Biology Education Research: Lessons and Future Directions

This feature draws on a 2012 National Research Council report to highlight some of the insights that discipline-based education research in general—and biology education research in particular—have provided into the challenges of undergraduate science education. It identifies strategies for overcoming those challenges and future directions for biology education research.Biologists have long been concerned about the quality of undergraduate biology education. Indeed, some biology education journals, such as the American Biology Teacher, have been in existence since the 1930s. Early contributors to these journals addressed broad questions about science learning, such as whether collaborative or individual learning was more effective and the value of conceptualization over memorization. Over time, however, biology faculty members have begun to study increasingly sophisticated questions about teaching and learning in the discipline. These scholars, often called biology education researchers, are part of a growing field of inquiry called discipline-based education research (DBER).DBER investigates both fundamental and applied aspects of teaching and learning in a given discipline; our emphasis here is on several science disciplines and engineering. The distinguishing feature of DBER is deep disciplinary knowledge of what constitutes expertise and expert-like understanding in a discipline. This knowledge has the potential to guide research focused on the most important concepts in a discipline and offers a framework for interpreting findings about students’ learning and understanding in that discipline. While DBER investigates teaching and learning in a given discipline, it is informed by and complementary to general research on human learning and cognition and can build on findings from K–12 science education research.DBER is emerging as a field of inquiry from programs of research that have developed somewhat independently in various disciplines in the sciences and engineering. Although biology education research (BER) has emerged more recently than similar efforts in physics, chemistry, or engineering education research, it is making contributions to the understanding of how students learn and gain expertise in biology. These contributions, together with those that DBER has made in physics and astronomy, chemistry, engineering, and the geosciences, are the focus of a 2012 report by the National Research Council (NRC, 2012 ).1 For biologists who are interested in education research, the report is a useful reference, because it offers the first comprehensive synthesis of the emerging body of BER and highlights the ways in which BER findings are similar to those in other disciplines. In this essay, we draw on the NRC report to highlight some of the insights that DBER in general and BER in particular have provided into effective instructional practices and undergraduate learning, and to point to some directions for the future. The views in this essay are ours as editors of the report and do not represent the official views of the Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research; the NRC; or the National Science Foundation (NSF).     

The Dominance Concept Inventory: A Tool for Assessing Undergraduate Student Alternative Conceptions about Dominance in Mendelian and Population Genetics

Despite the impact of genetics on daily life, biology undergraduates understand some key genetics concepts poorly. One concept requiring attention is dominance, which many students understand as a fixed property of an allele or trait and regularly conflate with frequency in a population or selective advantage. We present the Dominance Concept Inventory (DCI), an instrument to gather data on selected alternative conceptions about dominance. During development of the 16-item test, we used expert surveys (n = 12), student interviews (n = 42), and field tests (n = 1763) from introductory and advanced biology undergraduates at public and private, majority- and minority-serving, 2- and 4-yr institutions in the United States. In the final field test across all subject populations (n = 709), item difficulty ranged from 0.08 to 0.84 (0.51 ± 0.049 SEM), while item discrimination ranged from 0.11 to 0.82 (0.50 ± 0.048 SEM). Internal reliability (Cronbach''s alpha) was 0.77, while test–retest reliability values were 0.74 (product moment correlation) and 0.77 (intraclass correlation). The prevalence of alternative conceptions in the field tests shows that introductory and advanced students retain confusion about dominance after instruction. All measures support the DCI as a useful instrument for measuring undergraduate biology student understanding and alternative conceptions about dominance.     

Toward Integration: From Quantitative Biology to Mathbio-Biomath?

In response to the call of BIO2010 for integrating quantitative skills into undergraduate biology education, 30 Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Program Directors at the 2006 HHMI Program Directors Meeting established a consortium to investigate, implement, develop, and disseminate best practices resulting from the integration of math and biology. With the assistance of an HHMI-funded mini-grant, led by Karl Joplin of East Tennessee State University, and support in institutional HHMI grants at Emory and University of Delaware, these institutions held a series of summer institutes and workshops to document progress toward and address the challenges of implementing a more quantitative approach to undergraduate biology education. This report summarizes the results of the four summer institutes (2007–2010). The group developed four draft white papers, a wiki site, and a listserv. One major outcome of these meetings is this issue of CBE—Life Sciences Education, which resulted from proposals at our 2008 meeting and a January 2009 planning session. Many of the papers in this issue emerged from or were influenced by these meetings.     

