Testing within the science classroom is commonly used for both formative and summative assessment purposes to let the student and the instructor gauge progress toward learning goals. Research within cognitive science suggests, however, that testing can also be a learning event. We present summaries of studies that suggest that repeated retrieval can enhance long-term learning in a laboratory setting; various testing formats can promote learning; feedback enhances the benefits of testing; testing can potentiate further study; and benefits of testing are not limited to rote memory. Most of these studies were performed in a laboratory environment, so we also present summaries of experiments suggesting that the benefits of testing can extend to the classroom. Finally, we suggest opportunities that these observations raise for the classroom and for further research.

Undergraduate biology education is often viewed as being focused on memorization rather than development of students’ critical-thinking abilities. We speculated that open-note testing would be an easily implemented change that would emphasize higher-order thinking. As open-note testing is not commonly used in the biological sciences and the literature on its effects in biology education is sparse, we performed a comprehensive analysis of this intervention on a primary literature–based exam across three large-enrollment laboratory courses. Although students believed open-note testing would impact exam scores, we found no effect on performance, either overall or on questions of nearly all Bloom’s levels. Open-note testing also produced no advantage when examined under a variety of parameters, including research experience, grade point average, course grade, prior exposure to primary literature–focused laboratory courses, or gender. Interestingly, we did observe small differences in open- and closed-note exam performance and perception for students who experienced open-note exams for an entire quarter. This implies that student preparation or in-test behavior can be altered by exposure to open-note testing conditions in a single course and that ­increased experience may be necessary to truly understand the impact of this intervention.

One challenge in science education assessment is that students often focus on surface features of questions rather than the underlying scientific principles. We investigated how student written responses to constructed-response questions about photosynthesis vary based on two surface features of the question: the species of plant and the order of two question prompts. We asked four versions of the question with different combinations of the two plant species and order of prompts in an introductory cell biology course. We found that there was not a significant difference in the content of student responses to versions of the question stem with different species or order of prompts, using both computerized lexical analysis and expert scoring. We conducted 20 face-to-face interviews with students to further probe the effects of question wording on student responses. During the interviews, we found that students thought that the plant species was neither relevant nor confusing when answering the question. Students identified the prompts as both relevant and confusing. However, this confusion was not specific to a single version.

Strong metacognition skills are associated with learning outcomes and student performance. Metacognition includes metacognitive knowledge—our awareness of our thinking—and metacognitive regulation—how we control our thinking to facilitate learning. In this study, we targeted metacognitive regulation by guiding students through self-evaluation assignments following the first and second exams in a large introductory biology course (n = 245). We coded these assignments for evidence of three key metacognitive-regulation skills: monitoring, evaluating, and planning. We found that nearly all students were willing to take a different approach to studying but showed varying abilities to monitor, evaluate, and plan their learning strategies. Although many students were able to outline a study plan for the second exam that could effectively address issues they identified in preparing for the first exam, only half reported that they followed their plans. Our data suggest that prompting students to use metacognitive-regulation skills is effective for some students, but others need help with metacognitive knowledge to execute the learning strategies they select. Using these results, we propose a continuum of metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students. By refining this model through further study, we aim to more effectively target metacognitive development in undergraduate biology students.

The high attrition rate among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors has long been an area of concern for institutions and educational researchers. The transition from introductory to advanced courses has been identified as a particularly “leaky” point along the STEM pipeline, and students who struggle early in an introductory STEM course are predominantly at risk. Peer-tutoring programs offered to all students in a course have been widely found to help STEM students during this critical transition, but hiring a sufficient number of tutors may not be an option for some institutions. As an alternative, this study examines the viability of an optional peer-tutoring program offered to students who are struggling in a large-enrollment, introductory biology course. Struggling students who regularly attended peer tutoring increased exam performance, expert-like perceptions of biology, and course persistence relative to their struggling peers who were not attending the peer-tutoring sessions. The results of this study provide information to instructors who want to design targeted academic assistance for students who are struggling in introductory courses.

The 6-yr degree-completion rate of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors at U.S. colleges and universities is less than 40%. Persistence among women and underrepresented minorities (URMs), including African-American, Latino/a, Native American, and Pacific Islander students, is even more troubling, as these students leave STEM majors at significantly higher rates than their non-URM peers. This study utilizes a matched comparison group design to examine the academic achievement and persistence of students enrolled in the Program for Excellence in Education and Research in the Sciences (PEERS), an academic support program at the University of California, Los Angeles, for first- and second-year science majors from underrepresented backgrounds. Results indicate that PEERS students, on average, earned higher grades in most “gatekeeper” chemistry and math courses, had a higher cumulative grade point average, completed more science courses, and persisted in a science major at significantly higher rates than the comparison group. With its holistic approach focused on academics, counseling, creating a supportive community, and exposure to research, the PEERS program serves as an excellent model for universities interested in and committed to improving persistence of underrepresented science majors and closing the achievement gap.

