biology education articles

• Position paper
• Open access
• Published: 02 December 2019

Biology education research: building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems

• Ross H. Nehm   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5029-740X 1  

Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research volume  1 , Article number:  15 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

21 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

This critical review examines the challenges and opportunities facing the field of Biology Education Research (BER). Ongoing disciplinary fragmentation is identified as a force working in opposition to the development of unifying conceptual frameworks for living systems and for understanding student thinking about living systems. A review of Concept Inventory (CI) research is used to illustrate how the absence of conceptual frameworks can complicate attempts to uncover student thinking about living systems and efforts to guide biology instruction. The review identifies possible starting points for the development of integrative cognitive and disciplinary frameworks for BER. First, relevant insights from developmental and cognitive psychology are reviewed and their connections are drawn to biology education. Second, prior theoretical work by biologists is highlighted as a starting point for re-integrating biology using discipline-focused frameworks. Specifically, three interdependent disciplinary themes are proposed as central to making sense of disciplinary core ideas: unity and diversity; randomness, probability, and contingency; and scale, hierarchy, and emergence. Overall, the review emphasizes that cognitive and conceptual grounding will help to foster much needed epistemic stability and guide the development of integrative empirical research agendas for BER.

Introduction

Many policy documents emphasize that student understanding of living systems requires the integration of concepts that span levels of biological organization, encompass the tree of life, and cross different fields of study (AAAS, 2011 ; NRC, 2009 ; NSF, 2019 ). Yet the institutional, disciplinary, and curricular structuring of the life sciences often works in opposition to these pursuits. More so than in physics and chemistry, “biology” encompasses an expansive array of disciplines, each of which is often housed in a different academic department (e.g., microbiology, botany, genetics). These disciplines often organize into different academic societies, communicate through different journals, embrace different methodological frameworks, and gather at separate scientific conferences. Such fragmentation is evident at many universities, which lack “biology” departments altogether, and may instead be organized by taxonomy (e.g., botany, zoology, microbiology departments), concept (e.g., genetics, ecology, evolution departments), unit or scale (e.g., cell biology, biochemistry). There is no organizational blueprint characteristic of biology departments in the United States, for example. Given that most universities have not identified a singular solution for structuring the life sciences, it is unsurprising that diverse structures also characterize biology education research. Disciplinary (and corresponding educational) fragmentation works against attempts at fostering an integrative understanding of living systems for students, which is arguably a foundational goal of biology education.

In this critical review I examine some of the conceptual challenges facing the field of Biology Education Research (BER). These challenges reflect the substantial disciplinary fragmentation of BER, but they also highlight opportunities for advancing student understanding of living systems. I focus on the conceptual foundations of the discipline because they are a unique feature of biology education and have received substantially less attention than education practices (e.g., active learning, course-based research experiences, inclusive pedagogies). I begin by documenting the disciplinary fragmentation of the biological sciences and the corresponding heterogeneity and conceptual fragmentation of BER efforts. A consequence of such compartmentalization has been the lack of attention to the development and testing of unifying conceptual frameworks for (i) living systems and (ii) student thinking about living systems (in contrast to individual concepts, such as mutation, heredity, or genetic drift). This finding aligns with prior reviews that have also noted limited empirical-theoretical coordination within BER. The lack of attention to unifying frameworks for both biology and BER has consequences for biology education. A review of Concept Inventory (CI) research is used to illustrate how the absence of robust conceptual frameworks can complicate attempts to uncover student thinking about living systems and to guide biology instruction. The reviews of BER scholarship and CIs are used to motivate discussion of possible blueprints for BER-specific frameworks. First, findings from developmental and cognitive psychology are proposed as central to the development of cognitive frameworks. Second, possible disciplinary frameworks for BER are proposed after summarizing attempts by biologists to establish unifying themes for living systems that transcend individual subdisciplines. These themes include unity and diversity; randomness, probability, and contingency; and scale, hierarchy, and emergence. The review ends by emphasizing that the most significant opportunity for strengthening and unifying BER lies in the formulation of conceptual frameworks that account for how learners make sense of living systems as they progress through ontogeny and formal education. Such frameworks are much-needed tools for organizing and executing field-specific disciplinary research agendas.

The disciplinary structures of biology and biology education research

Many journals focus on BER and have grown out of the disciplinary structures and educational needs of academic departments; this history helps to make sense of the fragmented structure currently characterizing BER. Many biological disciplines have produced associated educational journals that serve as examples: Microbiology ( Journal of Biology and Microbiology Education ), Evolution (e.g., Evolution: Education and Outreach ), and Neuroscience (e.g., Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education ) (see Table  1 ). In many respects, this situation mirrors the explosion of discipline-specific journals in the life sciences.

Many of the research questions addressed within BER subdisciplines are an outgrowth of the educational contexts in which biological specialists have worked. The pressure to update curricula to reflect discipline-specific advances, for example, is a challenge inherent to all of the biological sciences (perhaps to a greater degree than in introductory physics and chemistry, where the content has remained relatively stable for the past century). Indeed, entirely new research areas (e.g., microbiomes, ancient DNA [deoxyribonucleic acid]) and methods (e.g., bioinformatics, CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats]) emerge with increasing tempo each decade. Keeping students up-to-date with discipline-specific understanding is an ongoing challenge that has spurred educational reform, innovation, and ongoing professional development within biological subdisciplines (e.g., physiology) and their associated journals.

A second feature of the fragmented nature of biology education is the seemingly unique learning challenges that have been identified within each disciplinary context (e.g., microbiology, evolution, genetics). The challenge of addressing the student misconception that bacteria are primarily pathogenic, for example, is of particular concern within microbiology; developing approaches to tackle goal-driven reasoning about evolutionary change is central to evolution education; and helping students recognize the genetic similarity of eye cells and liver cells is foundational to genetics and genomics. Many educational efforts in biology education have arisen from attempts to tackle domain-specific learning challenges, including the development of tools for diagnosing topic-specific misunderstandings (see Student Thinking about Living Systems, below). Perhaps as a consequence of disciplinary isolation, markedly less work in BER has sought to identify common threads in the fabric of student confusion and to weave them into unified models of biological reasoning that are capable of explaining seemingly disparate educational challenges (although see Coley & Tanner, 2012 ; Opfer et al., 2012 , for cognition-based examples of such efforts).

The fragmentation of BER efforts and journals could be viewed as an historically contingent outcome of the disciplinary structure of the biological sciences and the unique challenges that characterize them. But a less myopic view might reveal cross-cutting commonalities across disciplines (see below). Indeed, recent efforts in the United States and elsewhere have attempted to reform the biology curriculum and highlight cross-cutting concepts that undergird many different subdisciplines (e.g., Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education , AAAS, 2011 ). Efforts have also been made to bring different biology education communities together under new organizational arrangements (e.g., SABER: Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research; ERIDOB: European Researchers In the Didactics Of Biology). Following these biology-specific unification efforts, the National Research Council ( 2012 ) has also attempted to define and unite the efforts of chemistry, physics, and biology education researchers under the umbrella of “Discipline-Based Educational Research” (DBER). It is clear that the disciplinary structure of biology education, like that of other educational research disciplines, is in flux. Attempts to integrate pockets of disciplinary research activity is ongoing, and it is too soon to characterize the outcomes of these efforts. But disciplinary unification is often fostered by conceptual frameworks that encompass the needs and goals of stakeholders (Miller, 1978 ). Such work will be invaluable for guiding educational integration.

In summary, the range and diversity of BER journals and research efforts (Table 1 ) continue to mirror the tangled disciplinary and academic roots from which they grew. Unifying the paradigms and perspectives being generated from multiple BER journals and scientific societies is challenging, yet a worthy goal if true conceptual unification into a “BER community” (or an even larger “DBER community”) is to be achieved. In the following sections, some cross-cutting themes from this expansive body of work are identified, reviewed, and critiqued. Much like BER itself, there are many alternative frameworks that could effectively characterize this evolving area of scholarship. But a persistent question that emerges from a review of this fractured body of work is whether there are sufficient conceptual and theoretical frameworks capable of supporting the challenge of disciplinary unification (and corresponding educational unification).

Conceptual and theoretical frameworks for biology education research

Theory building linked to causal explanation is a central goal of scientific and social-science research, although the two fields often differ in the number of theories used to explain particular phenomena. In both realms “… research emanates from the researcher’s implicit or explicit theory of the phenomenon under investigation” (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009 , p. 121). Therefore, clear specification of theoretical framing and grounding is essential to the research enterprise (Imenda, 2014 ). A question in need of attention is what conceptual or theoretical frameworks help to frame, ground, and unite BER as a standalone field of educational inquiry (cf. Nehm, 2014 )? Two of the more recent reviews of BER history and scholarship are notable in that they did not identify (or propose) discipline-specific educational frameworks (Dirks, 2011 ; deHaan, 2011 ). In her characterization of BER studies from 1990 to 2010, for example, Dirks ( 2011 ) identified three categories of scholarship: (1) student learning or performance, (2) student attitudes and beliefs, and (3) concept inventories and validated instruments. Within each category, Dirks examined the theoretical frameworks that were used to guide the empirical work that she reviewed. Few studies in these three categories linked empirical investigations to explicit theoretical frameworks. Instead, BER scholars framed their investigations in terms of ‘problem description.’ In cases where theoretical frameworks were hinted at, they were quite general (e.g., Bloom’s Taxonomy, Ausubel’s emphasis on prior knowledge and learning). The vast majority of studies in Dirks’s ( 2011 ) review lacked discipline-based educational framing and conceptual grounding, and no BER-specific theoretical frameworks were identified.

deHaan’s ( 2011 ) review of the history of BER also touched upon the theoretical frameworks that have been used to guide BER. Three frameworks--constructivism, conceptual change, and “others” (i.e., social interdependence and theories of intelligence)--were identified. It is notable that these frameworks did not originate within BER (they are frameworks developed in education and psychology) and they are not discipline-specific (i.e., educational frameworks unique to BER). Although not inherently problematic, one might expect (or indeed require) a discipline-focused educational enterprise to pursue and establish discipline-focused frameworks. If such frameworks are lacking, then the question arises as to what unifies and organizes the pursuits of affiliated scholars. A superficial, a-theoretical, and unsatisfying answer to this question could be that “BER focuses on biology education.” Overall, these reviews and a corresponding examination of studies from a variety of journals (Table 1 ) suggest that BER typically lacks discipline-specific conceptual or theoretical frameworks.

Although many BER studies lack explicit anchoring in conceptual or theoretical frameworks unique to living systems, some work has attempted to build such frameworks. Conceptual frameworks for the disciplinary core ideas of (i) information flow in living systems and (ii) evolutionary change illustrate how different concepts and empirical findings may be related to one another and integrated into a framework that explains, predicts, and guides research in biology education (Fig.  1 ). Shea et al. ( 2015 ), for example, elaborated on Stewart et al.’s ( 2005 ) genetics literacy model and presented a tripartite framework showing the interrelationships among content knowledge use, argumentation quality, and the role of item surface features in genetic reasoning (Fig. 1 a). This conceptual framework is biology-specific (i.e., addresses student reasoning about the disciplinary core idea of information flow at various scales) and applicable to most living systems (i.e., attends to phylogenetic diversity). The addition of argumentation to this model is valuable but not necessarily unique to this topic (argumentation is a practice central to all of science). This framework is a useful example because it (i) synthesizes prior empirical work, (ii) explains why student reasoning about information flow may fail to reach performance expectations, (iii) guides future research agendas and associated studies, (iv) applies broadly to living systems, and (v) motivates the development of particular curricular and pedagogical strategies.

Examples of conceptual frameworks developed for biology education research. a A three-part conceptual framework for genetics literacy encompassing situational features, content knowledge use, and argumentation quality (modified from Shea et al. 2015 ). b A conceptual framework for evolutionary reasoning encompassing long-term memory, problem-solving processes, and item features (similar to the situational features of Shea et al. 2015 ). Modified from Nehm ( 2018 )

The second conceptual framework focuses on student reasoning about evolutionary change (Fig. 1 b). Nehm ( 2018 ) presents a conceptual framework that integrates aspects of Information Processing Theory, empirical findings on novice-expert evolutionary reasoning, and student challenges with evolutionary mechanisms (Fig. 1 b; see also Ha & Nehm 2014 ; Nehm & Ha, 2011 , Nehm and Ridgway 2011 ). When encountering tasks (or situations) that prompt for explanations of evolutionary change, sensitivity to item features (e.g., familiar plant species that have or lack thorns) impacts internal problem representation, which in turn affects the recruitment of individual concepts and schemas from long-term memory into working memory. The utilization of different assemblages of cognitive resources is driven by the features of the living systems. Like Shea et al.’s ( 2015 ) conceptual framework, Nehm’s ( 2018 ) conceptual framework (i) integrates existing theory (i.e., information processing theory) with prior empirical work, (ii) accounts for why student reasoning about evolutionary change may fail to reach performance expectations, (iii) guides future research agendas, and (iv) motivates the development of curricular and pedagogical strategies to address particular cognitive bottlenecks noted in the framework. Both of these frameworks attend to fundamental features of living systems (i.e., information flow, evolution) that transcend individual cases and exemplars (i.e., they consider diversity as a core feature of biological reasoning). Although both examples are simple, they organize a range of concepts central to understanding disciplinary thinking.

In summary, many factors work to maintain division among life science subfields (e.g., separate departments, conferences, journals, language; Table 1 ), and few counteracting factors promote unification (e.g., curricular cohesion, conceptual frameworks). Fragmentation of BER is an inevitable result. Interestingly, life scientists have long been concerned with a parallel challenge: the lack of attention to theoretical grounding and conceptual unification. The next section briefly reviews prior attempts to promote the development of conceptual frameworks for the life sciences. Although these frameworks do not address educational research specifically, they identify unifying concepts and principles that are essential starting points for building more robust conceptual foundations and frameworks for BER.

Conceptual frameworks for biology and biology education research

The past 60 years included several formal attempts to generate a conceptual framework for living systems and articulate a corresponding vision for the life sciences (e.g., Gerard and Stephens 1958 ; Miller, 1978 ; AAAS, 2011 ; NSF, 2019 ). The importance of theoretical foundations for biology was raised by Weiss ( 1958 , p. 93): “… the question [is] whether present-day biology is paying too little attention to its conceptual foundations, and if so, why.” In the 1950’s, the Biology Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences invited eminent biologists (e.g., Rollin Hotchkiss, Ernst Mayr, Sewell Wright) to explore the conceptual foundations of the life sciences given apparent disciplinary fragmentation. The report that emerged from their discussions and deliberations (NRC, 1958 ) attempted to re-envision biology through a more theoretical lens and generate a conceptual and hierarchical reconceptualization of the study of life. Conceptually, it included the broad categories of “Methods,” “Disciplines,” and “Concepts.” Methods organized life science research by the approaches used to generate understanding (e.g., immune tests, breeding, staining, factor analysis). Disciplines (structure [architecture, spatial relations, negative entropy]), and “Concepts” (history [origin]). Each of these categories—Methods, Disciplines, and Concepts--were then uniquely characterized at different biological scales (i.e., molecule, organelle, cell, organ, individual, small group, species, community/ecosystem, and total biota).

Three salient features of this early work include: (1) acknowledging the importance of conceptual grounding for the life sciences in light of disciplinary fragmentation; (2) situating academic topics and disciplines (e.g., anatomy, microbiology, ecology) within a conceptual superstructure (i.e., Structure, Equilibrium, History) and (3) highlighting the centrality of scale when considering life science Concepts, Methods, and Disciplines.

The U.S. National Research Council report Concepts of Biology ( 1958 ), while concerned with conceptual and disciplinary unification, did not lose sight of inherent connections to educational pursuits and outcomes: “Any success in improving the intellectual ordering of our subject would contribute to improved public relations, to the recruitment of more superior students, and to a better internal structure which would favor better teaching and research and in turn attract more students and support” (Weiss, 1958 , p. 95). These and many other significant efforts (e.g., Miller, 1978 ) confirm that the struggle for conceptual and educational unification of the life sciences has been ongoing, and repeated calls for unity suggest that the successes of these early efforts have been limited.

Although the history of BER illuminates the deeper roots of disciplinary challenges (deHaan 2011 ), attention to recent progress should also be noted. The efforts to develop and deploy unified conceptual and curricular frameworks for biology education that mirror expert conceptualizations are ongoing (e.g., AAAS, 2011 ; NSF, 2019 ). In the United States, for example, the past two decades have witnessed substantial progress on how to structure and reform undergraduate and K-12 biology education. Emerging from interactions among many different stakeholders and scholars (see Brownell, Freeman, Wenderoth, & Crowe, 2014 , their Table 1 ) and mirroring curricular innovations by working groups of biologists (e.g., Klymkowsky, Rentsch, Begovic, & Cooper, 2016 ) arose Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (AAAS, 2011 ) and, later, the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2013 ). Both initiatives have attempted to winnow down the expansive range of biological topics that students experience and reorganize them into a more cohesive conceptual and curricular framework (much like NRC 1958 and Miller 1978 ). This framework is notable in that it continues to move the life sciences away from historically-based disciplinary structures focused on taxon (e.g., microbiology, botany, zoology) and towards more theoretical, principle-based schemes (e.g., structure and function) that transcend individual biological scales.

For example, Vision and Change reorganized biological knowledge according to five core concepts (AAAS, 2011 , pp. 12–14): (1) Evolution (The diversity of life evolved over time by processes of mutation, selection, and genetic change); (2) Structure and Function (Basic units of structure define the function of all living things); (3) Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage (The growth and behavior of organisms are activated through the expression of genetic information in context); (4) Pathways and Transformations of Energy and Matter (Biological systems grow and change by processes based upon chemical transformation pathways and are governed by the laws of thermodynamics); and (5) Systems (Living systems are interconnected and interacting). Many of these ideas are in alignment with previous conceptual work by Gerard and Stephens ( 1958 ) and Miller ( 1978 ). Vision and Change , however, provides a very limited characterization of these core concepts and does not explicitly discuss their interrelationships across biological scales (e.g., gene, organism, species, ecosystem).

The BioCore Guide (Brownell et al., 2014 ) was developed to provide more fine-grained and longer-term guidance for conceptualizing and implementing the goals of Vision and Change . Specifically, principles and statements were derived for each of the five Vision and Change core concepts in order to structure undergraduate degree learning pathways (Brownell et al., 2014 ). Efforts have also been made to stimulate change within institutions. Partnership for Undergraduate Life Science Education (PULSE Community, 2019 ), for example, has been developed to encourage adoption of these curricular innovations and self-reflection by life science departments.

Collectively, these conceptually-grounded curriculum frameworks (e.g., Vision and Change , BioCore) and associated reform efforts (PULSE) are important, new unifying forces counteracting the fragmented structure of the biological sciences. They also form necessary (but insufficient) substrates for constructing conceptual frameworks for BER. They are insufficient because, from an educational vantage point, identifying the concepts, schemas, and frameworks of a discipline is only one aspect of the challenge; these ideas must articulate in some way with how students think, reason, and learn about biological concepts and living systems. The next section reviews progress and limitations of biology educators’ attempts to understand student thinking about living systems in light of these disciplinary frameworks (e.g., NRC, 1958 ; Miller, 1978 ; AAAS, 2011 ).

Student thinking about living systems

Educational efforts to foster cognitive and practice-based competencies that align with disciplinary frameworks (such as Vision and Change ) must consider what is known about student thinking about living systems. It is therefore essential to consider how the BER community has approached this challenge, what they have learned, and what remains to be understood about living systems (e.g., NRC, 1958 ; Miller, 1978 ; AAAS, 2011 ).

The absence of robust conceptual and theoretical frameworks for the life sciences has not prevented teachers and educational researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., microbiology, ecology) from identifying domain-specific learning challenges and misunderstandings (Driver et al. 1994 ; Pfundt & Duit, 1998 ; NRC, 2001 ). Hundreds of individual concepts (e.g., osmosis, recombination, genetic drift, trophic levels, global warming) are typically presented to students in textbooks and taught in classrooms (NRC, 1958 ). Biology teachers have correspondingly noticed, and biology researchers have empirically documented, an array of misunderstandings about these individual concepts and topics (for reviews, see Pfundt & Duit, 1998 ; Reiss and Kampourakis 2018 ). When attempting to solve biological problems, for example, many university students: convert matter into energy in biological systems; adopt use-and-disuse inheritance to explain changes in life over time; and account for differences between eye and liver cells as a result of DNA differences. Many of the same misunderstandings have been documented in young children (Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994 ; Pfundt & Duit, 1998 ).

The ubiquity and abundance of these non-normative conceptions and reasoning patterns has led biology educators in different subfields (see Table 1 ) to develop concept-specific assessment tools or instruments (so-called “Concept Inventories”) in order to document the ideas (both normative and non-normative) that students bring with them to biology classrooms (Table  2 ). For particular topics or concepts, researchers have consolidated studies of student misunderstandings by category (e.g., Driver et al., 1994 ; Pfundt & Duit, 1998 ), confirmed and refined descriptions of these misunderstandings using clinical interviews, and developed associated suites of assessment items relevant to a particular idea (i.e., concept, principle).

CIs typically contain items offering one normative scientific answer option along with a variety of commonly held misconception foils. These instruments are designed for instructors to uncover which non-normative ideas are most appealing to students and measure general levels of normative understanding. CIs have been developed for many topics in the biological subfields of cell biology, genetics, physiology, evolution, and ecology. The number of biology CIs continues to grow each year, providing valuable tools for uncovering student thinking about specific biological ideas (Table 2 ).

Biology CIs have advanced prior work on student misconceptions (Pfundt & Duit, 1998 ) by: (1) focusing attention on the core ideas of greatest importance to concept or topic learning (e.g., osmosis and diffusion), (2) attending to a broad range of common misunderstandings (previously identified in a variety of separate studies), (3) quantitatively documenting student understanding using large participant samples (in contrast to smaller-scale, qualitative studies); and (4) establishing more generalizable claims concerning students’ mastery of biology concepts (facilitated by easy administration and multiple-choice format). As noted by Dirks ( 2011 ), concept inventory development was an important advance for the BER community by helping biologists recognize the ubiquity of biology misunderstandings and learning difficulties throughout the educational hierarchy.

Given the importance of CI development to BER (Dirks, 2011 ; see above), a critical review of this work is in order. I identify six limitations in order to illustrate some of the remaining challenges to understanding student thinking about living systems. The first major limitation of BER CI development is that it continues to be largely descriptive, a-theoretical, and lacking in explicit grounding in cognitive or conceptual frameworks (BER-specific or otherwise) (e.g., NRC, 2001 ). I will illustrate the practical significance of frameworks for living systems and theoretical frameworks for measurement using the National Research Council’s ( 2001 ) “assessment triangle”. In brief, the assessment triangle encompasses the three most central and necessary features for embarking upon studies of student understanding (and CI development): cognition, observation, and interpretation (as well as interconnections thereof; see Fig. 1 ). Cognition refers to the relevant features and processes of the cognitive system that are used to frame and ground the development of assessment tasks. Observation refers to the tangible artifacts (e.g., verbal utterances, written text, diagrams) that are generated as a result of engaging with such tasks. Interpretation refers to the inferences drawn from analyses of the observations produced by the tasks.

All three corners of the assessment triangle are inextricably interrelated (Fig. 1 ). For example, interpretation relies on appropriate analyses of the observations , and the observations only have meaning when viewed in light of the cognitive models used to construct the assessment tasks. Misinterpretations and faulty inferences about student understanding may arise from implicit and unexamined (or false) assumptions at any corner of the triangle (e.g. inappropriate tasks, inappropriate analyses of observations, inappropriate theoretical grounding). The NRC assessment triangle identifies the central features involved in making inferences about student reasoning (e.g., reasoning about biological systems). Remarkably few biology CIs have attended to all of these central features.

The cognition corner of the NRC’s ( 2001 ) assessment triangle demands focused attention on what is known about how students conceptualize and process information in general and biological systems in particular. That is, theories of cognition and theories of biological reasoning should undergird and support claims about what CI tasks are seeking to capture. The majority of CIs examined lack grounding in well-established theories of cognition (e.g., information processing theory, situated cognition theory) or theories of biological thinking and reasoning (e.g., categorization of living vs. non-living; see below). As a result, the necessary features of assessment design (Fig.  2 ) are lacking; this generates an unstable base for task design, data interpretation, and claims about biological thinking (Opfer et al., 2012 ).

The NRC Assessment Triangle. Measurement and assessment of student understanding requires the integration of cognitive models, observations, and interpretations of observations in light of cognitive models. Models of thinking about living systems—the cognition corner—are therefore crucial to the development, application, and evaluation of assessments

A practical example may help to elucidate how the interplay among assessment triangle vertices impact claims drawn from CIs. Consider the role that the diversity of life might play in biological reasoning, for example. If the cognitive model (e.g., information processing theory) undergirding CI task design assumes that students will activate different ideas depending upon the taxon used in the assessment task (e.g., plant, non-human animal, human animal, fungus, bacteria), then multiple taxonomic contexts will be necessary in order to gather relevant observations and to draw robust inferences about how students think. If, on the other hand, the cognitive model assumes that students process information using abstractions of concepts, then attention to taxonomy in task design is unnecessary and most biological exemplars will suffice. The items that are developed and the corresponding scores that emerge from these two different cognitive perspectives are likely to be different. Cognition, observation, and interpretation (Fig. 2 ) emerge as necessary considerations in biology CI development, implementation, and score interpretations. Most CIs (Table 2 ) lack explicit alignment with the NRC’s ( 2001 ) assessment triangle, contain implicit or unexamined cognitive assumptions, and as a result may generate ambiguous or debatable claims about student thinking about living systems (and, ultimately, cloud the field’s attempt to make sense of how students think about living systems) (Tornabene, Lavington, & Nehm, 2018 ).

In addition to the lack of attention to theoretical grounding (i.e., NRC, 2001 ), a second limitation of CIs relates to their practical utility for biology education (Table  3 ). Given that hundreds of topics are typically included in textbooks and taught in biology classes (NRC, 1958 ), and dozens of CIs have now been developed (e.g., Table 2 ), the question arises as to what to do with them; what, in other words, is the broader aim of building this expansive test battery? Assessing all of the major domains for which CIs have been developed would require substantial amounts of time and effort. Devoting class time to all of the biological preconceptions and alternative conceptions uncovered by all of these instruments would require eliminating many other learning objectives or reorganizing biology instruction. The field has not developed practical strategies for aligning the numerous isolated insights generated from CIs with the practical realities of instruction, or the broader goals for BER.

One practical solution for making use of the broad array of CIs would be to develop and deploy Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) capable of automatically diagnosing levels of conceptual understanding (as opposed to administering all assessment items from all of the CIs) and delivering personalized instructional resources aligned with documented learning difficulties. These digital tools could be provided as pre-class assignments or as supplemental resources. Another solution more closely tied with the focus of this critical review would be to identify learning challenges apparent across CIs (e.g., difficulties in reasoning about living systems) and to develop corresponding instructional materials to address these broader misunderstandings or promote cognitive coherence. This approach circles attention back to the question of how conceptual frameworks for biology and biology education could be leveraged to unify understanding of diverse misconceptions across subdisciplines (see Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks for Biology Education Research, above).

A third limitation of biology CIs relates to the design of assessment tasks and the inferences that are drawn from their scores. When employing open-ended assessment tasks and clinical interviews, some BER research has shown that a majority of students utilize mixtures of normative and non-normative ideas together in their biological explanations (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2008 , 2010 ). Most CI instrument items nevertheless continue to employ multiple-choice (MC) formats and only permit students to choose between a normative or a non-normative answer option. This format may, in turn, introduce noise into the measurement process and weaken validity inferences. Multiple-True-False (MTF) items are one solution to this problem. Using MTF formats, students are permitted to indicate whether they consider each answer option to be correct or incorrect, thereby breaking the task design constraint evident in either-or item options. This limitation is another example of how consideration of both cognition (i.e., mixed cognitive models exist) and task design (MC vs. MTF) work together to impact the quality and meaning of inferences about biological thinking drawn from CI scores (i.e., observations).

A fourth limitation of BER CIs concerns the authenticity of the assessment tasks themselves. Most CIs assess pieces of knowledge using MC items. It is not clear if students who are able to achieve high scores (i.e., select the constellation of normative answer options across multiple items) understand the concept as a whole (Nehm & Haertig, 2012 ). For example, just because students select the normative ideas of mutation , heritability , environmental change , and differential survival from a pool of normative and non-normative item options does not necessarily mean that they would assemble these ideas in a scientifically correct manner. A student could, for example, use the aforementioned ideas to build an explanation in which environmental change in a particular habitat causes heritable mutations which in turn help these organisms differentially survive . Thus, non-normative models may be assembled from normative “pieces.” This is another example of how inferences about students’ biological understandings are tied to assessment and cognitive frameworks.

One solution to this challenge is to utilize Ordered Multiple Choice (OMC) items. These items prompt students to choose from among explanatory responses integrating many normative and non-normative combinations (as opposed to asking students to select individual ideas or conceptual fragments). These explanatory models could be designed to mirror hypothesized levels of conceptual understanding or biological expertise (e.g., learning progressions). OMC items have the potential to capture more holistic and valid characterizations of student reasoning (see Todd et al., 2017 for an example from genetics).

A fifth limitation of biology CIs centers on the “interpretation” corner of the assessment triangle (Fig. 2 ); robust validation methods aligned with contemporary psychometric frameworks are often lacking in biology CI studies (Boone, Staver, & Yale, 2014 ; Neumann, Neumann, & Nehm, 2011 ; Sbeglia & Nehm, 2018 , 2019 ). Rasch Analysis and Item Response Theory (IRT) are slowly supplanting traditional Classical Test Theory (CTT) methods for biology CI validation. In addition to psychometric limitations, validation studies of many biology instruments remain restricted to singular educational settings or demographically-restrictive samples (Mead et al. 2019 ; Campbell & Nehm, 2013 ). These methodological choices introduce uncertainty about the generalizability of CI score inferences across demographic groups, educational institutions, and international boundaries. Particular care must be made when drawing inferences from CI scores to inform instructional decisions or evaluate learning efficacy given these limitations (Table 3 ).

