No abstract

Introductory biology courses are widely criticized for overemphasizing details and rote memorization of facts. Data to support such claims, however, are surprisingly scarce. We sought to determine whether this claim was evidence-based. To do so we quantified the cognitive level of learning targeted by faculty in introductory-level biology courses. We used Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to assign cognitive learning levels to course goals as articulated on syllabi and individual items on high-stakes assessments (i.e., exams and quizzes). Our investigation revealed the following: 1) assessment items overwhelmingly targeted lower cognitive levels, 2) the cognitive level of articulated course goals was not predictive of the cognitive level of assessment items, and 3) there was no influence of course size or institution type on the cognitive levels of assessments. These results support the claim that introductory biology courses emphasize facts more than higher-order thinking.

Research in contemporary biology has become increasingly complex and organized around understanding biological processes in the context of systems. To better reflect the ways of thinking required for learning about systems, we developed and implemented a pedagogical approach using box-and-arrow models (similar to concept maps) as a foundational tool for instruction and assessment in an Introductory Biology course on genetics, evolution, and ecology. Over the course of one semester, students iteratively constructed, evaluated, and revised "Gene-to-Evolution" (GtE) models intended to promote understanding about the connections linking molecular-level processes with population-level outcomes. In practice, a successful GtE model contextualizes information provided in a case study and explains how genetic-level variation originates at the molecular level, is differentially expressed among individuals, and is acted upon by the environment to produce evolutionary change within a population. Our analyses revealed that students' ability to construct biologically accurate models increased throughout the semester. Model complexity peaked near mid-term then subsequently declined. This suggests that, with time, students were building more parsimonious models, shedding irrelevant information, and improving in their ability to apply accurate and appropriate biological language to explain relationships among concepts. Importantly, we observed the greatest relative gains in model correctness among students who entered the course with lower mean GPA. In an analysis comparing performance among achievement tritiles, lower-performing students effectively closed the achievement gap with the highest performing students by the end of the semester. Our findings support the effectiveness of model-based pedagogies for science teaching and learning, and offer a perspective on pedagogical application of modeling strategies to foster systems thinking and knowledge structuring in college-level biology. # Momentum is growing among biology educators for rethinking our approaches to teaching and learning in college-level biology. In particular, there is interest in employing strategies that help students transition toward a way of thinking that is more reflective of contemporary

The authors investigated the extent to which postdoctoral fellows believed in and implemented evidence-based pedagogies after completion of a 2-yr professional development program, FIRST IV. Postdocs reported greater use of learner-centered compared with teacher-centered instruction, and video ratings further documented learner-centered instruction.

Characterizing and comparing cognitive skills assessed by introductory biology and physics indicate that (a) both course sequences assess primarily lower-order cognitive skills, (b) the distribution of items across cognitive skill levels differs significantly, and (c) there is no strong relationship between student performance and cognitive skill level.