Beyond Gender and Race: The Representation of Concealable Identities Among College Science Instructors at Research Institutions.

Concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) are identities that can be kept hidden and carry negative stereotypes. To understand the potential influence instructors have as role models, we must first explore the identities instructors have and whether they disclose those identities to undergraduates. We surveyed national samples of science instructors (n = 1248) and undergraduates (n = 2428) at research institutions to assess the extent to which instructors hold CSIs, whether they reveal those identities to undergraduates, how the prevalence of CSIs among instructors compares to their prevalence among undergraduates, and the reasons instructors reveal or conceal their CSIs. The most common CSIs instructors reported were having anxiety (35%) and being a first-generation college student (29%). Relatively few instructors revealed CSIs to students. The largest mismatches of CSI prevalence were for struggling academically in college (-30%) and having anxiety (-25%); all mismatches grew when accounting for instructor CSI disclosure, highlighting that students perceive fewer role models of scientists with CSIs than actually exist.

Few LGBTQ+ Science and Engineering Instructors Come Out to Students, Despite Potential Benefits.

LGBTQ+ undergraduates have higher attrition from science and engineering (S&E) than straight and cisgender undergraduates and perceive that having LGBTQ+ instructors would benefit them. However, it is unknown how many S&E instructors are LGBTQ+, the extent to which they disclose this information to students, and how disclosure affects all students, both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+. In study I, we surveyed 108 LGBTQ+ S&E instructors across the U.S. to explore the extent to which they reveal their LGBTQ+ identities across professional contexts and why they reveal or conceal their identities to undergraduates. Overall, 75% of instructors came out to at least some colleagues but only 48% came out to any undergraduates. Instructors most commonly chose to conceal LGBTQ+ identities from undergraduates because they perceived their identities to be irrelevant to course content and anticipated negative student reactions. In study II, 666 introductory biology undergraduates were randomly assigned to evaluate one of two identical teaching demonstration videos except the instructor revealed her LGBTQ+ identity in one but not the other. We assessed differences in students' impressions of the instructor across conditions. We found no differences in most ratings of the instructor except participants reported higher rapport with the instructor when she came out.

Perspectives from Undergraduate Life Sciences Faculty: Are We Equipped to Effectively Accommodate Students With Disabilities in Our Classrooms?

Higher education has evolved in ways that may increase the challenges life science faculty face in providing accommodations for students with disabilities. Guided by Expectancy-Value Theory, we interviewed 34 life sciences faculty instructors from institutions nationwide to explore faculty motivation to create disability-inclusive educational experiences. We found that faculty in our sample perceive that providing most standard accommodations is a manageable but often challenging task. Further, faculty in our sample feel that improving accommodations necessitates additional support from their institutions. Most faculty had high attainment value for providing accommodations, in that they strongly believed that supporting students with disabilities is the fair and right thing to do. However, faculty did not perceive much utility value or intrinsic value in their task of providing accommodations, and most reported that providing accommodations can be a substantial burden on faculty. These findings imply that current approaches to providing inclusive educational experiences for students with disabilities rely primarily on the personal belief that providing accommodations is the right thing to do, which likely results in a flawed and inequitable system given that not all faculty equally share this conviction.

Systemic advantage has a meaningful relationship with grade outcomes in students' early STEM courses at six research universities.

Background: Large introductory lecture courses are frequently post-secondary students' first formal interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Grade outcomes in these courses are often disparate across student populations, which, in turn, has implications for student retention. This study positions such disparities as a manifestation of systemic inequities along the dimensions of sex, race/ethnicity, income, and first-generation status and investigates the extent to which they are similar across peer institutions. Results: We examined grade outcomes in a selected set of early STEM courses across six large, public, research-intensive universities in the United States over ten years. In this sample of more than 200,000 STEM course enrollments, we find that course grade benefits increase significantly with the number of systemic advantages students possess at all six institutions. The observed trends in academic outcomes versus advantage are strikingly similar across universities despite the fact that we did not control for differences in grading practices, contexts, and instructor and student populations. The findings are concerning given that these courses are often students' first post-secondary STEM experiences. Conclusions: STEM course grades are typically lower than those in other disciplines; students taking them often pay grade penalties. The systemic advantages some student groups experience are correlated with significant reductions in these grade penalties at all six institutions. The consistency of these findings across institutions and courses supports the claim that inequities in STEM education are a systemic problem, driven by factors that go beyond specific courses or individual institutions. Our work provides a basis for the exploration of contexts where inequities are exacerbated or reduced and can be used to advocate for structural change within STEM education. To cultivate more equitable learning environments, we must reckon with how pervasive structural barriers in STEM courses negatively shape the experiences of marginalized students. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40594-024-00474-7.