The sixth and final limitation of extant biology CIs returns to the topic of discipline-based conceptual frameworks. Few if any of the biology CIs and assessment instruments have been designed to target foundational disciplinary themes identified over the past 60 years (e.g., reasoning across biological scales) or the disciplinary formulations advanced in Vision and Change (AAAS, 2011 ). BER assessment tools remain aligned to concepts or topics characteristic of a particular subdiscipline, biological scale, or taxon (e.g., human animals). Despite significant progress in documenting concept understanding (and misunderstanding), biology educators have directed much less attention to assessing the foundational features of living systems that are most closely tied to disciplinary frameworks (i.e., NRC, 1958 ; Miller, 1978 ; AAAS, 2011 ). That is, analogous to many biology curricula, BER CI work has assembled a valuable but disarticulated jumble of information (in this case, lists of student learning difficulties) lacking deep structure or coherence.

In summary, a critical review of BER efforts to understand student thinking about living systems has revealed significant progress and significant limitations. Significant progress has been made in: identifying a range of important topics and concepts relevant to disciplinary core ideas; developing instruments that measure many of the learning difficulties uncovered in prior work (Table 2 ); and documenting widespread patterns of limited content mastery and numerous misunderstandings. Significant limitations have also been identified (Table 3 ). Many of the biology assessment tools lack: explicit grounding in psychometric and cognitive theory; task authenticity mirroring biological practice and reasoning; robust validation methods aligned with contemporary psychometric frameworks; robust inferences drawn from cognitively-aligned tasks; and implementation guidelines aligned with the practical realities of concept coverage in textbooks and classrooms. Collectively, much is now known about a scattered array of topics and concepts within biological subdisciplines; few if any tools are available for studying foundational and cross-disciplinary features of living systems identified by biologists over the past 60 years (e.g., identifying emergent properties across biological scales; considering stochasticity and determinism in biological causation; predicting biological outcomes using systems thinking; NRC, 1958 ; Miller, 1978 ; AAAS, 2011 ). BER requires discipline-specific frameworks that illuminate biological reasoning. Cognitive perspectives will be foundational to developing these frameworks.

What cognitive frameworks could guide BER?

A productive trend in BER involves efforts to link cognitive perspectives developed in other fields (e.g., education, psychology) with discipline-specific challenges characteristic of teaching and learning about living systems (Inagaki and Hatano, 1991 ; Kelemen and Rosset 2009 ). The fields of cognitive and developmental psychology serve as essential resources for understanding the roots of student reasoning about living systems. Developmental psychologists have generated many crucial insights into the foundations of human reasoning about living systems, including animacy, life, death, illness, growth, inheritance, and biological change (e.g., Opfer and Gelman 2010 ; Table  4 ). In particular, studies of human thinking have explored (1) whether ontogenetic development is characterized by reformulations of mental frameworks about living systems or by more continuous and less structured change, and (2) whether these early frameworks impact adult reasoning about living systems.

One of the more illuminating and well-studied examples of the linkages between cognitive and disciplinary frameworks concerns human thinking about plants (Opfer and Gelman 2010 ). Some psychologists consider the origins of biological thought to first emerge as young children ponder the question of what is alive and what is not (Goldberg & Thompson-Schill, 2009 ). For example, it is well established that young children initially conceptualize and classify plants as non-living entities. As cognitive development proceeds, plants are reclassified into an expanded category of “living” (e.g., plants + animals). An important question is whether early reasoning about biological categories and phenomena plays a significant role in later learning difficulties--including those documented in university undergraduates.

Plants provide a useful example for drawing possible connections among cognitive development, biological reasoning, and discipline-based conceptual frameworks. Plants comprise a central branch on the tree of life and are essential for human existence (i.e., sources of matter and energy). Yet, plants have posed significant challenges for life science educators (Wandersee & Schussler, 1999 ). These challenges range from students’ lack of perception of plants altogether (coined “plant blindness”) to fundamental misconceptions about how plants reproduce, transform matter and energy, and impact the chemical composition of the atmosphere (Wandersee & Schussler, 1999 ). The early reformulations of biological categories in young children--such as the reorganization of plants into the category of “living things”--appear to persist into adulthood.

A study by Goldberg and Thompson-Schill ( 2009 , p. 6) compared reasoning about plants relative to other living (e.g., animal) and non-living (e.g., rock) entities in undergraduates and biology professors. Under time pressure, it took biology professors significantly longer to recognize plants as living things (compared to animals and non-living entities). Goldberg and Thompson-Schill noted that “[t] he same items and features that cause confusions in young children also appear to cause underlying classification difficulties in university biology professors.” This case is not unique. Children’s reasoning about other biological phenomena, such as teleo-functional biases, also display continuities with adult thinking about evolutionary change (e.g., Kelemen and DiYanni, 2005 ). Work in cognitive and developmental psychology indicate that young children’s early formulations about living systems might not be “re-written”, but instead persist into adulthood, require active suppression, and impact later learning. Ongoing research in cognitive and developmental psychology has great potential for enriching our understanding of thinking in young adults, and for providing deeper insights into the causes of entrenched biology misunderstandings that often appear resistant to concerted educational efforts.

Studies at the other extreme--expert biologists--also have great potential for informing the development of unifying cognitive frameworks for BER. Comparative studies of experts and novices in different subject areas have been central to understanding domain-general and domain-specific features of problem representation and problem-solving performance for nearly a century (reviewed in Novick and Bassok, 2012 ). Novice-expert comparisons have seen comparatively little use in BER, although some notable exceptions include studies in genetics (Smith, 1983 ), evolution (Nehm & Ridgway, 2011 ), and genetically-modified organisms (Potter et al. 2017 ). These studies offer a range of insights into how novices and experts conceptualize problems, plan solutions, and utilize concepts and frameworks in problem-solving tasks. These insights could be leveraged to help elucidate expert frameworks of biological systems, as well as to identify conceptual, procedural, and epistemic barriers in novice reasoning. In a study of evolution, for example, novices performed poorly on problem-solving tasks not because of a lack of domain-specific knowledge, but because of the ways in which they used superficial task features (different organisms) to cognitively represent the problems at hand (i.e., in fundamentally different ways than the experts). Here the tension in student thinking about the unity and diversity of living systems is revealed—which is also a disciplinary idea unique to BER (Dobzhansky, 1973 ). Helping students perceive unity across the diversity of life emerges as a crucial (but often neglected) instructional goal. Comparing expert and novice problem-solving approaches could reveal unknown barriers to biology learning and illuminate potential features of a theoretical conceptualization of BER. These frameworks become central to the “cognition” corner of the assessment triangle (NRC, 2001 ) and efforts to design CIs and measure educational impact.

In addition to tracing the origination, persistence, and modification of cognitive structures about living systems through ontogeny and expertise, it is useful to ask whether the disciplinary organization of the biological sciences and associated degree programs, curricula, and textbook organizations (cf. Nehm et al., 2009 ) contribute to students’ fragmented models of living systems (e.g., Botany courses and textbooks focus on plants; Microbiology courses and textbooks focus on bacteria; Zoology courses and textbooks focus on animals). Few biologists would doubt that taxon-specific learning outcomes are essential for understanding the unique aspects of particular living systems. But an unanswered question is whether an effective balance between diversity and unity been achieved, or whether the scales have been tipped towards a focus on diversity-grounded learning (and corresponding cognitive fragmentation in biology students). It is notable that most biology textbook chapters, courses, and degree programs maintain organizational structures at odds with most conceptual reformulations of the life sciences (e.g., NRC, 1958 ; Miller, 1978 ; AAAS, 2011 ). Resolving these contradictions may help to conceptualize a more unified and principled framework for BER.

In summary, one of the most underdeveloped areas of BER concerns the formulation of conceptual and theoretical frameworks that account for how learners make sense of the similarities and differences within and across living systems as they progress through ontogeny and educational experiences. Cognitive and developmental psychology provide rich but largely untapped resources for enriching cognitively-grounded frameworks. In addition to studies of biological reasoning in young children, studies of expert thinking also offer considerable promise for uncovering barriers to expert-like conceptualizations of living systems. Collaborations with cognitive and developmental psychologists, and greater application of expert-novice comparisons, will be essential to advancing the cognitive frameworks for assessment design, curriculum development, and BER research.

What disciplinary frameworks could guide BER?

Although frameworks and models from psychology will be invaluable for crafting cognitive frameworks for BER, there are unique features of living systems that must also be explicitly considered in light of more broadly applicable cognitive models. To foster disciplinary unification and more integrative models of BER, these features should (1) span different biological subdisciplines and (2) undergird broad learning challenges about core ideas about living systems. Three areas--unity and diversity; randomness, probability, and contingency; and scale, hierarchy, and emergence—are likely to be valuable ideas for the development of discipline-grounded conceptual frameworks for BER. Each is discussed in turn below (Fig. 3 ).

Integrating conceptual frameworks into BER: student reasoning about unity and diversity; scale, hierarchy, and emergence; and randomness, probability, and historical contingency. Note that all three ideas interact to generate understanding about living systems, including processes within them (e.g., information flow)

Unity and Diversity in biological reasoning

A foundational (yet undertheorized) disciplinary challenge inherent to BER concerns the development of conceptual models of student sensemaking about the similarities and differences within and across living systems (NRC 1958 ; Klymkowsky et al., 2016 ; Nehm, 2018 ; Nehm et al., 2012 ; Shea, Duncan, & Stephenson, 2015 ). A key argument often missed in Dobzhansky’s ( 1973 ) seminal paper expounding the importance of evolution to all of biology was “[t] he unity of life is no less remarkable than its diversity” (p. 127). Indeed, a core goal of all biological disciplines is to develop and deploy causal models that transcend particular scales, lineages, and phenomenologies. Biology educators have, for the most part, documented myriad student learning difficulties within disciplinary contexts (e.g., microbiology, heredity, evolution, ecology) that are likewise bound to particular scales, concepts, and taxonomic contexts. Much less work has explored reasoning across these areas and the extent to which conceptual unity is achieved as students progress through biology education (Garvin-Doxas & Klymkowsky, 2008 ).

A core need for BER is the development of explicit models of how student understanding of living systems changes in response to formal and informal educational experiences (e.g., exposure to household pets, gardens, books, zoos, digital media, formal schooling). Throughout ontogeny, learners experience a wide range of life forms and their associated phenomenologies (e.g., growth, function, behavior, death). As learners engage with the diversity of the living world, a foundational question for BER is whether students construct increasingly abstract models of living systems (i.e. conceptual unity) or whether their sense-making remains rooted in taxonomic contexts, experiential instances, and case examples (i.e. conceptual diversity; Fig.  4 ).

One example of unity and diversity in biological reasoning. Note that examples using a broader set of scales (e.g., ecosystem) could be utilized. a Within a biological scale (in this case, the scale of organism), reasoning about living systems lacks unification and is organized by taxonomic contexts, experiential instances, and case examples. b Within a biological scale (in this case, the scale of organism) reasoning about living systems is characterized by abstract models transcending organismal type or lineage (i.e. conceptual unity). c Among biological scales (in this case, molecule, cell, organism), reasoning about living systems lacks unification and is organized by macroscopic (organismal), microscopic (cellular), and molecular (biochemical) levels of biological organization. d Among biological scales (in this case, molecule, cell, organism), reasoning about living systems at is characterized by abstract models linking biological scales (i.e. conceptual unity)

The limited body of work exploring student reasoning about the unity and diversity of living systems has uncovered different findings. In some cases, research suggests that in older children and young adults, reasoning about living systems may remain highly fragmented and taxon-specific at particular scales (Fig. 4 a; e.g., Freidenreich et al. 2011 ; Kargbo et al., 1980 ; Nehm & Ha, 2011 ). In other cases, research has shown that student reasoning may develop into unified problem-solving heuristics within a biological scale (Fig. 4 b; e.g., Schmiemann et al., 2017 ). Much less work has explored student reasoning about biological phenomena across biological scales (Fig. 4 c, d). Work in genetics education suggests that crossing these ontological levels or scales is inherently challenging for students (Freidenreich et al. 2011 ; Kargbo et al., 1980 ; Nehm & Ha, 2011 ; Nehm, 2018 ). For example, students may develop conceptual understanding within a biological level (Fig. 4 c) but be unable to conceptually link processes as they unfold over multiple scales (e.g., molecular, cellular, organismal; Fig. 4 d). Given that unity and diversity are foundational features of living systems, the development of conceptual and theoretical frameworks guiding empirical studies about student thinking about living systems is long overdue. Such frameworks could be used to synthesize past work, connect researchers from different life science sub-disciplines, and establish a unifying research agenda for BER.

Randomness, probability, and contingency

Many students and teachers have a tacit awareness that biology is different from the physical sciences. Yet, explicit frameworks illuminating these conceptual similarities and differences are often lacking in biology education (Klymkowsky et al., 2016 ). The behavior of biological systems is complex for many reasons, although the simultaneous operation of numerous causes each of which produces weak effects is an important one (Lewontin, 2000 ). Biological systems are also impacted by multiple probabilistic interactions with and among scales (e.g., molecular, cell, organismal, ecological) (Garvin-Doxas & Klymkowsky, 2008 ). For these reasons, biological patterns and processes are characterized by “...a plurality of causal factors, combined with probabilism in the chain of events …” across scales (Mayr, 1997 , p. 68). This messy situation often stands in sharp relief to student learning experiences in physics and chemistry, where fewer causes with stronger effects and more deterministic outcomes are encountered (Lewontin, 2000 ). Given the special properties of biological systems (at least in terms of the topics explored by students), a BER research program exploring how students make sense of randomness, probability, and determinism across lineages and biological scales emerges as an essential consideration (Garvin-Doxas & Klymkowsky, 2008 ).

Student learning difficulties with randomness and probability in biology are well established (Garvin-Doxas & Klymkowsky, 2008 ). Large numbers of university undergraduates previously exposed to natural selection falsely consider it to be a “random” process (Beggrow and Nehm, 2012 ); genetic drift misconceptions--many of which are closely tied to ideas of chance--are abundant (Price et al. 2014 ); and reasoning about osmosis and diffusion, which require thinking about probability at molecular scales, remains challenging for students at advanced levels of biology education (Garvin-Doxas & Klymkowsky, 2008 ). Many fundamental but very basic biological phenomena (i.e. in terms of the number of interacting causes within and among levels of organization) pose substantial challenges. But much like the discipline-specific documentation of other learning challenges, difficulties with randomness and probability are often discussed in the context of specific biological concepts (e.g., Punnett squares, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) rather than as unifying features of biological systems. What is currently lacking in BER is an organizing framework that cuts across instances (e.g., diffusion, meiosis, selection, drift) and guides systematic review and synthesis of different biology learning challenges relating to randomness and probability.

Student learning difficulties may be traced to many causes, which raises the question of whether there is empirical evidence that probabilistic reasoning is responsible for the aforementioned learning difficulties. Recent work by Fiedler et al. ( 2019 ) has quantified the contribution of probabilistic reasoning to biology understanding. In a large sample of university biology students, Fiedler et al. ( 2019 ) demonstrated that statistical reasoning (in the contexts of mathematics and evolution) displayed significant and strong associations with knowledge of evolution. Although this result is perhaps unsurprising given previous work (Garvin-Doxas & Klymkowsky, 2008 ), it is notable that statistical reasoning was also found to have significant and strong associations with the acceptance of evolution. Fiedler et al. ( 2019 ) affirm the significant role of probabilistic thinking in biological reasoning, and open the door to empirical explorations of many other topics in the life sciences. Although Fiedler et al. ( 2019 ) do not propose a framework for conceptualizing randomness and probability in the life sciences, they do argue that statistical reasoning is a core feature of reasoning about living systems (as opposed to an ancillary tool for studying living systems). This perspective reformulates the role of statistics in biological competence. Clearly, the development of a conceptual framework focusing on randomness, probability, and contingency could offer great potential for uniting research efforts across biological subdisciplines (e.g., molecular biology, genetics, evolution).

Scale, hierarchy, and emergence

The hierarchical structure of life, and its corresponding biological scales (e.g., cell, tissue, organ, organism, population, species, ecosystem) are repeatedly acknowledged as important considerations about biological systems in nearly every textbook and classroom. Although most (if not all) biology education programs draw student attention to the concepts of scale and hierarchy, they rarely explore how scale and hierarchy elucidate and problematize the functioning of biological systems. For example, an understanding of the interdependence of patterns and processes across scales (e.g., upward and downward causation) as well as the emergence of novel properties at higher levels (e.g., the whole is more than the sum of its parts), is necessary for making sense of nearly all of the core ideas unifying the life sciences (e.g., information flow, matter and energy transformation, evolution). Yet, a review of the literature reveals that an explicit curriculum for helping students engage in the meaning of this hierarchical arrangement appears lacking.

Extending discussions of the unity and diversity of life (see Fig. 4 , above), reasoning about living systems may also display unity or diversity across hierarchical levels. For example, reasoning about living systems may lack unification, and knowledge structures or mental models may be organized by macroscopic (organismal), microscopic (cellular), and molecular (biochemical) levels of biological organization (Fig. 4 c). In such cases, knowledge structures and reasoning are bound to particular scales or levels , and conceptual linkages among these scales (e.g., upward and downward causation, emergent properties) may be lacking. Alternatively, reasoning about living systems may be characterized by abstract models unifying biological scales (i.e. conceptual unity) (Fig. 4 d). In such cases, knowledge structures and mental models transcend scale and utilize level-specific understanding. The main point is that hierarchical scale is an important aspect of biological reasoning that may facilitate or constrain student understanding. The principles of scale, hierarchy, and emergence are central to biological reasoning, yet BER lacks a robust conceptualization of these concepts and their role in student understanding of living systems. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks for scale, hierarchy, and emergence could help to guide systematic review and synthesis of different biology learning challenges and guide research efforts in BER.

In summary, this critical review, as well as prior reviews of BER, have found few discipline-specific conceptual or theoretical frameworks for the field (Dirks, 2011 ; deHaan, 2011 ). The fragmented disciplinary history and structure of the life sciences (see above) has been a concern noted by eminent biologists and professional organizations for at least 60 years (e.g., NRC, 1958 ). Despite progress in conceptual unification in the biological sciences, the BER community to a significant degree remains compartmentalized along historical, institutional, and disciplinary boundaries (e.g., microbiology, biochemistry, evolution). Efforts by BER researchers to understand and measure student understanding of living systems have likewise progressed along disciplinary themes, concepts, and topics.

Many core features of living systems offer opportunities for crafting discipline-specific educational frameworks for BER. Given the fragmentation of the life sciences and BER, it is presumptuous and unrealistic for any single scholar or subfield to impose such a framework. Three interconnected themes--unity and diversity; randomness, probability, and contingency; and scale, hierarchy, and emergence—have been identified in prior synthesis efforts and offered as potential starting points for a cross-disciplinary discussion of possible field-specific frameworks. Such frameworks are critical to the epistemic foundations of BER. They have immense potential for enriching a wide array of research efforts spanning different subfields, organizing the growing list of student learning difficulties, and building casual frameworks capable of grounding empirical research agendas.

Limitations

This critical review has identified significant opportunities and challenges for BER. The most pressing opportunity noted throughout this review is the development of discipline-specific conceptual and theoretical frameworks. The absence of explicit disciplinary frameworks raises questions about disciplinary identity (e.g., “What is BER?”) and encourages superficial and dissatisfying answers (e.g., “BER studies biology education”). The perspective advanced in this review is that the absence of cognitive and disciplinary frameworks generates epistemic instability (e.g., a-theoretical empiricism) and clouds our ability to rigorously understand student thinking about living systems. There are, however, alternative perspectives on the significance of discipline-specific frameworks for BER; two are discussed below.

First, if BER-affiliated scholars were to ignore or abandon the National Research Council’s ( 2013 ) conceptualization and definition of BER (and the broader topic of DBER), then biology-related educational research efforts could easily be subsumed within the field of Science Education (cf. Nehm, 2014 ). In this case, discipline-focused theoretical frameworks become less of a concern because frameworks from science education could guide epistemic aims and corresponding research agendas. Attention to the unique aspects of biological concepts (e.g., inheritance, photosynthesis, phylogenetics) would fade (but not disappear) and educational frameworks (e.g., socio-cognitive theory, constructivism) would come into sharper focus. This alternative conceptualization foregrounds educational frameworks and backgrounds disciplinary frameworks. The rationale for BER as a standalone field consequently weakens, along with arguments concerning the critical nature of discipline-focused conceptual frameworks.

A second perspective concerns the necessity of conceptual and theoretical frameworks for BER (and perhaps other scholarly efforts) altogether. Theory building linked to causal explanation is widely-recognized as a central goal of scientific and social-science research (cf. Brigandt, 2016 ; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009 ). Some BER scholars, however, do not appear to consider such frameworks as central epistemic features of their work (as indicated by much of the work reviewed here). Indeed, there are numerous examples of implicit or a-theoretical hypothesis testing in the BER journals listed in Table 1 . This stance minimizes the importance of conceptual or theoretical frameworks in scholarly work, and in so doing eliminates the central concern advanced in this review.

One final and significant limitation of this critical review is that it has adopted a Western, and largely American, perspective. Many of the conclusions drawn are unlikely to generalize to other nations or cultures. It is well known that the structure of biology education research differs around the world (e.g., Indonesia, China, Korea, Germany). Studies of biology learning may be situated within university education departments or biology departments (or combinations thereof). Teacher training in biology may be housed in colleges exclusively devoted to biology education, or departments focusing on general biology education (e.g., medicine, conservation).

International comparison studies (e.g., Ha, Wei, Wang, Hou, & Nehm, 2019 ; Rachmatullah, Nehm, Ha, & Roshayanti, 2018 ) are likely to offer rich insights into the relationships between biology education research agendas, institutional contexts, and the conceptual and theoretical frameworks used to make sense of student thinking about living systems. Indeed, what are the affordances and constraints of different institutional and epistemic arrangements to knowledge discovery in biology education? Collectively, how could these alternative arrangements enhance our ability to foster deeper understanding of the living world? Further reviews from a broader array of stakeholders will enhance our collective understanding of BER around the world.

This critical review examined the challenges and opportunities facing the field of Biology Education Research (BER). Ongoing fragmentation of the biological sciences was identified as a force working in opposition to the development of (i) unifying conceptual frameworks for living systems and (ii) unifying frameworks for understanding student thinking about living systems. Institutional, disciplinary, and conceptual fragmentation of the life sciences aligns with the finding that BER generally lacks unique, unifying, and discipline-focused conceptual or theoretical frameworks. Biology concept inventory research was used to illustrate the central role that conceptual frameworks (both cognitive and disciplinary) play in making sense of student thinking about living systems. Relevant insights from developmental and cognitive psychology were reviewed as potential starting points for building more robust cognitive frameworks, and prior theoretical work by biologists was leveraged to generate possible starting points for discipline-focused frameworks. Three interconnected themes--unity and diversity; randomness, probability, and contingency; and scale, hierarchy, and emergence—were identified as central to thinking about living systems and were linked to ongoing BER research efforts. The review emphasized that the development of conceptual frameworks that account for how learners make sense of similarities and differences within and across living systems as they progress through ontogeny and formal education will help to foster epistemic stability and disciplinary unification for BER.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable as this is a review article.

Abbreviations

Biology Education Research

Computer Adaptive Test

Concept Inventory

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats

Classical Test Theory

Discipline-Based Education Research

Deoxyribonucleic Acid

European Researchers In the Didaktics of Biology

Item Response Theory

Multiple True False

National Research Council

Ordered Multiple Choice

Partnership for Undergraduate Life Science Education

Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research

Abraham, J. K., Perez, K. E., & Price, R. M. (2014). The Dominance Concept Inventory: A Tool for Assessing Undergraduate Student Alternative Conceptions about Dominance in Mendelian and Population Genetics. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 13 (2), 349–358.

Article   Google Scholar  

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education. Washington, DC, 2011. http://visionandchange.org/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2018.

Au, T., Sidle, A., & Rollins, K. (1993). Developing an intuitive under-standing of conservation and contamination: Invisible particles as a plausible mechanism. Developmental Psychology , 29 , 286–299.

Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving . In: The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning Edited by Keith J. Holyoak and Robert G. Morrison. Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Beggrow, E., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). Students’ mental models of evolutionary Causation: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift. Evolution Education and Outreach . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-012-0432-z .

Google Scholar  

Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences . Dordrecht: Springer.

Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the Difference Between Explanation and Argument Matters to Science Education. Science & Education , 25 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9826-6 .

Brownell, S. E., Freeman, S., Wenderoth, M. P., & Crowe, A. J. (2014). BioCore Guide: A Tool for Interpreting the Core Concepts of Vision and Change for Biology Majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 13 (2), 200–211.

Campbell, C., & Nehm, R. H. (2013). Evaluating assessment quality in genomics and bioinformatics education research. CBE-Life Sciences Education , 12 (3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-06-0073 .

Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2009). Digging deep: Exploring college students' knowledge of macroevolutionary time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 46 (3), 311–332.

Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Common Origins of Diverse Misconceptions: Cognitive Principles and the Development of Biology Thinking. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 (3), 209–215.

DeHaan R. L. (2011). Education Research in the Biological Sciences: A Nine-Decade Review. Paper presented at the Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, Washington, DC, 2010. www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_DeHaan_October_Paper.pdf . Accessed 21 Mar 2019.

Dirks C. (2011). The Current Status and Future Direction of Biology Education Research. Paper presented at the Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, Washington, DC, 2010. www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Dirks_October_Paper.pdf . Accessed 21 Mar 2019.

Dobzhansky, T (1973). Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 35 No. 3, Mar., 1973; (pp. 125–129). https://doi.org/10.2307/4444260 .

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into Children’s ideas. New York: Routledge.

Fiedler, D., Sbeglia, G. C., Nehm, R. H., & Harms, U. (2019). How strongly does statistical reasoning influence knowledge and acceptance of evolution? Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 56 (9), 1183–1206.

Fisher, K. M., Williams, K. S., & Lineback, J. E. (2011). Osmosis and Diffusion Conceptual Assessment. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 (4), 418–429.

Freidenreich, H. B., Duncan, R. G., & Shea, N. (2011). Exploring middle school students’ understanding of three conceptual models in genetics. International Journal of Science Education , 33 (17), 2323–2349.

Garvin-Doxas, K., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2008). Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: Lessons from the biology concept inventory (BCI). CBE Life Science Education , 7 , 227–233.

Gerard, R. W., & Stevens, R. B. (1958). Concepts of Biology , National Research Council Publication 560 (). D.C.: National Academy Press. Washington.

Goldberg, R. F., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Developmental “roots” in mature biological knowledge. Psychological Science , 20 (4), 480–487.

Ha, M., & Nehm, R. H. (2014). Darwin's difficulties and students’ struggles with trait loss: Cognitive-historical parallelisms in evolutionary explanation. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9626-1 .

Ha, M., Wei, X., Wang, J., Hou, D., & Nehm, R. H. (2019). Chinese pre-service biology teachers’ evolutionary knowledge, reasoning patterns, and acceptance levels. International Journal of Science Education , 41 (5), 628–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1572936 .

Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. (1987). Diagnosing Secondary Students’ Misconceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration in Plants Using a Two-Tier Multiple-Choice Instrument. Journal of Biological Education , 21 . https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1987.9654897 .

Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks? Journal of Social Science , 2 (38), 185–195.

Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1991). Constrained person analogy in young children’s biological inference. Cognitive Development , 6 , 219–231.

Kalas, P., O’Neill, A., Pollock, C., & Birol, G. (2013). Development of a Meiosis Concept Inventory. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 12 (4), 655–664.

Kampourakis, K. (2013). Making sense of evolution . Oxford University Press.

Kargbo, D. B., Hobbs, E. D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children’s beliefs about inherited characteristics. Journal of Biological Education , 14 (2), 137–146.

Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition , 111 , 138–143.

Kelemen, D., & DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions About Origins: Purpose and Intelligent Design in Children's Reasoning About Nature. Journal of Cognition and Development , 6 (1), 3–31.

Klymkowsky, M. W., Rentsch, J. D., Begovic, E., & Cooper, M. M. (2016). The design and transformation of biofundamentals: A non-survey introductory evolutionary and molecular biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 , ar70.

Lewontin, R. (2000). The triple helix . Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology . New York: Basic Books.

McFarland, J. L., Price, R. M., Wenderoth, M. P., Martinková, P., & Cliff, W. (2017). Joel Investigating Novice and Expert Conceptions of Genetically Modified Organisms. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 , 3.

Mead, L. S., Kohn, C., Warwick, A., & Schwartz, K. (2019). Applying measurement standards to evolution education assessment instruments. Evolution:Education and Outreach , 12 , 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0097-y .

Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems . McGraw Hill.

National Research Council (1958). Concepts of Biology . National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational assessment . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2009). The New Biology . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2013). NGSS Lead States. Next generation science standards: for states, by states . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation (2019). Re-Integrating Biology. https://reintegratingbiology.org/ . Accessed 5 Nov 2019.

Nehm, R. H. (2014). Discipline-based education research. Science Education. , 98 (3), 543–546.

Nehm, R. H. (2018). Evolution (chapter 14). In K. Kampourakis, & M. Reiss (Eds.), Teaching biology in schools: Global issues and trends . Taylor and Francis: Routledge.

Nehm, R. H., Beggrow, E., Opfer, J., & Ha, M. (2012). Reasoning about natural selection: Diagnosing Contextual competency using the ACORNS instrument. The American Biology Teacher. , 74 (2).

Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 (3), 237–256.

Nehm, R. H., & Haertig, H. (2012). Human vs. computer diagnosis of Students’ natural selection knowledge: Testing the efficacy of text analytic software. Journal of Science Education and Technology. , 21 (1), 56–73.

