Building conceptual and methodological bridges between SSE's diversity, equity, and inclusion statement and educational actions in evolutionary biology.

The field of evolutionary biology must bridge the gap between its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments and data-driven educational actions in the nation's undergraduate classrooms and degree programs. In this article, we discuss the urgent need for the adoption of equity frameworks and why they are centrally important to data-driven DEI efforts in evolutionary biology. We describe why equity indicators (e.g., measures) must be anchored in and aligned with equity frameworks. We introduce a specific equity framework for learning (the enhanced educational debt framework) and illustrate how it may be leveraged to document, interpret, and improve outcomes in evolutionary biology. We apply the equity framework and associated indicators to >3,500 students' first college-level experience with evolutionary biology at a public, 4-year institution in the Northeastern United States to demonstrate how these conceptual tools and empirical perspectives may be used by faculty, departments, and degree programs to better understand their roles in mitigating or perpetuating inequities. We end by discussing how this framework may be applied to a range of evolution concepts and courses in the educational hierarchy and used to help evolutionary biologists better understand the extent to which a core aspect of SSE's diversity statement is being realized.

Are Faculty Changing? How Reform Frameworks, Sampling Intensities, and Instrument Measures Impact Inferences about Student-Centered Teaching Practices.

Although recent studies have used the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) to make claims about faculty reform, important questions remain: How should COPUS measures be situated within existing reform frameworks? Is there a universal sampling intensity that allows for valid inferences about the frequency of student-centered instruction within a semester or across semesters of a course? These questions were addressed using longitudinal COPUS observations (128 classes, three faculty, 4 years). COPUS behaviors were used to categorize classes into didactic, interactive lecture, or student-centered instructional styles. Sampling intensities (one to 11 classes) were simulated (1000 times) within a course and across semesters. The sampling intensities required for generating valid inferences about 1) the presence of student-centered instruction and 2) the proportion of instructional styles in a course and through time were calculated. Results indicated that the sampling intensity needed to characterize courses and instructors varied and was much higher than previously recommended for instructors with: 1) rare instances of student-centered classes, 2) variability in instructional style, and 3) longitudinal changes in instructional patterns. These conditions are common in early reform contexts. This study highlights the risks of broad, decontextualized sampling protocol recommendations and illustrates how reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and COPUS measures interact to impact inferences about faculty change.

Illuminating the complexities of conflict with evolution: validation of the scales of evolutionary conflict measure (SECM).

BACKGROUND: Although personal, familial, and community conflict with evolution have been documented in the literature, these scales require conceptualization as a construct and operationalization as a measure. The Scales of Conflict with Evolution Measure (SECM) instrument was developed in response to these needs. Using a construct validity framework, the content, internal structure, convergent, and substantive validity of the SECM were evaluated using Rasch analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and follow up questioning. The conceptual utility of the instrument was explored by examining whether it added explanatory insights into evolution acceptance above and beyond religiosity, evolution knowledge, and background variables. RESULTS: A literature review and expert consultation indicated that construct of evolutionary conflict perception should (i) encompass the hierarchical nature of human social structures (personal, family, community) and (ii) probe conflict as it relates to human values, cultures, and beliefs. A three-dimensional construct was operationalized as a nine-item rating scale measure. Using Rasch analyses of SECM responses from a diverse sample of > 1000 students studying evolution, the instrument met criteria of robust measurement, including: fit to model expectations; three-dimensional structure; high reliability; good rating scale function; measurement invariance with time; and convergence with a similar construct. SEM showed that: (i) family and community conflict had unique causal contributions to personal conflict, with family showing a stronger and modest impact, and (ii) personal conflict had a significant and modest causal impact on evolution acceptance above and beyond the contributions of religiosity, evolution knowledge, and background variables. CONCLUSION: The SECM is an easy-to-administer instrument to measure conflict with evolution and is supported by several forms of validity evidence. The SECM has potential for facilitating measurement of evolutionary conflict in educational settings, thereby raising instructor awareness of conflict levels in students, promoting rigorous evaluations of educational interventions designed to reduce conflict, and fostering conceptual advances in the field of evolution education. Future work is needed to gather additional forms of validity evidence and to test current validity claims in additional participant samples. SECM measures should also be incorporated into more complex SEM models that treat evolution knowledge and religiosity as part of the structural paths to evolution acceptance. Such models could provide insights into the most worthwhile targets for the development of educational interventions to mitigate conflict at multiple scales.

How does climate change cause extinction?

Anthropogenic climate change is predicted to be a major cause of species extinctions in the next 100 years. But what will actually cause these extinctions? For example, will it be limited physiological tolerance to high temperatures, changing biotic interactions or other factors? Here, we systematically review the proximate causes of climate-change related extinctions and their empirical support. We find 136 case studies of climatic impacts that are potentially relevant to this topic. However, only seven identified proximate causes of demonstrated local extinctions due to anthropogenic climate change. Among these seven studies, the proximate causes vary widely. Surprisingly, none show a straightforward relationship between local extinction and limited tolerances to high temperature. Instead, many studies implicate species interactions as an important proximate cause, especially decreases in food availability. We find very similar patterns in studies showing decreases in abundance associated with climate change, and in those studies showing impacts of climatic oscillations. Collectively, these results highlight our disturbingly limited knowledge of this crucial issue but also support the idea that changing species interactions are an important cause of documented population declines and extinctions related to climate change. Finally, we briefly outline general research strategies for identifying these proximate causes in future studies.

Effects of food, proximity, and kinship on social behavior in ringtailed lemurs.

Efforts to understand the variation in primate social systems and their underlying interaction patterns have focused on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. In the socioecological model, food distribution and abundance have been argued to be the primary influences on the social behavior of primate species. We examined the relationship of food resources and two intrinsic factors-kinship and proximity-with patterns of affiliative and agonistic relationships in two semi-free ranging ringtailed lemur, Lemur catta, social groups (N=14) at The Duke Lemur Center in Durham, NC. In analyzing these three factors concurrently within the same system, we attempt to establish their relative power in explaining the characteristics of social relationships. Patterns of affiliation and high-intensity agonism were best explained by kinship. Proximity also explained affiliation but did not explain agonism, which varied considerably between groups. The influence of food on social interactions was highly variable between the two groups and, therefore, did not convincingly account for the social behavior patterns we observed. Finally, different intensities of agonism have different patterns and should be analyzed individually. The variation between social groups makes it difficult for us to conclude that any one factor is primarily and universally responsible for patterns of social behavior in this species.