Christian Student Experiences During Peer Interactions in Undergraduate Biology Courses.

The tension between religion and science as a long-standing barrier to science education has led researchers to explore ways of improving the experiences of Christian students in biology who can experience their Christianity as stigmatized in academic biology environments. As undergraduate science classes become student-centered, interactions among students increase, and Christians may feel a need to conceal their religious identities during peer discussions. In this interview study, we used the social psychology framework of concealable stigmatized identities to explore 30 Christian students' experiences during peer interactions in undergraduate biology courses to find potential ways to improve those experiences. We found that students felt their religious identity was salient during peer interactions in biology, and students thought revealing their religious identity to peers in their biology courses could be beneficial, yet few actually did so. Additionally, though most students anticipated stigma, comparatively few had experienced stigma from other students in their biology courses, despite the prior documented cultural stigma against Christians in biology. These results indicate a need for future studies exploring the impact of learning environments in which students are given the opportunity to share their religious identities with one another, which could reduce their anticipated and perceived stigma.

The EvMed Assessment: A test for measuring student understanding of core concepts in evolutionary medicine.

Background and objectives: Universities throughout the USA increasingly offer undergraduate courses in evolutionary medicine (EvMed), which creates a need for pedagogical resources. Several resources offer course content (e.g. textbooks) and a previous study identified EvMed core principles to help instructors set learning goals. However, assessment tools are not yet available. In this study, we address this need by developing an assessment that measures students' ability to apply EvMed core principles to various health-related scenarios. Methodology: The EvMed Assessment (EMA) consists of questions containing a short description of a health-related scenario followed by several likely/unlikely items. We evaluated the assessment's validity and reliability using a variety of qualitative (expert reviews and student interviews) and quantitative (Cronbach's α and classical test theory) methods. We iteratively revised the assessment through several rounds of validation. We then administered the assessment to undergraduates in EvMed and Evolution courses at multiple institutions. Results: We used results from the pilot to create the EMA final draft. After conducting quantitative validation, we deleted items that failed to meet performance criteria and revised items that exhibited borderline performance. The final version of the EMA consists of six core questions containing 25 items, and five supplemental questions containing 20 items. Conclusions and implications: The EMA is a pedagogical tool supported by a wide range of validation evidence. Instructors can use it as a pre/post measure of student learning in an EvMed course to inform curriculum revision, or as a test bank to draw upon when developing in-class assessments, quizzes or exams.

A comparative case study of the accommodation of students with disabilities in online and in-person degree programs.

Fully online degree programs are an increasingly important part of the higher education ecosystem. Among the many challenges raised by the growth of fully online courses and degree programs is the question: Are institutions providing online students with disabilities accommodations that are comparable to those provided to students in traditional in-person degree programs? To explore this question, we compared students in a fully online biology degree program to students in the equivalent in-person degree program at a large research university. For each group, we assessed the frequency with which students register with the disability resource center, the range of specific accommodations provided, and course grades. Results show that students in the in-person program were nearly 30% more likely to be enrolled with the disability resource center, and that students in the online program were offered a narrower range of accommodations. However, in relative terms (i.e., compared to students without disabilities in their degree program), online students with disabilities perform better than in-person students with disabilities.

"It's More Of A Me-Thing Than An Evolution Thing": Exploring The Validity Of Evolution Acceptance Measures Using Student Interviews.