Nehm, R. H., & Mead, L. (2019). Evolution Assessment. Introduction to the Special Issue. Evolution Education & Outreach . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0098-x .

Nehm, R. H., Poole, T. M., Lyford, M. E., Hoskins, S. G., Carruth, L., Ewers, B. E., & Colberg, P. J. (2009). Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students’ faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evolution Education and Outreach , 2 , 527–532.

Nehm, R. H., & Ridgway, J. (2011). What do experts and novices “see” in evolutionary problems? Evolution: Education and Outreach , 4 (4), 666–679.

Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the CINS, and open-response instrument, and oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 1131–1160.

Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. (2010). The future of natural selection knowledge measurement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. , 47 (3), 358–362.

Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education , 33 (10), 1373–1405.

Newman, D. L., Snyder, C. W., Fisk, J. N., & Wright, L. K. (2016). Development of the Central Dogma Concept Inventory (CDCI) Assessment Tool. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 , 2.

Opfer, J. E., & Siegler, R. S. (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living things concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic biology. Cognitive Psychology , 49 , 301–332.

Opfer, J. E., et al. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49 (6), 744–777.

Opfer, J. E., Gelman, S. A. (2010). Development of the Animate–Inanimate Distinction. In: Usha Goswami (Ed.). The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, Second edition.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (2019). http://www.pulse-community.org/ . Accessed 21 Mar 2019.

Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1998). Bibliography. Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education , (2nd ed.).

Poling, D. A., & Evans, E. M. (2002). Why do birds of a feather flock together? Developmental change in the use of multiple explanations: Intention, teleology and essentialism. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 20 , 89–112.

Potter, L. M., Bissonnette, S. A., Knight, J. D., Tanner, K. D., O’Dowd, D. K. (2017). Investigating Novice and Expert Conceptions of Genetically Modified Organisms. CBE—Life Sciences Education 16 (3):ar52.

Price, R. M., Andrews, T. C., McElhinny, T. L., Mead, L. S., Abraham, J. K., Thanukos, A., Perez, K. E., Shuster, M. (2014). The Genetic Drift Inventory: A Tool for Measuring What Advanced Undergraduates Have Mastered about Genetic Drift. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 13 (1), 65–75.

Rachmatullah, A., Nehm, R.H., Ha, M. Roshayanti, F. (2018). Evolution education in Indonesia: Pre-service biology teachers’ evolutionary knowledge levels, reasoning models, and acceptance patterns. Evolution Education around the Globe. (Eds.). Deniz, H. Borgerding, L. springer.

Raman, L., & Winer, G. A. (2002). Children’s and adults’ understanding of illness: Evidence in support of a coexistence model. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Washington , 128 (4), 325–355.

Reiss, M., & Kampourakis, K. (2018). Teaching Biology in Schools Global Research, Issues, and Trends . Taylor and Francis.

Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review , 8 (1), 120–130.

Sbeglia, G., & Nehm, R. H. (2018). Measuring evolution acceptance using the GAENE: Influences of gender, race, degree-plan, and instruction. Evolution Education & Outreach. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0091-9 .

Sbeglia, G., & Nehm, R. H. (2019). Do you see what I-SEA? A Rasch analysis of the psychometric properties of the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21494 .

Schmiemann, P., et al. (2017). Assessment of genetics understanding: Under what conditions do situational features have an impact on measures? Science Education , 26 (10), 1161–1191.

Shea, N. A., Duncan, R. G., & Stephenson, C. (2015). A tri-part model for genetics literacy: Exploring undergraduate student reasoning about authentic genetics dilemmas. Research in Science Education , 45 (4), 485–507.

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBELife Sciences Education , 7 (4), 422–430.

Smith, M. U. (1983). A comparative analysis of the performance of experts and novices while solving selected classical genetics problems , Unpublished doctoral dissertation (). FL: Florida State University.

Solomon, G., Johnson, S. C., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1996). Like father like son: Young children's understanding of how and why offspring resemble their parents. Child Development , 67 , 151–171.

Stefanski, K. M., Gardner, G. E., & Seipelt-Thiemann, R. L. (2016). Development of a Lac Operon Concept Inventory (LOCI). CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 , 2.

Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, P. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington D.C: National Research Council.

Todd, A., et al. (2017). Development and validation of the learning progression-based assessment of modern genetics (LPA-MG) in a high school context. Science Education , 101 (1), 32–65.

Tornabene, R. E., Lavington, E., & Nehm, R. H. (2018). Testing validity inferences for genetic drift inventory scores using Rasch modeling and item order analyses. Evolution Education & Outreach. , 11 (6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0082-x .

Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). The American Biology Teacher, 61 (2) 82+84+86.

Ware, E. A., & Gelman, S. A. (2014). You get what you need: An examination of purpose-based inheritance reasoning in undergraduates, preschoolers, and biological experts. Cognitive Science , 38 (2), 197–243.

Weiss, P. (1958). Introduction , In: Gerard, R.W., Stevens, R. B. (1958). Concepts of Biology. National Research Council Publication 560 . D.C.: National Academy Press Washington.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Partial funding for this work was provided by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Inclusive Excellence program.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Ecology and Evolution, Institute for STEM Education, Stony Brook University (SUNY), 650 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook, New York, 11794-5233, USA

Ross H. Nehm

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RHN wrote the manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to Ross H. Nehm .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The author declares that he/she has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nehm, R.H. Biology education research: building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res 1 , 15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6

Download citation

Received : 28 May 2019

Accepted : 08 November 2019

Published : 02 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biology education research
• Biology education
• Discipline-based education research
• Conceptual frameworks
• Life science

• Site Search

You are here

Journal of Biological Education

• Primary schools
• Gopher science labs
• Gopher School Registration
• SciberMonkey
• Practical Biology
• School competitions
• Scottish teacher network
• Biology in the Real World Past Presentations
• Post 16 Biology Survey 2016-17
• Post 16 Biology Survey 2017-18
• Chemistry for Biologists
• Higher education
• HUBS events
• HUBS membership
• HUBS grants
• HUBS executive committee
• HUBS news and reports
• External examiners database
• Early Career Lecturers in Biosciences
• The Bioscience Awarding Gap Network
• The Biosciences Educators' Network
• Education research
• The Biologist
• Bioscience journals
• Degree accreditation programme

The  Journal of Biological Education is an international journal that publishes the latest research into the teaching, learning and assessment of biology. It is owned by the Royal Society of Biology and published by Taylor and Francis.

The journal aims to bridge the gap between research and practice, providing information, ideas and opinion, in addition to critical examinations of advances in biology research and teaching. Through the coverage of policy and curriculum developments, the latest results of research into the teaching, learning and assessment of biology are brought to the fore.

Special emphasis is placed on research relevant to educational practice, guided by educational realities in systems, schools, colleges and universities. Papers that are theoretically informed and methodologically rigorous are welcomed.

Subscription Fees

We offer a special print-only subscription rate for Royal Society of Biology members for an annual fee of £40 (complete the subscription form or contact the RSB membership team for more details). Under the RSB's Schools and Colleges Affiliation Scheme (SCAS) UK-based schools and colleges can subscribe to the journal for just £60.

Non-member subscription rates for the journal can be found on the Taylor and Francis website. Please contact the Taylor and Francis customer services team if you have any queries or would like to take out a subscription.

The archive of the journal and the current issue can be accessed at Taylor and Francis online . Details of the editorial board , instructions for authors and the journal scope are also available. Read a sample issue .

Research Guidelines

All articles that appear in the JBE must adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines for the reporting of in vivo experiments. The guidelines have been developed by the NC3Rs to improve standards of reporting of animal experiments, and ensure research featured in the JBE is based on sound and ethical experiments.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Definitions, the importance of field education, challenges to field education, acknowledgments, references cited.

• < Previous

Teaching Biology in the Field: Importance, Challenges, and Solutions

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Thomas L. Fleischner, Robert E. Espinoza, Gretchen A. Gerrish, Harry W. Greene, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Eileen A. Lacey, Steven Pace, Julia K. Parrish, Hilary M. Swain, Stephen C. Trombulak, Saul Weisberg, David W. Winkler, Lisa Zander, Teaching Biology in the Field: Importance, Challenges, and Solutions, BioScience , Volume 67, Issue 6, June 2017, Pages 558–567, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix036

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Learning that occurs in a field setting is a powerful experience that promotes the development of new generations of creative scientists, enhances environmental literacy, and instills social responsibility in our citizens. Institutional challenges to field studies include decreasing financial resources and increasing regulatory concerns. These are coupled with changing student interests, in particular the growing misconception that field study is not relevant to many biological careers. Collectively, these factors contribute to a significant decline in field-study opportunities for students and lack of pedagogical guidance for instructors interested in conducting field courses. Nature and culture are inextricably linked, and we all benefit from including diverse backgrounds and perspectives in field experiences. We suggest expanding the definition of “the field” to include human-influenced ecosystems, as well as more conventional natural habitats. More than ever, the world needs the passion, insight, and wisdom that come from field studies.

More than 70 years ago, Aldo Leopold ( 2013 [1938]) decried the loss of field studies in biology education. The subsequent decades have only amplified this decline. For example, within the past 20 years, both Schmidly ( 2005 ) and Hafner ( 2007 ) described the significant loss of field-based opportunities in mammalogy, and Wilcove and Eisner ( 2000 ) described the “impending extinction of natural history.” More recently, a group of prominent British biologists published a call to arms warning that “the decline in field biology skills in the UK has reached crisis point” (Warren 2015 ). Clearly, the concerns voiced by Leopold are more relevant than ever.

Field-based education is particularly critical to the biological sciences, providing fundamental training for key disciplines such as behavior, ecology, evolution, systematics, and conservation science (Eisner 1982 , Wilson 1982 , Fleischner 2005 , Baggott and Rayne 2007 ). Field studies underlie the conceptual and technical bases for these disciplines and are required to ensure their healthy growth. Now, as society struggles to respond appropriately to losses of biodiversity, range shifts due to climate change, and the emergence of new human pathogens, the decline in opportunities for field study means that subsequent generations of biologists will be increasingly divorced from the primary setting, the natural environment, in which the phenomena that they study occur. As the capacity to modify biological systems expands from genomes to ecosystems to global cycles, it is imperative that scientists and the broader public are able to critically evaluate the outcomes of these changes in the context of complex natural settings. Within academia, this need also applies to the educators charged with training future generations of problem-solvers (Pauly 1995 ). In summary, field studies are an essential component of every scientist's training.

There is already a growing disconnect between the recognized importance of field experiences and the increasingly limited opportunities for gaining relevant field-based training (Barrows et al. 2016 ). As Mogk and Goodwin ( 2012 ) noted, “the field setting is one of the important crucibles where science and scientists codevelop.” Geoscientists in the United States (Mogk and Goodwin 2012 ) and bioscientists in the United Kingdom (Smith 2004 , Boyle et al. 2007 , Scott et al. 2012 , 2013 , Lambert and Reiss 2014 ) have already taken steps to address this problem. By comparison, biologists in the United States have made little effort to counter the decline in field experiences in science education.

With these concerns in mind and with support from the National Science Foundation, in March 2016, we convened a working group of researchers and educators with the purpose of addressing three questions concerning the future of field-based education in biology: (1) Why are field-based educational experiences important to advancing biological knowledge? (2) What challenges threaten opportunities for students to engage in field-based educational experiences? And (3) how can we enhance field-based pedagogies in biology? Here, we explore each of these questions and offer suggestions about how best to ensure that future generations of biologists will be able to engage in the seminal experiences that occur in field settings.

We distinguish between three overlapping terms that, collectively, represent the intersection between nature and the in situ learner. Natural history encompasses a broad range of definitions (summarized in Fleischner 2005 ), all of which share the central theme of the direct observation and description of organisms, communities, and habitats, including attentiveness to associated geology, hydrology, and other physical factors. Field biology is rooted in natural history but typically places greater emphasis on using observational and experimental data to advance conceptual models and theory. Biologists should be cautious about dichotomizing natural history and field biology (Greene 2005 ), however, because the two are closely intertwined and observations of natural systems provide a foundation for more concept-driven studies of biology. Finally, field studies encompass a wider range of disciplines—biology, geology, anthropology, and humanities—each of which may require developing essential competencies needed to live and work in outdoor settings, as well as more specialized skills relevant to the specific discipline and line of inquiry. Although our expertise is in biology, as science educators interested in maximizing benefits for all students, we emphasize the importance of field studies , because this term includes natural history and more hypothesis-driven exploration of multiple scientific disciplines.

The value of field study is vast: Field experiences create not only better science but also better scientists, citizens, and people, thereby substantially affecting the human–nature relationships that form the basis for sustainability (Fleischner 2011 , Mogk and Goodwin 2012 , Tewksbury et al. 2014 , Barrows et al. 2016 ). Ecologist Paul Dayton ( 2011 ) has noted that “there is simply no substitute for actually experiencing nature, to see, smell, and listen to the integrated pattern that nature offers an open mind.” Indeed, observing nature is the touchstone for understanding how life works; therefore, field studies serve quite literally as the grounding for the biological sciences. At the same time, field experiences often force observers to question and to re-evaluate their assumptions about how the natural world operates. Accordingly, field observations can lead to the recalibration of research strategies for exploring biological phenomena (Greene 2005 ), explanations for which are often subsequently tested using information collected by observational approaches in the field (Sagarin and Pauchard 2010 ). In short, field observations reveal patterns that inspire explanation and that in many cases lead to the construction of formal hypotheses to explain natural phenomena.

Field study also promotes the development of place-based understanding (Billick and Price 2011 ). In part, this is because students who engage in field experiences have greater opportunity to cultivate the critical connections to real places that transform abstract concepts into tangible realities (figure 1 ). This outcome is not limited to biologically defined locations but extends to the cultural, social, and political settings in which field studies occur (van Eijck 2010 ). Sense of place (Stegner 1992 ) can be a powerful motivator for learning and stewardship (Robertson et al. 2015 , Haywood et al. 2016 ); therefore, individuals who become strongly connected to a specific setting tend to become more effective advocates for all elements of that environment.

Field-biology education in a variety of natural and cultural contexts (clockwise from upper left): (a) immersed in Alaskan wilderness; (b) collecting nonnative geckos in a California strip mall; (c) setting a small mammal trapline 
at a university reserve; (d) exploring the aquatic world of a Belizean estuary. Photographs: (a) Thomas L. Fleischner, 
(b) Robert E. Espinoza, (c) Corey Welch, (d) Gretchen A. Gerrish.

On an individual level, field studies often spark a “sense of wonder” (Carson 1965 , Dayton and Sala 2001 ) that can launch students on a path of discovery-based science, resulting in lifelong commitment to careers in natural, environmental, and medical science. Field experiences, in particular residential and other immersive experiences, also provide unparalleled opportunities for the development of intra- and interpersonal skills that are crucial to effective leadership. Such experiences can lead to greater interaction between the affective and the cognitive, thereby providing a bridge to higher-order learning (Rickinson et al. 2004 ). The unpredictability and unfamiliarity of field conditions challenge students to become more independent, resourceful, self-confident, and self-aware (Boyle et al. 2007 , Lu 2015 ). Because students often interact with individuals from diverse backgrounds while in the field, they encounter values and worldviews that they might not otherwise experience. In short, field settings provide crucial opportunities for students to learn from one another. Away from their accustomed environments, students are often more receptive to novel experiences, and sharing time in the field cements collaborations and strengthens professional and personal communities. Moreover, there is clear evidence that field courses contribute to improved academic performance and cognitive learning in undergraduate biology students (Easton and Gilburn 2012 ).

Field experiences encourage multiple ways of knowing: observing nature (extracting understanding), conversing with nature (developing empathy), and participating in nature (using resources). Although students arrive in the field with different types and degrees of experience, most quickly realize that each of these ways of knowing offers valuable insights into how the world functions. In summary, field experiences help students to become fully realized scientists and human beings. Given the pedagogical and personal benefits of field studies, what prevents more educational institutions from offering significant field opportunities to their students? What is needed for students to gain access to more life-changing field experiences?

To understand and, ideally, to reverse the ongoing decline in field-based student experiences, the factors that limit such opportunities must be identified. Here, we outline multiple institutional, pedagogical, and cultural factors that serve to impede field studies in an educational setting (figure 2 ).

Challenges to offering field studies at colleges and universities. (IACUC, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; IRB, Institutional Review Board; SFR, Student–Faculty Ratio)

Institutional hurdles

Higher education has changed dramatically since Leopold wrote about the importance of field studies in the 1930s. Now, instructors interested in providing field experiences must negotiate a complex suite of financial, logistical, legal, and attitudinal hurdles that usurp time that could be spent working with students and engaging them in field-based learning opportunities. Over time, these hurdles may sap the energy and morale of even the most dedicated instructors, thereby reinforcing the cycle of decline for courses that include a field component (e.g., Hafner 2007 ). Because these challenges are often unfamiliar to those who have never engaged in field studies, the responsibility for advocating for field courses falls almost entirely on the diminishing subset of faculty who are already committed to offering such opportunities.

Relative to lecture-based coursework, field-based instruction can be expensive. For example, if students and instructors travel to an off-campus site, food and lodging must often be provided, and, depending on the nature of the course, specialized equipment and supplies may be required. Accordingly, the per-student cost of intensive field-based biology courses can be considerably greater than that for lecture-only courses. The more appropriate comparison, however, is with laboratory-based biology courses, which are often significantly more expensive per student than field courses. For example, the Biology Department at Middlebury College offers a two-semester introductory biology series consisting of (a) Ecology and Evolution, which features field components, followed by (b) Cell Biology and Genetics, which is a lecture–laboratory course. During the 2015–2016 academic year, the cost per student for Ecology and Evolution was less than two-thirds that for Cell Biology and Genetics (Stephen C. Trombulak). This difference was even more dramatic in upper-level courses, with the per-student cost of field-oriented classes being less than a quarter of that for courses with substantial lab components (Stephen C. Trombulak). Enrollment in field courses often tends to be low relative to lecture or lab classes; therefore, as campus budgets continue to decrease, field-based offerings provide easy targets for reducing educational costs. Although some programs may respond by passing the costs of field trips directly to students, this “solution” often prevents some undergraduates from participating because of financial constraints. Therefore, any effort to protect or to expand undergraduate field experiences must include a financial model that ensures access by all students. We need to transform the perception of field courses from “too expensive” to “priceless.”

Institutional regulations can also limit opportunities for field study. Ever-increasing liability concerns serve to constrain time in the field. Such regulations now include specialized training for driving vans, piloting boats, mitigating risk, providing emergency medical care, and maintaining harassment-free learning environments (Clancy et al. 2014 ). Field studies may require appropriate governmental permits and, in the case of vertebrates, an approved Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol (NRC 2011 ). None of these requirements are frivolous, and they have contributed to safer, more ethical field studies. The burden of regulatory compliance, however, is substantive and often falls on individual instructors. This burden is amplified when a lack of familiarity with field studies renders many campus regulatory groups ill prepared to make well-reasoned decisions regarding proposed field activities. Because faculty, when faced with these demands, may choose to abandon field experiences, efforts to promote field studies must address the associated significant regulatory and logistical challenges.

Field courses also require extraordinary effort that is typically undertaken without adequate institutional support for out-of-class faculty time invested in planning, pretrip reconnaissance, logistic preparation, and fulfillment of the regulatory demands of training, liability, and permitting. Furthermore, field studies that require extended time away from campus impose professional and personal costs, because field instructors are constantly on call as teachers, mentors, safety officers, and, frequently, guidance counselors. While fulfilling these roles, instructors are unable to engage in research or other career-promoting activities, particularly when field activities extend over multiple days. In summary, the demands of field courses generally far exceed those of campus-based classes.

This extra effort is rarely acknowledged by academic administrators, which may deter faculty interest in teaching field courses. Indeed, administrators may actively discourage participation in such courses, particularly for junior faculty. Increasingly, these challenges are coupled with a perceived tendency for biology departments to favor hiring laboratory-based researchers, thereby potentially further undercutting the pool of individuals available to offer field courses. Removing these roadblocks will require that institutions proactively identify obstacles and actively incentivize field courses. These changes begin with acknowledging both the importance of experiential studies of natural history (Fleischner 2005 , 2011 , Greene 2005 ) and the significant effort required to provide these crucial student experiences.

Student interest

At academic institutions where field study is considered an integral component of professional training, student interest in field courses is high and often exceeds available enrollment. For example, student demand for introductory and advanced field courses is robust at Prescott College (Thomas L. Fleischner); Middlebury College (Stephen C. Trombulak); SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (Robin Wall Kimmerer); the University of Washington (Julia K. Parrish); the University of California, Santa Cruz (Christopher Lay, Kenneth S. Norris Center for Natural History, personal communication, 31 December 2016); and the University of California, Los Angeles (Daniel Blumstein, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, personal communication, 2 January 2017). As evidence of the potential for sustained interest in field courses, the vertebrate-natural-history course at the University of California, Berkeley, which includes weekly field trips, has been taught for more than 100 years (Christina Fidler, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, personal communication, 3 January 2017). In these programs, the field experience becomes a hallmark of the institution, distinguishing graduates from their peers in employment and graduate study opportunities. Accordingly, institutions that neglect or even discourage field study are missing significant opportunities to foster student interest and are failing to provide students with training experiences that are fundamental to multiple scientific disciplines.

Despite an often-inherent interest in natural history, many students of biology choose curricula that do not include field studies (Smith 2004 ). Many biology departments emphasize preparation for careers in biomedicine, with field studies often viewed as being of marginal relevance to this professional trajectory. This perception persists despite recent changes to the Medical College Admissions Test (Beck 2015 ) and medical school admissions criteria that place greater emphasis on evolutionary biology and, by extension, the natural world. This is reflected in student perceptions that field courses do not enhance employability (Mauchline et al. 2013 ) and are not relevant to modern biology (Barnett et al. 2006 ). These assumptions overlook evidence that many significant discoveries, including those likely to benefit human health, come from the field (e.g., Calisher et al. 2007 , Pourrut et al. 2007 , Ostfeld and Keesing 2012 ). Clearly, greater effort needs to be made to inform students of the essential role that field study plays in biomedical science.

Declining participation in field studies may also reflect large-scale societal shifts that have altered the precollege environments of many students. For example, as much of the world has become more urbanized (Thornbush 2015 ), childhood exposure to nature has diminished (Louv 2008 ). Sense of place for many of today's students does not extend to remote landscapes, which may be perceived as intimidating. At the same time, loss of contact with the natural world may affect the capacity to engage with field settings. For example, extensive use of cell phone and computer screens has been shown to alter the human visual system (Sewall 2012 ). Consequently, the shift to increasingly human-modified environments creates a negative feedback loop that serves to increase emotional and physical distance from nature and therefore to decrease interest in field-based educational experiences.

Many of our most pressing socioecological issues lie at the intersection between culture and nature, and cultural diversity is essential to sustainability. Field experiences are crucial for developing the next generation of environmental professionals, but at present, undergraduate participation in field studies is not reflective of human cultural diversity (Baker 2000 , Arismendi and Penaluna 2016 ). Multiple factors contribute to the underrepresentation of multiple groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, geography, and socioeconomic background (Van Velsor and Nilon 2006 , Cotton and Cotton 2009 ). For first-generation students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, a focus on nature may be perceived as contrary to improved financial prospects, and the study of wild places and wild organisms may seem irrelevant to social-justice concerns. Whereas suburban students brought up in the tradition of backyard explorations, weekend hikes, and summer family vacations to national parks may leap into a field course without concern, an urban student who has never spent a night outdoors may find a field experience daunting (Cotton and Cotton 2009 ). A female student may be reluctant to live under field conditions in a group consisting primarily of males because of cultural norms or fear of harassment, especially from men perceived as higher in professional hierarchies (Clancy et al. 2014 ). Disabled students may be discouraged from field studies even if their disabilities can be accommodated (Hall et al. 2004 , Boyle et al. 2007 ). Designing field courses that respect and accommodate student differences will be crucial to ensuring that such experiences are accessible to all, with the resulting diversity of perspectives enriching for all learners.

New pedagogical attitudes and approaches

By definition, field studies occur outdoors. Not surprisingly, many field-based programs take place where undisturbed nature has to some degree been conserved. Many scientists—ourselves included—were inspired by such field experiences and therefore tend to automatically equate “the field” with remote, comparatively untouched locations. However, overly narrow interpretations of what constitutes “the field” may lead to missed opportunities to engage students in outdoor experiences (Hale 1986 , McCleery et al. 2005 ), particularly when access to more remote settings is precluded by some of the challenges outlined above. Furthermore, because contact with more (sub)urban landscapes often includes interactions with park rangers, land managers, and other conservation professionals, these experiences can be particularly valuable for revealing potential career opportunities. In summary, the benefits of interacting with nature can be realized in a wide range of accessible settings, a realization that can help make field study part of the pedagogy of all undergraduate programs.

Providing students with field experiences in more human-influenced habitats may require particular creativity. For example, for instructors at large, urban campuses, the classic weekend trip spent capturing mammals or reptiles can be replaced by observations of peregrine falcons foraging in urban canyons, surveys of pollinators in urban gardens, analyses of ants foraging in a local park, recordings of the dawn chorus of birds in a day-use area, or camera trapping of urbanized wildlife. These activities may not provide the deep immersion in nature that more extended or remote field experiences do, but they are often sufficient to pique the interest of students and awaken them to the processes of observation, interpretation, and exploration of nature (McCleery et al. 2005 , Barnett et al. 2006 ).

Even among educators who embrace the importance of field studies, some may hesitate to provide these experiences if they do not feel capable of designing and leading such activities. Challenges include not just pedagogical techniques but also the necessary logistics and demands associated with managing student group dynamics in often-unpredictable physical settings. Teachers, like students, need role models and mentors. Checklists or instruction manuals that summarize the basic considerations associated with overseeing field experiences provide valuable support to faculty. Furthermore, the use of established field stations and marine laboratories can be invaluable for alleviating logistical and academic concerns (Billick et al. 2013 , NRC 2014 , Scubel 2015 ). For instructors, field stations provide opportunities to tap into existing networks of supportive colleagues; for students, such locations provide exposure to a wide range of scientific studies conducted in natural settings. Although relevant materials exist on how to lead field courses (e.g., Farnsworth and Beatty 2012 , Baldwin 2013 , Fleischner et al. 2013 , Greene 2013 , Tal et al. 2014 ), more are needed. Tangible resources that experienced field instructors can provide include lesson plans, logistic suggestions, and, in particular, person-to-person mentoring of less experienced colleagues.

Despite the sometimes-significant challenges outlined here, field courses continue to be offered and enthusiastically embraced by dedicated faculty and avid students. Faculty who lead such courses do so because they understand the profound benefits to student learning, to personal and professional development, and to the development of an ecologically literate society. There is no replacement for direct interaction with the living world. Eschewing the field in favor of the classroom, lab, museum, book, or computer is to favor the abstract over the real. We contend that all learners need to experience the real in order to be able to think critically about the abstract, let alone contribute to the development of new conceptual constructs. At the same time, however, we assert that field studies and, specifically, the instruction of field courses need to change to become more available, inclusive, and relevant to the rapidly changing world. We offer the following suggestions to ensure that field experiences contribute to the preparation of future generations of excited and creative biologists, as well as the creation of a more nature-literate society (figure 3 ).

Potential solutions for offering field studies at colleges and universities. (FSC, Field Studies Course).

Proactive steps

Although many of us who lead field courses extol the benefits of teaching outdoors, we need more effective means of conveying the necessity of field studies to others. When communicating with those who may perceive field studies as curricular “extras,” the essential nature of field experiences must be put into context so that their core importance relative to other courses is readily apparent. Analogy may help. Field study is how ecologists, conservationists, and taxonomists hone their craft; it is the opportunity to put acquired information, theories, and skills into practice. A music student may be immersed in theory and history, listening to the works of others, but it is when she puts fingers to the keyboard, practicing for hours on end, that she perfects the integration of motor skills and emotion that culminates in a stunning performance. Describing such equivalencies between biological field studies and other disciplines that engage in practice-based, transformative education should strengthen understanding and support among academic colleagues.

In addition to finding better ways to communicate the values of field study in biology, field instructors must actively participate in creating assessment-based curricula. Most universities use assessment tools based on course content and skill acquisition to evaluate student learning. Numbers matter. Recent analyses indicate that content and skills are better retained following field experiences than following lab-based exercises (Scott et al. 2012 ) and that field studies elicit positive affective responses (Boyle et al. 2007 ). That is, feelings and values matter to students. Because tools for assessing affective impacts are less familiar to most bioscientists and often include qualitative elements that are more challenging to analyze and interpret, the development of mixed-measure assessment tools (i.e., quantitative and qualitative) may provide the common language needed to demonstrate the impacts of field studies on student learning. Such measures could also serve to improve student experiences and to identify (and rectify) inequities in access to field opportunities.

To meet compliance challenges, we encourage field instructors to join local conversations regarding the regulatory environment at their institutions. Constructive steps include (a) pushing for risk-management training for instructors and students, (b) advocating for training to avoid sexual harassment and cultural intolerance, and (c) placing field course instructors on IACUCs, where they can help educate colleagues about the nature of field studies. These efforts will require time and energy that most of us would prefer to spend in the field, but these actions are essential to the larger goal of promoting field instruction in biology.

At the same time, educational institutions need to be more proactive in offering solutions to regulatory challenges. For example, university administrators tend to be leery of the potential liabilities associated with field courses but may not make the effort to discover that considerable expertise and numerous “best practices” exist in the world of experiential adventure education (e.g., Hirsh and Sugerman 2008 , Pace 2014 ). Institutions would make huge strides by providing risk-management training that enables, rather than obstructs, field studies. Toward this end, we have compiled a manual of relevant protocols based on adventure education programs that include extended student exposure to field conditions (Pace et al. 2017 ; www.naturalhistoryinstitute.org ).