Post–Vision and Change: Do We Know How to Change?

The scale and importance of Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action challenges us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology instruction. I propose that we have clarified the “vision” but lack research-based models and evidence needed to guide the “change.” To support this claim, I focus on several key topics, including evidence about effective use of active-teaching pedagogy by typical faculty and whether certain programs improve students’ understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts. Program evaluation is especially problematic. While current education research and theory should inform evaluation, several prominent biology faculty–development programs continue to rely on self-reporting by faculty and students. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty-development overviews can guide program design. Such studies highlight viewing faculty members as collaborators, embedding rewards faculty value, and characteristics of effective faculty-development learning communities. A recent National Research Council report on discipline-based STEM education research emphasizes the need for long-term faculty development and deep conceptual change in teaching and learning as the basis for genuine transformation of college instruction. Despite the progress evident in Vision and Change, forward momentum will likely be limited, because we lack evidence-based, reliable models for actually realizing the desired “change.”

All members of the biology academic community should be committed to creating, using, assessing, and disseminating effective practices in teaching and learning and in building a true community of scholars. (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 , p. 49)

Realizing the “vision” in Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (Vision and Change; AAAS, 2011 ) is an enormous undertaking for the biology education community, and the scale and critical importance of this challenge prompts us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology teaching and learning. For example, Vision and Change reflects the consensus that active teaching enhances the learning of biology. However, what is known about widespread application of effective active-teaching pedagogy and how it may differ across institutional and classroom settings or with the depth of pedagogical understanding a biology faculty member may have? More broadly, what is the research base concerning higher education biology faculty–development programs, especially designs that lead to real change in classroom teaching? Has the develop-and-disseminate approach favored by the National Science Foundation''s (NSF) Division of Undergraduate Education (Dancy and Henderson, 2007 ) been generally effective? Can we directly apply outcomes from faculty-development programs in other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines or is teaching college biology unique in important ways? In other words, if we intend to use Vision and Change as the basis for widespread transformation of biology instruction, is there a good deal of scholarly literature about how to help faculty make the endorsed changes or is this research base lacking?In the context of Vision and Change, in this essay I focus on a few key topics relevant to broad-scale faculty development, highlighting the extent and quality of the research base for it. My intention is to reveal numerous issues that may well inhibit forward momentum toward real transformation of college-level biology teaching and learning. Some are quite fundamental, such as ongoing dependence on less reliable assessment approaches for professional-development programs and mixed success of active-learning pedagogy by broad populations of biology faculty. I also offer specific suggestions to improve and build on identified issues.At the center of my inquiry is the faculty member. Following the definition used by the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (www.podnetwork.org), I use “faculty development” to indicate programs that emphasize the individual faculty member as teacher (e.g., his or her skill in the classroom), scholar/professional (publishing, college/university service), and person (time constraints, self-confidence). Of course, faculty members work within particular departments and institutions, and these environments are clearly critical as well (Stark et al., 2002 ). Consequently, in addition to focusing on the individual, faculty-development programs may also consider organizational structure (such as administrators and criteria for reappointment and tenure) and instructional development (the overall curriculum, who teaches particular courses). In fact, Diamond (2002) emphasizes that the three areas of effort (individual, organizational, instructional) should complement one another in faculty-development programs. The scope of the numerous factors impacting higher education biology instruction is a realistic reminder about the complexity and challenge of the second half of the Vision and Change endeavor.This essay is organized around specific topics meant to be representative and to illustrate the state of the art of widespread (beyond a limited number of courses and institutions) professional development for biology faculty. The first two sections focus on active teaching and biology students’ conceptual understanding, respectively. The third section concerns important elements that have been identified as critical for effective STEM faculty-development programs.     

Development and Effectiveness of an Educational Card Game as Supplementary Material in Understanding Selected Topics in Biology

The complex concepts and vocabulary of biology classes discourage many students. In this study, a pretest–posttest model was used to test the effectiveness of an educational card game in reinforcing biological concepts in comparison with traditional teaching methods. The subjects of this study were two biology classes at Bulacan State University–Sarmiento Campus. Both classes received conventional instruction; however, the experimental group''s instruction was supplemented with the card game, while the control group''s instruction was reinforced with traditional exercises and assignments. The score increases from pretest to posttest showed that both methods effectively reinforced biological concepts, but a t test showed that the card game is more effective than traditional teaching methods. Additionally, students from the experimental group evaluated the card game using five criteria: goals, design, organization, playability, and usefulness. The students rated the material very satisfactory.     

