value” students described were embedded within their relationships (e.g., serving as a reference, reviewing application materials, and providing awareness of research opportunities), as well as the “positions” held by the individuals in the relationships (e.g., faculty, family, and peers). 

Findings describe what social capital looks like in the context of accessing UREs, as well as potential factors influencing the attainment and use of this social capital. For example, we found that individuals who were willing to put themselves out there, even in the wake of failed attempts at accessing UREs, appeared to develop important social capital that they successfully leveraged to access future UREs. We also found that programmatic supports provided by institutions, such as student clubs and organizations, can help create spaces for development of social capital. On the other hand, programs that pipeline students directly into research opportunities may limit the usefulness of social capital in accessing UREs. 

CONTRIBUTION: Our work here defines the construct of social capital in the context of students accessing UREs, which had previously been proposed as a useful tool in students’ navigation of the path to research (Cooper et al., 2021; Hurtado et al., 2008; Pierszalowski et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2016) but had not yet been systematically characterized. Furthermore, our findings provide insights into the utility of social capital for accessing UREs and possible factors influencing its role. By better understanding the role that social capital may be playing in the process of accessing UREs, institutions and research programs can make informed decisions regarding how to improve access to these opportunities for all science students. 

Author:

Mehri Azizi (Florida International University)*; Bryan Dewsbury (Florida International University)

Self-reflection plays a critical role in self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1990) and metacognitive development (Desautel, 2009). Yet little is known about the content of self-reflection and its relationship with academic performance in STEM education. This mixed-methods study examines how students' self-reflection patterns and demographic characteristics are associated with their final grades in an introductory biology course. Prior research suggests that structured reflection can improve learning (Chang, 2019), but little is known about how students naturally engage in reflection and whether certain reflection patterns are linked to academic success or struggle.

Methods
Participants included 491 first-year students enrolled in an introductory biology course at a large Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI). These students completed open-ended reflections immediately before their final exams during the Fall 2023 and Fall 2024 semesters. Using Grounded Theory, we identified major themes in student reflections, including academic discovery, self-discovery, time management, uncertainty about self, mental health, help-seeking, and social impacts on academics. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was then used to classify students into five reflection-based subgroups, and final grades (A, B, C, or NC/fail) were analyzed to examine associations between reflection engagement, demographics, and academic outcomes.

Results
LCA revealed five distinct student reflection profiles, each linked to different demographics and academic outcomes:
• Class 1 (Strategic Reflectors – Moderate Performers): High in academic discovery and time management, with moderate self-discovery and social discovery. Mostly male students, earning B grades.
• Class 2 (Engaged Reflectors – High Potential): Strong in academic discovery, self-discovery, and unexpected academic challenges, with moderate help-seeking. Mixed first-gen and non-first-gen students, earning mostly B grades, some A grades.
• Class 3 (Emotionally Struggling Students – At Risk): High in mental health concerns, uncertainty about self, and unexpected academic challenges, but low in time management and self-discovery. Overrepresented by Pell-eligible and first-generation students, earning mostly C grades or failing.
• Class 4 (Highly Reflective High Achievers): Strong engagement in self-discovery, academic discovery, time management, and unexpected academic challenges. Balanced gender mix, fewer Pell-eligible/first-gen students, earning mostly A grades.
• Class 5 (Least Reflective & Most At-Risk Students): Lowest engagement across all reflection codes, particularly self-discovery, time management, and help-seeking. More Pell-eligible and first-generation students, earning mostly failing grades or C’s.