Academic reward systems should also be modified to create incentives for teaching field-based courses, beginning with recognition of the often-extensive instructor effort required to organize and run such classes. At the same time, curricular budgets should explicitly include a mixture of classroom, laboratory, and field experiences, thereby reducing perceived financial constraints on offering field courses. Finally, curricula could be revised to require that all students engage in field learning. Geology and archeology programs, which typically require a summer field camp, offer one potential model for such curricular changes.

To help set these changes in motion, we challenge all biology faculty to teach (or coteach) at least one field course during their academic career, similar to the expectation at many institutions that faculty rotate through the teaching of introductory biology or other foundational courses. Furthermore, we suggest that junior faculty with field-oriented research programs be granted a term to develop or revamp a field course, thereby strengthening ties between teaching efforts and the research methods, questions, and study systems with which they are most familiar. Similarly, midlevel and senior faculty could be provided with teaching release or leave time to develop new field-based courses that build on their research expertise and provide opportunities to mentor less-experienced colleagues in field-based instruction. Post-tenure faculty are better positioned to play a role in institutional conversations regarding regulations, risk management, and training needs, thereby helping to pave the way for junior faculty who wish to offer field courses.

At the campus level, we suggest institutions create distinguished teaching awards specifically for faculty who offer courses that include field-based instruction. Similarly, we urge professional societies to establish awards that recognize creative and innovative efforts to engage students in field studies. As examples, the development of the Journal of Natural History Education and Experience , the establishment of the Ecological Society of America's student natural-history awards, and the inclusion of a field-natural-history column in Ecology are positive steps toward professional validation of field study.

Redefining “the field.”

Opportunities for discovery and learning exist wherever an individual's attention is captured by nature (Dijkstra 2016 ). Therefore, igniting a resurgence in field-based teaching may require expanding the concept of “the field” to include the anthropogenically altered landscapes that are most accessible to instructors. The use of urban neighborhoods, farms, zoos, or botanical gardens for field-based instruction offers several benefits. For example, by acknowledging that such landscapes harbor complex natural ecosystems that can serve to answer important biological questions, instructors help students who have grown up in these environments to re-envision them as “natural.” This counters the notion that nature and wildness are beyond the reach of urban students and promotes connections for all with the natural world (McCleery et al. 2005 ).

On a more practical level, urban field experiences may often be the only option. The concept of course-based undergraduate research experiences speaks to the feasibility and value of integrating the (urban) field into large classroom settings (Corwin et al. 2015 ). For example, establishing a series of long-term observational and experimental plots on or near campus may facilitate field-research opportunities for hundreds of students while creating long-term data sets that can be used to enrich classroom teaching and connect students more directly to their urban backyards (Mauchline et al. 2013 ). Expanding the field to include the entire urban–wilderness continuum should facilitate concept-based field courses that examine a wide range of biological topics and that allow the exploration of numerous emergent human–environment themes, such as urban geomorphology (Thornbush 2015 ), biophilic design (Hartig and Kahn 2016 ), trophic rewilding (Svenning et al. 2016 ), and ecosystem novelty (Radeloff et al. 2015 ). To realize this potential, we urge biologists to redefine “field study” to include all educational experiences that incorporate direct experience with elements of the natural environment.

Invitational learning

One of the most powerful experiences a student can have is the transformational moment when an instructor's passion for the natural world becomes their own. These pivotal events are invitational in that an experienced individual with a deep sense of place invites a newcomer to adopt that same landscape. A field instructor plays multiple roles: natural historian, observer, experimentalist, theoretician, translator, teacher, mentor, and risk manager. The challenge is to fulfill these roles while extending a broad invitation to students. Topics that entice some students may be distasteful to others. Even the language used to name a place may influence the breadth of the invitation if it evokes a particular cultural history that is not shared by all students (Savoy 2015 ). Therefore, to increase participation in field experiences, instructors must ensure that their invitations to students are as inclusive as possible.

Contemporary field biologists stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants, including Darwin, Wallace, Leopold, MacArthur, Wilson, and Paine. Making field biology an invitational experience for all students requires attention to who teaches field courses and how they are taught; both are critical to translating the ideas of these consummate but primarily white male scientists into experiences that are of interest to a wide range of students. Field educators, even as they effectively share passion, knowledge, and their approach to learning, need to be receptive to change and to new strategies for broadening and deepening participation in field science. For students with little experience of the theory or reality of nature, building initial exposures around issues that are directly relevant to their culture and worldview can increase interest and motivation (Barnett et al. 2006 ). Efforts to recast traditional academic perspectives through other geographic and cultural lenses have the potential to pay huge dividends in terms of increasing undergraduate interest in and commitment to field study and its many benefits (Mogk and Goodwin 2012 , Robertson et al. 2015 ).

This article derives from a collaborative working group, convened as part of US National Science Foundation award no. DEB-1546895 to TLF, “Workshop: The Decline in Field Studies: Proactive Strategies for Essential Training for the Next Generation of Biological Researchers,” hosted by the Natural History Institute at Prescott College. We thank Kelly Zamudio for valuable insights during the preliminary phase of this project and the four anonymous reviewers whose insightful critiques contributed to this article's clarity.

Arismendi I , Penaluna BE . 2016 . Examining diversity inequities in fisheries science: A call to action . BioScience , 66 : 584 – 591 .

Google Scholar

Baggott GK , Rayne RC . 2007 . The use of computer-based assessments in a field biology module . Bioscience Education e-Journal , 9 , (art. 5). (20 March 2017; www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol9/beej-9-5.htm#pdf )

Baker B. , 2000 . Recruiting minorities to the biological sciences . BioScience , 50 : 191 – 195 .

Baldwin L. , 2013 . Field school . Journal of Natural History Education and Experience , 7 : 16 – 21 .

Barnett M , Lord C , Strauss E , Rosca C , Langford H , Chavez D , Deni L . 2006 . Using the urban environment to engage youths in urban ecology field studies . Journal of Environmental Education , 37 : 3 – 11 .

Barrows CW , Murphy-Mariscal ML , Hernandez RR . 2016 . At a crossroads: The nature of natural history in the twenty-first century . BioScience , 66 : 592 – 599 .

Beck M. , 2015 . Medical-college entrance exam gets an overhaul . Wall Street Journal . (20 July 2016; www.wsj.com/articles/medical-college-entrance-exam-gets-an-overhaul-1429092002 )

Billick I , Price MV , eds. 2011 . The Ecology of Place: Contributions of Place-Based Research to Ecological Understanding . University of Chicago Press .

Google Preview

Billick I , Babb I , Kloeppel B , Leong JC , Hodder J , Sanders J , Swain H . 2013 . Field Stations and Marine Laboratories of the Future: A Strategic Vision . National Association of Marine Laboratories and Organization of Biological Field Stations .

Boyle A , Maguire S , Martin A , Milsom C , Nash R , Rawlinson S , Turner A , Wurthmann S , Conchie A . 2007 . Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain . Journal of Geography and Higher Education , 31 : 299 – 317 .

Burdette HL , Whitaker RC . 2005 . Resurrecting free play in young children . Archive of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine , 159 : 46 – 50 .

Calisher CH et al.  , 2007 . Demographic factors associated with the prevalence of antibody to Sin Nombre virus in deer mice in the western United States . Journal of Wildlife Diseases , 43 : 1 – 11 .

Carson R. , 1965 . The Sense of Wonder . Harper and Row .

Clancy KBH , Nelson RG , Rutherford JN , Hinde K . 2014 . Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault . PLOS ONE , 9 (art. e102172). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102172

Corwin LA , Graham MJ , Dolan EL . 2015 . Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 14 : 1 – 13 .

Cotton DRE , Cotton PA . 2009 . Field biology experiences of undergraduate students: The impact of novelty space . Journal of Biological Education , 43 : 169 – 174 .

Dayton P. , 2011 . The grounding of a marine biologist . Pages 65 – 80 in Fleischner TL , ed. The Way of Natural History . Trinity University Press .

Dayton PK , Sala E . 2001 . Natural history: The sense of wonder, creativity and progress in ecology . Scientia Marina , 65 ( suppl. 2 ): 199 – 206 .

Dijkstra K-DB. , 2016 . Restore our sense of species . Nature , 533 : 172 – 174 .

Easton E , Gilburn A . 2012 . The field course effect: Gains in cognitive learning in undergraduate biology students following a field course . Journal of Biological Education , 46 : 29 – 35 .

Eisner T. , 1982 . For love of nature: Exploration and discovery at biological field stations . BioScience , 32 : 321 – 326 .

Farnsworth JS , Beatty CD . 2012 . The journal's the thing: Teaching natural history and nature writing in Baja California Sur . Journal of Natural History Education and Experience , 6 : 16 – 24 .

Fleischner TL. , 2005 . Natural history and the deep roots of resource management . Natural Resources Journal , 45 : 1 – 13 .

Fleischner TL. , 2011 . Why natural history matters . Journal of Natural History Education and Experience , 5 : 21 – 24 .

Fleischner TL , Wessels T , Grumbine RE , Weisberg S . 2013 . Toward transformative natural history education: A few principles . Journal of Natural History Education and Experience , 7 : 1 – 3 .

Greene HW. , 2005 . Organisms in nature as a central focus for biology . Trends in Ecology and Evolution , 20 : 23 – 27 .

Greene HW. , 2013 . Tracks and Shadows: Field Biology as Art . University of California Press .

Hafner MS. , 2007 . Field research in mammalogy: An enterprise in peril . Journal of Mammalogy , 88 : 1119 – 1128 .

Hale M. , 1986 . Approaches to ecology teaching: The educational potential of the local environment . Journal of Biological Education , 20 : 179 – 184 .

Hall T , Healey M , Harrison M . 2004 . Reflections on fieldwork and disabled students: Discourses of exclusion and inclusion . Journal of Geography in Higher Education , 28 : 255 – 280 .

Hartig T , Kahn PH Jr. , 2016 . Living in cities, naturally . Science , 352 : 938 – 940 .

Haywood B , Parrish JK , Dolliver J . 2016 . Place-based, data-rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action . Conservation Biology , 30 : 476 – 486 .

Hirsch J , Sugerman D . 2008 . Administrative Practices of AEE Accredited Programs , 2nd ed. Association for Experiential Education .

Lambert D , Reiss MJ . 2014 . The Place of Fieldwork in Geography and Science Qualifications . Institute of Education , University of London .

Leopold A. , 2013 . Natural history, the forgotten science . Pages 411 – 415 in Meine C , ed. A Sand County Almanac and Other Writings on Ecology and Conservation . Book 238 . Library of America .

Louv R. , 2008 . Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder . Algonquin .

Lu X. , 2015 . The rewards of roughing it . Science , 350 : 350 .

Mauchline A , Peacock J , Park JR . 2013 . The future of bioscience fieldwork in UK higher education . Bioscience Education , 21 : 7 – 19 .

McCleery RA , Lopez RR , Harveson LA , Silvy NJ , Slack RD . 2005 . Integrating on-campus wildlife research projects into the wildlife curriculum . Wildlife Society Bulletin , 33 : 802 – 809 .

Mogk DW , Goodwin C . 2012 . Learning in the field: Synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences . Pages 131 – 163 in Kastens KA , Manduca CA , eds. Earth and Mind II: A Synthesis of Research on Thinking and Learning in the Geosciences . Geological Society of America . Special Paper no. 486 .

[NRC] National Research Council . 2011 . Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals , 8th ed. National Academies Press .

[NRC] National Research Council . 2014 . Enhancing the Value and Sustainability of Field Stations and Marine Laboratories in the Twenty-First Century . National Academies Press .

Ostefeld RS , Keesing F . 2012 . Effects of host diversity on infectious disease . Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , 43 : 157 – 182 .

Pace S , ed. 2014 . Manual of Accreditation Standards for Adventure Programs , 6th ed. Association for Experiential Education .

Pace S , Fleischner TL , Weisberg S , Moline AB . 2017 . Saying Yes to Environmental Field Studies: A Guide to Proactive, Successful Administration and Operations . Natural History Institute . (20 March 2017; www.naturalhistoryinsitute.org )

Pauly D. , 1995 . Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries . Trends in Ecology and Evolution , 10 : 430 .

Pourrut X , Delicat A , Rollin PE , Ksiazek TG , Gonzalez J-P , Leroy EM . 2007 . Spatial and temporal patterns of Zaire ebolavirus antibody prevalence in the possible reservoir bat species . Journal of Infectious Diseases , 196 : S176 – S183 .

Radeloff VC et al.  , 2015 . The rise of novelty in ecosystems . Ecological Applications , 25 : 2051 – 2068 .

Rickinson M , Dillon J , Teamey K , Morris M , Choi MY , Sanders D , Benefield P . 2004 . A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning. Field Studies Council Occasional Publication no. 87 . Field Studies Council, National Foundation for Educational Research .

Robertson M , Lawrence R , Heath G . 2015 . Experiencing the Outdoors: Enhancing Strategies for Wellbeing , vol. 2 . Sense .

Sagarin R , Pauchard A . 2010 . Observational approaches in ecology open new ground in a changing world . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 8 : 379 – 386 .

Savoy LE. , 2015 . Trace: Memory, History, Race, and the American Landscape . Counterpoint Press .

Schmidly DJ. , 2005 . What it means to be a naturalist and the future of natural history at American universities . Journal of Mammalogy , 86 : 449 – 456 .

Scott GW , Goulder R , Wheeler P , Scoll LJ , Tobin ML , Marsham S . 2012 . The value of fieldwork in life and environmental sciences in the context of higher education: A case study in learning about biodiversity . Journal of Science Education and Technology , 21 : 11 – 21 .

Scott GW , Boyd M , Colquhoun D . 2013 . Changing spaces, changing relationships: The positive impact of learning out of doors . Australian Journal of Outdoor Education , 17 : 47 – 53 .

Scubel JR. , 2015 . Some thoughts on keeping field stations and marine labs afloat in turbulent times . BioScience , 65 : 458 – 459 .

Sewall L. , 2012 . Beauty and the brain . Pages 265 – 284 in Kahn PH Jr , Hasbach PH , eds. Ecopsychology: Science, Totems, and the Technological Species . MIT Press .

Smith D. , 2004 . Issues and trends in higher education biology fieldwork . Journal of Biological Education , 39 : 6 – 10 .

Stegner W. , 1992 . The sense of place . Pages 199 – 206 in Where the Bluebird Sings to the Lemonade Springs: Living and Writing in the West . Random House .

Svenning J-C et al.  , 2016 . Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research . Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , 113 : 898 – 906 .

Tal T , Alon NL , Morag O . 2014 . Exemplary practices in field trips to natural environments . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 51 : 430 – 461 .

Tewksbury JJ et al.  , 2014 . Natural history's place in science and society . BioScience , 64 : 300 – 310 .

Thornbush M. , 2015 . Geography, urban geomorphology and sustainability . Area , 47 : 350 – 353 .

Van Eijck M. , 2010 . Place-based (science) education: Something is happening here . Pages 11 – 27 in Tippins DJ , Mueller MP , van Eijck M , Adams JD , eds. Cultural Studies and Environmentalism: The Confluence of EcoJustice, Place-Based (Science) Education, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems . Springer .

Van Velsor SW , Nilon CH . 2006 . A qualitative investigation of the urban African-American and Latino adolescent experience with wildlife . Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 11 : 359 – 370 .

Warren J. , 2015 . Saving field biology skills from extinction . Times Higher Education . (23 May 2016; www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/save-field-biology-skills-from-extinction-risk/2018721.article )

Wilcove DS , Eisner T . 2000 . The impending extinction of natural history . Chronicle of Higher Education . 15 September, p. B24 .

Wilson EO. , 1982 . The importance of biological field stations . BioScience , 32 : 320 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.20(4); Winter 2021

Participation in Biology Education Research Influences Students’ Epistemic Development

† BSCS Science Learning, Colorado Springs, CO 80918

Mallory Wright

‡ Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631

Courtney Faber

§ Cook Grand Challenge Honors Program, Tickle College of Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Cazembe Kennedy

∥ Office of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634

Dylan Dittrich-Reed

Knowledge construction is an essential scientific practice, and undergraduate research experiences (UREs) provide opportunities for students to engage with this scientific practice in an authentic context. While participating in UREs, students develop conceptualizations about how science gathers, evaluates, and constructs knowledge (science epistemology) that align with scientific practice. However, there have been few studies focusing on how students’ science epistemologies develop during these experiences. Through the analysis of written reflections and three research papers and by leveraging methods informed by collaborative autoethnography, we construct a case study of one student, describing the development of her science epistemology and scientific agency during her time participating in a biology education URE. Through her reflections and self-analysis, the student describes her context-dependent science epistemology, and how she discovered a new role as a critic of scientific papers. These results have implications for the use of written reflections to facilitate epistemic development during UREs and the role of classroom culture in the development of scientific agency.

INTRODUCTION

As students enter professional careers, they will need to apply their understanding of science to new contexts and construct new knowledge to solve complex problems. To prepare students for such careers, policy makers have highlighted the need to steer student learning toward an understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed and what counts as knowledge in science, also known as science epistemology ( National Research Council, 2007 , 2013 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ). To pursue the goal of developing students’ science epistemologies, we must first understand epistemic development in students as they participate in authentic science experiences ( Sandoval, 2012 ).

One example of these authentic science experiences are undergraduate research experiences (UREs), in which students engage with research practices to use data and evidence to construct new knowledge within a specific scientific field ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2017 ). There is extensive work describing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) student gains in understanding the process of science while participating in UREs (e.g., Thiry et al. , 2005 , 2012 ; Lopatto, 2004 , 2007 ; Hunter et al. , 2007 ), but there is little work describing what epistemic gains may result from student participation in a URE. There are a variety of UREs, and the quality of the educational experience for the student varies based on the costs, research topic, mentoring, and student expectations of the URE ( NASEM, 2017 ). As such, the types of UREs students participate in likely have an impact on their epistemic gains. UREs that focus on biology education (BioEd UREs) provide a unique opportunity for researchers to study epistemic development in undergraduate researchers, because these experiences allow undergraduate researchers to study how others engage with biology knowledge through the use of authentic research practices. We hypothesize that as undergraduate researchers analyze how other students construct knowledge about biology, there will be opportunities for these undergraduate researchers to reflect upon their own knowledge construction. Through these reflections, undergraduate researchers in BioEd UREs will gain a deeper understanding of biology epistemology.

The goal of this paper is to describe one student’s (M.W.) epistemic development through her participation in a BioEd URE and how these changes manifested in her written course work. Because this paper describes a study within a study, we will specifically refer to the URE in which M.W. was an undergraduate researcher as the “BioEd URE,” and the case study in which we investigate M.W.’s epistemic development as the “case study.” M.W. is a coauthor along with her URE mentors, D.L. and D.D.-R. All authors consented to using their initials throughout the article rather than pseudonyms. We begin with an overview of recent research investigating science epistemology, highlighting key outcomes as well as the research approaches, because this work 1) informed the development of the URE project to which M.W. contributed and 2) provides a framework to explore M.W.’s epistemic development as she participated in the URE. Next, we provide a description of the URE project to give context to M.W.’s experience. Then, we present a discussion of M.W.’s experience and evolving science epistemology, taking an approach informed by collaborative autoethnography in which M.W. provides a response to the analysis conducted by D.L. and D.D.-R. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of this work for future research on science epistemology and approaches to support students’ developing science epistemologies within formal learning environments, such as the classroom and research lab.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE

Supporting the development of students’ science epistemologies.

Epistemology, or the beliefs and approaches around the acquisition, justification, and generation of knowledge, is a core aim of science inquiry ( Longino, 2002 ). Science epistemology establishes the standards for evaluating, justifying, and generating knowledge within science. Students may gain a tacit understanding of epistemology while engaging with the processes of scientific knowledge generation; however, this understanding may be incomplete or inaccurate ( Linn et al. , 2015 ). To ensure that students understand how science generates knowledge, it is important to discuss epistemology while students engage with the process of evaluating, generating, and constructing scientific knowledge ( Sandoval, 2005 ).

Students are exposed to authentic scientific processes during UREs. Many studies have reported that participation in UREs increases student understanding of the processes of science through exposure to authentic scientific practice ( Seymour et al. , 2004 ; Thiry et al. , 2005 , 2012 ; Lopatto, 2007 ; Linn et al. , 2015 ). However, it is unclear whether these experiences help students understand the epistemic foundations of science ( Hunter et al. , 2007 ). Studies investigating the impact of UREs on the development of student epistemology present mixed results. In their review of 53 studies on UREs, Sadler et al. (2010) found that, while some studies reported that students developed an understanding of uncertainty in science and the importance of scientific discourse, other studies reported little or no change in students’ beliefs about how science constructs knowledge.

Practitioners across scientific disciplines from primary school through higher education have implemented classroom interventions to support the development of students’ science epistemologies. The effectiveness of these interventions has been measured quantitatively with Likert-style surveys and qualitatively with open-ended survey items and interviews. For example, in one intervention, undergraduate biology students engaged in analysis of published literature wherein they considered, read, elucidated hypotheses, analyzed and interpreted results, and thought of the next experiment in a process termed C.R.E.A.T.E. ( Hoskins et al. , 2011 ). In a pre–post survey assessment, students rated their own understanding about the nature of scientific knowledge significantly higher in the posttest compared with the pretest ( Hoskins et al. , 2011 ). In another intervention, pre-service elementary school teachers in a geology class participated in a science as storytelling program as a way to teach introductory science students about scientific knowledge ( Bickmore et al. , 2009 ). In this program, students treated science as a form of storytelling with rules that align with scientific practice. Students’ conceptions of science and attitudes toward science were evaluated through surveys that were supplemented by open-ended responses. These pre-service teachers exhibited a better understanding of the creative and tentative aspects of science epistemology and had better attitudes toward science at the conclusion of the course compared with the beginning ( Bickmore et al. , 2009 ). These studies demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions for improving student understanding of science epistemology, but the assessments only report the outcomes of the interventions, leaving us to ask the questions of “how” and “why” students’ epistemic understanding changed.

Several qualitative studies also point to the importance of explicitly discussing epistemology in the classroom for epistemic development. In their study of 8- to 10-year-old children, Ryu and Sandoval (2012) found that students’ epistemologies developed through collective argument, whereby students negotiated epistemic standards for acceptable justifications and appropriated these standards into their argument construction. These results parallel the critical contextual empiricism framework, which describes scientific knowledge construction as a social process whereby standards for knowledge validity are negotiated in a public forum ( Longino, 2002 ). Work by McDonald (2010) points to the importance of explicit instruction in nature of science (NoS) for supporting the development of student understanding of epistemology. During the intervention, pre-service teachers discussed and reflected upon epistemic probes, reflective prompts that directed their attention toward relevant NoS aspects of the lesson ( McDonald, 2010 ). These results suggest that metacognitive tasks such as reflection play an important role in supporting the development of student epistemologies.

Studying Biology Epistemology

The emerging epistemology research in biology education has focused on assessment of the effectiveness of teaching interventions using surveys. Student responses on surveys following the implementation of an active-learning intervention in a large classroom showed that students saw knowledge in biology as a collection of facts transferred from professor to student ( Walker et al. , 2008 ). Supporting this finding are survey results that indicated student perceptions of science epistemology became more novice-like (e.g., memorizing is a primary way of knowing) during an introductory biology class ( Semsar et al. , 2011 ). However, not all assessment of science epistemology resulted in a shift toward novice-like views. Survey results from community college students, first-year students, and advanced students in 4-year colleges exhibited enhanced understanding of science epistemology after exposure to pedagogy involving analysis of scientific literature ( Hoskins et al. , 2011 ; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013 ; Kenyon et al. , 2016 ). While these survey results present a generalized view of biology students’ epistemologies, qualitative studies present a nuanced view of epistemology that brings context into play.

Surveys inherently assume that student epistemologies exist as coherent cognitive structures that can be accessed through questioning ( Hofer, 2004 ). However, researchers have found that student epistemologies exist instead as a disparate set of resources ( Elby and Hammer, 2001 ; Hammer et al. , 2005 ) that is often tacit ( Hofer, 2004 ). Therefore, surveys, which provide limited opportunity for elaboration, may not capture the nuance and context surrounding students’ perceptions of science epistemology ( Watkins and Elby, 2013 ). Indeed, a qualitative study by Watkins and Elby (2013) focusing on one student’s interview about her views on mathematics in biology found that she held diverse, contextual views about the role of equations in understanding biology.

Qualitative studies in K–12 have made important contributions to our understanding of biology epistemology. For example, researchers who interviewed students between nine and 15 years of age about genetics found that these children’s understanding of genetics consisted of discrete, disconnected units rather than coherent frameworks organized around biological theory ( Venville et al. , 2005 ). This analysis was made possible by the authors’ attention to both the ontological (individual concepts) and epistemological (interconnectedness of the concepts) aspects of genetics understanding ( Venville et al. , 2005 ). The ways in which students unify discrete biological concepts into a coherent framework is also influenced by their learning goals. By studying discourse within a high school classroom, researchers found that students applied different biology concepts to their arguments, in some cases applying these concepts to specifically complete the task at hand (doing the lesson), while in others to gain a deeper understanding of the topic (doing science) ( Jimenez-Aleixandre et al. , 1999 ). These differences in reasoning highlight the importance of students’ goals within particular contexts and their effects on how students apply biological concepts to their epistemic thinking.

Theoretical Framework

Epistemology has been conceptualized by researchers in many different ways: as a set of developmental stages ( Perry, 1990 ; Kuhn, 1991 ; Baxter Magolda, 1992 ; King and Kitchener, 1994 ), a coherent set of beliefs ( Hofer and Pintrich, 1997 ; Schommer‐Aikins et al. , 2005 ) such as the NoS ( Lederman, 2007 ), and as a set of cognitive practices activated in specific contexts ( Louca et al. , 2004 ; Chinn et al. , 2014 ). We chose to conceptualize epistemology as a set of contextual cognitive and metacognitive practices using the epistemic thinking framework ( Barzilai and Zohar, 2014 ), given the findings that student epistemologies are context dependent.

The epistemic thinking framework separates epistemology into two aspects: epistemic cognition (thinking about information) and epistemic metacognition (thinking about knowing). The cognitive aspect is informed by the AIR model for epistemic cognition ( Chinn et al. , 2014 ), which separates epistemology into epistemic a ims, i deals, and r eliable processes to ensure these ideals have been met ( Chinn et al. , 2014 ). “Aims” refer to the objective of the cognitive task, such as determining whether information is accurate ( Chinn et al. , 2014 ). “Ideals” refer to criteria that must be met for an explanation to be accepted as knowledge, for example, ensuring the methods used were appropriate for answering the research question ( Chinn et al. , 2014 ). “Reliable processes” are cognitive practices that are used to achieve epistemic ends (i.e., knowledge or understanding), such as considering multiple perspectives before making a decision ( Chinn et al. , 2014 ). Reliable processes have also been referred to as “epistemic practices” ( Kelly, 2008 ). Taken together, the aims, ideals, and reliable processes of epistemic cognition are the ways that students gather, justify, evaluate, and construct knowledge in a particular discipline like biology.

Epistemic metacognition is an individual’s awareness of the knowledge, skills, and experiences related to that individual’s thinking and learning. Much like metacognition, epistemic metacognition is divided into three subcategories: epistemic metacognitive knowledge (EMK), individuals’ knowledge about how they and others conceptualize knowledge; epistemic metacognitive skills (EMS), the different ways people evaluate, monitor, or plan how to reach an epistemic aims/ends; and epistemic metacognitive experiences (EME), what people are aware of or feel as they are working toward an epistemic aim ( Barzilai and Zohar, 2014 ). Just as metacognition has been shown to affect the way biology students approach learning ( Stanton et al. , 2019 ), we hypothesize that epistemic metacognition will affect the way that students approach scientific knowledge. Using this theoretical framework, we aim to address the following research questions: 1) In what ways does one student’s (M.W.) participation in a biology education research URE affect her epistemic development? 2) How, if at all, are these changes manifested in her written course work?

The goal of our study was to explore M.W.’s epistemic development within the context of a BioEd URE and her biology course work. We used a case study approach combined with M.W.’s autoethnographic descriptions, which allowed us to consider M.W.’s epistemology within the context of the BioEd URE and her biology course work. Through this combination of methods, we present a description of M.W.’s epistemic development, incorporating our analysis of her course work and experiences in the BioEd URE with her own perspective of the experiences.

Study Context: The BioEd URE

M.W. joined a BioEd URE investigating undergraduate biology students’ thoughts about scientific knowledge in the Spring of 2018. In this experience, M.W. was an undergraduate researcher, D.L. was a graduate researcher, and D.D.-R. was the principal investigator. The aim of the BioED URE was to answer the research question: How do students participating in a scientific argumentation–focused introductory biology course construct arguments in a literature review compared with students participating in a lecture-based introductory biology course? As part of the BioEd URE, we collected student research papers from two sections of an introductory biology course and analyzed the papers to identify students’ arguments and reasoning to explore students’ science epistemology. M.W. took this introductory biology course and completed these research paper assignments in the Fall of 2016 and Spring of 2017.

In order for M.W. to effectively analyze the research papers for science epistemology, she needed to be well versed in epistemic theory. As such, D.D.-R. and D.L. included readings, weekly discussion, and written reflections on epistemic theory in M.W.’s BioEd URE. In particular, we assigned M.W. readings on the AIR model for epistemic cognition ( Chinn et al. , 2014 ) and the epistemic thinking framework ( Barzilai and Zohar, 2014 ). Once she was familiar with these theoretical frameworks, M.W. began analyzing participants’ scientific arguments within their course research papers. This analysis included the construction of a codebook through both emergent and a priori coding. Throughout this process, our research team held weekly meetings to discuss general research practices and engage M.W. in reflection on how the epistemic theories related to her own thoughts about scientific knowledge in the context of her experiences. The integration of reflection was informed by the work of Kalman (2007) and was included to support M.W.’s thinking about the epistemic theories we discussed. Over the course of one semester, we asked M.W. to write nine reflections. The specific prompts grew out of the discussions about science epistemology during our lab meetings. In her second reflection, M.W. writes:

When I started this project, the whole idea of epistemic cognition seemed very far-fetched and abstract. I didn’t really understand how it was possible to study such internal thoughts of other people by simply reading their papers. This is still a challenge for me now because I find it hard to put myself in others’ shoes and try to understand their intentions when writing these papers. How can we really find out the truth about how “people know what they know?” This question still stumps me.