An Integrative Review: The Role of the Doula in Breastfeeding Initiation and Duration

The objective of this integrative review was to assess birth and postpartum doulas'' roles in supporting breastfeeding initiation and duration. The electronic databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched using the key terms doula and breastfeeding. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Six key themes were identified. Doulas may acquire only modest amounts of lactation-specific education; however, doula care still enhances the breastfeeding care provided by health-care professionals. Doulas offer prenatal and intrapartum support that encourages breastfeeding initiation in the hospital, as well as providing breastfeeding support in the community and home settings. This reinforces the unique role of the doula in bolstering maternal–infant health. The effect of doulas on breastfeeding duration is less clear.     

Developing undergraduate research skills in a faculty of education: motivation through collaboration

This paper explores motivational factors underpinning undergraduates’ learning of research skills through individual research projects with collaborative tutorials. Research has long pointed to group support, positive affect and scaffolding as important for motivating and facilitating learning. Furthermore, UK government priorities have placed an increasing emphasis on the need to develop the key skills of inquiry and working with others. However, this is set in a context of assessment and practice in higher education that encourages individualist and instrumental perspectives on gaining competencies and knowledge. Traditionally undergraduate research skills have been taught through lectures and small‐scale projects chosen by the students with individual tutorial support in a faculty of education. Here our action research introduced collaborative tutorials as another element of teaching. We examine the process of collaboration to explore factors that support motivation to learn through two principal theoretical frameworks.     

Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity

A host of simple teaching strategies—referred to as “equitable teaching strategies” and rooted in research on learning—can support biology instructors in striving for classroom equity and in teaching all their students, not just those who are already engaged, already participating, and perhaps already know the biology being taught.     

Language and Cultural Issues for English-as-a-Second/Foreign Language Students in Transnational Educational Settings

As transnational education continues to expand, providing countries are becoming increasingly aware of the need to offer a high-quality ''product'' in all aspects. Such provision includes not only the offering of quality courses but also the provision of the support structures that international students require. In many cases, the educational ''package'' is delivered in the English language that for many students is a second or foreign language. While the status of English as a ''world language'' makes it highly desirable to earn a higher degree in that language, the linguistic and cultural difficulties that doing so poses for many students should not be underestimated. This article discusses issues of educational support for international students and offers some suggestions based on the findings of several research projects undertaken in recent years at the Curtin University of Technology.     

Bioinformatics Education in High School: Implications for Promoting Science,Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics Careers

We investigated the effects of our Bio-ITEST teacher professional development model and bioinformatics curricula on cognitive traits (awareness, engagement, self-efficacy, and relevance) in high school teachers and students that are known to accompany a developing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. The program included best practices in adult education and diverse resources to empower teachers to integrate STEM career information into their classrooms. The introductory unit, Using Bioinformatics: Genetic Testing, uses bioinformatics to teach basic concepts in genetics and molecular biology, and the advanced unit, Using Bioinformatics: Genetic Research, utilizes bioinformatics to study evolution and support student research with DNA barcoding. Pre–post surveys demonstrated significant growth (n = 24) among teachers in their preparation to teach the curricula and infuse career awareness into their classes, and these gains were sustained through the end of the academic year. Introductory unit students (n = 289) showed significant gains in awareness, relevance, and self-efficacy. While these students did not show significant gains in engagement, advanced unit students (n = 41) showed gains in all four cognitive areas. Lessons learned during Bio-ITEST are explored in the context of recommendations for other programs that wish to increase student interest in STEM careers.     

Research Practice into/influencing Mathematics Teaching and Learning Development: Towards a Theoretical framework based on co-learning partnerships

This paper addresses issues linking research into the classroom teaching and learning of mathematics with the growth of knowledge in mathematics teaching, developments in the practice of teaching and the enhanced learning of mathematics by students in classrooms. A basic premise is that research promotes development. The paper considers both insider andoutsider research and co-learning between teachers and educators in promoting classroom inquiry. Through a consideration of elements of theory such as knowledge and inquiry in teaching and of learning as knowledge growth through research/inquiry leading to enhancement of students' learning of mathematics, a framework is suggested. Its purposes include analysis of a research project's contribution to teaching development and conceptualization of research which has teaching development as one of its aims. Use of the framework is exemplified through its application to reports of three mathematics education research projects in the public domain. A brief afterword links the framework to concepts in activity theory.     