Researchers who study student acceptance of evolution rely on surveys that are designed to measure evolution acceptance. It is important for these surveys to measure evolution acceptance accurately and in isolation from other constructs, so that researchers can accurately determine what leads to low acceptance. The Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA) and the Generalized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation (GAENE) are two surveys that were developed to improve upon the limitations of earlier surveys. Yet neither survey has been extensively tested for response process validity, which can assess the extent to which students use constructs other than their acceptance of evolution to answer survey items. In this study, we examined the response-process validity of the I-SEA and GAENE by conducting cognitive interviews with 60 undergraduate students. Interviews revealed that both surveys retain certain response-process issues. The I-SEA conflated knowledge about and acceptance of evolution for a subset of students. The GAENE measured evolution acceptance inconsistently because students interpreted "evolution" in different ways; it also measured willingness to advocate for evolution in addition to acceptance. Researchers can use these findings to better inform their survey choice when designing future studies, and to further improve the measurement of evolution acceptance.

Women drive efforts to highlight concealable stigmatized identities in U.S. academic science and engineering.

Concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) are hidden identities that carry negative stereotypes and can result in a loss of social status if revealed. Instructors often choose to conceal these CSIs due to anticipated negative student reactions, yet revealing CSIs can have a positive impact on undergraduates. Women are generally more likely to reveal personal aspects about themselves in social situations, but may face greater consequences for revealing a stigmatized identity to students given their already marginalized position in academic science and engineering. Therefore, in this study, we were interested in understanding to what extent there are differences between men and women science and engineering instructors in (i) the representation of CSIs, (ii) their decisions to reveal CSIs to undergraduates in their classes, and (iii) their perceived stigma of CSIs. Based on a national survey of over 2,000 instructors in science and engineering from very high research activity doctoral institutions, we found that women were more likely than men to report having depression, anxiety, or a disability. Of instructors who held CSIs, women had 1.5x higher odds than men of revealing their CSIs to some undergraduates compared to no undergraduates and perceived greater stigma associated with all CSIs. Despite perceiving greater stigma associated with concealable stigmatized identities, women are more likely to reveal their CSIs to college science and engineering students, leading the way to a more diverse and inclusive scientific community by demonstrating themselves as role models for these identities.

Research Anxiety Predicts Undergraduates' Intentions to Pursue Scientific Research Careers.

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

A Comparison of Online and In-Person Evolution Instruction That Includes Religious Cultural Competence.

Evolution is one of the most important concepts in biology, but it is rejected by a substantial percentage of religious students due to a perceived conflict with their religious beliefs. The use of religious cultural competence in evolution education (ReCCEE) has been shown to effectively increase evolution acceptance among religious students during in-person instruction, but there is no research that we know of that indicates the effectiveness of these practices during online instruction. In this study, we explored the efficacy of online culturally competent practices for religious students on students' evolution understanding, evolution acceptance, and comfort learning evolution at a religious university. Before and after evolution instruction, we surveyed 178 students in online introductory biology courses and compared these student outcomes to 201 students in the same instructor's in-person introductory biology courses. We found that evolution acceptance and understanding increased in online classes with culturally competent practices, and these gains were similar to those observed in the in-person courses. Despite these similarities, we found that students were more comfortable learning evolution in person than online, but this difference was small. Our findings suggest that the use of culturally competent practices online can be as effective as their use for in-person instruction for improving students' attitudes toward evolution, but in-person instruction may be more effective for cultivating students' comfort while learning evolution.

Should I write about mental health on my med school app? Examining medical school admissions committee members' biases regarding mental health conditions.

Mental health conditions can impact college students' academic achievements and experiences. As such, students may choose to disclose mental illnesses on medical school applications. Yet, no recent studies have investigated to what extent disclosure of a mental health condition may impact whether an applicant is accepted to medical school. We conducted an audit study to address this gap and surveyed 99 potential medical school admissions committee members from over 40 M.D.-granting schools in the United States. Participants rated a fictitious portion of a single medical school application on acceptability, competence, and likeability. They were randomly assigned to a condition: an application that explained a low semester grade-point average due to 1) a mental health condition, 2) a physical health condition, or 3) offered no explanation. After rating their respective application, all committee members were asked about when revealing a mental health condition would be beneficial and when it would be detrimental. Using ANOVAs, multinomial regression, and open coding, we found that medical school admissions committee members do not rate applications lower when a mental health condition is revealed. Committee members highlighted that revealing a mental health condition to demonstrate resiliency could be beneficial, but if the reference is vague or the condition is not being managed, it could be detrimental to a student's application. This work indicates that medical school admissions committee members do not exhibit a bias against mental health conditions and provides recommendations on how to discuss mental illness on medical school applications.

Community College Student Understanding and Perceptions of Evolution.

Learning about evolution is a foundational part of biology education, but most current studies that explore college student evolution education are conducted at universities. However, community college students tend to be more diverse in characteristics shown to be related to evolution education outcomes. To explore how studies involving university students may generalize to community college students, we surveyed students from seven community college (n = 202) and nine university (n = 2288) classes. We measured students' evolution interest, acceptance, and understanding, and for religious students, we measured their perceived conflict between their religions and evolution. Controlling for state and major, we found that community college students had similar levels of evolution interest as university students but perceived greater conflict between their religions and evolution. Further, community college students had lower evolution understanding and acceptance compared with university students. Religiosity was a strong factor predicting community college and university students' evolution acceptance. However, unique to community college students, evolution understanding was not related to their macroevolution or human evolution acceptance. This indicates that, although some results between community college and university students are similar, there are differences that have implications for evolution instruction that warrant the need for more evolution education research at community colleges.

Unveiling Concealable Stigmatized Identities in Class: The Impact of an Instructor Revealing Her LGBTQ+ Identity to Students in a Large-Enrollment Biology Course.

Sharing personal information can help instructors build relationships with students, and instructors revealing concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) may be particularly impactful. One CSI is the LGBTQ+ identity, but there has been no research on the student-perceived impact of an instructor revealing this identity. In this exploratory study conducted at an institution in the U.S. Southwest, an instructor revealed that she identifies as LGBTQ+ to her undergraduate biology course in less than 3 seconds. We surveyed students (n = 475) after 8 weeks to assess whether they remembered this, and if so, how they perceived it affected them. We used regression models to assess whether students with different identities perceived a disproportionate impact of the reveal. Most students perceived the instructor revealing her LGBTQ+ identity positively impacted them; regression results showed LGBTQ+ students and women perceived greater increased sense of belonging and confidence to pursue a science career. Students overwhelmingly agreed that instructors revealing their LGBTQ+ identities to students is appropriate. This study is the first to indicate the perceived impact of an instructor revealing her LGBTQ+ identity to students in the United States and suggests that a brief intervention could positively affect students.

New Online Accommodations Are Not Enough: The Mismatch between Student Needs and Supports Given for Students with Disabilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in nearly all universities transitioning their in-person courses to online instruction. Recent work from our research team conducted in Spring 2020 established that the immediate transition to online learning presented novel challenges for students with disabilities: students were unable to access previously established accommodations and there was a lack of information from Disability Resource Centers (DRCs) about adapting accommodations to online environments. In this study, we aimed to determine the extent to which these issues still were present 1 year later. In Spring 2021, we conducted a survey of 114 students with disabilities who were registered with the DRC and taking online science courses at a public research-intensive institution. We used our previous interviews with students to develop closed- and open-ended questions to assess the extent to which students with disabilities were being properly accommodated in their courses, document any new accommodations they were using, and elicit any recommendations they had for improving their experiences in online science courses. We used logistic regression to analyze the closed-ended data and inductive coding to analyze the open-ended data. We found that more than half of students with disabilities reported not being properly accommodated, and this was more likely to be reported by students who experienced new challenges related to online learning. When students were asked what accommodations they would have wanted, students often described accommodations that were being offered to some students but were not universally implemented. This study summarizes recommendations for making online science learning environments more inclusive for students with disabilities.

Instructor Perceptions of Student Incivility in the Online Undergraduate Science Classroom.

Student incivility, defined as a student behavior perceived to be disrespectful or disruptive to the overall learning environment in a course, can negatively affect the science learning environment and instructors. The transition to online science courses during the COVID-19 pandemic created a unique environment for student incivility to take place in undergraduate courses. There are few studies that examine student incivility in online synchronous courses, and we know of no studies that have investigated student incivility during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we surveyed 283 instructors across U.S. institutions who taught undergraduate science courses with synchronous online components. We probed their experiences with student incivility during the fall 2020 term. Over half of instructors surveyed reported experiencing student incivility, with women being more likely than men to report student incivility. Compared with white instructors, people of color were more likely to perceive an increase in student incivility in fall 2020 relative to previous in-person terms. This work indicates that student incivility is perceived in the online synchronous learning environment and that the negative impacts of perceived student incivility during COVID-19 online instruction were not distributed equally among instructors, disproportionately burdening women and people of color.

Students with Disabilities in Life Science Undergraduate Research Experiences: Challenges and Opportunities.

Individuals with disabilities are underrepresented in postsecondary science education and in science careers, yet few studies have explored why this may be. A primary predictor of student persistence in science is participating in undergraduate research. However, it is unclear to what extent students with disabilities are participating in research and what the experiences of these students in research are. To address this gap in the literature, in study 1, we conducted a national survey of more than 1200 undergraduate researchers to determine the percent of students with disabilities participating in undergraduate research in the life sciences. We found that 12% of undergraduate researchers we surveyed self-identified as having a disability, which indicates that students with disabilities are likely underrepresented in undergraduate research. In study 2, we conducted semistructured interviews with 20 undergraduate researchers with disabilities. We identified unique challenges experienced by students with disabilities in undergraduate research, as well as some possible solutions to these challenges. Further, we found that students with disabilities perceived that they provide unique contributions to the research community. This work provides a foundation for creating undergraduate research experiences that are more accessible and inclusive for students with disabilities.

An exploration of how gender, political affiliation, or religious identity is associated with comfort and perceptions of controversial topics in bioethics.

Bioethics is an important aspect of understanding the relationship between science and society, but studies have not yet examined undergraduate student experiences and comfort in bioethics courses. In this study, we investigated undergraduate bioethics students' support of and comfort when learning three controversial bioethics topics: gene editing, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Furthermore, student identity has been shown to influence how students perceive and learn about controversial topics at the intersection of science and society. So, we explored how students' religious affiliation, gender, or political affiliation was associated with their support of and comfort when learning about gene editing, abortion, and PAS. We found that most students entered bioethics with moderated viewpoints on controversial topics but that there were differences in students' tendency to support each topic based on their gender, religion, and political affiliation. We also saw differences in student comfort levels based on identity: women reported lower comfort than men when learning about gene editing, religious students were less comfortable than nonreligious students when learning about abortion and PAS, and nonliberal students were less comfortable than liberal students when learning about abortion. Students cited that the controversy surrounding these topics and a personal hesitancy to discuss them caused discomfort. These findings indicate that identity impacts comfort and support in a way similar to that previously shown in the public. Thus, it may be important for instructors to consider student identity when teaching bioethics topics to maximize student comfort, ultimately encouraging thoughtful consideration and engagement with these topics.

A Revised Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution: Introducing the MATE 2.0.

Hundreds of articles have explored the extent to which individuals accept evolution, and the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) is the most often used survey. However, research indicates the MATE has limitations, and it has not been updated since its creation more than 20 years ago. In this study, we revised the MATE using information from cognitive interviews with 62 students that revealed response process errors with the original instrument. We found that students answered items on the MATE based on constructs other than their acceptance of evolution, which led to answer choices that did not fully align with their actual acceptance. Students answered items based on their understanding of evolution and the nature of science and different definitions of evolution. We revised items on the MATE, conducted 29 cognitive interviews on the revised version, and administered it to 2881 students in 22 classes. We provide response process validity evidence for the new measure through cognitive interviews with students, structural validity through a Rasch dimensionality analysis, and concurrent validity evidence through correlations with other measures of evolution acceptance. Researchers can now measure student evolution acceptance using this new version of the survey, which we have called the MATE 2.0.