Who Should Change Biology Education: An Analysis of the Final Report on the Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Conference

Abstract

Biological sciences have become the frontiers of new discoveries, major tools of solving local and global problems and creators of new employments. The high rate of new discoveries in biological sciences; new advances in cognitive sciences, learning research, computing and informatics; enhanced fusion of biological sciences and other natural sciences; and the requirement of the learners of the digital generation have presented a multitude of challenges to biology teaching and learning. In meeting the challenges and making biology education more effective, the vanguards of biology educations in the United States, namely the National Science Foundation (NSF), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Howard Hughes Medical Institutes (HHMI) and the national Institute of Health (NIH) have organized a series of regional meetings during 2006-2007 and a national conference titled Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education in 2009. The recommendations made by the experts participating in the meetings are summarized in the 2011 Final Report. The Report analysed the challenges quite comprehensively and made many recommendations on the changes needed in new biology education. However, the report placed the responsibilities of changing biology education largely to the biology educators. The present article is a reflection on the Report by a biology educator affiliated with an open enrolment large undergraduate university. The reflection indicates that structural changes though increased human and financial investment and a more concerted effort of the biology educators of high schools and colleges, education administrators, lawmakers, and community organizers are needed for an effective change in undergraduate biology education sought in the report

Keywords

• biological sciences, biology teaching and learning, biology education

References

1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (2011). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call for Change. http://visionandchange.org/ (accessed March 2013).
2. Abdul-Alim J. (2012). Expert: Stratification Undermines American Higher Education’s Capacity for Enabling Social Mobility. Diverse Issue in Higher Education. July 24, 2012. http://diverseeducation.com/article/17239/# (accessed June 2013).
3. Anderson, W.A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C.L., Elgin, S.C.R., Epstein, I.R., Handelsman, J., Hatfull, G.F., Losick, R., 0’Dowd, D.K., Olivera, B.M., Strobel, S.A., Walker, G.G., & Warner, I.M. (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science, 331, 152-153.
4. Baldwin, J.D., Ebert-May, D., & Burns, D. (1999). The development of a college biology self-efficacy instrument for non-majors. Science Education, 83, 397–408.
5. Brand, J.E., Pfeffer, F.T., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2012). Interpreting Community College Effects in the Presence of Heterogeneity and Complex Counterfactuals. California Center for Population Research, University of California, Los Angeles. http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2012-004/PWP-CCPR-2012- 004.pdf (accessed June 2013).
6. Burton, S.J., Sudweeks, R.R., Merrill, P.F., & Wood, B. (1991). How to Prepare Better Multiple-Choice Test Items: Guidelines for University Faculty. 1991. Brigham Young University Testing Services and The Department of Instructional Science. http://testing.byu.edu/info/handbooks/betteritems.pdf (accessed March 2013).
7. Complete College America (2012). Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere. www.completecollege.org (accessed June 2013).
8. Department of Economics, Florida State University (2013). Best undergraduate college degrees by salary, 2010- 2011. http://www.coss.fsu.edu/economics/economics/salary (accessed June 2013).

9. Ebert-May, D, Batzli, J., & Lim, H. (2003). Disciplinary research strategies for assessment of learning. Bioscience, 53, 1221–1228.
10. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M., & Wood, W.B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.
11. Healy, M., & Jenkins A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. The Higher Education Academy, York, UK. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/publications/developingundergraduate_final.p df (accessed June 2013).
12. Kuddus, R., Toruno, C., & Khan, A. (2008). Effect of microquestioning approach of teaching biological sciences on student learning and learning strategies. Hawaii International Conference on Education Proceedings, 6, 2272-2289.
13. Lopatto, D. (2008). Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research: The SURE survey. In R. Taraban and R. L. Blanton, eds., Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. McCourt, F. (1999). Angela’s Ashes. New York, Scribner.
15. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). (2010). Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics, US Department of Education). http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 (Accessed May 2013).
16. NRC (National Research Council). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded edition, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
17. Rochester, M.J. (2003). Critical demagogues: What happens when ideology and teaching mix. Education Next, 3(4), 77-82.
18. UTAIAR (University of Texas Austin, Institutional Assessment Resources). (2013). Multiple-choice questions based students/plan/method/exams-mchoice-bloom.php (accessed March 2013). Taxonomy.
19. http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/assessment/iar/
20. VUCT (Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching). (2013). Preparing to teach. http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/ (accessed March 2013).
21. Weston, T., Seymour, E., & Thiry, H. (2006). Evaluation of Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) Project. http://www.ncsce.net/About/pdfs/SENCER-EvaluationReport.pdf (accessed March 2013).