Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education outlined five core concepts intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) evolution; 2) structure and function; 3) information flow, exchange, and storage; 4) pathways and transformations of energy and matter; and 5) systems. We have taken these general recommendations and created a Vision and Change BioCore Guide—a set of general principles and specific statements that expand upon the core concepts, creating a framework that biology departments can use to align with the goals of Vision and Change. We used a grassroots approach to generate the BioCore Guide, beginning with faculty ideas as the basis for an iterative process that incorporated feedback from more than 240 biologists and biology educators at a diverse range of academic institutions throughout the United States. The final validation step in this process demonstrated strong national consensus, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing with the importance and scientific accuracy of the statements. It is our hope that the BioCore Guide will serve as an agent of change for biology departments as we move toward transforming undergraduate biology education.

The U.S. scientific research community does not reflect America's diversity. Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans made up 31% of the general population in 2010, but they represented only 18 and 7% of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) bachelor's and doctoral degrees, respectively, and 6% of STEM faculty members (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2013). Equity in the scientific research community is important for a variety of reasons; a diverse community of researchers can minimize the negative influence of bias in scientific reasoning, because people from different backgrounds approach a problem from different perspectives and can raise awareness regarding biases (Intemann, 2009). Additionally, by failing to be attentive to equity, we may exclude some of the best and brightest scientific minds and limit the pool of possible scientists (Intemann, 2009). Given this need for equity, how can our scientific research community become more inclusive?

Women who start college in one of the natural or physical sciences leave in greater proportions than their male peers. The reasons for this difference are complex, and one possible contributing factor is the social environment women experience in the classroom. Using social network analysis, we explore how gender influences the confidence that college-level biology students have in each other’s mastery of biology. Results reveal that males are more likely than females to be named by peers as being knowledgeable about the course content. This effect increases as the term progresses, and persists even after controlling for class performance and outspokenness. The bias in nominations is specifically due to males over-nominating their male peers relative to their performance. The over-nomination of male peers is commensurate with an overestimation of male grades by 0.57 points on a 4 point grade scale, indicating a strong male bias among males when assessing their classmates. Females, in contrast, nominated equitably based on student performance rather than gender, suggesting they lacked gender biases in filling out these surveys. These trends persist across eleven surveys taken in three different iterations of the same Biology course. In every class, the most renowned students are always male. This favoring of males by peers could influence student self-confidence, and thus persistence in this STEM discipline.

The unicellular microalga Haematococcus pluvialis has emerged as a promising biomass feedstock for the ketocarotenoid astaxanthin and neutral lipid triacylglycerol. Motile flagellates, resting palmella cells, and cysts are the major life cycle stages of H. pluvialis. Fast-growing motile cells are usually used to induce astaxanthin and triacylglycerol biosynthesis under stress conditions (high light or nutrient starvation); however, productivity of biomass and bioproducts are compromised due to the susceptibility of motile cells to stress. This study revealed that the Photosystem II (PSII) reaction center D1 protein, the manganese-stabilizing protein PsbO, and several major membrane glycerolipids (particularly for chloroplast membrane lipids monogalactosyldiacylglycerol and phosphatidylglycerol), decreased dramatically in motile cells under high light (HL). In contrast, palmella cells, which are transformed from motile cells after an extended period of time under favorable growth conditions, have developed multiple protective mechanisms - including reduction in chloroplast membrane lipids content, downplay of linear photosynthetic electron transport, and activating nonphotochemical quenching mechanisms - while accumulating triacylglycerol. Consequently, the membrane lipids and PSII proteins (D1 and PsbO) remained relatively stable in palmella cells subjected to HL. Introducing palmella instead of motile cells to stress conditions may greatly increase astaxanthin and lipid production in H. pluvialis culture.

The unicellular green microalga Desmodesmus sp. S1 can produce more than 50% total lipid of cell dry weight under high light and nitrogen-limitation conditions. After irradiation by heavy ¹²C⁶⁺ ion beam of 10, 30, 60, 90 or 120 Gy, followed by screening of resulting mutants on 24-well microplates, more than 500 mutants were obtained. One of those, named D90G-19, exhibited lipid productivity of 0.298 g L^-1⋅d^-1, 20.6% higher than wild type, likely owing to an improved maximum quantum efficiency (Fv/Fm) of photosynthesis under stress. This work demonstrated that heavy-ion irradiation combined with high-throughput screening is an effective means for trait improvement. The resulting mutant D90G-19 may be used for enhanced lipid production.

The shift from cookbook to authentic research-based lab courses in undergraduate biology necessitates the need for evaluation and assessment of these novel courses. Although the biology education community has made progress in this area, it is important that we interpret the effectiveness of these courses with caution and remain mindful of inherent limitations to our study designs that may impact internal and external validity. The specific context of a research study can have a dramatic impact on the conclusions. We present a case study of our own three-year investigation of the impact of a research-based introductory lab course, highlighting how volunteer students, a lack of a comparison group, and small sample sizes can be limitations of a study design that can affect the interpretation of the effectiveness of a course.

Active learning in college classes and participation in the workforce frequently hinge on small group work. However, group dynamics vary, ranging from equitable collaboration to dysfunctional groups dominated by one individual. To explore how group dynamics impact student learning, we asked students in a large-enrollment university biology class to self-report their experience during in-class group work. Specifically, we asked students whether there was a friend in their group, whether they were comfortable in their group, and whether someone dominated their group. Surveys were administered after students participated in two different types of intentionally constructed group activities: 1) a loosely-structured activity wherein students worked together for an entire class period (termed the ‘single-group’ activity), or 2) a highly-structured ‘jigsaw’ activity wherein students first independently mastered different subtopics, then formed new groups to peer-teach their respective subtopics. We measured content mastery by the change in score on identical pre-/post-tests. We then investigated whether activity type or student demographics predicted the likelihood of reporting working with a dominator, being comfortable in their group, or working with a friend. We found that students who more strongly agreed that they worked with a dominator were 17.8% less likely to answer an additional question correct on the 8-question post-test. Similarly, when students were comfortable in their group, content mastery increased by 27.5%. Working with a friend was the single biggest predictor of student comfort, although working with a friend did not impact performance. Finally, we found that students were 67% less likely to agree that someone dominated their group during the jigsaw activities than during the single group activities. We conclude that group activities that rely on positive interdependence, and include turn-taking and have explicit prompts for students to explain their reasoning, such as our jigsaw, can help reduce the negative impact of inequitable groups.

STEM classrooms (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in postsecondary education are rapidly improved by the proper use of active learning techniques. These techniques occupy a descriptive spectrum that transcends passive teaching toward active, constructive, and, finally, interactive methods. While aspects of this framework have been examined, no large-scale or actual classroom-based data exist to inform postsecondary education STEM instructors about possible learning gains. We describe the results of a quasi-experimental study to test the apex of the ICAP framework (interactive, constructive, active, and passive) in this ecological classroom environment. Students in interactive classrooms demonstrate significantly improved learning outcomes relative to students in constructive classrooms. This improvement in learning is relatively subtle; similar experimental designs without repeated measures would be unlikely to have the power to observe this significance. We discuss the importance of seemingly small learning gains that might propagate throughout a course or departmental curriculum, as well as improvements with the necessity for faculty to develop and implement similar activities.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) meet national recommendations for integrating research experiences into life science curricula. As such, CUREs have grown in popularity and many research studies have focused on student outcomes from CUREs. Institutional change literature highlights that understanding faculty is also key to new pedagogies succeeding. To begin to understand faculty perspectives on CUREs, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 61 faculty who teach CUREs regarding why they teach CUREs, what the outcomes are, and how they would discuss a CURE with a colleague. Using grounded theory, participant responses were coded and categorized as tangible or intangible, related to both student and faculty-centered themes. We found that intangible themes were prevalent, and that there were significant differences in the emphasis on tangible themes for faculty who have developed their own independent CUREs when compared with faculty who implement pre-developed, national CUREs. We focus our results on the similarities and differences among the perspectives of faculty who teach these two different CURE types and explore trends among all participants. The results of this work highlight the need for considering a multi-dimensional framework to understand, promote, and successfully implement CUREs.