Key Findings
1. Self-reflection patterns are associated with academic performance. Students in high-reflection classes (Classes 1, 2, and 4) performed better academically (A/B grades).
Low-reflection students (Class 5) had the highest failure rates.
2. Time management alone does not guarantee success. Class 3 students reflected on time management but struggled to implement it effectively.
3. Mental health and self-doubt are linked to lower grades.
Students who reflected more on uncertainty about self and mental health concerns (Classes 3, 5) were more likely to earn C’s or fail.
4. First-generation and Pell-eligible students are overrepresented in lower-performing classes.
Classes 3 and 5 had disproportionately more first-gen and Pell-eligible students, suggesting systemic barriers to self-regulated learning.
Implications for Practice
Findings suggest that students’ self-reflection engagement can serve as an indicator of academic struggles, particularly for first-generation and Pell-eligible students.
- For Instructors: Integrate structured reflection exercises to promote deeper learning and engagement.
- For Student Affairs: Use self-reflection coaching as part of advising and academic success programs. reflection can be a dialogue tool between students and the offices. 
- For Institutions: Consider embedding reflection-based interventions into early alert systems and faculty development training.

Proposed Courses of Action: 

To leverage student self-reflection as a tool for academic success, we propose a three-step intervention framework that integrates structured reflection practices into student learning and institutional support systems. These steps involve systematic reflection data collection, analysis of patterns, and targeted interventions in the second semester.

Step 1: Collect reflection data from each cohort toward the end of the semester
Objective: Gather structured student reflections to understand their study habits, challenges, and learning strategies.
Implementation Strategies:
• Require students to complete end-of-semester reflection prompts before their final exams in first-year courses.
• Use standardized reflection prompts focused on academic discovery, time management, uncertainty about self, and help-seeking behaviors.
• Ensure reflections are collected across multiple semesters to track trends over time.

Institutional Applications:
• Faculty Integration: Incorporate reflection as a course component in introductory STEM classes.
• Student Affairs Collaboration: Embed reflection activities into academic coaching and advising.
Outcome: A dataset of student reflections that can be analyzed to identify at-risk learning behaviors and areas for support.

Step 2: Identify reflection patterns and learning challenges
objective: Use qualitative coding and LCA to classify students into reflection-based profiles and assess their associations with academic performance.
Implementation Strategies:
• Apply Grounded Theory coding or thematic analysis to categorize reflection responses into major themes.
• Use Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to identify distinct reflection-based student subgroups.
• Examine how low and high-achieving students differ in their reflection engagement in the respective cohort.
• Compare first-generation and Pell-eligible students with their peers to assess equity gaps.
Institutional Applications:
• Faculty & Institutional Research Teams: Develop reflection-based early alert indicators for students struggling with time management and academic regulation.
• Student Success Programs: Identify patterns in help-seeking behaviors and self-doubt to inform targeted interventions.
Outcome: A data-driven understanding of how students reflect on their learning and which reflection patterns are linked to lower academic performance.

Step 3: Integrate self-reflection interventions in the second semester
Objective: Use reflection data to design targeted interventions that promote effective learning strategies in students’ second semester.
Implementation Strategies:
• For Low-Performing Students (Classes 3 & 5):
Develop structured reflection workshops focused on self-regulation, time management, and academic goal-setting.
Provide advising interventions that include guided reflection on study habits and help-seeking strategies.
Offer mental health support initiatives for students who reflected on self-doubt or academic anxiety.

• For High-Performing Students (Class 4):
Use their reflection strategies as models for peer mentoring programs.
Encourage them to participate in learning communities or serve as study coaches.
Institutional Applications:
• Course-Level Changes: Embed reflection check-ins at multiple points in the semester to encourage ongoing metacognition.
• First-Year Experience (FYE) & Advising Integration: Use reflection profiles to create personalized student success plans.
• Faculty Development Programs: Train faculty to interpret student reflections and integrate reflection-based assignments into coursework.
Outcome: A systematic approach to embedding reflection-based learning strategies, leading to improved student engagement, academic performance, and retention.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates that self-reflection engagement and academic performance are strongly associated, with less reflective students at greater risk of failing. First-generation and Pell-eligible students appear more vulnerable to low-reflection, high-risk learning patterns, underscoring the need for institutional interventions that promote structured reflection as a tool for student success. Future research should explore how reflection practices can be integrated into STEM education to support at-risk students and improve learning outcomes.

