Search

Test anxiety is a common experience shared by college students and is typically investigated in the context of traditional, face-to-face courses. However, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of universities, and many students had to rapidly shift to and balance the challenges of online learning. We investigated how the shift to online learning during the pandemic impacted trait (habitual) and state (momentary) test anxiety and whether there was variation across different demographic groups already vulnerable to performance gaps in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Quantitative analyses revealed that trait and state test anxiety were lower in Spring 2020 (COVID semester) than in Spring 2019 and were higher overall in women than men. We did not find a difference in either trait or state anxiety in first-generation students or among persons excluded because of ethnicity or race. Qualitative analyses revealed that student priorities shifted away from coursework during Spring 2020. While students initially perceived the shift to online learning as beneficial, 1 month after the shift, students reported more difficulties studying and completing their coursework. Taken together, these results are the first to compare reports of test anxiety during a traditional, undisrupted semester to the semester where COVID-19 forced a sudden transition online.

Students' perceptions of challenges in biology influence performance outcomes, experiences, and persistence in science. Identifying sources of student struggle can assist efforts to support students as they overcome challenges in their undergraduate educations. In this study, we characterized student experiences of struggle by (1) quantifying which external factors relate to perceptions of encountering and overcoming struggle in introductory biology and (2) identifying factors to which students attribute their struggle in biology. We found a significant effect of Course, Instructor, and Incoming Preparation on student struggle, in which students with lower Incoming Preparation were more likely to report struggle and the inability to overcome struggle. We also observed significant differences in performance outcomes between students who did and did not encounter struggle and between students who did and did not overcome their struggle. Using inductive coding, we categorized student responses outlining causes of struggle, and using axial coding, we further categorized these as internally or externally attributed factors. External sources (i.e., Prior Biology, COVID-19, External Resources, Classroom Factors) were more commonly cited as the reason(s) students did or did not struggle. We conclude with recommendations for instructors, highlighting equitable teaching strategies and practices.

Like many scientific disciplines, the field of reproductive biology is subject to biases in terminology and research foci. For example, females are often described as coy and passive players in reproductive behaviors and are termed "promiscuous" if they engage in extra-pair copulations. Males on the other hand are viewed as actively holding territories and fighting with other males. Males are termed "multiply mating" if they mate with multiple females. Similarly, textbooks often illustrate meiosis as it occurs in males but not females. This edition of Integrative and Comparative Biology (ICB) includes a series of papers that focus on reproduction from the female perspective. These papers represent a subset of the work presented in our symposium and complementary sessions on female reproductive biology. In this round table discussion, we use a question and answer format to leverage the diverse perspectives and voices involved with the symposium in an exploration of theoretical, cultural, pedagogical, and scientific issues related to the study of female biology. We hope this dialog will provide a stepping-stone toward moving reproductive science and teaching to a more inclusive and objective framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]