Fourteen Recommendations to Create a More Inclusive Environment for LGBTQ+ Individuals in Academic Biology.

Individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and otherwise nonstraight and/or non-cisgender (LGBTQ+) have often not felt welcome or represented in the biology community. Additionally, biology can present unique challenges for LGBTQ+ students because of the relationship between certain biology topics and their LGBTQ+ identities. Currently, there is no centralized set of guidelines to make biology learning environments more inclusive for LGBTQ+ individuals. Rooted in prior literature and the collective expertise of the authors who identify as members and allies of the LGBTQ+ community, we present a set of actionable recommendations to help biologists, biology educators, and biology education researchers be more inclusive of individuals with LGBTQ+ identities. These recommendations are intended to increase awareness of LGBTQ+ identities and spark conversations about transforming biology learning spaces and the broader academic biology community to become more inclusive of LGBTQ+ individuals.

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.

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.