Author:

Tra Huynh (Michigan State University); Shahnaz Masani (Michigan State University)*

Context & Design:
Asian Americans are often framed as overrepresented in STEM, homogenizing their experiences and obscuring intragroup disparities(Vue et al., 2013). This framing reinforces the Model Minority Myth, attributing their success to innate ability and cultural values; masking structural barriers(Ngo & Lee, 2007). Recent scholarship critiques this approach, examining stereotype lift and the harm to Asian students (McGee, 2018). Yet, it often conceptualizes racialization as externally imposed, overlooking how Asian individuals negotiate their racial positioning, leverage symbolic capital, and shape their own experiences. By treating Asian Americans as a passive, homogenized group, these perspectives fail to account for how individuals navigate, contest, and redefine racial hierarchies in response to disciplinary norms and institutional structures. 
To address these gaps, we draw on two theoretical frameworks- DesiCrit(Harplani, 2013) and Race-Evasive Frames(Bonilla-Silva, 2021)- to follow Amar (pseudonym), a South Asian student, as he makes sense of identity, power, and engagement in a science classroom. DesiCrit builds on Critical Race Theory to analyze the unique positioning and racialization of South Asians in the US. It posits that South Asians are racially ambiguous- with fluid, complex racial positionings that shift in response to historical, social, and political contexts. This ambiguity uniquely positions them to negotiate racial hierarchies in the U.S. It also highlights how regional and institutional contexts (microclimes) shape how South Asian racial identities are constructed through an individual’s claims and others’ ascriptions. Bonilla-Silva’s Race-Evasive framework helps analyze how Amar and his peers make claims to epistemic authority while minimizing the role of race and racism in STEM. By bringing these two frameworks into conversation, we examine both the structural forces shaping South Asians’ racial positioning and the discursive strategies individuals use to navigate, reinforce, or contest racial hierarchies in STEM classrooms. 
Using a case study approach, we analyzed stimulated recall interviews with Amar and his groupmates, David and Tate (pseudonyms), as they reflect on videos of their physics classroom. 

Analysis and Interpretations:
We focus on two key episodes: 1.Curiosity as Capital: Navigating Intellectual Authority examines how Amar frames curiosity as an innate trait that grants him merit, reinforcing race-evasive STEM discourses that construct intellectual authority as neutral and meritocratic. Drawing on Bonilla-Silva’s frames of naturalization and abstract liberalism, Amar presents curiosity as inherent and fixed rather than shaped by prior experiences. He also positions curiosity and epistemic authority as universally accessible, ignoring how individuals’ identities, social capital, and disciplinary norms can shape this access. Using DesiCrit, we examine how this discourse obscures the systemic advantages that Amar has access to- both through his individual experiences and the broader positioning of South Asians in the US which is shaped by their immigration history and the resulting symbolic and social capital that afford access to social, educational and linguistic capital. We then explore how David, a white student, challenges Amar’s claims, repositioning him in line with racial stereotypes as “uncurious” and “here for the grade”, thus revealing racialization as a dynamic process shaped by ongoing micro-contestations. 2.Jokes and Justifications: Humor as a Racialized Strategy examines how Amar uses humor to navigate scrutiny, competence, and belonging in STEM spaces. He draws on minimization to frame humor as neutral, obscuring how racialized students use it to manage perceptions, and abstract liberalism to treat help-seeking as an individual choice, disregarding structural barriers. Using DesiCrit, we analyze how Amar’s humor counters stereotypes of Asian men as feminized or lacking authority, thus acting as a claim to masculinity, whiteness, and epistemic authority. Further, we explore how these claims serve to perpetuate dominant narratives, marginalizing Students of Color. This is evident as Tate, a Student of Color in Amar’s group, describes Amar’s humor as dismissive and a source of hurt, and how access to curiosity, help-seeking, and social legitimacy in STEM spaces is shaped by racial dynamics.

Contributions: 
We explore how frameworks like DesiCrit and Race-Evasive Frames provide nuanced understandings of how South Asian racial identities are performed, contested, and constructed in STEM settings. This highlights the interplay between micro-level classroom interactions and broader structural dynamics in shaping South Asian students’ racialization. This nuanced understanding can help biology instructors and education researchers better understand the experiences of South Asian experience ultimately fostering more equitable classrooms.