We present an innovative course-based undergraduate research experience curriculum focused on the characterization of single point mutations in p53, a tumor suppressor gene that is mutated in more than 50% of human cancers. This course is required of all introductory biology students, so all biology majors engage in a research project as part of their training. Using a set of open-ended written prompts, we found that the course shifts student conceptions of what it means to think like a scientist from novice to more expert-like. Students at the end of the course identified experimental repetition, data analysis, and collaboration as important elements of thinking like a scientist. Course exams revealed that students showed gains in their ability to analyze and interpret data. These data indicate that this course-embedded research experience has a positive impact on the development of students’ conceptions and practice of scientific thinking.

Concept mapping was developed as a method of displaying and organizing hierarchical knowledge structures. Using the new, multidimensional presentation software Prezi, we have developed a new teaching technique designed to engage higher-level skills in the cognitive domain. This tool, synthesis mapping, is a natural evolution of concept mapping, which utilizes embedding to layer information within concepts. Prezi’s zooming user interface lets the author of the presentation use both depth as well as distance to show connections between data, ideas, and concepts. Students in the class Biology of Cancer created synthesis maps to illustrate their knowledge of tumorigenesis. Students used multiple organizational schemes to build their maps. We present an analysis of student work, placing special emphasis on organization within student maps and how the organization of knowledge structures in student maps can reveal strengths and weaknesses in student understanding or instruction. We also provide a discussion of best practices for instructors who would like to implement synthesis mapping in their classrooms.

Constructing explanations is an essential skill for all science learners. The goal of this project was to model the key components of expert explanation of molecular and cellular mechanisms. As such, we asked: What is an appropriate model of the components of explanation used by biology experts to explain molecular and cellular mechanisms? Do explanations made by experts from different biology subdisciplines at a university support the validity of this model? Guided by the modeling framework of R. S. Justi and J. K. Gilbert, the validity of an initial model was tested by asking seven biologists to explain a molecular mechanism of their choice. Data were collected from interviews, artifacts, and drawings, and then subjected to thematic analysis. We found that biologists explained the specific activities and organization of entities of the mechanism. In addition, they contextualized explanations according to their biological and social significance; integrated explanations with methods, instruments, and measurements; and used analogies and narrated stories. The derived methods, analogies, context, and how themes informed the development of our final MACH model of mechanistic explanations. Future research will test the potential of the MACH model as a guiding framework for instruction to enhance the quality of student explanations.

The use and validity of the Graduate Record Examination General Test (GRE) to predict the success of graduate school applicants is heavily debated, especially for its possible impact on the selection of underrepresented minorities into science, technology, engineering, and math fields. To better identify candidates who would succeed in our program with less reliance on the GRE and grade point average (GPA), we developed and tested a composite score (CS) that incorporates additional measurable predictors of success to evaluate incoming applicants. Uniform numerical values were assigned to GPA, GRE, research experience, advanced course work or degrees, presentations, and publications. We compared the CS of our students with their achievement of program goals and graduate school outcomes. The average CS was significantly higher in those students completing the graduate program versus dropouts (p < 0.002) and correlated with success in competing for fellowships and a shorter time to thesis defense. In contrast, these outcomes were not predicted by GPA, science GPA, or GRE. Recent implementation of an impromptu writing assessment during the interview suggests the CS can be improved further. We conclude that the CS provides a broader quantitative measure that better predicts success of students in our program and allows improved evaluation and selection of the most promising candidates.

There is extensive evidence that active learning works better than a completely passive lecture. Despite this evidence, adoption of these evidence-based teaching practices remains low. In this paper, we offer one tool to help faculty members implement active learning. This tool identifies 21 readily implemented elements that have been shown to increase student outcomes related to achievement, logic development, or other relevant learning goals with college-age students. Thus, this tool both clarifies the research-supported elements of best practices for instructor implementation of active learning in the classroom setting and measures instructors’ alignment with these practices. We describe how we reviewed the discipline-based education research literature to identify best practices in active learning for adult learners in the classroom and used these results to develop an observation tool (Practical Observation Rubric To Assess Active Learning, or PORTAAL) that documents the extent to which instructors incorporate these practices into their classrooms. We then use PORTAAL to explore the classroom practices of 25 introductory biology instructors who employ some form of active learning. Overall, PORTAAL documents how well aligned classrooms are with research-supported best practices for active learning and provides specific feedback and guidance to instructors to allow them to identify what they do well and what could be improved.