When [D.D.-R.] asked me about how I was reacting to trying to understand our research, I told him it was making me second guess my past writing. For example, do I really blindly trust all scientific sources on the internet simply because they are published? And even if and when I do this, does it actually affect my writing on a deeper level?

I decided to skim through my own biology lab [research] papers from last year to see how my own writing compares to the papers that we have been reading and coding thus far. One thing that I noticed about my papers was that I explained a lot of the background information in my own words and used a citation at the end of the paragraph that supported my explanation of the scientific mechanisms. For example, I wrote down the process of the cell cycle and explained it in my own words, then searched for a source that re-iterated what I said in my paper.

These insightful reflections on her own epistemology led us to reorient our research lens onto M.W.’s epistemic development. Consequently, her written reflections became an important part of the data set for the present study.

In addition to carefully designing training around epistemic theories for M.W., we (D.D.-R. and D.L.) also strove to create a community where M.W. felt comfortable challenging our interpretations, which was important to maintaining research quality for the original BioEd URE study. To create this community, we mirrored the four norms of an ideal scientific community outlined by Longino (2002) in her description of critical contextual empiricism:

• Providing venues for criticism gives researchers a place to critique ideas so that only the most well-supported ideas are accepted as knowledge.
• Uptaking criticism allows researchers to evaluate ideas based on criticism and make changes to these ideas when appropriate.
• Recognizing public standards and using these standards to evaluate ideas helps a community maintain the quality of its knowledge.
• Maintaining tempered intellectual equality ensures that voices within the community are heard, while ensuring that the influence of the voices are tempered by each individual’s expertise.

We provided a venue for criticism of ideas in the form of research meetings, where we modeled the uptake of criticism and how to make appropriate changes to data interpretations in response to that criticism. During these research meetings, we also discussed the public standards of research quality in the context of both quantitative biology research and qualitative biology education research. We maintained tempered intellectual equality by considering all ideas presented and explaining our reasoning and theoretical justification when necessary.

All of the aspects described, including the specific training on epistemic theories and the community mirroring Longino’s (2002) four norms, are part of the context under which we (all authors) seek to understand M.W.’s epistemic development. The other part of the context that undergirds M.W.’s BioEd URE experiences is her progression through her biology course work, which is briefly mentioned by M.W. herself in the quote presented earlier. We will provide more details about these courses and the research papers she writes in later sections.

Research Quality Framework

The quality framework (Q3) developed in engineering education ( Walther et al. , 2013 ; Sochacka et al. , 2018 ) provided the language to describe and guide our thinking on key research quality issues throughout our data collection and analysis for our case study. Q3 separates interpretive research quality issues into six constructs: theoretical, procedural, communicative, pragmatic, and ethical validity, and process reliability ( Table 1 ).

The Q3 research quality framework

Ethical validation was an especially important aspect of this study because of the inclusion of M.W. as a researcher/participant. The guiding questions presented by Sochacka et al. (2018) shaped our thinking on how to equitably engage M.W. as a researcher, ensure that our analysis did justice to her lived experience, and temper our own biases so that they did not unduly influence M.W. or the interpretations we present. We will use the language described in Table 1 to discuss other affordances and challenges to the aspects of research quality throughout this paper.

Participant as Researcher

Given the nature of this study and to ensure that M.W.’s voice was appropriately represented, the BioEd URE research team (D.D.-R., D.L., and M.W.) contacted their local Institutional Review Board (IRB) for guidance. Following an IRB-approved procedure, M.W. provided written consent to be identified as a researcher participant (IRB approval no. 2016-244). As an identified researcher participant, M.W. contributes her insights throughout this paper, displayed in italics. To address the quality aspects of communicative and theoretical validation, and to ensure that her voice is preserved, we elected to keep her commentary separate rather than incorporating her comments into the narrative of the paper. As such, “we” represents the combined voices of D.L., D.D.-R., C.K., and C.F. This way, readers can differentiate between the researchers’ analyses and can experience M.W.’s self-analysis in her own words. As a part of ethical validity, each author is referred to by initials in this paper to maintain intellectual equality among the researchers. Each researcher’s involvement in the project is described in Table 2 .

Description of researcher roles on project

Participant Description

At the time of the study, I was a sophomore microbiology major and sociology minor. I was also an honors college student, taking honors biology and chemistry courses at Clemson University. Due to my microbiology major, I took very specific courses on microbes, but also took broader biology courses such as cell biology and immunology. My sociology minor allowed me to take classes about social topics like deviance, drug abuse, and the family. I was not interested in sociology until I came to Clemson and took an introductory sociology class to fulfill a requirement, which inspired me to take more classes. This interest in sociology broadened my interests to include social science in addition to my traditional “hard” science classes (i.e. biology and chemistry).

I previously participated in undergraduate research my freshman year. I worked in a life sciences lab and learned basic skills, such as how to grow cells in culture and count cells accurately, in order to design and implement my own experiment. The experiment I worked on consisted of investigating the effects of fruit and vegetable extracts on cancerous cells. Additionally, I was a biology peer mentor for the first semester of my sophomore year, which introduced me to the Engineering and Science Education department. I then joined this project [BioEd URE] and participated in another form of undergraduate research. In some ways, I am a typical microbiology major: I am on the pre-med track and interested in the public health side of microbiology. However, my interest in sociology makes me different from others in my major because these subjects don’t always cross paths past the introductory sociology requirement. Also, I worked with students as an Orientation Ambassador and a biology peer mentor, so I am interested in learning more about the education aspect of biology and learning more about how students like myself learn about biology.

Participant Curricula during the BioEd URE

In addition to the general participant description M.W. provided, we further contextualize her experience by describing some of the course work she completed concurrently with the BioEd URE. M.W. participated in the BioED URE for one semester and was not able to continue the project because of curricular and time constraints. During the BioEd URE semester, M.W. was enrolled in 11 credits of science courses, a 3-credit psychology course, a 3-credit science writing course, and the 2-credit BioEd URE, for a total of 19 credits.

The science writing course likely affected M.W.’s writing skills, so we present some details about this course, beginning with the course description.

[This Science Writing Course] introduces students to the study and practice of professional scientific communication through the analysis of and writing of the major genres in the discipline. It focuses on the principles, strategies, and styles of scientific argumentation and audience adaptation in written media. It is designed for students in the sciences.

As part of the course, M.W. completed a literature review paper. We present the rubric for the literature review assignment in Appendix C in the Supplemental Material. In particular, criteria 4 and 7, emphasizing synthesis of research articles and constructing your own conclusions could have been influential in M.W.’s writing for the literature review assignment.

Research Design

The contextual nature of epistemic cognition ( Hammer et al. , 2005 ; Watkins and Elby, 2013 ; Chinn et al. , 2014 ) compelled us to study M.W.’s science epistemology in context. Given our focus on context, we chose to construct a case study that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” ( Yin, 2018 , p. 15). Aligning our study with a case study approach also provided a means to ensure procedural validity through the general methodology provided by this approach. A case study approach is a flexible methodology that can accommodate a variety of data sources ( Baxter and Jack, 2008 ), which allows us to leverage research papers and written reflections generated by M.W. to produce a thick description of her case. These descriptions allow researchers to answer “how” and “why” questions about phenomena over which they have little or no control ( Yin, 2018 ), such as how or why student epistemologies developed in response to an intervention. In fact, case study methodology has been used by researchers to study science identity ( Tan and Barton, 2008a , b ) and science epistemology ( Watkins and Elby, 2013 ).

Despite the benefits of case studies, some researchers express concerns around the scope, rigor, and generalizability of the results. Case studies generate a vast pool of data, which may tempt researchers to answer questions that are too broad. To address this constraint, it is important that case studies are bound by time, place, or context ( Stake, 2006 ; Creswell, 2012 ; Yin, 2018 ) and that the researchers define the unit of analysis to focus on salient parts of the data ( Baxter and Jack, 2008 ). This case study is bound by time and context. The analysis is bounded by time in the sense that the analysis focused on the time M.W. spent as a researcher in the BioEd URE. To provide more context about the development of her thinking about scientific knowledge, we also analyzed assignments she completed 1 year before the BioEd URE (research papers she had previously written), and one semester after the BioEd URE (a reflection she wrote about the BioEd URE after the experience had concluded). The unit of analysis is M.W. herself. Finally, case studies “are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes” ( Yin, 2018 , p. 20). In other words, our case study results can be used to expand epistemic theory, but not to extrapolate the behavior of students outside our case. To consider the case in light of other students, Stake (2000) suggests that researchers “describe the cases in sufficient descriptive narrative so that readers can vicariously experience these happenings and draw conclusions (which may differ from those of the researchers)” (p. 439). To ensure the transferability of our case study to other contexts, we provide descriptions that faithfully represent M.W.’s lived experience. To ensure the authentic representation of M.W.’s lived experience, we combined our case study approach with elements of an autoethnography.

Autoethnography is a research approach that combines elements from autobiography and ethnography, allowing researchers to explore a cultural phenomenon through their own personal experiences ( Ellis et al. , 2011 ; Hughes et al. , 2012 ). Autobiography describes events that led to significant change in the author’s life, and ethnography explains how engagement with a culture made these moments of change possible ( Ellis et al. , 2011 ). Within autoethnography, it is important that the personal experiences, thoughts, and actions are documented and made visible for analysis. Additionally, it is important that the researcher moves from experience-near (their own experiences) to experience-far (larger cultural relevance) throughout data collection and analysis. There are multiple approaches that can be used to support this process. For this work, we used M.W.’s responses to the URE reflection prompts and our research team discussions. These data were analyzed by experts within the theoretical space. The reflection prompts and research team discussions supported M.W.’s documentation of her own personal experiences, thoughts, and actions, making them visible for analysis and providing her with the space to consider her own context. D.L. and D.D.-R. developed the reflection prompts and participated in the research team discussions, providing a means to support the process of going from experience-near to experience-far. Specifically, they were able to ask additional questions of M.W., allowing further exploration of specific experiences, and they were also able to guide her developing understanding of epistemic theories, allowing M.W. to participate in the process of analyzing her own experience and reflect specifically on her developing epistemic cognition. Much of the initial data analysis was conducted by D.D.-R. and D.L. because of their expertise and understanding of epistemic cognition; however, M.W. was actively engaged in data analysis through extensive member-checking, reviewing, and providing feedback on D.D.-R. and D.L.’s analysis. This process ensured that the outcomes of this work provide an authentic representation of M.W.’s experience and go beyond M.W.’s own experience to make larger statements on the general cultural phenomenon of developing students’ epistemic cognition. It is through the combination of our case study analysis perspective and M.W.’s autoethnographic lens that we seek to explore how M.W.’s engagement in this biology education URE affected her science epistemology.

Qualitative Data Selection

This study grew from discussions with M.W. during her experience with the BioEd URE. Consequently, the data we analyzed were not so much collected, but selected from assignments that M.W. completed during her time as a researcher in the BioEd URE. The data for this study consisted of three papers M.W. wrote for course work and reflections she wrote during the BioEd URE ( Figure 1 ). M.W. wrote the first two papers for an introductory biology class during her first year (academic year 2016–2017): one in the Fall semester and the other in the Spring semester. Both papers were literature reviews on a scientific issue related to biology, referencing peer-reviewed journal articles. The instructions for the assignments were identical, except that students were asked to include an ethics section in the paper in the Spring semester. The rubric for the biology literature review papers can be found in Appendix B in the Supplemental Material. We selected M.W.’s two introductory biology papers because they were part of the data set for the BioEd URE. As we describe in the Results , M.W. had begun a self-analysis of her science epistemology of her own accord, starting with these two papers. It was this self-analysis that inspired the development of the present case study. M.W. wrote the third paper for a science writing course in her sophomore year. This assignment was also a literature review on a scientific subject, and M.W. chose to write the paper on a subject related to biology. We included this paper in the case study, because it provided an opportunity to explore M.W.’s epistemology in a similar context: through her scientific writing in a literature review.

Timeline showing the sequence of M.W.’s courses, the three course research papers, her BioEd URE, the autoethnographic study, and the 10 written reflections. M.W. wrote her first two research papers in an introductory biology class in Fall and Spring semesters of 2016-17. She wrote her third paper in a science writing course in Spring 2018 while she was concurrently participating in the BioEd URE. The autoethnographic study, looking back on her experiences in her science courses and during the BioEd URE, occurred during the Fall.

M.W. wrote a total of 10 reflections, nine written during the URE and the 10th during the Fall semester of her junior year ( Figure 1 and Table 4 ). The nine reflection prompts during the URE were all derived from discussions we had with M.W. during research meetings. The 10th reflection asked M.W. to reflect on her epistemic growth by asking her whether or not she believed she could write a paper of the same quality as her third literature review paper as a first-year student, and if there was anything she would change about the papers she wrote for her introductory biology class. The topic of each of the reflections is stated in Appendix A in the Supplemental Material. No guidance was given on format or length, but M.W. generally kept reflections to one typed page, single-spaced.

BioEd URE reflection questions

Qualitative Data Analysis

In the present case study, we analyzed M.W.’s three research papers and the 10 reflections she wrote in connection to the BioEd URE ( Figure 2 ). M.W.’s research papers were analyzed for empirical evidence of changes in her science epistemology. Her reflections were analyzed to determine what aspects of her education, which included the BioEd URE, were influential in the development of her science epistemology. Analyses of M.W.’s research papers and reflections were summarized in two analysis memos: one for her research papers and one for her reflections ( Figure 2 ). All data were consensus coded by D.L. and D.D.-R. by first coding the data separately, then meeting to discuss code definitions and meanings. They reconciled disagreements through discussion, applying codes that aligned best with the data.

Summary of analysis. M.W. (Author 2) helped to refine the themes and case descriptions by leveraging her autoethnographic descriptions. C.K. (Author 4) provided a perspective on the analysis that was further removed from the data. D.L. (Author 1) and D.D.-R. (Author 5) were involved throughout the analysis process.

Analysis of the three research papers focused on the claims M.W. presented, the data she used to support the claims, and the warrants that explained the connections between her claims and her data, as described by the Toulmin argument pattern (TAP; Toulmin, 2003 ). We view argument as an epistemic practice, a means by which knowledge is justified ( Kuhn, 1991 ; Kelly, 2008 ). As such, the kinds of data and warrants M.W. employed to support her claims give valuable insight into the ways she thought about knowledge in science. Analysis of M.W.’s research papers began with a read-through to get a feel for the data, followed by coding of the reference section. The coding pair identified arguments using TAP, noting connections between argument structures and/or identifying an overarching argument, if present. These identified arguments were coded, taking into account the kinds of sources M.W. used as data, the ways in which she described the data from the sources, and how she used the data to support her hypothesis. For example, where M.W. restated the conclusions from a particular source, we coded these excerpts as “reporting.” In contrast, where M.W. used data from multiple sources to construct an assertion not found in those sources, we labeled these excerpts as “synthesis.” Once coding was complete, an analysis memo was written to integrate meaning-making from the paper analysis. More details about the analysis memos are provided at the end of this section.

Analysis of M.W.’s reflections focused on her epistemic thinking. Like the research paper, analysis of these data began with a read-through to familiarize ourselves with the data. We then analyzed the data by identifying excerpts related to the epistemic thinking framework ( Barzilai and Zohar, 2014 ). Leveraging the epistemic thinking framework in our coding helped us to identify excerpts that demonstrated M.W.’s EMK about science, and the EMS she used to develop this knowledge. D.L. and D.D.-R. initially planned to code the reflections similarly to the paper analysis, but the first attempts at coding made it evident that deconstruction of the data into constituent parts left many of the details of M.W.’s epistemic development undescribed. To address this challenge to theoretical validity, D.L. and D.D.-R. shifted their approach to one informed by narrative analysis, which allowed them to consider the reflections as a coherent whole ( Polkinghorne, 1995 ). The identified excerpts were grouped in chronological order, and a narrative was written in the form of an analysis memo, using the excerpts from M.W.’s reflections as a framework.

The analysis of the research papers was also summarized in separate analysis memos that were coconstructed by the coders. Both analysis memos included a descriptive representation of the data followed by a summary of salient interpretations emerging from the analysis ( Lee et al. , 2019 ). The analysis memos were written by either D.L. or D.D.-R. Once the analysis memos were drafted, D.L. and D.D.-R. reviewed and revised them until consensus was reached. To enhance theoretical validity, a third researcher, C.K., who did not code the data, critiqued the data and analysis memos written by the coding team by looking for data that contrasted with conclusions drawn by D.L. and D.D.-R. C.K., D.L., and D.D.-R. discussed any disagreements until they reached consensus; then the analysis memos were finalized.

Theme and Narrative Construction

Once the two the analysis memos were finalized, D.L. and D.D.-R. read through them to integrate the paper analysis with the reflection analysis. They then individually generated a list of themes and met to discuss each theme to decide if the themes were salient or should be combined. Once they reached consensus, D.L. and D.D.-R. wrote descriptions of each tentative theme. The themes served as the principal components that facilitated the retelling of how M.W.’s science epistemology developed during her time spent participating in the BioEd URE. At this point, C.K. critiqued the theme descriptions and the narrative, attempting once again to disconfirm each theme. C.K., D.L., and D.D.-R. discussed any disagreements on the theme descriptions and narrative until they reached consensus, then revised the narrative as necessary. Once finished, the theme descriptions and narrative were presented to M.W., who refined the narrative through her autoethnographic lens. M.W. wrote responses to each theme, highlighting points of agreement and disagreement, drawing from her own experience to provide evidence for her claims. The research team (including M.W.) then met to resolve any disagreements and revise the narrative ( Figure 2 ).

Through our analysis of M.W.’s papers and reflections, we tell the story of M.W.’s developing science epistemology, which resulted in her development of agency toward constructing scientific knowledge. The diversity of artifacts that we collected allowed us to assess M.W.’s epistemic practices. The research papers we collected illustrate M.W.’s use of epistemic practices in the context of her classroom experiences ( Table 3 ). It is clear from her research papers that M.W. shifted from listing facts from instructors and peer-reviewed sources to building reasoned arguments of her own making between papers she wrote before and during the research experience.

Research paper analysis summary

From the analysis of her research papers, it is not clear why M.W. shifted her approach from reporting information to knowledge construction. However, M.W. reveals the reasons for the changes in her biology epistemology through her written reflections. Furthermore, her self-analysis of the data we collected filled many of the gaps left from our analysis. For this reason, we focus our efforts in this paper on the reflections M.W. wrote during the BioEd URE. In the following sections, we tell the story of M.W.’s development of science epistemology through the reflections she wrote during the BioEd URE. We support this narrative with selections from M.W.’s responses to our analysis, presented in italicized text . Through the chronological analysis of M.W.’s reflections, we found that her epistemic development occurred through three distinct steps. First, M.W. realized that her thoughts about knowledge differed between contexts. The realization that her epistemology was situated and differed between contexts allowed her to reflect on her perceptions about her role as someone who could challenge published claims in the context of the BioEd URE. M.W.’s reflections about her ability to challenge published claims influenced her development of agency toward scientific knowledge production. We describe each component of the narrative in greater detail in the following sections.

M.W.’s Thoughts about Knowledge Differ between Contexts

Previous work has found that individuals’ thoughts about knowledge is contextual ( Louca et al. , 2004 ; Chinn et al. , 2014 ), so we begin our description of M.W.’s epistemic practices with a discussion about the contexts in which she places her epistemology. Through her first two reflections, M.W. describes three contexts in which she interacted with knowledge from her own perspective: during an undergraduate science class, while thinking about sociocultural issues, and while citing scientific papers. Upon reflecting on these contexts, M.W. explains how she views and interacts with knowledge within these contexts. At the beginning of the BioEd URE, M.W. makes a clear delineation between her thinking in science class and with sociocultural issues such as making decisions about universal healthcare. Her first written reflection reveals diverging ideas about how she determines what is correct in classroom and sociocultural contexts.

My aim or goal in [STEM] class is to get a good grade so that I can get into a top graduate school program. I determine what is right in class by what my professor says. If he teaches a topic a certain way, I assume that he is right because he is the one that will end up grading my papers.

[…] My aim when evaluating our healthcare system is to learn the truth so that I can make an educated decision on whether I support or do not support universal health care. I want to make an educated decision, rather than just going along with what my friends or family believes.—Reflection 1

These excerpts reveal M.W.’s classroom aim of “getting a good grade” in a STEM class context, and her sociocultural aim to “learn the truth” in the context of making decisions about healthcare policy. She describes a difference in decision making between the two contexts: she defers to the instructor in STEM class but makes her own educated decision when talking about healthcare policy.

In her second reflection, M.W. analyzes her own research papers ( Table 3 ) and reflects on her thinking. We did not ask M.W. to analyze her own research papers as part of the reflection; she decided to do this on her own. The following excerpt is a part of this self-analysis.

I fell into the routine of almost paraphrasing what the articles said, rather than interpreting them myself. I think that I do this because I trust the publications, and since I didn’t do the trials or research on my own, I don’t feel like I am in a position to challenge their claims.—Reflection 2

Through her self-analysis, M.W. finds that she does not feel like she is “in a position to challenge” claims made by researchers, because she “didn’t do the trials or research on my own.” Her perception that she cannot challenge the claims made in publications occurs within a third context, where M.W. feels she is only able to question claims if she was involved in data collection or analysis.

M.W.’s Perception of Her Own Place in Challenging Research Claims Changed during the BioEd URE

During the BioEd URE, we provided M.W. with activities explicitly designed to increase her willingness to challenge scientific claims. We contend that these activities influenced M.W.’s willingness to challenge claims made by scientists. For example, 1 week after we assigned Reflection 2, we discussed the issue of underdetermination, the idea that multiple interpretations can be drawn from the same body of evidence. We used this discussion to stress to M.W. the importance of considering multiple interpretations and forming her own conclusions, even if they differed from ours. Following this discussion, we asked M.W. to find a published journal article and summarize it in a written reflection so that she could practice interpreting data and forming her own conclusions. M.W. read the article she chose with a critical eye.

My issue with this article was that the abstract presented the findings in a confusing way so that after I finished reading the article, I felt like the authors had lied to me. The abstract states, “results indicate that the presentation of controversial topics, particularly evolution, in the context of public health could be used to encourage public acceptance of scientific viewpoints.” However, the discussion/conclusion talks about how the study showed no support of the student’s acceptance of global warming being influenced by evidence-based explanations. The study did show a significant change in the student’s opinions on evolution, but not on global warming. Therefore, the wording of the abstract is misleading because it implies that their theory can be applied to many topics or on a larger scale; this is not necessarily true.—Reflection 3

This excerpt demonstrates M.W.’s ability to critique the claims of researchers and her willingness to do so in the context of the BioEd URE. It was interesting to find M.W. critiquing the claims made by authors of her selected article because of the statements she made in Reflection 2: “I trust the publications, and since I didn’t do the trials or research on my own, I don’t feel like I am in a position to challenge their claims.” The short time between Reflection 2 and Reflection 3 (12 days) suggests that M.W. already possessed the skills to critique scientific literature but did not feel that it was proper for her to form her own conclusions in specific contexts. In the following extract, M.W. explains why she was able to challenge the conclusions made in the published article. The excerpt is M.W.’s self-analysis of her own work, so it is presented in italics.

In the context of the reflection, I was able to challenge the paper because it was my own reflection, there was not a right or wrong answer, and it was solely my opinion. Just like determining my stance on healthcare, it was a place for me to determine my own opinion. In STEM class, there is no room to decide what I think is right or wrong, the subject requires me to learn the processes and present it on the test.

M.W. explains in this self-analysis that the difference in context between the reflection and STEM class facilitated her willingness to challenge claims made in a published journal article. However, there is also evidence that her willingness to challenge scientific claims made in published literature transferred to the paper she wrote in her science writing course (Paper 3). In the following excerpt, M.W. critiques the claims made in a paper describing antibiotic treatment regimen.

One newly developed antibiotic treatment developed in 2000 is called sequential therapy. This therapy treatment includes a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin for 5 days, as well as a PPI, clarithromycin, and tinidazole triple therapy for an additional 5 days. This treatment method was found to have a higher eradication rate than the standard triple therapy described previously. This higher rate was contributed to the decreasing H. pylori density in the stomach and corresponding increase in the effectiveness of the antibiotics clarithromycin and metronidazole. 16 However, these studies fail to investigate whether the improvement in the eradication rate is due to the sequential therapy or the increased amount of antibiotic use.—Paper 3

As in her first and second research papers, M.W. cites scientific journal articles to support her claims. However, unlike in her first two papers, M.W. qualifies data presented by the cited study, pointing out her own interpretation that the studies failed to determine whether the eradication rate was due to sequential therapy or a higher dosage of antibiotic. Her critique suggests that M.W. embodied an additional role in Paper 3 that we had not seen in our analysis of Papers 1 or 2: the role of not just a reporter of scientific information but also that of a science critic.

M.W.’s science epistemology continues to evolve during the BioEd URE, and she discusses these changes throughout Reflections 5–9. However, she most clearly articulates how the BioEd URE influenced her epistemology in her final reflection. Because the final reflection was written a semester after the experience, M.W. has had time to reflect upon her experience during the BioEd URE.

I also think that this research project has expanded my outlook on the science field because I see how there are many variables that play into science and it’s not always straightforward and black and white. Science is more than just numbers and data; you have to interpret that data and draw patterns from the articles that you read.—Reflection 10

The final sentence in this excerpt reflects the changes we see between the papers M.W. wrote before the research experience and the paper she wrote during the URE. M.W. states that science knowledge is not only data reporting, but also includes interpretation and the drawing of her own conclusions. Later in the reflection, M.W. discusses her past self and compares what she thought about science as a freshman to how she now thinks about science.

I think as a freshman, I assumed that you were not “allowed” or that it wasn’t science if I took a stance in one direction over the other. I definitely held back my opinion in the paper because I thought that it wouldn’t be right to put what I believed in the paper because it would seem too biased. Now I know that it’s okay to put your stance in a paper, as long as you can back it up with evidence while still acknowledging the limitations of your ideas. I learned that science is a lot trickier than I originally thought because you do want to present truthful information, but you can still put what you believe based on drawing real conclusions from your own research.—Reflection 10

While a first-year student, she felt that she was not supposed to take a stance in science, but she now believes that she can present beliefs as long as they are supported by evidence. We interpret “opinion” “belief” and “stance” in this excerpt as M.W.’s own conclusions drawn from the data she presents.

M.W. Develops Agency toward Scientific Knowledge Construction during the BioED URE

M.W.’s realization that science requires interpretation of data, coupled with her comments about not having room to decide what is right or wrong in her STEM class and holding back her opinion in her papers, shows that she did not feel that it was proper for her to construct knowledge in the context of a classroom. However, her critique of the research paper in Reflection 3 and the shift in her writing style in Paper 3 led us to believe M.W. developed agency toward knowledge construction during the BioED URE. We define agency as an individual’s perceived capacity to act and make choices independently within a specific structure ( Archer, 2002 ). In our case, the structure refers to constructing knowledge in the discipline of biology. However, because agency is a concept that focuses on an individual’s perceived capacity to act with intentionality ( Archer, 2002 ), it is not possible for us, as researchers outside M.W.’s mind, to draw concrete conclusions about her agency. Therefore, we explained the concept of agency to M.W. and asked her to respond to our interpretation. M.W. explains how participation in the URE affected her agency toward forming her own conclusions in her response to our analysis.

This URE taught me what agency is and how agency is valuable in the scientific world. That’s why my reflections show how I started to see how science is not just the statement and summarization of data, but the interpretation of results. This URE taught me that my ideas and my opinions matter, as long as I back up my interpretation with data, I have the ability to make my own conclusions. Although I still feel like being an undergraduate student comes with hesitation from others to accept the conclusions I make, I am confident in my ability to make those conclusions on my own. If I had not been assigned to read and reflect on the research article that I found to be misleading or be encouraged to critique articles that I read, I do not believe that I would have developed agency in my scientific writing.

Through M.W.’s response, we conclude that one of her reasons for interpreting and drawing conclusions from published data is because she feels that she has the capacity to do so. She feels that she has the agency to make independent conclusions from published data. Upon review of our analysis, M.W. wrote the following response, summarizing her views about her feelings of agency in her classes and the BioEd URE.

Having agency matters to me in determining my stance on health care because it’s a topic that is going to stick with me for the rest of my life. My understanding of STEM really only matters to the extent that I understand it enough for the test in my class. Therefore, whether or not I had agency in the context of the STEM classroom did not seem important to my learning at the time I wrote the reflection because I was just trying to earn a good grade in the course. When I read the article that I was assigned to write a reflection on, I honestly remember being annoyed with the author. The abstract was misleading; I read through the paper and felt that the abstract made a way too broad, overarching claim that I did not feel was completely supported in their research.

In her response, M.W. revisits her first reflection, commenting on how the different STEM classroom and healthcare contexts influenced her scientific agency. Forming her own conclusions was not an important goal in the STEM class, as the assessments only considered the instructor’s information as knowledge. As such, whether or not M.W. felt the agency to construct her own conclusions was moot, because her goal was non-epistemic: “to earn a good grade in the course.” She contrasts the STEM course structure with the paper critique during the BioEd URE, where she felt there was a space for her to construct her own opinion. Critiquing the paper resulted in an emotional response wherein she felt frustrated with the conclusions drawn by the authors. This emotion is important, as it can serve as motivation, in M.W.’s case, to challenge the claims of others. This experience seems to have transferred to M.W.’s writing in Paper 3, where she challenges the conclusions of one of her sources.