Author:

Daniel Ferguson (North Dakota State University)*; Jenni Momsen (North Dakota State University)

Study Context
Biology is the study of living systems, and systems are a unifying idea in biology. Teaching about biological systems is a core concept as identified by Vision and Change (AAAS, 2009). Momsen et al., (2022) called for a unifying approach to teach biology centered on systems and developed the Biological Systems Thinking (BST) framework which focuses on systems and using systems thinking in the classroom to help students build connections between biological systems. Often in introductory biology courses the central dogma is taught separate from natural selection - sometimes in a different unit or class. Using the BST framework, educators can focus on connecting biological concepts that are typically taught or portrayed as distantly connected (Nehm et al., 2009). One way educators can help develop systems thinking skills is through building conceptual models (Dauer et al., 2013; Speth et al., 2014). Students who spend time in class constructing, using, and revising models of complex natural phenomena build a deep understanding of biological concepts (Gilbert and Justi, 2016). Modeling has also been shown to help students understand the connections between ideas like the central dogma and natural selection (Dauer et al., 2013). What remains unclear is whether students who model the connection between the central dogma and natural selection in an introductory biology course maintain that connection over time, especially when these ideas are typically taught as separate ideas. 

For this study our research questions are:
How do students represent natural selection and the central dogma in their models after time away from modeling? 
How do instructors present the central dogma and natural selection in their classes?

Study Design 
Our research looks to understand students’ ability to connect the central dogma and natural selection through modeling in an introductory biology class and their ability to retain their knowledge over time. We also wanted to understand how instructors connect central dogma and natural selection in their classes. This research took place at a rural-serving institution in the midwestern United States, with a student population of over 10,000. Student-generated models were collected in the Spring 2024 semester (introductory biology) and the Spring 2025 semester (evolution). We asked students in an introductory biology class to generate models that connected natural selection to the central dogma; we repeated this task in a subsequent upper level evolution course, tracking students from our focal introductory biology classWe were able to track eight students from Intro Biology to Evolution. To understand how instructors connect the central dogma and natural selection, we sent surveys to the SABER listserv gathering data about course schedules and how these concepts are taught.

Analyses and Interpretations 
For this study, we used a qualitative approach to analyze students' models. For model interpretation we looked at model complexity, model starting point, and whether the model accurately portrayed natural selection via the central dogma. We found that the models in the introductory course were more complex and had more model components than students in the evolution course. All the models in the introductory course started with nucleotides and seven of the eight models accurately connected the central dogma to natural selection. In the evolution course, only one of the eight students accurately connected the central dogma to natural selection in their model; all of the students had different starting points in their given models. Over the course of a year, almost all students seemed to forget where phenotypic variation stems from and many seemed to forget the central dogma as well. We also observed that most of the eight students incorrectly placed mutations within their models - all students who included mutations in their model included it as part of the transcription or translation process. Through our second research question we are hoping to construct an overview of the location of central dogma and natural selection in the course schedule to better understand how these concepts might be perceived and connected by students. 

Contribution 
Our study shows the amount of forgetting that happens after students focus on exclusively modeling natural selection in an introductory biology course and are asked to model natural selection again a year later. This work is important because many times in upper level courses, even though our students knew the content well in the intro course, we as educators assume students remember concepts (i.e. mutation) from earlier classes, even after a long break. Additionally, many times as educators we do a poor job showing how the central dogma and natural selection are connected due to our placement of these concepts in courses. These findings suggest that further research is needed on students’ retention of content knowledge in biology.

Author:

Alyssa Freeman (Idaho State University)*; Sarah Bleiler-Baxter (Middle Tennessee State University); Grant Gardner (Middle Tennessee State University)

Study Context
Many GTAs teach during their degree program, impacting the learning and retention of many undergraduate students (Connolly et al., 2016; Gardner & Jones, 2011; Thiry et al., 2019). GTAs may be especially important instructors in the biological sciences, teaching over 70% of the laboratory courses (Sunberg et al., 2005). Yet, GTAs often have little pedagogical training or influence on the course curricula (Authors, 2011; Dillard et al., 2023; Schussler et al., 2015). GTAs can engage in teaching professional development (TPD) programs to support their teaching. However, many TPD programs have voluntary engagement (Schussler et al., 2015), which necessarily limits the number of GTAs who participate. There could be many reasons why STEM GTAs might voluntarily or involuntarily engage in TPD programs (e.g., limited time). One way to frame GTAs’ motivation to engage in TPD programs is through Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT is a broad theory of motivation that describes the importance of satisfying psychological needs for individuals to feel motivated to enact particular behaviors and experience psychological well-being. As described by SDT, the psychological needs are relatedness (perception of having strong and caring relationships with others), autonomy (perception of being able to make decisions related to tasks), and competence (perception of feeling effective in accomplishing tasks in their environment). Psychological needs can be impacted by environmental factors to satisfy or frustrate an individual’s psychological needs and impact their motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In this project, we sought to consider GTAs’ psychological needs by conducting a scoping review of the literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010). We specifically aimed to 1) describe GTAs’ perceptions of their psychological needs being satisfied (or frustrated), 2) describe common supports and thwarts of GTAs’ psychological needs, and 3) explore the impact of TPD programs on GTAs’ perceptions of their psychological needs. 

Study Design
To conduct the scoping review, a search protocol was run in the Web of Science Core Collection, Educational Resources Information Center, and Scopus to identify relevant articles. A total of n = 5,430 articles were identified. Duplicates were removed and only peer-reviewed journal articles written in English were considered for inclusion in the study. Titles and abstracts were screened for being a research study regarding GTAs and their teaching in higher education contexts. Full articles were then reviewed to identify studies with descriptions of GTAs’ psychological needs. This resulted in 82 articles included in this study. We then used thematic analysis to code the data presented in each article using SDT (Braun & Clarke, 2006). 

Analyses and Interpretations 
The GTAs’ perceptions of autonomy appeared variable in the literature, with contrasting perceptions of what supported or thwarted autonomy. Faculty who encouraged GTAs to make changes and provide feedback on the prescribed curricula supported GTAs’ autonomy. GTAs appeared to have satisfied perceptions of relatedness in their relationships with students and peer GTAs. GTAs’ perceptions of relatedness with faculty, however, were more conflicting. GTAs did not always perceive having strong relationships when they were provided with support in their relationships with faculty. Providing GTAs opportunities to discuss teaching appears to be valuable in supporting their perceptions of relatedness. GTAs appeared to have their perceptions of competence satisfied more frequently compared to their perceptions of autonomy and relatedness. GTAs’ perceptions of competence could be thwarted by having an ambiguous role as both a student and instructor, concerns about their credibility to teach in higher education contexts, unclear expectations for their teaching, and limited feedback from teaching colleagues. GTAs also reported that experience with teaching, having clear expectations for their teaching from the faculty, and in-the-moment feedback from students could support their perceptions of competence. 

Contribution
This scoping review adds to the literature base in education research by identifying common supports and thwarts of GTAs’ psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. This project will be of interest to SABER attendees interested in GTA professional development and undergraduate instruction. Additionally, there are implications for future research and practice to use SDT to understand GTAs’ perceptions of their teaching environment to better support GTAs’ growth as instructors to foster student learning.

Author:

Mei Grace Behrendt (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)*; Jordan Wheeler (University of Nebraska-Lincoln); Carrie Clark (University of Nebraska-Lincoln); Joe Dauer (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