Misconceptions Are “So Yesterday!”

At the close of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research conference in July 2012, one of the organizers made the comment: “Misconceptions are so yesterday.” Within the community of learning sciences, misconceptions are yesterday''s news, because the term has been aligned with eradication and/or replacement of conceptions, and our knowledge about how people learn has progressed past this idea. This essay provides an overview of the discussion within the learning sciences community surrounding the term “misconceptions” and how the education community''s thinking has evolved with respect to students’ conceptions. Using examples of students’ incorrect ideas about evolution and ecology, we show that students’ naïve ideas can provide the resources from which to build scientific understanding. We conclude by advocating that biology education researchers use one or more appropriate alternatives in place of the term misconception whenever possible.     

“What if students revolt?”—Considering Student Resistance: Origins,Options, and Opportunities for Investigation

Instructors attempting new teaching methods may have concerns that students will resist nontraditional teaching methods. The authors provide an overview of research characterizing the nature of student resistance and exploring its origins. Additionally, they provide potential strategies for avoiding or addressing resistance and pose questions about resistance that may be ripe for research study.

“What if the students revolt?” “What if I ask them to talk to a neighbor, and they simply refuse?” “What if they do not see active learning as teaching?” “What if they just want me to lecture?” “What if my teaching evaluation scores plummet?” “Even if I am excited about innovative teaching and learning, what if I encounter student resistance?”

These are genuine concerns of committed and thoughtful instructors who aspire to respond to the repeated national calls to fundamentally change the way biology is taught in colleges and universities across the United States. No doubt most individuals involved in promoting innovative teaching in undergraduate biology education have heard these or variations on these fears and concerns. While some biology instructors may be at a point where they are still skeptical of innovative teaching from more theoretical perspectives (“Is it really any better than lecturing?”), the concerns expressed by the individuals above come from a deeply committed and practical place. These are instructors who have already passed the point where they have become dissatisfied with traditional teaching methods. They have already internally decided to try new approaches and have perhaps been learning new teaching techniques themselves. They are on the precipice of actually implementing formerly theoretical ideas in the real, messy space that is a classroom, with dozens, if not hundreds, of students watching them. Potential rejection by students as they are practicing these new pedagogical skills represents a real and significant roadblock. A change may be even more difficult for those earning high marks from their students for their lectures. If we were to think about a learning progression for faculty moving toward requiring more active class participation on the part of students, the voices above are from those individuals who are progressing along this continuum and who could easily become stuck or turn back in the face of student resistance.Unfortunately, it appears that little systematic attention or research effort has been focused on understanding the origins of student resistance in biology classrooms or the options for preventing and addressing such resistance. As always, this Feature aims to gather research evidence from a variety of fields to support innovations in undergraduate biology education. Below, we attempt to provide an overview of the types of student resistance one might encounter in a classroom, as well as share hypotheses from other disciplines about the potential origins of student resistance. In addition, we offer examples of classroom strategies that have been proposed as potentially useful for either preventing student resistance from happening altogether or addressing student resistance after it occurs, some of which align well with findings from research on the origins of student resistance. Finally, we explore how ready the field of student resistance may be for research study, particularly in undergraduate biology education.     

The EvoDevoCI: A Concept Inventory for Gauging Students’ Understanding of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

The American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 report Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education encourages the teaching of developmental biology as an important part of teaching evolution. Recently, however, we found that biology majors often lack the developmental knowledge needed to understand evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” To assist in efforts to improve evo-devo instruction among undergraduate biology majors, we designed a concept inventory (CI) for evolutionary developmental biology, the EvoDevoCI. The CI measures student understanding of six core evo-devo concepts using four scenarios and 11 multiple-choice items, all inspired by authentic scientific examples. Distracters were designed to represent the common conceptual difficulties students have with each evo-devo concept. The tool was validated by experts and administered at four institutions to 1191 students during preliminary (n = 652) and final (n = 539) field trials. We used student responses to evaluate the readability, difficulty, discriminability, validity, and reliability of the EvoDevoCI, which included items ranging in difficulty from 0.22–0.55 and in discriminability from 0.19–0.38. Such measures suggest the EvoDevoCI is an effective tool for assessing student understanding of evo-devo concepts and the prevalence of associated common conceptual difficulties among both novice and advanced undergraduate biology majors.