In this paper, we analyze one student’s biology literature reviews from three classes and written reflections to determine how she thinks about the nature of biology knowledge and its construction before and during participation in a BioEd URE. This analysis is supplemented by the student researcher, M.W., who describes her experience through an autoethnographic lens. Analysis of M.W.’s reflections and classroom papers suggests that she came to realize that she could critique knowledge produced by science experts, which led to the development of her agency toward scientific knowledge production.

Reflexivity Helped M.W. Refine Her Thoughts about Biology Knowledge Construction and Develop Scientific Agency

M.W.’s written reflections give us insight into her reflexivity, defined as the internal conversation that helps an individual to evaluate and re-evaluate their actions and decisions ( Archer, 2012 ). For example, in Reflection 4, M.W. felt that she was making things up, describing her problem-solving process as “fake chemistry,” but while re-examining her actions, realized that she solved the chemistry problem by applying prior knowledge to a new context. Through the BioEd URE and other experiences, M.W. gained an awareness about her own ability to apply concepts to challenge questions. M.W.’s examination of her own actions resulted in a change in her thinking about how she constructs solutions to problems, a hallmark of reflexivity ( Archer, 2010 ; Weinstock et al. , 2017 ).

Participating in research experiences has been shown to enhance scientific agency and project ownership ( Hester et al. , 2018 ), but less is known about how that agency develops during the experience. By making her reflexive practice explicit, M.W. helped to fill this gap by providing insight into how her scientific agency developed over the course of the BioEd URE. It is evident from M.W.’s third reflection that asking her to critique a scientific journal article was an important part of her scientific agency development. However, for her to develop scientific agency, M.W. had to first recognize how she thought about scientific knowledge and that she thought about scientific knowledge differently between contexts. In using reflexivity to examine these contexts, M.W. found that she felt little agency toward constructing knowledge in her STEM course, because in that context, the instructor decides what counts as knowledge. However, in the context of the BioEd URE, M.W. felt that her own ideas could count as knowledge, so long as she could support her ideas with evidence. We hypothesize that the structure of the training for the BioEd URE contributed to the development of M.W.’s agency toward scientific knowledge construction. Other researchers have also found differences between students’ views of knowledge within their courses and research experiences ( Faber et al. , 2016 ; Faber and Benson, 2017 ).

Possible Influences the BioEd URE Structure Had on M.W.’s Feelings of Agency toward Scientific Knowledge Construction

While M.W.’s reflections were an important part of the development of her agency, it is important to remember that the reflections were embedded within the structure we provided in the BioEd URE that was designed to help M.W. explore ways of knowing in science while embodying the role of a knowledge builder. We cannot definitively say what aspects of the BioEd URE or other educational experiences were integral for M.W.’s development of science agency. However, the development of M.W.’s feelings of agency toward scientific knowledge production could be explained through the interaction between structure and agency. Structure refers the roles that are made available to agents and the systems that maintain these roles ( Case, 2013 ), which influence the kinds of intentional actions that individuals can take ( Akram, 2013 ). The venue we provided for M.W. to share her conclusions for critique provided a role for M.W. that included agency as a fellow knowledge builder ( Longino, 2002 ). However, her conceptualization of her STEM course only provided M.W. with the role of an information gatherer. As a result, whether or not M.W. felt a sense of scientific agency was not important, because the perceived structure of the STEM class did not provide a space for M.W.’s intentional knowledge-building actions. These two examples illustrate the important role that structure plays in the development of scientific agency ( Case, 2013 ; Schenkel et al. , 2019 ).

Our results suggest that the structure that we provided during the BioEd URE played a role in the development of M.W.’s scientific agency, along with her other educational experiences. We designed our BioEd URE to ensure that the structure provided a space where M.W. could develop a feeling of scientific agency. As discussed in the overview of the URE, the design of the experience incorporated the four norms of scientific knowledge production outlined by Longino (2002) . Ensuring that M.W. felt tempered intellectual equality in the venues that we provided for critique presented M.W. with a space where she could act intentionally to construct knowledge. Furthermore, our explicit discussions about discipline-specific epistemology helped to outline the public standards of quality in the context of biology and education research, which gave M.W. the tools to evaluate her own claims.

An important part of the structure was the assignment that required M.W. to critique a published journal article. This assignment helped M.W. realize that she is allowed to critique published knowledge and that she is not required to blindly trust published information. This realization strengthened her role in science knowledge production and led to her feeling more like an agent in the production of scientific knowledge. In her response to our analysis, M.W. explicitly stated: “If I had not been assigned to read and reflect on the research article that I found to be misleading or be encouraged to critique articles that I read, I do not believe that I would have developed agency in my scientific writing.”

Another important aspect of the BioEd URE structure was the assignment of written reflections, which facilitated her reflexivity. The reflection prompts grew out of discussions in analysis meetings during the BioEd URE. For example, Reflection 3 came from a discussion about M.W.’s perception that she was not in a position to challenge the claims made by researchers. In that discussion, D.L. and D.D.-R. established the importance of M.W.’s independent analysis in the context of the BioEd URE. In doing so, D.L. and D.D.-R. established a norm for the knowledge (epistemic) culture ( Knorr-Cetina, 1999 ) of the BioEd URE. M.W. internalizes this norm in her responses to our analysis, noting that, in this URE, “my ideas and my opinions matter, as long as I back up my interpretation with data.” In Reflection 10, M.W. incorporates this epistemic norm into her EMK about science knowledge, saying: “Science is more than just numbers and data, you have to interpret that data and draw patterns from the articles that you read.” This refined idea about scientific knowledge construction helped to form M.W.’s agency toward scientific knowledge construction, because it established her role as an active agent in the interpretation of scientific data and the construction of scientific knowledge.

This paper expands on research that explores the connection between epistemic thinking and researcher identity formation in undergraduate engineering students. Much like M.W.’s experience, the work in engineering found that participants formed their ideas about knowledge generation through reflexivity. Participants compared their newly formed ideas to their own research actions and social interactions, influencing their researcher identities ( Faber et al. , 2019 ). While our paper does not explicitly ask questions about identity, the emergence of agency in our thematic analysis makes this discussion relevant, because identity is deeply interwoven with agency. An individual’s sense of self (identity) has been shown to dictate the intentional actions taken (agency) in a given context ( Archer, 2002 ). Epistemic discussions during the URE helped M.W. form her EMK about knowledge production in the context of the BioEd URE. Specifically, M.W. constructed knowledge of herself as a knowledge producer, providing a space in which she could intentionally enact the actions of a knowledge generator. These discussions support and extend previous research showing that explicit instruction on science epistemology enhances students’ understanding of the NoS ( McDonald, 2010 ; Bell et al. , 2011 ).

Study Limitations

The primary limitations associated with this study are related to the study sample, data collection, and subject as researcher. It is important to note that the study we present in this paper was developed in response to interesting insights from one student participating in a BioEd URE, and thus was not planned from the beginning as a case study with autoethnographic approaches. Because this paper describes an individual student’s experience in a URE, the results should not be generalized beyond the study context. Additionally, M.W. is a high-achieving honors student and cannot be counted as representative of an “average student.” However, the combination of case study and autoethnographic approaches facilitated the construction of an in-depth description that provides an example of how a student developed her science epistemology and scientific agency. It is also important to note that the BioEd URE was intentionally designed around epistemology. As such, results from this study cannot be generalized to biology research experiences that do not include discussions around how knowledge is generated, assessed, and justified. However, there is evidence that discussion of science epistemology in the BioEd URE influenced how M.W. approached knowledge construction in her biology course work. Therefore, we believe that biology instructors and research mentors can use the general structure of our BioEd URE as an example of how epistemic discussions can be integrated into an URE.

The data we analyzed in this study were generated by M.W. for multiple classes and were not designed specifically to answer our research questions. The conclusions we draw from these data, specifically the development of her science epistemology and her feelings of scientific agency, therefore cannot be causally connected to M.W.’s participation in the BioEd URE. In particular, M.W.’s previous research experience as well as her participation in her psychology courses and the science writing course may have significantly influenced her epistemic development. Consequently, we do not claim that the BioEd URE caused M.W. to develop science epistemology or scientific agency; instead, we attribute these developments to her whole experience as an undergraduate student. Additionally, M.W.’s involvement in the URE lasted only one semester because of curricular and time constraints. If her experience had spanned several semesters, it may have influenced her overall experience and the results of this study.

Including M.W. as a researcher who used self-analysis to bring additional insights into our work helped to address both theoretical and ethical validity; however, it also brought challenges to communicative validity and process reliability. By introducing M.W. to the theoretical concepts of epistemology and agency, we introduced the possibility that her analysis would consist of what she felt we wanted to hear as researchers. With respect to our interpretation of her epistemic development, this limitation is of less concern, as she would need to be aware of and understand her own epistemology in order to tell us what we wanted to hear. Likewise with scientific agency, we cannot be certain that her increased feelings of agency are directly associated with her new understandings of science epistemology. We (D.D.-R. and D.L.) did observe M.W. exercising her scientific agency through the BioEd URE, which allows us to begin to triangulate her responses that are associated with her experience in the BioEd URE. These limitations are not unique to this work and are shared across all studies that use self-reported data to some capacity.

With that said, before asking M.W. to be a participant researcher and as part of the BioEd URE, we discussed the quality framework described in this paper and stressed the importance of presenting authentic experience as opposed to what we wanted to hear. There is also evidence in M.W.’s research papers that suggest she developed feelings of scientific agency between writing her second and third research papers. Finally, as qualitative researchers, we are at the mercy of what our study participants are willing to share. While we stress the importance of data authenticity to our participants and triangulate our interpretations among different forms of data, in the end, we must trust what our participants share on some level. M.W. has given us no reason to doubt the authenticity of her accounts.

Implications

The reflections that M.W. wrote during the BioEd URE made explicit her thinking about scientific knowledge and may have also helped her to reify her thoughts about scientific knowledge construction. For many students, their own ways of knowing are tacit ( Hofer, 2004 ), and reflective writing could be one way for students to make explicit and evaluate these ways of knowing. Scientific writing has been found to help students develop reasoning skills in both K–12 ( Tytler and Prain, 2010 ) and higher education learning environments ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ). During the BioEd URE, M.W. engaged in both scientific and reflective writing, which helped to activate her reflexivity, leading to development of her ideas about knowledge production. M.W.’s learning process mirrors the experiential learning cycle, in which learners reflectively observe (RO) concrete experiences (CE), helping them to construct abstract conceptualizations (AC) that can later be tested through active experimentation (AE) as other concrete experiences ( Kolb et al. , 2001 ). M.W.’s written reflections (RO) helped her to process her experiences (CE) during the URE. She also wrote about her initial thoughts about knowledge production (AC), which she could test during discussions with D.L. and D.D.-R. (AE). Our description of M.W.’s learning process has implications for teaching practice. While written reflection has been shown to enhance learning, our results suggest that once students have finished reflecting, educators should ensure that students are provided the opportunity to apply and test their abstract conceptualizations in new contexts. In this way, students will have opportunities to complete their learning cycles ( Kolb et al. , 2001 ).

An additional implication for teaching practice comes from M.W.’s responses to our analysis. D.L. and D.D.-R. interpreted a pattern of composing paragraphs primarily with paraphrased information (often with some inaccuracies) and concluding with a citation as indicating a lack of EMK of scientific knowledge construction and a lack of interpretation or synthesis of information. Based on M.W.’s input, it became clear that a lack of synthesis might actually be a lack of agency or the perception that student scientific agency is not valued in the classroom. Moreover, mistakes or misconceptions in scientific writing might actually indicate an attempt at synthesis. The challenge is for instructors to show students that constructing conclusions is valued as much as producing accurate descriptions of phenomena. Of course, biology educators do not want students conjuring false conclusions. As such, educators should provide venues for students to present their work for critique, so that students may discuss the accepted standards of science and acquire the cognitive tools necessary to produce accurate descriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

UREs provide opportunities for undergraduates to engage in the process of constructing scientific knowledge. Through this case study, we found that one student’s 1) thoughts about science epistemology differed between contexts, 2) perceptions of her role as a critic of published knowledge changed over the course of the study, and 3) feelings of agency toward knowledge construction developed during her time in the BioEd URE. While we cannot draw causal relationships between these claims and the BioEd URE, our analysis of reflections that M.W. wrote during the BioEd URE illustrate part of the reflexive process that facilitated M.W.’s epistemic development. Our work also reveals the importance of context, specifically the structure of the learning environment in the development of one student’s science epistemology and scientific agency.

Acknowledgments

This work was not supported financially by any funding agency. The authors would like to thank Elisabeth Schussler and Rachel McCord Ellestad for critical reading and comments on the manuscript.

• Akram, S. (2013). Fully unconscious and prone to habit: The characteristics of agency in the structure and agency dialectic . Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour , 43 ( 1 ), 45–65. 10.1111/jtsb.12002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from https://live-visionandchange.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Archer, M. (2002). Realism and the problem of agency . Alethia , 5 ( 1 ), 11–20. 10.1558/aleth.v5i1.11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Archer, M. S. (2010). Routine, reflexivity, and realism . Sociological Theory , 28 ( 3 ), 272–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflective imperative in late modernity . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking . Educational Psychologist , 49 ( 1 ). 10.1080/00461520.2013.863265 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baxter, P., Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers . Qualitative Report , 13 ( 4 ), 544–559. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 ( 4 ), 414–436. 10.1002/tea.20402 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bickmore, B. R., Thompson, K. R., Grandy, D. A., Tomlin, T. (2009). Science as storytelling for teaching the nature of science and the science-religion interface . Journal of Geoscience Education , 57 ( 3 ), 178–190. 10.5408/1.3544263 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Case, J. M. (2013). Researching student learning in higher education: A social realist approach . New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinn, C., Rinehart, R., Buckland, A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition . In Rapp, D., Braasch, J. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 425–453). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative research & design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elby, A., Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology . Science Education , 85 ( 5 ), 554–567. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview . Historical Social Research , 36 ( 4 ), 273–290. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faber, C., Benson, L. C. (2017). Engineering students’ epistemic cognition in the context of problem solving: epistemic cognition in problem solving . Journal of Engineering Education , 106 ( 4 ), 677–709. 10.1002/jee.20183 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faber, C., Vargas, P., Benson, L. (2016). Engineering students’ epistemic cognition in a research environment . International Journal of Engineering Education , 32 ( 16 ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Faber, C. J., Benson, L. C., Kajfez, R. L., Kennedy, M. S., Lee, D. M., McAlister, A. M., ... & Wu, G. (2019). Dynamics of researcher identity and epistemology: The development of a grounded-theory model . Paper presented at: American Society for Engineering Education Conference held from June 15–19, 2019 (Tampa, FL) .
• Gottesman, A. J., Hoskins, S. G. (2013). CREATE cornerstone: Introduction to scientific thinking, a new course for STEM-interested freshmen, demystifies scientific thinking through analysis of scientific literature . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 12 ( 1 ), 59–72. 10.1187/cbe.12-11-0201 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., Redish, E. F., Hammer, D., Elby, A., ... & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer . In Mestre, J. (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hester, S. D., Nadler, M., Katcher, J., Elfring, L. K., Dykstra, E., Rezende, L. F., Bolger, M. S. (2018). Authentic Inquiry through Modeling in Biology (AIM-Bio): An introductory laboratory curriculum that increases undergraduates’ scientific agency and skills . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar63. 10.1187/cbe.18-06-0090 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching . Educational Psychologist , 39 ( 1 ), 43–55. 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofer, B. K., Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning . Review of Educational Research , 67 ( 1 ), 88–140. 10.3102/00346543067001088 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoskins, S. G., Lopatto, D., Stevens, L. M. (2011). The C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates’ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefs . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 4 ), 368–378. 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes, S., Pennington, J. L., Makris, S. (2012). Translating autoethnography across the AERA standards: Toward understanding autoethnographic scholarship as empirical research . Educational Researcher , 41 ( 6 ), 209–219. 10.3102/0013189X12442983 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter, A., Laursen, S. L., Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development . Science Education , 91 ( 1 ), 36–74. 10.1002/sce [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. J., Rodriguez, A. B., Duschl, R. A. (1999). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics Science education , 84 ( 6 ), 757–792. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalman, C. S. (2007). Successful science and engineering teaching in colleges and universities . Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice . In Duschl, R., Grandy, R. (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenyon, K. L., Onorato, M. E., Gottesman, A. J., Hoque, J., Hoskins, S. G. (2016). Testing CREATE at community colleges: An examination of faculty perspectives and diverse student gains . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 1 ), 1–19. 10.1187/cbe.15-07-0146 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and future directions . In Sternberg, R. J., Zhang, L.-F. (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 227–247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future . In Abell, S. K.., Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education . New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, D. M., McAlister, A. M., Ehlert, K., Faber, C. J., Kajfez, R. L., Creamer, E., Kennedy, M. S. (2019). The use of analytical memo writing in a mixed methods grounded theory study . Paper presented at: Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference held from October 16–19, 2019 (Cincinnati, OH) .
• Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities . Science , 347 ( 6222 ), 1261757–1261757. 10.1126/science.1261757 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings . Cell Biology Education , 3 ( 4 ), 270–277. 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 6 , 297–306. 10.1187/cbe.07 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction . Educational Psychologist , 39 ( 1 ), 57–68. 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 ( 9 ), 1137–1164. 10.1002/tea.20377 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 24622). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 10.17226/24622 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8 . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, W. G. (1990). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 8 ( 1 ), 5–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quitadamo, I. J., Kurtz, M. J. (2007). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 6 , 140–154. 10.1187/cbe.06 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryu, S., Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation . Science Education , 96 ( 3 ), 488–526. 10.1002/sce.21006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature . Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching , 47 ( 3 ), 235–256. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry . Science Education , 89 ( 4 ), 634–656. 10.1002/sce.20065 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Situating epistemological development . In van Aalst, J., Thompson, K., Jacobson, J., Reimann, P. (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of learning sciences (pp. 347–354). Sydney, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schenkel, K., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., Nazar, C. R., Flores, M. D. G. D. (2019). Framing equity through a closer examination of critical science agency . Cultural Studies of Science Education , 14 ( 2 ), 309–325. 10.1007/s11422-019-09914-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., Hutter, R. (2005). Epistemological beliefs, mathematical problem-solving beliefs, and academic performance of middle school students . Elementary School Journal , 105 ( 3 ), 289–304. 10.1086/428745 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Semsar, K., Knight, J. K., Birol, G., Smith, M. K. (2011). The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) for use in biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 3 ), 268–278. 10.1187/cbe.10-10-0133 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduate in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study . Science Education , 88 ( 4 ), 493–534. 10.1002/sce.10131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sochacka, N. W., Walther, J., Pawley, A. L. (2018). Ethical validation: Reframing research ethics in engineering education research to improve research quality . Journal of Engineering Education , 107 ( 3 ), 362–379. 10.1002/jee.20222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis . New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanton, J. D., Dye, K. M., Johnson, M. (2019). Knowledge of learning makes a difference: A comparison of metacognition in introductory and senior-level biology students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 2 ), ar24. 10.1187/cbe.18-12-0239 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, E., Barton, A. C. (2008a). From peripheral to central, the story of Melanie’s metamorphosis in an urban middle school science class . Science Education , 92 ( 4 ), 567–590. 10.1002/sce.20253 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, E., Barton, A. C. (2008b). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny . Cultural Studies of Science Education , 3 , 43–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., Hunter, A. B. (2005). What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates . The Journal of Higher Education , 82 ( 4 ), 357–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiry, H., Weston, T., Laursen, S., Hunter, A. (2012). The benefits of multi-year research experiences: Differences in novice and experienced students’ reported gains from undergraduate research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 3 ), 260–272. 10.1187/cbe.11-11-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument, Updated edition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tytler, R., Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives . International Journal of Science Education , 32 ( 15 ), 2055–2078. 10.1080/09500690903334849 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives . Science Education , 89 ( 4 ), 614–633. 10.1002/sce.20061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker, J. D., Cotner, S. H., Baepler, P. M., Decker, M. D. (2008). A delicate balance: Integrating active learning into a large lecture course . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 , 361–367. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study . Journal of Engineering Education , 102 ( 4 ), 626–659. 10.1002/jee.20029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watkins, J., Elby, A. (2013). Context dependence of students’ views about the role of equations in understanding biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 12 ( 2 ), 274–286. 10.1187/cbe.12-11-0185 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstock, M., Kienhues, D., Feucht, F. C., Ryan, M. (2017). Informed reflexivity: Enacting epistemic virtue . Educational Psychologist , 52 ( 4 ), 284–298. 10.1080/00461520.2017.1349662 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Demystifying the Meaning of Active Learning in Postsecondary Biology Education

• Emily P. Driessen
• Jennifer K. Knight
• Michelle K. Smith
• Cissy J. Ballen

*Address correspondence to: Emily P. Driessen ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849

Search for more papers by this author

Department of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Active learning is frequently used to describe teaching practices, but the term is not well-defined in the context of undergraduate biology education. To clarify this term, we explored how active learning is defined in the biology education literature ( n = 148 articles) and community by surveying a national sample of biology education researchers and instructors ( n = 105 individuals). Our objectives were to increase transparency and reproducibility of teaching practices and research findings in biology education. Findings showed the majority of the literature concerning active learning never defined the term, but the authors often provided examples of specific active-learning strategies. We categorized the available active-learning definitions and strategies obtained from the articles and survey responses to highlight central themes. Based on data from the BER literature and community, we provide a working definition of active learning and an Active-Learning Strategy Guide that defines 300+ active-learning strategies. These tools can help the community define, elaborate, and provide specificity when using the term active learning to characterize teaching practices.

INTRODUCTION

The promotion of undergraduate biology knowledge in the United States has immediate and long-term implications for increasing national science literacy, providing high-quality education to the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, and contributing to critical scientific advances. To meet these objectives, calls to action formalized priorities and made specific recommendations aimed at improving undergraduate biology education nationwide. For example, after extensive discussions among biology faculty, students, and administrators, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009 ) published a formative document, Vision and Change: A Call to Action , which advocated for “student-centered classrooms” and outlined six core competencies intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) apply the process of science; 2) use quantitative reasoning; 3) use modeling and simulation; 4) tap into the interdisciplinary nature of science; 5) communicate and collaborate with other disciplines; and 6) understand the relationship between science and society. Another call to action came from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012 ), who proposed five recommendations to change undergraduate STEM education, including the adoption of “evidence-based teaching practices.”

Although these pushes for “student-centered” and “evidence-based” practices are relatively recent, they stem from ideologies that are more than a century old. Specifically, Dewey (1916) wrote, “Learning means something which the individual does when he studies. It is an active , personally conducted affair” (p. 390). Based upon this work, Pesavento et al. (2015) identified Dewey as one of the earliest and most influential advocates of what we now know as active learning. Subsequently, others expanded on and institutionalized terms such as “student-centered” and “evidence-based” practices ( Piaget, 1932 ; Montessori, 1946 ; Vygotsky, 1987 ; Papert, 1980 ; Brown et al. , 1989 ; Turkle and Papert, 1990 ; Ackermann, 2001 , Cook et al. , 2012 ). While this body of work is critical to our understanding of active learning, the ways in which practitioners and researchers currently use the term are often vague.

Despite this ambiguity, research concerning the effectiveness of active learning in the classroom has continued. For example, a landmark meta-analysis compared student achievement and failure rates between undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics classes that used active-learning approaches and those that used lecture ( Freeman et al. , 2014 ). Findings demonstrated that active learning decreased failure rates by 55% and increased student examination performance by approximately half a standard deviation. To define active learning for the purposes of clarity and transparency in their research, Freeman et al. (2014) developed a definition based on responses from 338 biology departmental seminar audience members: “Active learning engages students in the process of learning through activities and/or discussion in class, as opposed to passively listening ໿to an expert. It emphasizes higher-order thinking and often involves group work” (pp. 8413–8414). This definition guided their inclusion criteria for the study, and it is one of the few examples of clearly defined parameters.

Although many articles do not define the exact parameters of active learning, the research has demonstrated the positive effects of active learning on student achievement and affect across multiple contexts. For example, researchers demonstrated that active learning yields disproportionate learning gains among the most at-risk student groups, such as first-generation college attendees and those who identify with races/ethnicities historically underrepresented in STEM fields ( Beichner et al. , 2007 ; Haak et al. , 2011 ; Eddy and Hogan, 2014 ; Ballen et al. , 2017 ; Wilton et al. , 2019 ; Bauer et al. , 2020 ). Additionally, a meta-analysis conducted by Theobald et al. (2020) demonstrated that active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate STEM disciplines. However, it is important to note that the definitions of active learning used in these articles vary from the antithesis of lecture ( Theobald et al. , 2020 ) to listing the specific strategies that characterize the term (e.g., in-class activities, prelecture preparation, and frequent low-risk assessment; Ballen et al, 2017 ).

Despite the varying parameters of the term, postsecondary institutions have increasingly embraced the use of the term “active learning” ( Pfund et al. , 2009 ; Aragón et al. , 2018 ). Examples include institution-wide initiatives (e.g., the Science Education Initiatives at University of Colorado and University of British Colombia, and the Active Learning Initiative at Cornell University), the Summer Institutes on Scientific Teaching ( www.summerinstitutes.org ), and the Obama Administration’s Active Learning Day ( https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/10/25/active-learning-day-america ). Additionally, more than three-fourths of colleges and universities in the United States provide some type of active-learning classrooms, defined as those that offer flexibility in design to facilitate different types of teaching ( Alexander et al. , 2019 ).

Despite these institutional supports and documented positive impacts, the term “active learning” itself is difficult to ascertain from a review of literature. For example, ໿ Eddy et al. (2015) explained that active learning is a complex process that encompasses both teaching methods and student learning. Drew and Mackie (2011) noted the meaning of active learning may be dichotomous, as it has been considered a theory of learning as well as a set of pedagogical strategies. Although attempts have been made to define active learning as a theory ( Freeman et al. , 2014 ; Connell et al. , 2016 ; Moss-Racusin et al. , 2016 ; Auerbach and Schussler, 2017 ; Jeno et al. , 2017 ) as well as a set of strategies in biology education research (BER; Tanner, 2013 ; Miller and Tanner, 2015 ), these attempts are not always 1) streamlined or easy to follow, 2) regularly used in the literature, 3) supported by literature or data, and/or 4) comprehensive. This outcome is problematic when trying to understand what exactly active learning encompasses.

Notably, the variation in the conceptualization of active learning reflects a state of scientific revolution. According to Kuhn (1970) , the development of a science has alternating phases (i.e., normal and revolutionary). Normal science, equated to puzzle-solving, comes with a reasonable chance of solution via familiar methods and can be solved by one person. On the other hand, a revolutionary phase involves a collectively negotiated revision to an existing belief or practice. While discipline-based education researchers address questions about the efficacy of recently developed teaching strategies, those strategies are commonly being binned under active learning, which is an ill-defined term. To improve our field, it is important to negotiate how the community interprets and understands this term.

Furthermore, demystifying active learning in undergraduate biology has direct applications for teaching and research. The broad interpretation of active learning may discourage instructors from trying new instructional practices and may ultimately serve as a barrier to implementation ( Kreber and Cranton, 2000 ; O’Donnell, 2008 ; Stains and Vickrey, 2017 ). It may additionally serve as a barrier to experimental replication in discipline-based education research (DBER) communities, because there are no agreed-upon standards or criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Given this, we investigated the following four questions in the context of undergraduate biology courses: 1) How does the BER literature use and define the term “active learning”? 2) How does the BER community define the term “active learning”? 3) How are active-learning strategies described in the BER literature? and 4) How are active-learning strategies described by the BER community? We addressed these research questions through a review of BER literature and a survey of the BER community. We expect that, by developing ways to efficiently communicate active learning in the context of biology education, we will encourage teaching innovations and the adoption of common research-based practices.

Analyzing the Literature

To address how the BER literature defines and uses the term “active learning,” we extracted information from peer-reviewed biology education journals. Many peer-reviewed journals publish BER, including Advances in Physiology Education , American Biology Teacher , Anatomical Science Education , BioScience , Journal of College Science Teaching , CBE−Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) and the Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education ; however, we chose to examine only two of them, acknowledging that this is an exploratory, nonexhaustive study. We chose LSE and the Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education because of their prominence, history, and readership (see websites: www.lifescied.org ; www.asmscience.org/content/journal/jmbe ). We searched for the term ”active learning” in the titles, abstracts, or text of research articles published in those two journals, and only papers that used this term were included in our analysis. To get a contemporary snapshot of how the term is used, we only included articles published over the 3 years that preceded the start of the study, from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. We collected data within the same time span from CourseSource, an online journal that exclusively publishes evidence-based biology teaching materials for undergraduate classrooms and laboratories ( www.coursesource.org/about ). We included this journal, because it captures how biology instructors translate findings from the active-learning research literature into classroom practice. All CourseSource lesson articles included an Active Learning section in which authors list and/or explain their instructional approaches, so we included all published papers in the final analysis.

Once we selected articles based upon our search criteria, three of the authors (C.J.B., M.K.S., and J.K.K.) read the articles and extracted the relevant text surrounding the search term “active learning.” If active learning was defined in the article, it usually occurred after the term was first mentioned in the introduction or the methods. Articles that described specific active-learning strategies often included them in the methods section of the paper, after introducing active learning broadly as an effective form of instruction. Because this text placement could vary, we searched through each article to make sure we included any definition or strategies that the article’s authors described.

To determine how BER articles use and define the term “active learning,” we first examined to what extent, if at all, articles included a definition of active learning. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were binned into six categories, first based on whether researchers followed their definition of active learning with a citation (i.e., “literature based”) or did not include a citation (i.e., “not literature based”). We then recorded whether articles included specific active-learning strategies, either in addition to a formal definition or in place of a definition. Our final list of categories included articles that provided: 1) a definition of active learning that was literature based (i.e., included a citation) with examples of active-learning strategies; 2) a definition of active learning that was not literature based (i.e., did not include a citation) with examples of active-learning strategies; 3) a definition of active learning that was literature based with no examples of active-learning strategies; 4) a definition of active learning that was not literature based and had no examples of active-learning strategies; 5) no active literature definition with active-learning strategies; and 6) no active literature definition and no active-learning strategies ( Figure 1 ).