Study Context: Metacognition—the ability to think about one’s own thinking—plays a crucial role in learning, particularly in biology education. Effective metacognitive skills enable students to assess their understanding, monitor progress, and refine problem-solving approaches. This skill is especially important in STEM fields, where complex problem-solving and conceptual reasoning require continuous self-monitoring and adjustment. Metacognitive monitoring, a core aspect of this process, involves evaluating the accuracy of one’s own knowledge and performance—essential for effectively navigating scientific disciplines.
In biology education, students often work with models to understand abstract concepts, visualize dynamic processes, and make predictions. However, students may struggle to detect inaccuracies or inconsistencies in these models if they lack effective metacognitive monitoring skills. Effective metacognitive calibration—accurately aligning confidence with correctness—allows students to critically assess biological models, identify potential errors, and refine their reasoning. Measuring students’ metacognitive calibration can help educators understand how students interact with and learn from biological representations, allowing instructors to implement more effective instructional strategies.
Study Design: In this study, we address the gap in research on quantifying metacognitive monitoring in biology education by examining how undergraduate biology students assess their own confidence and accuracy while evaluating biological models. Employing Item Response Theory (IRT), we examine how well students calibrate their confidence when detecting intentional errors in biological models. One advantage of IRT is its ability to separate task difficulty from individual metacognitive precision, offering a clearer understanding of how well students evaluate their own knowledge.
Fifty undergraduate life science students participated in a model evaluation task, assessing 36 biological models, shown one at a time, covering diverse topics including evolution, genetics, physiology, and ecology. For each trial, students determined whether the model contained an error and reported whether they were confident in their judgment, both on a binary scale of yes/no. We analyzed their responses through Rasch measurement theory to examine how well students’ confidence aligned with their accuracy, providing a precise measure of metacognitive calibration in biological model evaluation. Responses were coded as 1 for accurate and confident judgments, and 0 for all other combinations.
Analyses and Interpretations: The Rasch model, applied using a mixed-effects approach with fixed item effects and random person effects, identified 17 items with the best fit, resulting in a consistent and reliable scale (α = 0.69) for a validation study. Item difficulty ranged from -1.2 to 1.4 logits, with infit and outfit mean-square values between 0.87 and 1.25, indicating strong item fit. The Wright map demonstrated that item difficulty and participant ability were well-aligned along the metacognitive calibration scale, with easier items correctly identified by lower-ability participants and more challenging items requiring higher metacognitive precision for accurate responses. Participants achieved an average accuracy of 62% on the 17-item scale, closely mirroring the 65% accuracy observed in the original 36-item set. Additionally, results demonstrated that students with higher metacognitive calibration also had higher performance on the biological model task (r = .88). Importantly, metacognitive calibration scores derived from the Rasch model significantly correlated with expert performance ratings of model evaluation skills one year later (r = 0.54, p < .001), underscoring the scale’s predictive validity. Overall, the findings demonstrated that students with effective metacognitive calibration aligned their confidence more accurately with task performance. This study advances the measurement of metacognitive calibration in biological model evaluation, offering a framework for more reliable assessments in life sciences education.
Contribution: Our findings highlight the need for instructional strategies that align students’ confidence with their actual knowledge. Metacognitive assessment tasks can enhance self-monitoring, while low-stakes assessments and feedback help recalibrate confidence over time. Embedding metacognitive scaffolding within biology curricula encourages critical thinking and reasoning. This study adds to the field by using Rasch models to provide a quantitative measure of metacognitive monitoring in biology education. These models support precise, scalable assessments that inform targeted interventions. Future research should examine how such strategies promote long-term learning and STEM success, ultimately equipping students with essential scientific reasoning and problem-solving skills.

Author:

Angelita Rivera (Stanford University)*; Shima Salehi (Stanford University)

Study Context: STEM students can often be pushed to assimilate into the dominant, Western culture of science, contributing to increased imposter syndrome and low retention rates (Chakraverty, 2022). Culturally-sustaining, responsive, and relevant (CSRR) pedagogies are theoretical frameworks that integrate students' cultural identities into the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Gay, 2010; Paris & Alim, 2017). While these pedagogies have been widely explored in K-12 non-STEM contexts, their application in STEM higher education remains under-explored (Chang & Viesca, 2022; Brown et al., 2019). CSRR pedagogies may be a promising avenue for addressing STEM persistence and retention, as they have demonstrated enhanced student engagement and learning (Boutte, 2010; Booker & Lim, 2018; Thomas & Tripp, 2020). However, due to the dynamic and fluid nature of culture, many STEM instructors report difficulties bridging these theoretical ideas with concrete pedagogical practices (Brown et al., 2019). To address this gap, our study explores how higher education biology instructors conceptualize and enact CSRR pedagogies, as well as the challenges and resources they identify for effectively implementing these frameworks.