Researchers, university administrators, and faculty members are increasingly interested in measuring and describing instructional practices provided in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses at the college level. Specifically, there is keen interest in comparing instructional practices between courses, monitoring changes over time, and mapping observed practices to research-based teaching. While increasingly common observation protocols (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol [RTOP] and Classroom Observation Protocol in Undergraduate STEM [COPUS]) at the postsecondary level help achieve some of these goals, they also suffer from weaknesses that limit their applicability. In this study, we leverage the strengths of these protocols to provide an easy method that enables the reliable and valid characterization of instructional practices. This method was developed empirically via a cluster analysis using observations of 269 individual class periods, corresponding to 73 different faculty members, 28 different research-intensive institutions, and various STEM disciplines. Ten clusters, called COPUS profiles, emerged from this analysis; they represent the most common types of instructional practices enacted in the classrooms observed for this study. RTOP scores were used to validate the alignment of the 10 COPUS profiles with reformed teaching. Herein, we present a detailed description of the cluster analysis method, the COPUS profiles, and the distribution of the COPUS profiles across various STEM courses at research-intensive universities.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education reform efforts have called for widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching in which faculty members attend to student outcomes through assessment practice. Awareness about the importance of assessment has illuminated the need to understand what faculty members know and how they engage with assessment knowledge and practice. The Faculty Self-Reported Assessment Survey (FRAS) is a new instrument for evaluating science faculty assessment knowledge and experience. Instrument validation was composed of two distinct studies: an empirical evaluation of the psychometric properties of the FRAS and a comparative known-groups validation to explore the ability of the FRAS to differentiate levels of faculty assessment experience. The FRAS was found to be highly reliable (α = 0.96). The dimensionality of the instrument enabled distinction of assessment knowledge into categories of program design, instrumentation, and validation. In the known-groups validation, the FRAS distinguished between faculty groups with differing levels of assessment experience. Faculty members with formal assessment experience self-reported higher levels of familiarity with assessment terms, higher frequencies of assessment activity, increased confidence in conducting assessment, and more positive attitudes toward assessment than faculty members who were novices in assessment. These results suggest that the FRAS can reliably and validly differentiate levels of expertise in faculty knowledge of assessment.

Research mentor training (RMT), based on the published Entering Mentoring curricula series, has been shown to improve the knowledge and skills of research mentors across career stages, as self-reported by both the mentors engaged in training and their mentees. To promote widespread dissemination and empower others to implement this evidence-based training at their home institutions, we developed an extensive, interactive, multifaceted train-the-trainer workshop. The specific goals of these workshops are to 1) increase facilitator knowledge of an RMT curriculum, 2) increase facilitator confidence in implementing the curriculum, 3) provide a safe environment to practice facilitation of curricular activities, and 4) review implementation strategies and evaluation tools. Data indicate that our approach results in high satisfaction and significant confidence gains among attendees. Of the 195 diverse attendees trained in our workshops since Fall 2010, 44% report implementation at 39 different institutions, collectively training more than 500 mentors. Further, mentors who participated in the RMT sessions led by our trained facilitators report high facilitator effectiveness in guiding discussion. Implications and challenges to building the national capacity needed for improved research mentoring relationships are discussed.

The availability of reliable evidence for teaching practices after professional development is limited across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, making the identification of professional development “best practices” and effective models for change difficult. We aimed to determine the extent to which postdoctoral fellows (i.e., future biology faculty) believed in and implemented evidence-based pedagogies after completion of a 2-yr professional development program, Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching (FIRST IV). Postdocs (PDs) attended a 2-yr training program during which they completed self-report assessments of their beliefs about teaching and gains in pedagogical knowledge and experience, and they provided copies of class assessments and video recordings of their teaching. The PDs reported greater use of learner-centered compared with teacher-centered strategies. These data were consistent with the results of expert reviews of teaching videos. The majority of PDs (86%) received video ratings that documented active engagement of students and implementation of learner-centered classrooms. Despite practice of higher-level cognition in class sessions, the items used by the PDs on their assessments of learning focused on lower-level cognitive skills. We attributed the high success of the FIRST IV program to our focus on inexperienced teachers, an iterative process of teaching practice and reflection, and development of and teaching a full course.