FIGURE 1. Ways in which articles from LSE , the Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , and CourseSource use the term “active learning.”

Surveying the Community

In addition to combing the literature, we collected survey data from members of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER; a scientific community of discipline-based education researchers and teaching practitioners who focus on improving postsecondary biology education through evidence and theory) via the Listserv. We selected SABER as a group to survey, because it is the “world’s largest organization dedicated to scientifically exploring how to teach biology most effectively” ( https://saberbio.wildapricot.org ).

Through the survey, we collected demographic information from the survey participants, including institution type, employment position (i.e., faculty, postdoc, graduate student, etc.), level of biology class (e.g., lower level, upper level, etc.), class size, country of instruction, and frequency of active-learning instruction practice ( Table 1 ). Additionally, the survey included the following two prompts: 1) “In your own words, define the term ‘active learning’ in the context of undergraduate biology classrooms”; and 2) “List the active-learning techniques that you use in biology classrooms.” All research was conducted in accordance with the Cornell University Institutional Review Board (Cornell IRB protocol no. 1810008360).

Data Categorization

After we obtained both active-learning definitions and strategies from the surveys and the literature, we analyzed the data. Specifically, we started by creating two data sets. These were created by 1) taking the active-learning definition text from the literature and from the surveys and combining it into one Excel spreadsheet, and 2) taking the active-learning strategies text from the literature and from the surveys and combining it into another Excel spreadsheet. Both data sets were then categorized.

Categorization of Active-Learning Definitions

After combining the active-learning definitions from both data sources (i.e., the literature and surveys), we analyzed the active-learning definition data. Using open coding ( Strauss, 1987 ; Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ), a method rooted in the grounded theory framework ( Glaser et al. , 1968 ), three of the authors (J.K.K., M.K.S., and C.J.B.) reviewed the responses and identified recurring themes. Using the methodology from Saldaña (2015) , the authors compared their notes and developed a final set of 10 categories: students interacting or engaging with the material, not traditional lecture, group work, scaffolding or constructivism, problem solving, individual formative assessments (e.g., through the use of personal response systems), student-centered pedagogy, application or synthesis of material, student ownership of learning, and evidence-based teaching. The authors binned each article’s use of the term into as many categories of active learning as appropriate. At first, the three coders placed 71% of the definitions in the same categories. After discussion, coders resolved all differences and shared 100% agreement. Then, we calculated how often the definitions appeared in each of the 10 categories for the surveys and the literature individually.

Categorization of Active-Learning Strategies

After merging the strategies from the literature with those obtained from the surveys, we analyzed the active-learning strategy data. Using open coding, three researchers (E.P.D. and two undergraduate students) developed a set of nine categories (Supplemental Appendix A): metacognition, discussion, group work, assessment, practicing core competencies, visuals, conceptual class design, paperwork, and games. To improve our collective ability to reliably categorize strategies, we needed definitions of each strategy listed. Because no such list of definitions existed, we defined each of the unique strategies (Supplemental Appendix B) using published literature or dictionary definitions (Supplemental Appendix C). The utility of this list, which we call the Active-Learning Strategy Guide can also be used by the education research community and disciplinary practitioners interested in learning about active-learning strategies. Using the Active-Learning Strategy Guide, we were able to categorize the strategies with an initial percentage of agreement of 75%. After discussion, the researchers resolved any differences with discussion for a final percentage of agreement of 100%.

How Does the BER Literature Use and Define the Term “Active Learning”?

Of the 148 articles that fit our search criteria, the majority did not provide a definition for the term “active learning,” but instead listed examples of specific active-learning strategies (53.42%; Figure 1 ). The second most common approach used in the articles provided less information: no definition and no list of relevant strategies (30.14%). Overall, this demonstrates the overwhelming majority of the active-learning literature (83.56%) did not define active learning.

To address how the BER literature defines active learning, we focused on articles that provided a definition of the term, with or without the inclusion of one or more references. Among the 24 articles that defined active learning ( Table 2 ), 17 articles (74%) provided literature citations and seven (26%) did not. Of the 17 articles that defined active learning using references to the literature, five of them (29%) cited Freeman et al. (2014) . There was a bit of variation in reference use, with a total of 43 different references mentioned (Supplemental Appendix D).

a Citations available in Supplemental Appendix D.

The 17 definitions obtained from the literature were categorized as previously mentioned. The most represented category defined active learning as “students interacting or engaging with the material,” followed by the category that emphasizes what active learning is not : “not traditional lecture” ( Figure 2 A).

FIGURE 2. Frequency of how the BER literature and community define active learning and describe strategies. (A) The categorized definitions of active learning from the literature ( LSE , Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, and CourseSource ) and a survey disseminated to SABER members. Each bar shows the percentage of articles or total survey respondents who included the corresponding term in their definition of active learning or list of active-learning strategies. (B) The categorized active-learning strategies from the same BER literature and community sources. The graph is organized by increasing percentage of total survey responses in each category. The percent values represented in each figure do not add up to 100%, because each literature source and survey response could have more than one strategy or definition represented.

How Is the Term “Active Learning” Defined by the BER Community?

We received responses from 105 individuals from a range of institutions across the United States ( Table 1 ). In general, survey participants’ definitions fit into the same categories as those in the published literature surveyed ( Figure 2 A). The most common definition of active learning, from the BER community, was “interacting/engagement” with the material. The second most common categorized definition was “not lecturing/listening,” followed by “group work.”

How Are Active-Learning Strategies Described in the BER Literature?

After analyzing the qualifying articles, we found that 38% of them did not mention any specific active-learning strategy. From the papers that mentioned active-learning strategies, a total of 339 strategies were extracted, with 133 of them being unique responses. Once these strategies were categorized, the data revealed the most frequently represented strategy categories from the literature were discussion (29%), group work (22%), and metacognition (22%; Figure 2 B).

How Are Active-Learning Strategies Described by the BER Community?

We asked survey participants to respond to the prompt “List the active-learning strategies that you use in biology classrooms.” We collated a list of 681 strategies from the responses, of which 201 were unique. After categorizing these strategies, we found the most frequently represented strategy categories from the surveys were discussion (34%), group work (29%), and metacognition (45%; Figure 2 B).

Our aim was to bring clarity and transparency to the term “active learning” as it is used within the BER community. We addressed this by identifying the definitions and strategies attributed to the term by analyzing the literature and surveying a BER society. From these compiled findings, we constructed an active-learning definition (see Box 1) as well as a reference guide for 300+ defined active-learning strategies (Supplemental Appendix B).

BOX 1. Active Learning Defined

Active learning is an interactive and engaging process for students that may be implemented through the employment of strategies that involve metacognition, discussion, group work, formative assessment, practicing core competencies, live-action visuals, conceptual class design, worksheets, and/or games.

Below we propose future steps for the BER community with accompanying tools to aid in the process. First, we advocate for all BER concerning active learning to provide a cited definition. Second, we suggest authors define and describe the active-learning strategies used in the experimental research.

Define the Term

Active learning has rarely been defined in the literature. This outcome could be due to the lack of a unanimous definition for the BER community; the fact that active learning is a complex process encompassing both teaching methods and student learning ( Eddy et al. , 2015 ); the dichotomous nature of the term as both a theory and as a set of pedagogical strategies ( Drew and Mackie, 2011 ); the perception that this term is self-descriptive; and/or the notion that it is unimportant, given the majority of the research articles focused on the effects of the implementation of a specific active-learning strategy. Whatever the reason, we advocate for the inclusion of definitions in BER articles in order to clarify the author’s interpretation. This is because, based on our investigation into the contemporary literature, it is apparent that people interpret active learning in a variety of different ways (i.e., interacting/engagement, not lecturing/listening, group work, scaffolding/constructivism, individual formative assessments, application/synthesis, problem solving, student centered, and evidence based). Ultimately, providing a definition may aid in increased fidelity and reproducibility of experimental outcomes ( Stains and Vickrey, 2017 ).

When considering outcomes such as those demonstrated by Freeman et al. (2014 ; i.e., active learning decreased failure rates by 55% and increased student examination performance by approximately half a standard deviation), increased fidelity and reproducibility of experimental outcomes is important, especially because the promotion of undergraduate biology knowledge in the United States is consequential to critical scientific advances. To help in these efforts, we provide a number of resources and suggestions. First, we provided all of the definitions of active learning collected from recent BER literature in addition to the references used to support them, when applicable ( Table 2 ). We also constructed a working definition of active learning based on the summarized input from the 148 articles found in the BER literature and the 105 responses from the BER community. This definition can be used confidently by the BER community in their own research, given it is based on an average of BER literature and instructor responses.

Define the Strategies

The research papers we examined commonly listed active-learning strategies. Many of the strategies were either 1) self-descriptive, that is, the meaning could be easily deciphered from the term (e.g., applying knowledge of other subjects, circulate to check for understanding, group brainstorming); 2) defined in the literature by Tanner (2013) , Miller and Tanner (2015) , or others; or 3) easily collapsed into one of the three most common categories (i.e., metacognition, group work, or discussion). However, many strategies lacked transparency, because authors did not describe how they were implemented. We found these cases problematic, because the strategies would be difficult to replicate. To improve clarity and transparency, we share with readers our comprehensive list of unique strategies, collected from both the literature and the surveys, with definitions from the literature, when available, as well as citations of articles in which they were used in practice (Supplemental Appendix B and C).

Additionally, we have created a living-document version of Supplemental Appendix B and C that can be viewed using the following link: www.ballenlab.org/active-learning-strategies-in
-biolo . Contributions or constructive feedback from the community is welcome; you can make a submission by contacting the lead author or using the following Google form: https://forms
.gle/Boh6NNm1rqzHACXi8 . This feedback will be considered and used by the lead author to improve the living document going forward. Our hope is that biology education researchers and teachers use these tools to define active-learning strategies they have used or as guides to articles that previously implemented these strategies. It is important to note that the strategies used and the efficacy measured in those studies may vary based on fidelity of implementation.

Another way to increase the precision of descriptions is the use of observation protocols that can characterize classroom instruction behaviors. Some examples include the Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol ( Hora et al. , 2013 ), the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM ( Smith et al. , 2013 ), the Practical Observation Rubric to Assess Active Learning ( Eddy et al. , 2015 ), and the Measurement Instrument for Scientific Teaching ( Durham et al. , 2017 ). These protocols document the frequency of multiple instructional practices, include categories of active-learning strategies, and can be helpful both for research purposes and to provide feedback to instructors on their practices. Such information can provide valuable guidance to biology educators, especially when used in conjunction with data on student performance, attitudes, social psychological factors, and self-reflective practices.

Limitations and Future Work

One limitation of this work is that the active-learning definitions and strategies were solicited from the BER community only. While we hypothesize that these definitions and strategies may overlap with other DBER subjects (chemistry, geology, physics, etc.), we cannot generalize our results across disciplines, given results from Lund and Stains (2015) revealed differences in the factors influencing the adoption of evidence-based instructional practices among disciplinary chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. However, many of the strategies featured in the Active-Learning Strategy Guide may be useful across disciplines. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect we may have received different active-learning definitions and strategies from disciplinary biology instructors or teaching practitioners who do not have a BER background. While seeking that information is out of the scope of this research, the BER community would benefit from engaging with the larger community to see how their work is translated among practitioners.

Second, while it is important to understand how active learning is used in classroom environments—particularly those that result in improved student outcomes—we recognize this does not control for instructors’ fidelity of implementation. Fidelity of implementation is how well an intervention or activity is implemented in comparison with the original program’s intention ( O’Donnell, 2008 ; Stains and Vickrey, 2017 ), and this can strongly impact the efficacy of the pedagogy. So, as we continue to test active-learning strategies, it is critical to describe how and why certain pedagogies are enacted in the classroom.

Third, we examined only three journals that commonly publish BER. This means the findings are not representative of all BER that has been published during that time period. However, the three journals we focused on are commonly used by the BER community. For example, LSE and the Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education publish primarily research articles and have a long-standing history and a large readership; CourseSource is the only online journal that exclusively publishes evidence-based biology teaching materials for undergraduate classrooms and laboratories.

Future work will 1) identify to what extent—and how—active learning is characterized across the DBER literature; 2) characterize the definition of active learning in the context of undergraduate STEM by collecting survey data from DBER communities across STEM fields; 3) categorize the specific active-learning strategies employed across STEM disciplines through survey data; and 4) investigate to what extent, if at all, perceptions of active learning differ among DBER communities across STEM fields.

CONCLUSIONS

We support the use of active learning as a unifying term to generate awareness and collaboration among those interested in improving their teaching. The term gives DBER instructors an accessible on-ramp to engage with larger initiatives. However, because the term is rarely defined and can have many different meanings, those who use active learning should define what they mean and give examples of the strategies they are using. For example, authors could say: “We used an active-learning instructional approach focused on student engagement using group work and clicker questions with peer instruction,” followed by the appropriate citations and additional detail about the application and frequency of strategies. These additional details will allow the community to address more nuanced questions, such as: Do specific active-learning instructional strategies promote student learning in multiple environments? Which strategies increase equitable outcomes for students from diverse backgrounds? How can we maximize the effectiveness of a particular active-learning strategy in a variety of contexts? These questions can be more effectively answered when the approach and context of the learning environment is precisely defined. This clarity has the potential to make DBER communities, and their research, stronger.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the DBER group at Auburn University for valuable feedback and to Taylor McKibben, Sara Wood, Brian Peters, and Brittany Woodruff for helping with data collection and analysis. We would also like to thank Doug Lombardi and Tim Shipley for their support and encouragement and two anonymous reviewers for critical insights that greatly improved the article.

• Ackermann, E. ( 2001 ). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference . Future of Learning Group Publication , 5 (3), 438. Google Scholar
• Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murph, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M. , … & Weber, N. ( 2019 ). In EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition (pp. 3–41). Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://library
.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2019/4/2019horizonreport
.pdf?la=en&hash=C8E8D444AF372E705FA1BF9D4FF0DD4CC6F0FDD1 Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science . ( 2009 ). Vision and change: A call to action . Washington, DC. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from https://live-visionandchange.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/
2011/03/VC-Brochure-V6-3.pdf Google Scholar
• Aragón, O. R., Eddy, S. L., & Graham, M. J. ( 2018 ). Faculty beliefs about intelligence are related to the adoption of active-learning practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17/3 , ar47. Google Scholar
• Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. ( 2017 ). A Vision and Change reform of introductory biology shifts faculty perceptions and use of active learning . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (4), ar57. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Ballen, C. J., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., Searle, J. B., & Zamudio, K. R. ( 2017 ). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (4), ar56. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Bauer, A. C., Coffield, V. M., Crater, D., Lyda, T., Segarra, V. A., Suh, K. , … & Vigueira, P. A. ( 2020 ). Fostering Equitable Outcomes in Introductory Biology Courses through Use of a Dual Domain Pedagogy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 19 (1), ar4. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Becker, E. A., Easlon, E. J., Potter, S. C., Guzman-Alvarez, A., Spear, J. M., Facciotti, M. T. , … & Pagliarulo, C. ( 2017 ). The effects of practice-based training on graduate teaching assistants’ classroom practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (4), ar58. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J. , … & Risely, J. S. ( 2007 ). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project . Research-Based Reform of University Physics , 1 (1), 2–39. Google Scholar
• Bentley, M., & Connaughton, V. P. ( 2017 ). A simple way for students to visualize cellular respiration: Adapting the board game Mousetrap TM to model complexity . CourseSource . https://doi.org/10.24918/cs.2017.8 Google Scholar
• Bouwma-Gearhart, J. L., Ivanovitch, J. D., Aster, E. M., & Bouwma, A. M. ( 2018 ). Exploring postsecondary biology educators’ planning for teaching to advance meaningful education improvement initiatives . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (3), ar37. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. ( 1989 ). Situated cognition and the culture of learning . Educational Researcher , 18 (1), 32–42. Google Scholar
• Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. ( 2018 ). Trust, growth mindset, and student commitment to active learning in a college science course . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (1), ar10. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Connell, G. L., Donovan, D. A., & Chambers, T. G. ( 2016 ). Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (1), ar3. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cook, B. G., Smith, G. J., & Tankersley, M. ( 2012 ). Evidence-based practices in education . In Harris, K. R.Graham, S.Urdan, T.McCormick, C. B.Sinatra, G. M.Sweller, J. (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 495–527). American Psychological Association. Google Scholar Google Scholar
• Cooper, K. M., Ashley, M., & Brownell, S. E. ( 2017a ). A bridge to active learning: A summer bridge program helps students maximize their active-learning experiences and the active-learning experiences of others . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (1), ar17. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cooper, K. M., & Brownell, S. E. ( 2016 ). Coming out in class: Challenges and benefits of active learning in a biology classroom for LGBTQIA students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (3), ar37. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cooper, K. M., Ding, L., Stephens, M. D., Chi, M. T., & Brownell, S. E. ( 2018 ). A course-embedded comparison of instructor-generated videos of either an instructor alone or an instructor and a student . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (2), ar31. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cooper, K. M., Haney, B., Krieg, A., & Brownell, S. E. ( 2017b ). What’s in a name? The importance of students perceiving that an instructor knows their names in a high-enrollment biology classroom . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (1), ar8. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. ( 1916 ). Democracy and education . New York: McMillan. Google Scholar
• Drew, V., & Mackie, L. ( 2011 ). Extending the constructs of active learning: Implications for teachers’ pedagogy and practice . Curriculum Journal , 22 (4), 451–467. Google Scholar
• Durham, M. F., Knight, J. K., & Couch, B. A. ( 2017 ). Measurement Instrument for Scientific Teaching (MIST): A tool to measure the frequencies of research-based teaching practices in undergraduate science courses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (4), ar67. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. ( 2014 ). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 13 (3), 453–468. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Elliott, E. R., Reason, R. D., Coffman, C. R., Gangloff, E. J., Raker, J. R., Powell-Coffman, J. A., & Ogilvie, C. A. ( 2016 ). Improved student learning through a faculty learning community: How faculty collaboration transformed a large-enrollment course from lecture to student centered . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (2), ar22. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. ( 1968 ). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research . Nursing Research , 17 (4), 364. Google Scholar
• Goff, E. E., Reindl, K. M., Johnson, C., McClean, P., Offerdahl, E. G., Schroeder, N. L., & White, A. R. ( 2017 ). Efficacy of a meiosis learning module developed for the virtual cell animation collection . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (1), ar9. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Green, N. H., McMahon, D. G., & Brame, C. ( 2016 ). Using online active-learning techniques to convey time compensated sun compass orientation in the eastern North American monarch . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 17 (3), 430. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Hoefnagels, M., & Taylor, M. S. ( 2016 ). “Boost your evolution IQ”: An evolution misconceptions game . CourseSource . https://doi.org/10.24918/cs.2016.12 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Hora, M. T., Oleson, A., & Ferrare, J. J. ( 2013 ). Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) user’s manual . Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Google Scholar
• Jeno, L. M., Raaheim, A., Kristensen, S. M., Kristensen, K. D., Hole, T. N., Haugland, M. J., & Mæland, S. ( 2017 ). The relative effect of team-based learning on motivation and learning: A self-determination theory perspective . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (4), ar59. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. ( 2000 ). Exploring the scholarship of teaching . Journal of Higher Education , 71 (4), 476–495. Google Scholar
• Kudish, P., Shores, R., McClung, A., Smulyan, L., Vallen, E. A., & Siwicki, K. K. ( 2016 ). Active learning outside the classroom: Implementation and outcomes of peer-led team-learning workshops in introductory biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (3), ar31. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. ( 1970 ). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Lee, C. J., Toven-Lindsey, B., Shapiro, C., Soh, M., Mazrouee, S., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., & Sanders, E. R. ( 2018 ). Error-discovery learning boosts student engagement and performance, while reducing student attrition in a bioinformatics course . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (3), ar40. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. ( 2015 ). The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty . International Journal of STEM Education , 2 , 13. Google Scholar
• McCourt, J. S., Andrews, T. C., Knight, J. K., Merrill, J. E., Nehm, R. H., Pelletreau, K. N. , … & Lemons, P. P. ( 2017 ). What motivates biology instructors to engage and persist in teaching professional development? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (3), ar54. Link ,  Google Scholar
• McLean, J. L., & Suchman, E. L. ( 2016 ). Using magnets and classroom flipping to promote student engagement and learning about protein translation in a large microbiology class . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 17 (2), 288. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Miller, S., & Tanner, K. D. ( 2015 ). A portal into biology education: An annotated list of commonly encountered terms . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 (2), fe2. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Montessori, M. ( 1946 ). Education for a new world (Vol. 1 ). Adyar, Madras, India: Kalakshetra. Google Scholar
• Moss-Racusin, C. A., van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. ( 2016 ). A “scientific diversity” intervention to reduce gender bias in a sample of life scientists . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (3), ar29. Link ,  Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, C. L. ( 2008 ). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research . Review of Educational Research , 78 (1), 33–84. Google Scholar
• Papert, S. ( 1980 ). Mindstorms: Computers, children, and powerful ideas (pp. 607). New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
• Pesavento, T., Klein, J., Macasaet, D., Shorter, C., & Wagstaff, S. ( 2015 ). History & context for active learning . Retrieved February 15, 2020, from https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/teachingwithtech/chapter/history-context-for
-active-learning/#:∼:text=Theterm“active learning” Google Scholar
• Pfund, C., Miller, S., Brenner, K., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Ebert-May, D., Fagen, A. P. et al. ( 2009 ). Summer institute to improve university science teaching . Science , 324 (5926), 470–471. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. ( 1932 ). The moral judgment of the child . San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace. Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology . ( 2012 ). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Office of Science and Technology. Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. ( 2015 ). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Los Angeles, CA and London: Sage. Google Scholar
• Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. ( 2013 ). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 12 (4), 618–627. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Stains, M., & Vickrey, T. ( 2017 ). Fidelity of implementation: An overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (1), rm1. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Stoltzfus, J. R., & Libarkin, J. ( 2016 ). Does the room matter? Active learning in traditional and enhanced lecture spaces . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (4), ar68. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. ( 1990 ). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. L. ( 1987 ). Qualitative analysis for social scientists . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Tanner, K. D. ( 2013 ). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 12 (3), 322–331. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S. , … & Grummer, J. A. ( 2020 ). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 117 (12), 6476–6483. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Turkle, S., & Papert, S. ( 1990 ). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture . Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 16 (1), 128–157. Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1987 ). The development of scientific concepts in childhood . In The collected works of LS Vygotsky (Vol. 1 , pp. 167–241) New York City, New York: Springer US. Google Scholar
• Wilton, M., Gonzalez-Niño, E., McPartlan, P., Terner, Z., Christoffersen, R. E., & Rothman, J. H. ( 2019 ). Improving academic performance, belonging, and retention through increasing structure of an introductory biology course . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (4), ar53. Link ,  Google Scholar
• The effects of active learning on students’ sense of belonging and academic performance in introductory physics courses 10 June 2024 | European Journal of Physics, Vol. 45, No. 4
• An Active Learning Approach to Evaluate Networking Basics 2 July 2024 | Education Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 7
• Impact of active learning instruction in blended learning on students' anxiety levels and performance 4 June 2024 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 9
• Carly A. Busch ,
• Parth B. Bhanderi ,
• Katelyn M. Cooper , and
• Sara E. Brownell
• Sehoya Cotner, Monitoring Editor
• Exploring Supports to Enhance Learning from Online Virtual Experiments in Science 22 October 2023 | American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 38, No. 2
• Group work enhances student performance in biology: A meta-analysis 14 February 2024 | BioScience, Vol. 74, No. 3
• Promoting learning of biomechanical concepts with game-based activities 20 April 2021 | Sports Biomechanics, Vol. 23, No. 3
• Equitable Instructor Assessment Changes Amid COVID-19 Pandemic 7 March 2024 | Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 53, No. 2
• Baylee A. Edwards ,
• Chloe Bowen ,
• M. Elizabeth Barnes , and
• Tati Russo-Tait, Monitoring Editor
• Teaching at the intersection of science and society: An activity on healthcare disparities 5 January 2024 | Biology Methods and Protocols, Vol. 9, No. 1
• Boosting student performance with inclusive writing-to-learn assignments through graphic organizers in large enrollment undergraduate biology courses 14 Dec 2023 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 24, No. 3
• Creating an equitable and inclusive STEM classroom: a qualitative meta-synthesis of approaches and practices in higher education 15 September 2023 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 8
• Nicholas J. Wiesenthal ,
• Tasneem F. Mohammed ,
• Shauna Anderson ,
• Margaret Barstow ,
• Cydney Custalow ,
• Jas Gajewski ,
• Kristin Garcia ,
• Cynthia K. Gilabert ,
• Joseph Hughes ,
• Aliyah Jenkins ,
• Miajah Johnson ,
• Cait Kasper ,
• Israel Perez ,
• Brieana Robnett ,
• Kaytlin Tillett ,
• Lauren Tsefrekas ,
• Emma C. Goodwin , and
• Katelyn M. Cooper
• Stephanie Gardner, Monitoring Editor
• Community‐engaged learning to broaden the impact of applied ecology: A case study 8 January 2023 | Ecological Applications, Vol. 33, No. 5
• Tala Araghi ,
• Carly A. Busch , and
• Derek Braun, Monitoring Editor
• Inclusive-Equity Rubric and its Evaluation of Introductory Biology Course Syllabi 19 April 2023 | College Teaching, Vol. 19
• Mariel A. Pfeifer ,
• Julio J. Cordero , and
• Julie Dangremond Stanton
• Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor
• Erika M. Nadile ,
• Madison L. Witt ,
• Cindy Vargas ,
• Missy Tran ,
• Joseph Gazing Wolf ,
• Danielle Brister , and
• Increasing retention in STEM by improving GPA through peer mentors and course enrichments in introductory biology 20 February 2023 | Journal of Biological Education, Vol. 25
• An online course on applied biochemistry and molecular biology through case‐based learning 28 September 2022 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 51, No. 1
• A Digital Single-Session Intervention (Project Engage) to Address Fear of Negative Evaluation Among College Students: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial 23 November 2023 | JMIR Mental Health, Vol. 10
• Perspective Chapter: Active Learning Strategies in the Veterinary Medicine Programme under the Think4Jobs Project 14 December 2022
• Conceptualizations of active learning in departments engaged in instructional change efforts 9 November 2022 | Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 31
• Are synchronous chats a silver lining of emergency remote instruction? Text-based chatting is disproportionately favored by women in a non-majors introductory biology course 19 October 2022 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 17, No. 10
• Claire B. Tracy ,
• Emily P. Driessen ,
• Abby E. Beatty ,
• Todd Lamb ,
• Jenna E. Pruett ,
• Jake D. Botello ,
• Cara Brittain ,
• Ísada Claudio Ford ,
• Chloe C. Josefson ,
• Randy L. Klabacka ,
• Tyler Smith ,
• Ariel Steele ,
• Min Zhong ,
• Scott Bowling ,
• Lucinda Dixon , and
• Abdi Warfa, Monitoring Editor
• Exploration of critical thinking and self‐regulated learning in online learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic 20 July 2022 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 50, No. 5
• International survey of faculty teaching undergraduate introductory biomechanics 22 August 2022 | Sports Biomechanics, Vol. 36
• Sarah B. Wise ,
• Tim Archie , and
• Sandra Laursen
• Kimberly Tanner, Monitoring Editor
• Undergraduates' Experiences with Online and in-Person Courses Provide Opportunities for Improving Student-Centered Biology Laboratory Instruction 29 Apr 2022 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 1
• Perspectives on Active Learning: Challenges for Equitable Active Learning Implementation 2 March 2022 | Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 99, No. 4
• Using an engagement lens to model active learning in the geosciences 27 April 2021 | Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 70, No. 2
• How Do Undergraduate Biology Instructors Engage With the Open Educational Resource Life Cycle? 1 March 2022 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7
• 2022 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 9, No. 1
• 2022 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 17, No. 6
• 2022 | Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 2
• COPUS, PORTAAL, or DART? Classroom Observation Tool Comparison From the Instructor User’s Perspective 15 November 2021 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 6
• Measuring Learning and Promoting Academic Integrity in Online Instruction 1 Nov 2021 | Kinesiology Review, Vol. 10, No. 4
• Inclusive Instructional Practices: Course Design, Implementation, and Discourse 1 October 2021 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 6
• Sara Odom ,
• Halle Boso ,
• Sara Brownell ,
• Sehoya Cotner ,
• Catherine Creech ,
• Abby Grace Drake ,
• Sarah Eddy ,
• Sheritta Fagbodun ,
• Sadie Hebert ,
• Avis C. James ,
• Justin R. St. Juliana ,
• Michele Shuster ,
• Seth K. Thompson ,
• Richard Whittington ,
• Bill D. Wills ,
• Alan E. Wilson ,
• Kelly R. Zamudio ,
• Min Zhong , and
• Tessa C. Andrews, Monitoring Editor
• Jeremy L. Hsu and
• Gregory R. Goldsmith
• Cynthia Brame,, Monitoring Editor
• Student perceptions of an inquiry‐based molecular biology lecture and lab following a mid‐semester transition to online teaching 10 December 2020 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 49, No. 1

Submitted: 14 April 2020 Revised: 16 June 2020 Accepted: 30 July 2020

© 2020 E. P. Driessen et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2020 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

Biology Education in the Future

Cite this chapter.