Study Design: Our research questions are: (1) How do higher education biology instructors conceptualize and enact CSRR pedagogies? and (2) What barriers and resources do instructors identify in implementing these pedagogies? We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 biology instructors from diverse institutions across the United States, including public, private, minority-serving, and primarily-White institutions. Participants represented a variety of demographic backgrounds, including minoritized and non-minoritized identities, as well as tenured and non-tenured faculty. 

We employed two analytical approaches: thematic coding and narrative inquiry. Thematic coding allowed us to deductively compare instructor conceptualizations of CSRR pedagogy with existing theoretical frameworks, examining key tenets such as “cultural competence” (culturally-relevant pedagogy) and “cultural knowledge integration” (culturally-responsive pedagogy). 

Additionally, we inductively identified themes related to instructor conceptualizations, challenges, and resource needs. Narrative analysis was used to showcase two contrasting cases of biology instructors who defined and enacted culturally-informed pedagogy in vastly different ways, illustrating the breadth of interpretation and practice.

Analysis and Interpretations: In their initial definitions of CSRR, the most prominent deductive themes were “cultural competence” (70%) and “cultural knowledge integration” (60%). However, most instructors did not reference most of the tenets of the existing theoretical frameworks. Instead, they framed CSRR as “inclusive teaching,” which encompassed a broad range of ideas, from fostering a positive classroom climate to treating students as “humans”. This finding suggests a lack of clear differentiation between CSRR pedagogies in STEM contexts, potentially impeding their effective implementation.

To further explore these variations, we highlight the contrasting cases of Francisco* and Elsa* (pseudonyms). Francisco defined culturally-informed teaching without explicit reference to CSRR theories, emphasizing instead that humanizing students is the most important pedagogical strategy. In contrast, Elsa created two structured lists of structural and affective strategies of inclusive teaching practices drawn from education literature and actively implemented them in her classroom. These cases illustrate the diversity of instructor interpretations and enactments of culturally-informed pedagogy, underscoring the challenge of providing straightforward, concrete guidance on how to implement CSRR frameworks in STEM education.
The most common challenges faced by instructors were: lack of examples, institutional or community-driven support, and confidence to do it “right”. For resources, instructors advocated for a repository of examples, more top-down support and guidance from their institution, and sustained communities to practice development and implementation. 

Contribution: Our findings highlight the challenges instructors face when enacting CSRR pedagogies in higher education STEM contexts. The observed discrepancies between instructors’ conceptualizations and theoretical frameworks suggest a need for clearer professional development and training in culturally-grounded STEM pedagogy. These insights can inform faculty development programs aimed at providing discipline-specific guidance on how CSRR pedagogies can be effectively translated into biology classrooms. By elucidating the breadth and depth of instructor conceptualizations and enactments, this study aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice, ultimately contributing to the advancement of inclusive and equitable STEM education.

Join us for the presentation of the inaugural Mary Pat Wenderoth Lectureship Award to Dr. Erin Dolan. The session will begin with brief remarks from the SABER Awards Subcommittee, followed by the formal presentation of the award. Dr. Dolan will then deliver her lecture, titled “From Anecdote to Evidence to Impact: Collaboratively Crafting a Complete Story of Effective Research Mentoring.”  

Join us for the SABER Banquet at the McNamara Alumni Center. Cash bar and hors d'eouvres begin at 6:30, Dinner at 7:00. 

All conference participants are invited to attend the SABER Business Meeting, where the Executive Committee will share organizational updates and financial information, announce newly elected officers, and the Awards Committee will present the winners of the Poster Awards and the Bill Wood Graduate Student Talk Awards.

This room will be used as a quiet space until setup for the poster session begins at 11:30. We apologize for the convenience, and welcome you to take advantage of the quiet hallway spaces available on Sunday.