EDUCATION FORUM

Transforming Undergraduate Biology Education

AAAS and NSF recently hosted what may have been the most important meeting for undergraduate biology education in over a decade. “Transforming Undergraduate Education in Biology: Mobilizing the Community for Change,” which took place July 15–17 in Washington, D.C., brought together several hundred of the nation’s leading educators. ASPB members who participated in the conference included MariaElena Zavala (California State–Northridge; MariaElena is on the project’s advisory committee), Paul Williams (Wisconsin), Eve Wurtele (Iowa State), and probably others (my apologies). ASPB staff member Katie Engen also attended.

The conference was a key event in a multi-year effort by AAAS and NSF to reform undergraduate biology education. As Alan Leshner (CEO of AAAS) noted, the reform effort involves ALL students, not just science majors. Conversations were held around the country in the two years leading up to this conference, including one at the ASPB/BSA joint meeting in Chicago in 2007 and another in the fall of 2008 that was attended by ASPB Excom members Rob McClung (past president), Mark Brodl (treasurer), and Jane Ellis (Education Committee chair). These smaller group conversations served as brainstorming sessions to set much of the agenda for the seminal meeting in Washington. The Washington meeting was then designed around a series of working groups, each of which submitted reports of their conclusions. AAAS and NSF will issue a final report at some point in the next year.

Below are some of the major findings, with each bullet corresponding to a working group.

• A student working group felt that the most important learning in their biology education involves critical thinking, research experiences, analytical skills, and/or communication skills. Students also felt that the things that excited them the most included academic challenge, two-way conversations between students and faculty, and connecting learning to the “big picture.”
• A group focusing on core concepts and competencies was assigned five major concept areas (evolution, energy and matter, information, systems, structure/function) and several “competencies” (i.e., processes of science, interdisciplinary interaction, communication/collaboration, science and society) and asked to generate examples of best practices from around the country for teaching each concept area and competency. This group’s final report provided a wealth of examples of high-quality teaching and concluded by stating that existing textbooks are impediments to reform efforts.
• Another group focused on student-centered learning. They agreed that, as much as possible, science should be learned as it is practiced and biology education should be active, outcome-oriented, inquiry-driven, and relevant. Students need ongoing, effective feedback.
• Assessments are often too focused on narrowly defined content and do not reflect what is actually going on in courses. We need data to inform biology education at every level, from individual classroom activities to whole educational programs. Assessments should be aligned with our educational goals, performed with consistency, and used as diagnostic tools to inform instructional decisions and student learning.
• Research experiences should be integrated across biology curricula, and should begin very early in the college career of all students. Students should be introduced to all aspects of the scientific process in all biology courses. Specific learning goals related to research experiences should be created and assessed.
• The biology education community needs toolkits to support inquiry, collaboration, content, research experiences, and assessment tools. Ideally, a resource would search like Google, recommend like Amazon, vet like Consumer Reports, and annotate like Wikipedia (which the working group jokingly called “Boogle”).
• Implementation of national changes will require engagement and leadership at all levels, especially among faculty. Incentives for faculty and facilities to allow changes are crucial. Assessment of courses and programs is often necessary to gain resources from administration and funding agencies. Assessment tools for student perspectives include Shared E-Resources Understanding, National Survey of Student Engagement, Student Assessment of Learning Gains, and Collegiate Learning Assessment.
• Faculty are often limited in their educational/pedagogical training. The entire culture of biology education—including departments, colleges, funding agencies, societies, and so on—requires change to place more value on teaching. Communities of scholars should be developed to create, use, assess, and disseminate effective practices.
• Institutional change requires raising the profile of science education, increasing rewards for high-quality teaching, and increasing opportunities for professional development at all levels.

The momentum of the current reform is likely to lead to notable improvements in undergraduate biology education across the country. If we have the courage to challenge the dogma of outdated approaches and reward quality teaching, then the reform efforts may even push biology education toward a much-needed paradigm shift. Both biology and society will see brighter futures if we all contribute to this effort within our home institutions and through professional societies like ASPB.

Jeffrey S. Coker
Elon University