LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination and stigma in academic biology. These challenges are likely magnified for graduate students. However, there have been no studies documenting the experiences of LGBTQ+ life sciences graduate students. To address this gap, we conducted an interview study of 22 biology PhD students from 13 universities across the United States who identify as LGBTQ+. We used the master narrative framework to interpret our findings. Master narratives are guidelines that dictate the “expected” and “normal” way one is supposed to navigate life. We considered how graduate students engage with the societal master narrative that treats cisheterosexuality as the norm, as well as the master narrative that expects biology to remain an objective, apolitical space. We found that LGBTQ+ PhD students recognize the anti-LBGTQ+ narratives in academic biology, which can result in instances of discrimination and encourage them to conceal their identities. However, participants pushed back against these master narratives. Graduate students described creating alternative narratives by highlighting how their LGBTQ+ identity has allowed them to become more inclusive instructors and better researchers. Some also purposely reveal their LGBTQ+ identity in academic biology, violating the master narrative that non-science identities should not be discussed in the life sciences.

One of the central issues in ecology is the underrepresentation of individuals from diverse backgrounds. This underrepresentation starts at the undergraduate level and continues into graduate programs, contributing to a need for more diversity in the discipline. We hypothesize that the interplay of students’ identities and contextual factors influence how students perceive their sense of belonging in a field-based discipline. We present findings from a 2-yr evaluation of a pregraduate school field program, FIRED UP (Field-Intensive Research Emphasizing Diversity UP in the alpine), where students interacted with a curriculum focused on building field skills and cohort bonding. Students provided feedback through surveys and interviews conducted at various phases throughout the program. Using the Phenomenological Variant Ecological Systems Theory, we present our interview results in three cases describing differing student outcomes regarding belonging which allows us to give voice and weight to students with more critical and constructive perspectives. Thus, the results of this study can be used to critically examine field-based educational program design to maximize the ability of programs to respond to diverse student needs. The broader implications of this work address how to approach pregraduate school training and cohort building that supports students marginalized in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines as they enter graduate school.

Science communication has historically been inequitable, with certain voices and perspectives holding the power and dominant ways of knowing being promoted over others. Recently, there has been a push toward inclusive science communication, which values diverse perspectives and ways of knowing in collaborative conversations to solve complex socioscientific issues. However, there is a lack of both trainings in inclusive science communication for undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students as well as established ways to evaluate the efficacy of these trainings. To address this need, we designed a new multifactorial survey based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to assess students’ attitudes/norms, self-efficacy, behavioral intents, and behaviors in inclusive science communication, which we termed the Planned Behaviors in Inclusive Science Communication (PB-ISC) Scale. We utilized expert review, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, cognitive interviews, and quantitative measures to gather evidence of validity supporting the proposed use of the final 4-factor, 26-item survey. This survey can be used as a tool by science communication educators and researchers to assess students’ planned behavior in inclusive science communication in response to trainings or experiences in science communication or related topics like socioscientific issues, civic engagement, and citizen science.

Hawaiʻi students, and in particular Native Hawaiian students, face high rates of attrition and low representation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) academic majors and careers, but place-based Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) such as the Research Experiences in Marine Science (REMS) summer program may help to better engage these students with scientific content understanding and skills development. This article assesses latent factors of student gains after participating in the REMS program as they relate to student science identity. Results from an exploratory factor analysis examining the internal structure of an assessment measure delivered during the program suggest strong evidence of four latent factors in student self-reported learning gains: Content Understanding, Scientific Skills, Interest, and Integration. These factors will guide the development and delivery of the REMS survey as it is applied to additional cohorts of students participating in REMS and other, similar programs being developed and implemented in Hawaiʻi to support Native Hawaiian students. Although there were no significant relationships between these factors and responses to a science identity survey item, additional insights from an alumna of the program highlight how place-based elements in CUREs provide authentic and rigorous research training experiences for students from populations historically marginalized in STEM.

Scientist Spotlights are homework assignments that highlight the personal and scientific stories of counterstereotypical scientists. Previous research has focused on whether these assignments promote possible selves in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). We sought to understand the value students themselves placed on the assignment using expectancy-value theory complemented by further analysis of the assignment's self-reported impacts on students. Therefore, at the end of an introductory biology course with several Scientist Spotlights, we asked students to reflect on how the course would influence them for years to come. We found that although the assignments had low instrumental value, 49% of students mentioned Scientist Spotlights or a highlighted scientist. Thematic analysis on the Scientist Spotlight–related parts of the reflections found novel emergent themes including diversity in science, humanizing scientists, and self-efficacy. Most students mentioned multiple themes, with few differences between students from minoritized and nonminoritized groups. We interpreted our results through the lens of the “mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors” framework, as Scientist Spotlights appeared to function as “windows” into the diverse scientific world, “mirrors” for seeing human traits in scientists, and “sliding glass doors” inviting students further into science. Our study expands our understanding of the broad, multiple, and intersecting impacts of Scientist Spotlights.

Program evaluation for interventions aimed at enhancing diversity can fall short when the evaluation unintentionally reifies the exclusion of multiple marginalized student experiences. The present study presents a Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) approach to program evaluation to understand outcomes for Women of Color undergraduates involved in a national biomedical training program called the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) initiative. Using longitudinal data, we examined the impact of participation in the BUILD Scholars programs and BUILD-developed novel biomedical curriculum on undergraduate's research self-efficacy. Employing propensity score matching and multiple regression models, we found that Black women who participated in the BUILD scholars program reported higher research self-efficacy, whereas Latine and White undergraduate BUILD scholars had lower research self-efficacy. Additionally, Latine women who participated in novel biomedical curricula reported significantly lower research self-efficacy. We contend that disaggregated and intersectional analyses of subpopulations are necessary for improving understanding of program interventions and identifying areas where systems of exclusion may continue to harm students from minoritized backgrounds. We provide recommendations for future quantitative program evaluation practices and research in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) equity efforts.

The underrepresentation and underperformance of low-income, first-generation, gender minoritized, Black, Latine, and Indigenous students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) occurs for a variety of reasons, including, that students in these groups experience opportunity gaps in STEM classes. A critical approach to disrupting persistent inequities is implementing policies and practices that no longer systematically disadvantage students from minoritized groups. To do this, instructors must use data-informed reflection to interrogate their course outcomes. However, these data can be hard to access, process, and visualize in ways that make patterns of inequities clear. To address this need, we developed an R-Shiny application that allows authenticated users to visualize inequities in student performance. An explorable example can be found here: https://theobaldlab.shinyapps.io/visualizinginequities/. In this essay, we use publicly retrieved data as an illustrative example to detail 1) how individual instructors, groups of instructors, and institutions might use this tool for guided self-reflection and 2) how to adapt the code to accommodate data retrieved from local sources. All of the code is freely available here: https://github.com/TheobaldLab/VisualizingInequities. We hope faculty, administrators, and higher-education policymakers will make visible the opportunity gaps in college courses, with the explicit goal of creating transformative, equitable education through self-reflection, group discussion, and structured support.

Evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) have been shown to benefit students in undergraduate biology, but little is known about the degree to which community college (CC) biology instructors use EBIPs or the barriers they encounter. We surveyed CC biology instructors to characterize how they use EBIPs, their capacity to use EBIPs, and perceived barriers to their use, and to explore which factors are associated with EBIP use. CC biology instructors report using EBIPs to a similar degree as other populations of undergraduate biology faculty; they generally believe EBIPs to be effective and are motivated to use EBIPs. Consistent with the theory of planned behavior, instructor belief in EBIP effectiveness, collegial support, and perceived knowledge of and skill in using EBIPs positively influence their use. The main barriers to using EBIPs reported by CC instructors included the need to cover large amounts of course content, lack of time to prepare for using EBIPs, and student resistance. Our findings point to a number of approaches that may promote the use of EBIPs by CC biology instructors, including professional development to increase instructor knowledge and skill, addressing tensions between content volume and the use of EBIPs, and providing resources to make implementing EBIPs time efficient.

High levels of student anxiety are negatively related to degree persistence, academic achievement, and student perceptions of instructor support. Anxiety levels vary along many axes—among classes, within students in the same class, and over time—creating a dynamic emotional landscape in classrooms. In this study, we examined the relationship between student anxiety levels and perceptions of instructor support within three introductory biology classes at two timepoints during a semester. Data on student anxiety levels and perceptions of instructor support were supplemented by open-ended student explanations of instructor support characteristics. We found a significant negative correlation between student anxiety level and instructor support ratings at wk 4 for all three classes. By wk 14, this correlation persisted in classes 1 and 3 but not class 2, where support ratings no longer significantly varied with anxiety levels. Analyses of open responses revealed that lower-anxiety students in classes 1 and 3 were more positive about how the instructors answered questions and higher-anxiety students in class 2 were more positive about their instructor's pedagogical practices. We suggest that these instructor practices should be investigated as potential factors to equalize perceptions of instructor support by students with different anxiety levels in introductory biology.

“Bee the CURE” is a Power-of-Place course-based undergraduate research experience (PoP-CUREs; ) that combines place-based education (Demarest, 2014; Gruenewald, 2014) with CUREs, emphasizing student scientific civic engagement where research is relevant to the community where the research is taking place. PoP-CUREs have potential to build students’ knowledge, skills, value, and self-efficacy when engaging with the public using science skills (i.e., scientific civic engagement). A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design utilizing surveys and semistructured interviews was used for this study (). Students made gains in science self-efficacy over the course of the semester and showed a trend of increasing science identity in both Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 semesters. Students’ scientific civic knowledge, or a student's sense of how to use or apply knowledge and skills to help a community, increased significantly, while other predictors of scientific civic engagement started high and remained high throughout the course. Bee the CURE demonstrates psychosocial outcomes that are similar to previously studied CUREs and expands our understanding of how PoP-CUREs might influence outcomes with evidence that an important predictor of future scientific civic engagement increases. Implications for PoP-CURE instruction at Hispanic serving community colleges are discussed.

Office hours are an integral component of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses at nearly all colleges and universities. Despite their ubiquity as a support mechanism, there has only been limited work examining how instructors approach office hours and what shapes these approaches. Here, we conduct a phenomenographic study to investigate how instructors of STEM courses experience office hours and how these experiences may impact their approaches to promoting and managing office hours. We identified variations in how instructors promoted office hours, the modality of office hours (i.e., when and where office hours were held), and how instructors facilitated learning during office hours. These variations spanned from student-centric (strategies instructors use with students’ interest in mind, e.g., wanting to increase student learning, accessibility, comfort, etc.) to instructor-centric (strategies the instructors use with their own self-interest in mind, e.g., saving time and/or bandwidth, personal needs, comfort, etc.). Additionally, we identify several challenges and barriers, including a lack of formal training or opportunities to discuss office hour approaches with other faculty, and conclude with general recommendations for instructors and administrators in STEM departments for engaging and supporting students during office hours.