• Robert L. Wallis 3  

1102 Accesses

Biology today is a popular and influential discipline that dramatically shapes our lives and affects the development and operations of societies around the world. Biology educators thus play a crucial role in ensuring the global community is made aware of the biological bases of everything we do. However, as biology teachers and educationists, we face unprecedented challenges in making our discipline relevant, meaningful, attractive and respected. Some of the challenges include: (i) the explosion of knowledge and the feeling that we are being over-whelmed by new developments and applications, (ii) challenges to the scientific method from fundamentalist and other groups, (iii) urgency of challenges that confront society, so that long term solutions are less considered than immediate, short-term ones, (iv) shift to more applied studies that do not have the intellectual rigour that underpins disciplines like biology, and (v) specialization of the disciplinary components of biology and the challenge to integrate and generalize. On the other hand, I am optimistic about the future importance and potential success of biology education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Meeting the Needs of A Changing Landscape: Advances and Challenges in Undergraduate Biology Education

Educating Biology Teachers from a Socio-Cultural Perspective

Biology education research: building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems

Annandale C (1892) A Concise Dictionary of the English Language. Blackie & Son, Glasgow

Google Scholar  

Boulton, A. & Panizzou (1998). The knowledge explosion in science education: balancing practical and theoretical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35, 475-481.

CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership) (2004). http://www.conservationmeasures.org/

Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, National Research Council (2003). BIO2010. Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10497

Murray C, Marmorek D (2003) Adaptive management and ecological restoration. Ch 24, pp. 417-428 in Freiderici, P (ed). Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Washington, Island Press

National Research Council of the National Academies (2009). A New Biology for the 21st Century. (National Academies Press: Washington). http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12764&page=R1

Noss RF (1996) The naturalists are dying off. Conservation Biology 10:1–3

Article   Google Scholar  

Soulé M (1985) What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727–734

Western D, Pearl MC (1989) Conservation for the Twenty-first Century. New York, Oxford Univesrity Press

Western, D. (1989). Overview. pp. xi-xv in Western & Pearl (1989).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Science & Engineering, University of Ballarat, Australia

Robert L. Wallis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Victoria, Canada

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

C. H. Diong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Wallis, R.L. (2012). Biology Education in the Future. In: Kim, M., Diong, C.H. (eds) Biology Education for Social and Sustainable Development. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-927-5_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-927-5_6

Publisher Name : SensePublishers, Rotterdam

Online ISBN : 978-94-6091-927-5

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Collection  12 March 2020

Top 50 Life and Biological Sciences Articles

We are pleased to share with you the 50 most read Nature Communications  articles* in life and biological sciences published in 2019. Featuring authors from around the world, these papers highlight valuable research from an international community.

Browse all Top 50 subject area collections here .

*Based on data from Google Analytics, covering January-December 2019 (data has been normalised to account for articles published later in the year)

Genome-wide analysis identifies molecular systems and 149 genetic loci associated with income

Household income is used as a marker of socioeconomic position, a trait that is associated with better physical and mental health. Here, Hill et al. report a genome-wide association study for household income in the UK and explore its relationship with intelligence in post-GWAS analyses including Mendelian randomization.

• W. David Hill
• Neil M. Davies
• Ian J. Deary

A 5700 year-old human genome and oral microbiome from chewed birch pitch

Birch pitch is thought to have been used in prehistoric times as hafting material or antiseptic and tooth imprints suggest that it was chewed. Here, the authors report a 5,700 year-old piece of chewed birch pitch from Denmark from which they successfully recovered a complete ancient human genome and oral microbiome DNA.

• Theis Z. T. Jensen
• Jonas Niemann
• Hannes Schroeder

A short translational ramp determines the efficiency of protein synthesis

Several factors contribute to the efficiency of protein expression. Here the authors show that the identity of amino acids encoded by codons at position 3–5 significantly impact translation efficiency and protein expression levels.

• Manasvi Verma
• Junhong Choi
• Sergej Djuranovic

Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers

By examining publication records of scientists from four disciplines, the authors show that coauthoring a paper with a top-cited scientist early in one's career predicts lasting increases in career success, especially for researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions.

• Tomaso Aste
• Giacomo Livan

Ancient DNA from the skeletons of Roopkund Lake reveals Mediterranean migrants in India

Remains of several hundred humans are scattered around Roopkund Lake, situated over 5,000 meters above sea level in the Himalayan Mountains. Here the authors analyze genome-wide data from 38 skeletons and find 3 clusters with different ancestries and dates, showing the people were desposited in multiple catastrophic events.

• Éadaoin Harney
• Ayushi Nayak

Ketamine can reduce harmful drinking by pharmacologically rewriting drinking memories

Memories linking environmental cues to alcohol reward are involved in the development and maintenance of heavy drinking. Here, the authors show that a single dose of ketamine, given after retrieval of alcohol-reward memories, disrupts the reconsolidation of these memories and reduces drinking in humans.

• Ravi K. Das
• Sunjeev K. Kamboj

Sequential LASER ART and CRISPR Treatments Eliminate HIV-1 in a Subset of Infected Humanized Mice

Here, the authors show that sequential treatment with long-acting slow-effective release ART and AAV9- based delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 results in undetectable levels of virus and integrated DNA in a subset of humanized HIV-1 infected mice. This proof-of-concept study suggests that HIV-1 elimination is possible.

• Prasanta K. Dash
• Rafal Kaminski
• Howard E. Gendelman

XX sex chromosome complement promotes atherosclerosis in mice

Men and women differ in their risk of developing coronary artery disease, in part due to differences in their levels of sex hormones. Here, AlSiraj et al. show that the XX sex genotype regulates lipid metabolism and promotes atherosclerosis independently of sex hormones in mice.

• Yasir AlSiraj
• Lisa A. Cassis

Early-career setback and future career impact

Little is known about the long-term effects of early-career setback. Here, the authors compare junior scientists who were awarded a NIH grant to those with similar track records, who were not, and find that individuals with the early setback systematically performed better in the longer term.

• Benjamin F. Jones
• Dashun Wang

Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle

How do liberals and conservatives differ in their expression of compassion and moral concern? The authors show that conservatives tend to express concern toward smaller, more well-defined, and less permeable social circles, while liberals express concern toward larger, less well-defined, and more permeable social circles.

• Jesse Graham

A metabolic profile of all-cause mortality risk identified in an observational study of 44,168 individuals

Biomarkers that predict mortality are of interest for clinical as well as research applications. Here, the authors analyze metabolomics data from 44,168 individuals and identify key metabolites independently associated with all-cause mortality risk.

• Joris Deelen
• Johannes Kettunen
• P. Eline Slagboom

New insects feeding on dinosaur feathers in mid-Cretaceous amber

Numerous feathered dinosaurs and early birds have been discovered from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, but the early evolution of feather-feeding insects is not clear. Here, Gao et al. describe a new family of ectoparasitic insects from 10 specimens found associated with feathers in mid-Cretaceous amber.

• Taiping Gao
• Xiangchu Yin

Acoustic enrichment can enhance fish community development on degraded coral reef habitat

Healthy coral reefs have an acoustic signature known to be attractive to coral and fish larvae during settlement. Here the authors use playback experiments in the field to show that healthy reef sounds can increase recruitment of juvenile fishes to degraded coral reef habitat, suggesting that acoustic playback could be used as a reef management strategy.

• Timothy A. C. Gordon
• Andrew N. Radford
• Stephen D. Simpson

Phagocytosis-like cell engulfment by a planctomycete bacterium

Phagocytosis is a typically eukaryotic feature that could be behind the origin of eukaryotic cells. Here, the authors describe a bacterium that can engulf other bacteria and small eukaryotic cells through a phagocytosis-like mechanism.

• Takashi Shiratori
• Shigekatsu Suzuki
• Ken-ichiro Ishida

Hippocampal clock regulates memory retrieval via Dopamine and PKA-induced GluA1 phosphorylation

The neural mechanisms that lead to a relative deficit in memory retrieval in the afternoon are unclear. Here, the authors show that the circadian - dependent transcription factor BMAL1 regulates retrieval through dopamine and glutamate receptor phosphorylation.

• Shunsuke Hasegawa
• Hotaka Fukushima
• Satoshi Kida

Agreement between two large pan-cancer CRISPR-Cas9 gene dependency data sets

Integrating independent large-scale pharmacogenomic screens can enable unprecedented characterization of genetic vulnerabilities in cancers. Here, the authors show that the two largest independent CRISPR-Cas9 gene-dependency screens are concordant, paving the way for joint analysis of the data sets.

• Joshua M. Dempster
• Clare Pacini
• Francesco Iorio

Phylogenomics of 10,575 genomes reveals evolutionary proximity between domains Bacteria and Archaea

The authors build a reference phylogeny of 10,575 evenly-sampled bacterial and archaeal genomes, based on 381 markers. The results indicate a remarkably closer evolutionary proximity between Archaea and Bacteria than previous estimates that used fewer “core” genes, such as the ribosomal proteins.

Pan-cancer molecular subtypes revealed by mass-spectrometry-based proteomic characterization of more than 500 human cancers

Mass-spectrometry-based profiling can be used to stratify tumours into molecular subtypes. Here, by classifying over 500 tumours, the authors show that this approach reveals proteomic subgroups which cut across tumour types.

• Fengju Chen
• Darshan S. Chandrashekar
• Chad J. Creighton

CRISPR-Switch regulates sgRNA activity by Cre recombination for sequential editing of two loci

Inducible genome editing systems often suffer from leakiness or reduced activity. Here the authors develop CRISPR-Switch, a Cre recombinase ON/OFF-controlled sgRNA cassette that allows consecutive editing of two loci.

• Krzysztof Chylinski
• Maria Hubmann
• Ulrich Elling

CRISPR-Cas3 induces broad and unidirectional genome editing in human cells

Class 1 CRISPR systems are not as developed for genome editing as Class 2 systems are. Here the authors show that Cas3 can be used to generate functional knockouts and knock-ins, as well as Cas3-mediated exon-skipping in DMD cells.

• Hiroyuki Morisaka
• Kazuto Yoshimi
• Tomoji Mashimo

Genetic evidence for assortative mating on alcohol consumption in the UK Biobank

From observational studies, alcohol consumption behaviours are known to be correlated in spouses. Here, Howe et al. use partners’ genotypic information in a Mendelian randomization framework and show that a SNP in the ADH1B gene associates with partner’s alcohol consumption, suggesting that alcohol consumption affects mate choice.

• Laurence J. Howe
• Daniel J. Lawson
• Gibran Hemani

The autophagy receptor p62/SQST-1 promotes proteostasis and longevity in C. elegans by inducing autophagy

While the cellular recycling process autophagy has been linked to aging, the impact of selective autophagy on lifespan remains unclear. Here Kumsta et al. show that the autophagy receptor p62/SQSTM1 is required for hormetic benefits and p62/SQSTM1 overexpression is sufficient to extend C. elegans lifespan and improve proteostasis.

• Caroline Kumsta
• Jessica T. Chang
• Malene Hansen

The coincidence of ecological opportunity with hybridization explains rapid adaptive radiation in Lake Mweru cichlid fishes

Recent studies have suggested that hybridization can facilitate adaptive radiations. Here, the authors show that opportunity for hybridization differentiates Lake Mweru, where cichlids radiated, and Lake Bangweulu, where cichlids did not radiate despite ecological opportunity in both lakes.

• Joana I. Meier
• Rike B. Stelkens
• Ole Seehausen

Flagellin-elicited adaptive immunity suppresses flagellated microbiota and vaccinates against chronic inflammatory diseases

Gut microbiota alterations, including enrichment of flagellated bacteria, are associated with metabolic syndrome and chronic inflammatory diseases. Here, Tran et al. show, in mice, that elicitation of mucosal anti-flagellin antibodies protects against experimental colitis and ameliorates diet-induced obesity.

• Hao Q. Tran
• Ruth E. Ley
• Benoit Chassaing

Possible role of L-form switching in recurrent urinary tract infection

The reservoir for recurrent urinary tract infection in humans is unclear. Here, Mickiewicz et al. detect cell-wall deficient (L-form) E. coli in fresh urine from patients, and show that the isolated bacteria readily switch between walled and L-form states.

• Katarzyna M. Mickiewicz
• Yoshikazu Kawai
• Jeff Errington

Dual microglia effects on blood brain barrier permeability induced by systemic inflammation

Although it is known that microglia respond to injury and systemic disease in the brain, it is unclear if they modulate blood–brain barrier (BBB) integrity, which is critical for regulating neuroinflammatory responses. Here authors demonstrate that microglia respond to inflammation by migrating towards and accumulating around cerebral vessels, where they initially maintain BBB integrity via expression of the tight-junction protein Claudin-5 before switching, during sustained inflammation, to phagocytically remove astrocytic end-feet resulting in impaired BBB function

• Koichiro Haruwaka
• Ako Ikegami
• Hiroaki Wake

Mice with hyper-long telomeres show less metabolic aging and longer lifespans

Telomere shortening is associated with aging. Here the authors analyze mice with hyperlong telomeres and demonstrate that longer telomeres than normal have beneficial effects such as delayed metabolic aging, increased longevity and less incidence of cancer.

• Miguel A. Muñoz-Lorente
• Alba C. Cano-Martin
• Maria A. Blasco

Extracellular matrix hydrogel derived from decellularized tissues enables endodermal organoid culture

Organoid cultures have been developed from multiple tissues, opening new possibilities for regenerative medicine. Here the authors demonstrate the derivation of GMP-compliant hydrogels from decellularized porcine small intestine which support formation and growth of human gastric, liver, pancreatic and small intestinal organoids.

• Giovanni Giuseppe Giobbe
• Claire Crowley
• Paolo De Coppi

Engineered E. coli Nissle 1917 for the delivery of matrix-tethered therapeutic domains to the gut

Anti-inflammatory treatments for gastrointestinal diseases can often have detrimental side effects. Here the authors engineer E. coli Nissle 1917 to create a fibrous matrix that has a protective effect in DSS-induced colitis mice.

• Pichet Praveschotinunt
• Anna M. Duraj-Thatte
• Neel S. Joshi

Ambient black carbon particles reach the fetal side of human placenta

Exposure to air pollution during pregnancy has been associated with impaired birth outcomes. Here, Bové et al. report evidence of black carbon particle deposition on the fetal side of human placentae, including at early stages of pregnancy, suggesting air pollution could affect birth outcome through direct effects on the fetus.

• Hannelore Bové
• Eva Bongaerts
• Tim S. Nawrot

Real-time decoding of question-and-answer speech dialogue using human cortical activity

Speech neuroprosthetic devices should be capable of restoring a patient’s ability to participate in interactive dialogue. Here, the authors demonstrate that the context of a verbal exchange can be used to enhance neural decoder performance in real time.

• David A. Moses
• Matthew K. Leonard
• Edward F. Chang

In-cell identification and measurement of RNA-protein interactions

RNA-interacting proteome can be identified by RNA affinity purification followed by mass spectrometry. Here the authors developed a different RNA-centric technology that combines high-throughput immunoprecipitation of RNA binding proteins and luciferase-based detection of their interaction with the RNA.

• Antoine Graindorge
• Inês Pinheiro
• Alena Shkumatava

A bacterial gene-drive system efficiently edits and inactivates a high copy number antibiotic resistance locus

Genedrives bias the inheritance of alleles in diploid organisms. Here, the authors develop a gene-drive analogous system for bacteria, selectively editing and clearing plasmids.

• J. Andrés Valderrama
• Surashree S. Kulkarni

Flavonoid intake is associated with lower mortality in the Danish Diet Cancer and Health Cohort

The studies showing health benefits of flavonoids and their impact on cancer mortality are incomplete. Here, the authors perform a prospective cohort study in Danish participants and demonstrate an inverse association between regular flavonoid intake and both cardiovascular and cancer related mortality.

• Nicola P. Bondonno
• Frederik Dalgaard
• Jonathan M. Hodgson

Senescent cell turnover slows with age providing an explanation for the Gompertz law

One of the underlying causes of aging is the accumulation of senescent cells, but their turnover rates and dynamics during ageing are unknown. Here the authors measure and model senescent cell production and removal and explore implications for mortality.

• Amit Agrawal

Optimizing agent behavior over long time scales by transporting value

People are able to mentally time travel to distant memories and reflect on the consequences of those past events. Here, the authors show how a mechanism that connects learning from delayed rewards with memory retrieval can enable AI agents to discover links between past events to help decide better courses of action in the future.

• Chia-Chun Hung
• Timothy Lillicrap

Mutant p53 drives clonal hematopoiesis through modulating epigenetic pathway

Ageing is associated with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which is linked to increased risks of hematological malignancies. Here the authors uncover an epigenetic mechanism through which mutant p53 drives clonal hematopoiesis through interaction with EZH2.

A systematic evaluation of single cell RNA-seq analysis pipelines

There has been a rapid rise in single cell RNA-seq methods and associated pipelines. Here the authors use simulated data to systematically evaluate the performance of 3000 possible pipelines to derive recommendations for data processing and analysis of different types of scRNA-seq experiments.

• Beate Vieth
• Swati Parekh
• Ines Hellmann

Cryo-EM structure and polymorphism of Aβ amyloid fibrils purified from Alzheimer’s brain tissue

Alzheimer’s disease is characterised by the deposition of Aβ amyloid fibrils and tau protein neurofibrillary tangles. Here the authors use cryo-EM to structurally characterise brain derived Aβ amyloid fibrils and find that they are polymorphic and right-hand twisted, which differs from in vitro generated Aβ fibrils.

• Marius Kollmer
• William Close
• Marcus Fändrich

Droplet Tn-Seq combines microfluidics with Tn-Seq for identifying complex single-cell phenotypes

Culturing transposon-mutant libraries in pools can mask complex phenotypes. Here the authors present microfluidics mediated droplet Tn-Seq, which encapsulates individual mutants, promotes isolated growth and enables cell-cell interaction analyses.

• Derek Thibault
• Paul A. Jensen
• Tim van Opijnen

An artificial metalloenzyme biosensor can detect ethylene gas in fruits and Arabidopsis leaves

Existing methods to detect ethylene in plant tissue typically require gas chromatography or use ethylene-dependent gene expression as a proxy. Here Vong et al . show that an artificial metalloenzyme-based ethylene probe can be used to detect ethylene in plants with improved spatiotemporal resolution.

• Kenward Vong
• Katsunori Tanaka

Artificially cloaked viral nanovaccine for cancer immunotherapy

Cancer therapy using oncolytic virus has shown pre-clinical and clinical efficacy. Here, the authors report ExtraCRAd, an oncolytic virus cloaked with tumour cell membrane and report its therapeutic effects in vitro and in vivo in multiple mouse tumour models.

• Manlio Fusciello
• Flavia Fontana
• Vincenzo Cerullo

A transposable element insertion is associated with an alternative life history strategy

Tradeoffs are central to life history theory and evolutionary biology, yet almost nothing is known about their mechanistic basis. Here the authors characterize one such mechanism and find a transposable element insertion is associated with the switch between alternative life history strategies.

• Alyssa Woronik
• Kalle Tunström
• Christopher W. Wheat

Patterns of genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula

The Iberian Peninsula has a complex history. Here, the authors analyse the genetic structure of the modern Iberian population at fine scale, revealing historical population movements associated with the time of Muslim rule.

• Clare Bycroft
• Ceres Fernandez-Rozadilla
• Simon Myers

Single-cell transcriptomics of human T cells reveals tissue and activation signatures in health and disease

Immune cells are shaped by the tissue environment, yet the states of healthy human T cells are mainly studied in the blood. Here, the authors perform single cell RNA-seq of T cells from tissues and blood of healthy donors and show its utility as a reference map for comparison of human T cell states in disease.

• Peter A. Szabo
• Hanna Mendes Levitin
• Peter A. Sims

Genomic risk score offers predictive performance comparable to clinical risk factors for ischaemic stroke

Stroke risk is influenced by genetic and lifestyle factors and previously a genomic risk score (GRS) for stroke was proposed, albeit with limited predictive power. Here, Abraham et al. develop a metaGRS that is composed of several stroke-related GRSs and demonstrate improved predictive power compared with individual GRS or classic risk factors.

• Gad Abraham
• Rainer Malik
• Martin Dichgans

Mitochondrial oxidative capacity and NAD + biosynthesis are reduced in human sarcopenia across ethnicities

Sarcopenia is the loss of muscle mass and strength associated with physical disability during ageing. Here, the authors analyse muscle biopsies from 119 patients with sarcopenia and age-matched controls of different ethnic groups and find transcriptional signatures indicating mitochondrial dysfunction, associated with reduced mitochondria numbers and lower NAD +  levels in older individuals with sarcopenia.

• Eugenia Migliavacca
• Stacey K. H. Tay
• Jerome N. Feige

NAD + augmentation restores mitophagy and limits accelerated aging in Werner syndrome

The molecular mechanisms of mitochondrial dysfunction in the premature ageing Werner syndrome were elusive. Here the authors show that NAD + depletion-induced impaired mitophagy contributes to this phenomenon, shedding light on potential therapeutics.

• Evandro F. Fang
• Vilhelm A. Bohr

Novel approach reveals genomic landscapes of single-strand DNA breaks with nucleotide resolution in human cells

Single strand breaks represent the most common form of DNA damage yet no methods to map them in a genome-wide fashion at single nucleotide resolution exist. Here the authors develop such a method and apply to uncover patterns of single-strand DNA “breakome” in different biological conditions.

• Lorena Salazar-García
• Philipp Kapranov

Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis

Here, the authors explore the potential of the 16S gene for discriminating bacterial taxa and show that full-length sequencing combined with appropriate clustering of intragenomic sequence variation can provide accurate representation of bacterial species in microbiome datasets.

• Jethro S. Johnson
• Daniel J. Spakowicz
• George M. Weinstock

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Biology archive

Unit 1: intro to biology, unit 2: water, acids, and bases, unit 3: macromolecules, unit 4: elements of life, unit 5: energy and enzymes, unit 6: structure of a cell, unit 7: more about cells, unit 8: membranes and transport, unit 9: more about membranes, unit 10: cellular respiration, unit 11: photosynthesis, unit 12: cell signaling, unit 13: cell division, unit 14: classical and molecular genetics, unit 15: dna as the genetic material, unit 16: central dogma (dna to rna to protein), unit 17: gene regulation, unit 18: biotechnology, unit 19: more molecular biology, unit 20: developmental biology, unit 21: bacteria and archaea, unit 22: viruses, unit 23: evolution and the tree of life, unit 24: more about evolution and natural selection, unit 25: history of life on earth, unit 26: ecology, unit 27: more about ecology, unit 28: biodiversity and conservation, unit 29: behavioral biology, unit 30: principles of physiology, unit 31: human biology, unit 32: plant biology, unit 33: ap free response worked examples, unit 34: crash course: biology and ecology, unit 35: meet the biology professional.

UC receives $3.4M to expand STEM education program

Uc's biology meets engineering program is growing in popularity among high schools.

The Cincinnati Business Courier highlighted a University of Cincinnati STEM program that was recently expanded by the National Science Foundation.

The NSF will spend $3.4 million to expand UC's Biology Meets Engineering program to three other universities. The program introduces high school students to STEM using robotics exercises that touch on biology and engineering.

UC’s novel program brings high school students to campus for three weeks each summer to learn about the unique ways animals sense the world and integrates that curriculum into high schools across the Tristate. Students apply what they learn about animal senses to building custom robots that use similar sensory information to navigate.

UC also offers high school students a chance to work in labs as paid summer interns. The other universities likewise will adopt this internship program.

Under the new NSF grant, UC will help Bowling Green State University, Ohio University and the University of Akron develop similar programs to reach more high school students.

Since launching the program in 2018, students from 19 schools have participated, UC College of Arts and Sciences Professor Stephanie Rollmann said.

She developed the program with the help of Associate Professors Anna DeJarnette in UC’s College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services and John Layne in biology and Dieter Vanderelst who holds joint appointments in biology and mechanical and electrical engineering in UC’s College of Engineering and Applied Science.

Students learn about both robotics and animal senses in UC labs and then apply what they learn to build custom robots.

Read the Business Courier story.

Featured image at top: UC invites high school students to learn more about animal-inspired robots in its popular Biology Meets Engineering course. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand

UC Associate Professor Dieter Vanderelst works with high school students on their robotics project. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand

High school students learn about how animals sense the world to develop robots with custom sensors that can navigate an obstacle course. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand

Students work on a color vision exercise in a biology lab. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand

Students build their own robots using custom sensors that can help them autonomously navigate an obstacle course. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand

Students learn about the unique ways animals like bats can sense the world. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand

A UC Police Department officer demonstrates to students how police dogs can find objects using their amazing sense of smell. Photo/Michael Miller

Students test their robotic fish in the swimming pool at UC's Campus Recreation Center. Photo/Ravenna Rutledge/UC Marketing + Brand

A closeup of a student's robotic fish. Photo/Ravenna Rutledge/UC Marketing + Brand

• In The News
• College of Engineering and Applied Science
• College of Arts and Sciences
• Department of Biological Sciences

Related Stories

Spectrum news: high school students learn stem in uc program.

July 6, 2022

Spectrum News highlights UC's Biology Meets Engineering program which gives high school students an introduction to STEM fields in a project sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

Fox19: Students mix biology, engineering to build robots

June 23, 2023

Fox19 highlights UC's Biology Meets Engineering program sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The program introduces students to both fields to build animal-inspired robots.

Science Daily: Bat calls contain redundant information

July 20, 2021

UC assistant professor Dieter Vanderelst in UC's College of Arts and Sciences and College of Engineering and Applied Science digitally compressed the echoes of Mexican free-tailed bats and found they lost little valuable information.

Students dive into summer microplastics research experience

• Felicia Spencer
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Copy address link to clipboard

Austin Gray knows microplastics pose a macro threat.

“Humans are not just exposed to microplastics," said Gray, assistant professor of biological sciences . “We are consuming them. They’re within the blood, they’re in breast milk, and there are a lot of concerns that we don’t know about.” 

An expert on environmental toxicology, Gray recently teamed up with Tina Dura, assistant professor of geosciences and an expert on coastal stratigraphy, to collaborate on the first microplastics summer research experience offered to Virginia Tech students. 

“Professors Gray and Dura have developed the first summer research experience of its kind to train the next generation of environmental scientists in this critically important field,” said John Morris, associate dean for research in the College of Science . “Their research and student mentoring through the microplastics summer research experience will eventually impact government policy and help protect our ocean ecosystems.”

Designed to teach and mentor undergraduate students, the four-week program provides students with experience in every aspect of research from topical studies and immersive field work to lab analysis and professional development. The experience is funded by the Virginia Tech Seale Coastal Zone Observatory, which is a new initiative at the intersection of developing science and environmental policy.

“By bringing these two areas of expertise together, we were able to come up with a new way to involve undergraduates in collecting data and looking at how microplastics have been present in these intertidal marsh environments through time,” said Dura, director of the Coastal Hazards Lab and an affiliated faculty with the Global Change Center . “A lot of the microplastics work that’s out there has focused on surface sediments, and what we’re doing now is looking for when microplastics first appeared in marshes.”

Gray and Dura’s first summer research experience launched in June. Along with an intensive overview of march ecosystems, the program allowed students to collect sediment core samples from the saltmarshes of the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean and taught them how to extract and test the samples. 

“As a biology major, I didn't know a lot about soils, or anything about geology,” said Piyali Roy, an undergraduate biology major. “Coming out here and doing the core processing and the modern transects and learning how that ties into microplastics and ecology is really cool. I've also never really been hiking on a marsh before, so that was really fun.”

During these analyses, they were trained to use specialized instruments, such as the Raman Mass Spectroscopy instrument in Gray's lab.

“For student engagement and research experience, having access to instrumentation that you normally wouldn't have access to is one of those things that really make students stand out,” said Gray, who is also an affiliated faculty with the Global Change Center.  

At the end of the program, the students created posters representing their research and findings and presented them to peersat a symposium. 

“A really big thing for now is being able to present better,” said Ted Docev, an undergraduate researcher majoring in geosciences. “I am looking forward to developing my presentation skills, giving poster presentations and then eventually maybe even talks or beyond if I get that far because right now I definitely struggle with public speaking, and that's a huge thing.”

Gray and Dura both believe this partnership may lead to other innovative collaborations and are already looking ahead to future programs and the possibility of including additional researchers. 

“My hope is that going forward this microplastic summer research experience will be held yearly and we can continue to evolve,” said Dura who is also affiliated with the Fralin Life Sciences Institute . “The work we do is both beneficial for the students to have this hands-on experience, but it is also contributing to the bigger research. I think we just scratched the surface of the different environments we can sample down for the different research questions that we can ask.”

Lindsey Haugh

• Biological Sciences
• Clean Water and Sanitation
• Coastal Research
• College of Science
• College of Science Students
• Fralin Life Sciences Institute
• Geosciences
• Global Change Center
• Graduate Education
• Graduate Research
• Undergraduate Research

Related Content

Advertisement

Who Is Tim Walz, the Minnesota Governor Kamala Harris Picked to Be V.P.?

Mr. Walz captured Democrats’ attention with his “weird” takedown of Republicans. Here’s a look at the new vice-presidential candidate.

• Share full article

By Neil Vigdor

• Aug. 6, 2024

A couple of weeks ago, few Democrats could have identified Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.

But in a matter of weeks, Mr. Walz has garnered an enthusiastic following in his party, particularly among the liberals who cheer on his progressive policies and relish his plain-spoken attacks on former President Donald J. Trump.

That support helped him become Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate. Here’s a closer look at Mr. Walz.

How old is he and where is he from?

Mr. Walz is 60 years old. He grew up in rural Nebraska and received a social science degree from Chadron State College in Nebraska. Mr. Walz also served 24 years in the Army National Guard and was a command sergeant major.

Mr. Walz met his wife, Gwen, while the two were teachers. They have two children.

Where did he get his start in politics?

Mr. Walz had been teaching high school social studies when he decided to run for office. In 2006 he knocked off a Republican incumbent, a rare feat, in Minnesota’s First District, a rural area that leans Republican.

Mr. Walz spent six terms in the U.S. House before he was elected governor in 2018. He won by more than 11 percentage points, propelled by voters in the cities and the Minneapolis suburbs. He ran again and won in 2022.

What are his top issues?

The political landscape has become more favorable for Mr. Walz during his second term as governor. Democrats flipped the State Senate, giving them control of both chambers of the State Legislature.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .