Search

Abstract Efforts to discourage academic misconduct in online learning environments frequently include the use of remote proctoring services. While these services are relatively commonplace in undergraduate science courses, there are open questions about students’ remote assessment environments and their concerns related to remote proctoring services. Using a survey distributed to 11 undergraduate science courses engaging in remote instruction at three American, public, research-focused institutions during the spring of 2021, we found that the majority of undergraduate students reported testing in suboptimal environments. Students’ concerns about remote proctoring services were closely tied to technological difficulties, fear of being wrongfully accused of cheating, and negative impacts on mental health. Our results suggest that remote proctoring services can create and perpetuate inequitable assessment environments for students, and additional research is required to understand the efficacy of their intended purpose to prevent cheating. We also advocate for continued conversations about the broader social and institutional conditions that can pressure students into cheating. While changes to academic culture are difficult, these conversations are necessary for higher education to remain relevant in an increasingly technological world.

Understanding the relationship between science and society is included as a core competency for biology students in the United States. However, traditional undergraduate biology instruction emphasizes scientific practice and generally avoids potentially controversial issues at the intersection of science and society, such as representation in STEM, historical unethical research experiments, biology of sex and gender, and environmental justice. As calls grow to highlight this core competency, it is critical we investigate the impact of including these topics in undergraduate biology education. Here, we implemented a semester-long ideological awareness curriculum that emphasized biases, stereotypes, and assumptions that have shaped historical and contemporary science. We taught this curriculum to one section of a non-majors introductory biology course and compared the outcomes to a section of the same course taught using traditional biology content (hereafter the ‘traditional’ section) that did not emphasize societal topics. Both sections of students created concept maps for their final exam, which we coded for ‘society’ and ‘biology’ content. We then assessed (1) the amount of societal content included in the concept maps, and (2) which societal topics were mentioned in each section. We found that students in the ideologically aware section included more societal content in their concept maps than the students in the traditional section. Students exposed to the ideological awareness modules often mentioned the topics covered in those modules, whereas students in the traditional section most commonly mentioned faulty scientific information such as pseudoscience or non-credible research, which was emphasized in the first chapter of the required text-book for both sections. Our results show students who were not engaged in activities about ideological awareness in biology had fewer notions of how society impacts science at the end of the semester. These findings highlight the importance of intentionally teaching students the bidirectional impacts of science and society.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak mandated a rapid transition to online classes with little warning. Previous literature studying the effects of this sudden shift demonstrated enormous impacts on instructors and students. However, the details concerning science instructor assessment choices during this time are less clear. We asked biology instructors to reflect on the changes they made to their assessments of student learning during the emergency transition to remote instruction in spring 2020 and whether the potential changes were motivated by equity concerns. We also asked instructors to describe the assessment changes they intended to keep in future semesters. Through quantitative and qualitative analyses, we found that instructors removed forms of assessment more often than they added them, and the most common changes included how instructors administered exams and engaged students through participation. Instructors reported that equity concerns motivated their decision-making, particularly their concern over students' ability to access learning resources. Instructors indicated they would keep many of the changes they made in response to the shift to online learning. Our research shows that the pandemic dramatically altered how instructors assessed students in biology, but equity-based decisions leading to lasting change may be one positive outcome for future students.

Student-study behaviors and metacognition are predictors of student-academic success. However, student metacognitive evaluation of their own study habit behavior use has been largely unexplored. To address this gap, we gave students enrolled in three different Biology courses (n = 1140) a survey that asked them to identify the study behaviors used to prepare for their first and third exams and to appraise the effectiveness of each behavior. We observed that, across all courses, students used different counts of active- and passive-study behaviors. However, there were no differences in performance across courses, and the use of effective (i.e., active) study behaviors resulted in improved exam performance for all students, regardless of course, while the use of ineffective (i.e., passive) study behaviors had no significant impact on exam performance. Finally, our qualitative analysis revealed that students across all courses demonstrated similar ability in identifying effective-study behaviors, but students could not explain why those behaviors were effective. Taken together, our study demonstrates that students use various study behaviors to prepare for exams without understanding their effectiveness. We encourage instructors to structure their courses to promote the development of metacognitive evaluation and effective-study behaviors.

Although closed-note exams have traditionally been used to evaluate students in undergraduate biology classes, open-note exams are becoming increasingly common, though little is known about how students prepare for these types of exams. We investigated student perceptions of and their preparation habits for online open-note exams in an undergraduate biology class, as compared to their previous experiences with closed-note exams in other classes. Specifically, we explored the following research questions: (1a) How do students perceive open-note exams impact their exam scores, their anxiety, the amount they studied, and the amount their peers studied? (1b) How do these perceptions impact performance outcomes? (2a) How do students prepare for open-note exams? (2b) How do these preparation methods impact performance outcomes? Results demonstrate students perceived increased exam scores, decreased exam-anxiety, decreased study time spent personally, and decreased study time spent by their peers for open-note exams, as compared to past experiences with closed-note exams. Open-ended survey responses analyzed through first- and second-cycle analyses showed students adapted their study habits by focusing on note preparation and broad conceptual understanding rather than rote memorization. Using linear mixed effects models to assess student performance, we found students who focused on understanding, note preparation and using external resources outperformed students who did not report those study habits. As institutions shift towards flexible and scalable assessments that can be used in face-to-face or online environments, the use of open-note exams can promote effective study habits and reward higher-order thinking with intentional guidance from the instructor.