Change as a Scientific Enterprise: Practical Suggestions about Using Change Theory.

Change theory has increasingly become an area of scholarship in STEM education. While this area has traditionally been a topic for organizational psychology, business management, communication studies, and higher education, STEM education researchers are increasingly aware of the need to use formal theories to guide change efforts and research. Formal change theory encompasses our current research-based knowledge about how and why change occurs, and therefore, can guide the selection and design of promising interventions. Yet learning about and using theory is challenging because many of us have no formal training in this area and relevant scholarship comes from many different disciplines. Inconsistent terminology creates an additional barrier. Thus, this essay aims to contribute to a common lexicon in STEM higher educational change efforts by clearly distinguishing between formalized change theory, which emerges from research, and a theory of change, which guides the logic of a specific project. We also briefly review the current state of the field regarding the use of formal change theory and provide examples of how change theory has been used in biology education. Lastly, we offer practical guidance for researchers and change agents who wish to more intentionally and effectively use change theory in their work.

"What's Your Thinking behind That?" Exploring Why Biology Instructors Use Classroom Discourse.

Instructor discourse, defined as verbal interactions with students in the classroom, can play an important role in student learning. Instructors who use dialogic discourse invite students to develop their own ideas, and both students and the instructor share ideas in back-and-forth exchanges. This type of discourse is well-suited to facilitate deep learning for students but is rare in undergraduate biology classrooms. Understanding the reasoning that underlies the use of dialogic discourse can inform teaching professional development for instructors who are learning to use discourse to support student learning. Through classroom video recordings to identify dialogic discourse and stimulated recall interviews to elicit instructor reasoning, we investigated why undergraduate biology instructors used dialogic discourse in active-learning lessons. Using inductive and deductive qualitative analysis of interview transcripts, we identified and characterized seven reasons that instructors used dialogic discourse, including three aligned with a theoretical framework of student cognitive engagement and four that emerged from our data set. In addition to aiming to prompt generative cognitive engagement in 34% of instances of dialogic discourse, instructors used dialogic discourse to prompt activity, supply information, provide feedback, decipher student thinking, leverage student thinking, and cue students to make connections. Reasoning varied across different types of dialogic discourse. These findings provide valuable insights that can inform research, teaching professional development, and individual instructors' reflections.

Evading Race: STEM Faculty Struggle to Acknowledge Racialized Classroom Events.

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

Co-teaching in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Lever for Pedagogical Change toward Evidence-Based Teaching?

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

Guides to Advance Teaching Evaluation (GATEs): A Resource for STEM Departments Planning Robust and Equitable Evaluation Practices.

Most science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments inadequately evaluate teaching, which means they are not equipped to recognize or reward effective teaching. As part of a project at one institution, we observed that departmental chairs needed help recognizing the decisions they would need to make to improve teaching evaluation practices. To meet this need, we developed the Guides to Advance Teaching Evaluation (GATEs), using an iterative development process. The GATEs are designed to be a planning tool that outlines concrete goals to guide reform in teaching evaluation practices in STEM departments at research-intensive institutions. The GATEs are grounded in the available scholarly literature and guided by existing reform efforts and have been vetted with STEM departmental chairs. The GATEs steer departments to draw on three voices to evaluate teaching: trained peers, students, and the instructor. This research-based resource includes three components for each voice: 1) a list of departmental target practices to serve as goals; 2) a characterization of common starting places to prompt reflection; and 3) ideas for getting started. We provide anecdotal examples of potential uses of the GATEs for reform efforts in STEM departments and as a research tool to document departmental practices at different time points.

Diving into the Details: Constructing a Framework of Random Call Components.

Random call is a randomized approach to select a student or group of students to share their thinking with the whole class. There are potential costs and benefits of random call in undergraduate courses, yet we lack insight about how this strategy is actually implemented and why instructors choose to use it. We interviewed 12 college biology instructors who use random call in courses with 50 or more students. Qualitative content analysis revealed why these instructors chose to use random call, the specific ways they implemented random call, and the reasoning behind their implementation. Instructors used random call to increase the diversity of voices heard in the classroom and to hold students accountable for working. Random call users showed concern about student anxiety and took specific steps to mitigate it. We break random call down into a series of components, identify the components that our participants considered most critical, and describe the reasoning underlying random call components. This work lays a foundation for future investigations of how specific random call components influence student outcomes, in what contexts, and for which students.

Through the Eyes of Faculty: Using Personas as a Tool for Learner-Centered Professional Development.

College science instructors need continuous professional development (PD) to meet the call to evidence-based practice. New PD efforts need to focus on the nuanced blend of factors that influence instructors' teaching practices. We used persona methodology to describe the diversity among instructors who were participating in a long-term PD initiative. Persona methodology originates from ethnography. It takes data from product users and compiles those data in the form of fictional characters. Personas facilitate user-centered design. We identified four personas among our participants: Emma the Expert views herself as the subject-matter expert in the classroom and values her hard-earned excellence in lecturing. Ray the Relater relates to students and focuses on their points of view about innovative pedagogies. Carmen the Coach coaches her students by setting goals for them and helping them develop skill in scientific practices. Beth the Burdened owns the responsibility for her students' learning and feels overwhelmed that students still struggle despite her use of evidence-based practice. Each persona needs unique PD. We suggest ways that PD facilitators can use our personas as a reflection tool to determine how to approach the learners in their PD. We also suggest further avenues of research on learner-centered PD.

Exploring the Relationship between Teacher Knowledge and Active-Learning Implementation in Large College Biology Courses.

Not all instructors implement active-learning strategies in a way that maximizes student outcomes. One potential explanation for variation in active-learning effectiveness is variation in the teaching knowledge an instructor draws upon. Guided by theoretical frameworks of pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, this study investigated the teaching knowledge instructors used in planning, implementing, and reflecting on active-learning lessons in large courses. We used a preinstruction interview, video footage of a target class session, and a postinstruction interview with stimulated recall to elicit the teaching knowledge participants used. We then conducted qualitative content analysis to describe and contrast teaching knowledge employed by instructors implementing active learning that required students to generate their own understandings (i.e., generative instruction) and active learning largely focused on activity and recall (i.e., active instruction). Participants engaging in generative instruction exhibited teaching knowledge distinct from that of participants focused on activity. Those using generative instruction drew on pedagogical knowledge to design lessons focused on students generating reasoning; integrated pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge to plan lessons to target student difficulties; and created opportunities to develop new pedagogical content knowledge while teaching. This work generated hypotheses about the teaching knowledge necessary for effective, generative active-learning instruction.

Breaking Down Silos Working Meeting: An Approach to Fostering Cross-Disciplinary STEM-DBER Collaborations through Working Meetings.

There has been a recent push for greater collaboration across the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in discipline-based education research (DBER). The DBER fields are unique in that they require a deep understanding of both disciplinary content and educational research. DBER scholars are generally trained and hold professional positions in discipline-specific departments. The professional societies with which DBER scholars are most closely aligned are also often discipline specific. This frequently results in DBER researchers working in silos. At the same time, there are many cross-cutting issues across DBER research in higher education, and DBER researchers across disciplines can benefit greatly from cross-disciplinary collaborations. This report describes the Breaking Down Silos working meeting, which was a short, focused meeting intentionally designed to foster such collaborations. The focus of Breaking Down Silos was institutional transformation in STEM education, but we describe the ways the overall meeting design and structure could be a useful model for fostering cross--disciplinary collaborations around other research priorities of the DBER community. We describe our approach to meeting recruitment, premeeting work, and inclusive meeting design. We also highlight early outcomes from our perspective and the perspectives of the meeting participants.

Pedagogical knowledge for active-learning instruction in large undergraduate biology courses: a large-scale qualitative investigation of instructor thinking.

BACKGROUND: Though active-learning instruction has the potential to positively impact the preparation and diversity of STEM graduates, not all instructors are able to achieve this potential. One important factor is the teacher knowledge that instructors possess, including their pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogical knowledge is the knowledge about teaching and learning that is not topic-specific, such as knowledge of learning theory, classroom management, and student motivation. We investigated the pedagogical knowledge that 77 instructors who report implementing active-learning instruction used as they analyzed video clips of lessons in large active-learning biology courses. We used qualitative content analysis, and drew on cognitive and sociocultural perspectives of learning, to identify and characterize the pedagogical knowledge instructors employed. We used the collective thinking of these instructors to generate a framework of pedagogical knowledge for active-learning instruction in large undergraduate biology courses. RESULTS: We identified seven distinct components of pedagogical knowledge, as well as connections among these components. At the core of their thinking, participants evaluated whether instruction provided opportunities for students to generate ideas beyond what was presented to them and to engage in scientific practices. They also commonly considered student motivation to engage in this work and how instruction maximized equity among students. Participants noticed whether instructors monitored and responded to student thinking in real-time, how instruction prompted metacognition, and how links were built between learning tasks. Participants also thought carefully about managing the logistics of active-learning lessons. CONCLUSIONS: Instructors who report using active-learning instruction displayed knowledge of principles of how people learn, practical knowledge of teaching strategies and behaviors, and knowledge related to classroom management. Their deep knowledge of pedagogy suggests that active-learning instruction requires much more than content knowledge built through training in the discipline, yet many college STEM instructors have little or no training in teaching. Further research should test this framework of pedagogical knowledge in different instruction contexts, including different STEM disciplines. Additional research is needed to understand what teacher knowledge is critical to effective active-learning instruction and how the development of this knowledge is best facilitated. Achieving widespread improvement in undergraduate STEM education will likely require transforming our approach to preparing and supporting undergraduate instructors.

What Motivates Biology Instructors to Engage and Persist in Teaching Professional Development?

We conducted a study of 19 biology instructors participating in small, local groups at six research-intensive universities connected to the Automated Analysis of Constructed Response (AACR) project (www.msu.edu/∼aacr). Our aim was to uncover participants' motivation to persist in a long-term teaching professional development effort, a topic that is understudied in discipline-based educational research. We interviewed each participant twice over a 2-year period and conducted qualitative analyses on the data, using expectancy-value theory as a framework for considering motivation. Our analyses revealed that motivation among instructors was high due to their enjoyment of the AACR groups. The high level of motivation is further explained by the fact that AACR groups facilitated instructor involvement with the larger AACR project. We also found that group dynamics encouraged persistence; instructors thought they might never talk with colleagues about teaching in the absence of AACR groups; and groups were perceived to have a low-enough time requirement to warrant sustained involvement. We conclude that instructors have persisted in AACR groups because the groups provided great value with limited cost. The characterization of instructor experiences described here can contribute to a better understanding of faculty needs in teaching professional development.

A Guide for Graduate Students Interested in Postdoctoral Positions in Biology Education Research.

Postdoctoral positions in biology education research (BER) are becoming increasingly common as the field grows. However, many life science graduate students are unaware of these positions or do not understand what these positions entail or the careers with which they align. In this essay, we use a backward-design approach to inform life science graduate students of postdoctoral opportunities in BER. Beginning with the end in mind, we first discuss the types of careers to which BER postdoctoral positions lead. We then discuss the different types of BER postdoctoral positions, drawing on our own experiences and those of faculty mentors. Finally, we discuss activities in which life science graduate students can engage that will help them gauge whether BER aligns with their research interests and develop skills to be competitive for BER postdoctoral positions.

It's personal: biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions.

Despite many calls for undergraduate biology instructors to incorporate active learning into lecture courses, few studies have focused on what it takes for instructors to make this change. We sought to investigate the process of adopting and sustaining active-learning instruction. As a framework for our research, we used the innovation-decision model, a generalized model of how individuals adopt innovations. We interviewed 17 biology instructors who were attempting to implement case study teaching and conducted qualitative text analysis on interview data. The overarching theme that emerged from our analysis was that instructors prioritized personal experience-rather than empirical evidence-in decisions regarding case study teaching. We identified personal experiences that promote case study teaching, such as anecdotal observations of student outcomes, and those that hinder case study teaching, such as insufficient teaching skills. By analyzing the differences between experienced and new case study instructors, we discovered that new case study instructors need support to deal with unsupportive colleagues and to develop the skill set needed for an active-learning classroom. We generated hypotheses that are grounded in our data about effectively supporting instructors in adopting and sustaining active-learning strategies. We also synthesized our findings with existing literature to tailor the innovation-decision model.

The genetic drift inventory: a tool for measuring what advanced undergraduates have mastered about genetic drift.

Understanding genetic drift is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of biology, yet it is difficult to learn because it combines the conceptual challenges of both evolution and randomness. To help assess strategies for teaching genetic drift, we have developed and evaluated the Genetic Drift Inventory (GeDI), a concept inventory that measures upper-division students' understanding of this concept. We used an iterative approach that included extensive interviews and field tests involving 1723 students across five different undergraduate campuses. The GeDI consists of 22 agree-disagree statements that assess four key concepts and six misconceptions. Student scores ranged from 4/22 to 22/22. Statements ranged in mean difficulty from 0.29 to 0.80 and in discrimination from 0.09 to 0.46. The internal consistency, as measured with Cronbach's alpha, ranged from 0.58 to 0.88 across five iterations. Test-retest analysis resulted in a coefficient of stability of 0.82. The true-false format means that the GeDI can test how well students grasp key concepts central to understanding genetic drift, while simultaneously testing for the presence of misconceptions that indicate an incomplete understanding of genetic drift. The insights gained from this testing will, over time, allow us to improve instruction about this key component of evolution.

Misconceptions Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.

A recent essay in CBE-Life Sciences Education criticized biology education researchers' use of the term misconceptions and recommended that, in order to be up-to-date with education research, biology education researchers should use alternative terms for students' incorrect ideas in science. We counter that criticism by reviewing the continued use and the meaning of misconceptions in education research today, and describe two key debates that account for the controversy surrounding the term. We then identify and describe two areas of research that have real implications for tomorrow's biology education research and biology instruction: 1) hypotheses about the structure of student knowledge (coherent vs. fragmented) that gives rise to misconceptions; and 2) the "warming trend" that considers the effects of students' motivation, beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning (their epistemic beliefs), and learning strategies (their cognitive and metacognitive skills) on their ability to change their misconceptions in science. We conclude with a description of proposed future work in biology education research related to misconceptions.