Content Coverage as a Persistent Exclusionary Practice: Investigating Perspectives of Health Professionals on the Influence of Undergraduate Coursework.

STEM undergraduates navigate lengthy sequences of prerequisite courses covering volumes of science content. Given that these courses may contribute to attrition and equity gaps in STEM, research is needed to test the assumption that prerequisite content benefits students in their future studies and careers. We investigated the relevance of prerequisite course content for students' careers through semistructured interviews with practicing nurses regarding their undergraduate anatomy and physiology (A&P) courses. Nurses reported that A&P content does not align with the skills and knowledge needed in the nursing profession. Interviewees averaged 39% on a brief A&P assessment, suggesting A&P prerequisites failed to impart a high degree of long-term A&P knowledge among nurses. Further, practicing nurses perceived overcommitment to A&P content coverage as an exclusionary practice that eliminates capable individuals from the prenursing pathway. These findings challenge assumptions surrounding the justification for prerequisite course content and raise questions of whether content expectations actively exclude individuals from STEM or healthcare careers. We aspire for this study to stimulate conversation and research about the goals of prerequisite content, who is best positioned to articulate prerequisite content objectives, and the influence of content coverage on equity and justice in undergraduate STEM education.

Erratum for Musgrove et al., "Professional Development for Early Career DBER Scholars through In-Person and Virtual Career Panel Workshops".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00190-21.].

Professional Development for Early Career DBER Scholars through In-Person and Virtual Career Panel Workshops.

In discipline-based education research (DBER), early career scholars, such as graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, observe a slew of possible career pathways. Yet, there is a lack of opportunities to learn about such pathways, particularly when transitioning from traditional science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) disciplinary training into a DBER position. Thus, the DBER Scholars-in-Training Professional Development subcommittee was created within the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) community to develop a collection of workshops that would serve the greatest professional development needs of early career scholars entering DBER. Through a series of surveys disseminated over multiple years, early career scholars expressed interest in better navigating their career options, which led to the development of the career panel workshop, held during the 2019 and 2020 SABER Annual National Conferences. In this report, we explore the development, implementation, and results of two career panel workshops and compare and contrast the 2019 in-person workshop with the 2020 virtual workshop. We also offer our insights on the value of the career workshop, discuss the next steps, and explore valuable resources for those planning on organizing similar events.

From Theory to Practice: Gathering Evidence for the Validity of Data Collected with the Interdisciplinary Science Rubric (IDSR).

In a world of burgeoning societal issues, future scientists must be equipped to work interdisciplinarily to address real-world problems. To train undergraduate students toward this end, practitioners must also have quality assessment tools to measure students' ability to think within an interdisciplinary system. There is, however, a dearth of instruments that accurately measure this competency. Using a theoretically and empirically based model, we developed an instrument, the Interdisciplinary Science Rubric (IDSR), to measure undergraduate students' interdisciplinary science thinking. An essay assignment was administered to 102 students across five courses at three different institutions. Students' work was scored with the newly developed rubric. Evidence of construct validity was established through novice and expert response processes via semistructured, think-aloud interviews with 29 students and four instructors to ensure the constructs and criteria within the instrument were operating as intended. Interrater reliability of essay scores was collected with the instructors of record (κ = 0.67). An expert panel of discipline-based education researchers (n = 11) were consulted to further refine the scoring metric of the rubric. Results indicate that the IDSR produces valid data to measure undergraduate students' ability to think interdisciplinarily in science.

Crossing Boundaries: Steps Toward Measuring Undergraduates' Interdisciplinary Science Understanding.

A desired outcome of education reform efforts is for undergraduates to effectively integrate knowledge across disciplines in order to evaluate and address real-world issues. Yet there are few assessments designed to measure if and how students think interdisciplinarily. Here, a sample of science faculty were surveyed to understand how they currently assess students' interdisciplinary science understanding. Results indicate that individual writing-intensive activities are the most frequently used assessment type (69%). To understand how writing assignments can accurately assess students' ability to think interdisciplinarily, we used a preexisting rubric, designed to measure social science students' interdisciplinary understanding, to assess writing assignments from 71 undergraduate science students. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 of those students to explore similarities and differences between assignment scores and verbal understanding of interdisciplinary science. Results suggest that certain constructs of the instrument did not fully capture this competency for our population, but instead, an interdisciplinary framework may be a better model to guide assessment development of interdisciplinary science. These data suggest that a new instrument designed through the lens of this model could more accurately characterize interdisciplinary science understanding for undergraduate students.

A Framework to Guide Undergraduate Education in Interdisciplinary Science.

An expanded investment in interdisciplinary research has prompted greater demands to integrate knowledge across disciplinary boundaries. Vision and Change similarly made interdisciplinary expectations a key competency for undergraduate biology majors; however, we are not yet synchronized on the meaning of interdisciplinarity, making this benchmark difficult to meet and assess. Here, we discuss aspects of interdisciplinarity through a historical lens and address various institutional barriers to interdisciplinary work. In an effort to forge a unified path forward, we provide a working definition of interdisciplinary science derived from both the perspectives of science faculty members and scientific organizations. We leveraged the existing literature and our proposed definition to build a conceptual model for an Interdisciplinary Science Framework to be used as a guide for developing and assessing interdisciplinary efforts in undergraduate science education. We believe this will provide a foundation from which the community can develop learning outcomes, activities, and measurements to help students meet the Vision and Change core competency of "tapping into the interdisciplinary nature of science."