Anxiety has become increasingly prevalent among university students, significantly affecting their academic performance. Reforming teaching methods as a potential strategy to alleviate anxiety has garnered growing attention over the years. This study aims to systematically analyze and discuss the impact of teaching method reforms on college student anxiety. The Web of Science (WOS) database was used to retrieve and collect relevant literature from 2004 to 2024. Major publication sources, countries, institutions, and authors in this field were identified through the number of publications, citation frequency, and H-index indicators. Data-driven analysis was conducted to explore collaboration patterns, knowledge structures, research hotspots, and trends using VOSviewer software. After screening, this study included 192 publications from January 2004 to November 2024, revealing several significant findings: (1) The number of publications has gradually increased, peaking in 2022 and maintaining a high level in the following years. (2) The most productive and influential journals are Nurse Education Today and CBE Life Sciences Education, with the USA and the Indiana University System contributing the most. (3) Collaboration network analysis indicates the presence of multiple research groups in the field, but their connections among countries and authors remain relatively limited. (4) Co-citation analysis of journals shows that the field is interdisciplinary, primarily merging psychology, education, and information technology. (5) Keyword analysis identifies two major research hotspots: factors influencing student anxiety in teaching environments (e.g., self-efficacy, loneliness, and performance) and the moderating effects of teaching method reforms (e.g., blended learning, collaborative learning, and experiential learning) on college student anxiety. This visualization analysis provides an overview of the directions and advancements in research on the impact of teaching method reforms on college students' anxiety. It offers a comprehensive examination of the latest frontiers and trends, contributing theoretical support to educational practices and mental health interventions.

Problem solving and STEM integration in education are important in many countries around the world. Problem solving and STEM integration in education can also be applied at various levels. This study aims to describe the development trends of research in the topic, as well as to identify the most relevant and widely cited countries, sources and topics in the related literature. Previous studies have shown that problem solving and STEM integration are mostly applied in secondary schools. In this study, we extracted from the Scopus database to analyze and evaluate the results of scientific publications related to problem solving and STEM integration in education during 2004-2024. The number of publication data that has been filtered is 106 publications, all of which are taken from the Scopus database. The results of the quantitative analysis show that research on problem solving and STEM integration in education has grown rapidly in the last 5 years. The most relevant and most cited country is the USA. Meanwhile, the most relevant source is CBE Life Sciences Education. The research topics are also quite diverse, focusing on several issues: engineering, education, humanism, professional aspect, etc. This research has limitations, because the publication data we analyzed was only data from Scopus and the analysis we used used VOSviewer and biblioshiny.

The aim of this study is to reveal the content analysis and trends of studies on misconceptions in biology education. Within the scope of the research, articles containing misconceptions about biology were accessed from the Scopus database. “Biology and misconception” was searched in the title, abstract and keywords in the Scopus database on September 13, 2022. A total of 410 publications about misconceptions in biology education were found in the search. The years of accessed publications were determined between 1970 and 2022. A total of 410 publications were analyzed in the research, regardless of language. According to the data obtained, 53 countries and 143 journals published articles on misconceptions in biology. However, in order to obtain clearer data, 3 articles were determined as the minimum number of articles for a country, and 31 countries and 27 journals were considered in this research. According to this research, in terms of the number of documents, the USA is the most published country with 199 articles, and Turkey is the second most published country with 39 studies. It was also revealed that the most cited countries were the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, respectively. “CBE Life Sciences Education” and “American Biology Teacher” journals were determined as the journals with the most publications on the subject. In addition, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, CBE Life Sciences Education, International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Biological Education, Evolution: Education and Outreach were identified as the most cited journals in the studies. The results of this study are thought to be important for the future development of studies on misconceptions in biology education.

Biochemistry is becoming increasingly crucial for undergraduates majoring in biology, chemistry, agriculture, and medicine. In recent years, much research has been carried out on promoting this course’s teaching outcomes. However, the knowledge structure of undergraduate biochemistry teaching research has yet to be formed. Here, 715 validated publications from 2012 to 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. The annual publications, journals/cited journals, countries, institutions, authors/cited authors, keywords, and cited references were analyzed using CiteSpace. As revealed in our study, the United States is the most productive country, and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, the Journal of Chemical Education, and CBE Life Sciences Education are the most influential journals. Most studies focused on introducing or designing creative laboratory courses to improve students’ hands-on abilities. Interestingly, we found that the studies in this period can be divided into two stages: the research topics in the first stage were highly diverse, and in the second stage, the subfield of course-based undergraduate research experiences attracted much attention. Taken together, this study offers insights into the historical development of undergraduate biochemistry educational research, which will have implications for scientists conducting future investigations in this promising field and teachers for better learning outcomes.

Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) were originally developed by biologists to answer the call for undergraduate curriculum reform and expose more students to authentic research experiences [Wei and Woodin. 2011. Undergraduate research experiences in biology: Alternatives to the apprenticeship model. CBE Life Sciences Education. 10(2): 111–230]. Since their creation CUREs have been well developed in certain sciences, but Math CUREs are all but absent from the literature. Like biology, math programs suffer from a lack of research experiences and many students are not able to participate in events like REUs. In this paper, we propose a Math CURE model. We will discuss our experiences and data obtained from CUREs implemented in our courses and our plans for future projects and iterations of the Math CUREs.

A central focus in science education is to foster the success of students who identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). However, representation and achievement gaps relative to the majority still exist for minoritized students at all levels of science education and beyond. We suggest that majority groups defining the definitions and measures of success may exert “soft power” over minoritized student success. Using a hegemonic and critical race theory lens, we examined five years of research articles in CBE—Life Sciences Education to explore how success was defined and measured and what frameworks guided the definitions of student success. The majority of articles did not explicitly define success, inherently suggesting “everyone knows” its definition. The articles that did define success often used quantitative, academic outcomes like grade point average and exam scores, despite commonly cited frameworks with other metrics. When students defined success, they focused on different aspects, such as gaining leadership skills and building career networks, suggesting a need to integrate student voice into current success definitions. Using these results, we provide suggestions for research, policy, and practice regarding student success. We urge self-reflection and institutional change in our definitions of success, via consideration of a diversity of student voices.

Abstract Background/Purpose: Increasing participation of under-represented minorities (URMs) in cancer-related fields is critical for eliminating disparities in prevention, incidence, prevalence, detection, treatment, survival, and mortality. Early engagement in scientific research is linked to retention of students in STEM programs and careers. Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC) is one of the largest consortium comprehensive cancer centers in the world. As part of the mission to find new and innovative ways to combat cancer and eliminate cancer disparities in communities throughout the Northeast, we are shaping the development of a new, diverse, and educated workforce through the Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program. CURE introduces high-school and college students from URM populations to the world of cancer research. The program aims to increase URMs successfully pursuing careers in biomedicine, cancer research, and/or health disparities, pursuing graduate degrees and/or professional training in these areas, and engaging in scholarly activity. Initially funded through a cancer center supplement, during the past two years DFHCC has expanded their programming by successfully obtaining two NCI R25 grants, Young Empowered Scientists for ContinUed Research Engagement (YES for CURE) Program (NCI CA221738) and Summer Program to Advance Research Careers (SPARC) Program (NCI CA214256). Description: DF/HCC has engaged over 400 students in research experiences at its seven-member institutions. Building on a 17-year history of research training experience and a long-term partnership with the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB), DF/HCC created programming that combines hands-on research experiences with professional development seminars, journal clubs, book clubs, social events, and individual project planning. Evaluation: Students and mentors are surveyed each summer to identify opportunities for improvement. We also track academic and professional progress of our alumni annually. Usefulness: Based on our 2017 survey with a 71% average response rate, 95% of our alumni have completed or are currently enrolled in post-secondary programs, with 72% completing college degrees so far. Of these, 83% graduated with STEM or health science degrees and 23% have additionally completed graduate degrees. Over two thirds of our alumni are currently working full- or part-time in STEM-related fields and almost 25% in cancer-related work. 15% are working in a health disparities-related field. Our alumni have coauthored more than 243 scientific publications. Our research education and training successfully engage the scientific curiosity and promote the academic success and future research careers of promising young URM scientists. Learning Objectives: The participant shall be able to learn best practices for engaging high school and college students from under-represented backgrounds in hands-on cancer research. References E. De Chubin and AL DePass, editors. Understanding interventions that broaden participation in science careers. In Understanding Interventions, San Diego, CA, 2015. K. Maton, T. Beason, S. Godsay, M. Sto. Domingo, T. Bailey, S. Sun and F. Hrabowski. Outcomes and processes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Research Program: STEM PhD Completion, Sense of Community, Perceived Program Benefit, Science Identity, and Research Self-Efficacy. CBE–Life Sciences Education 15: 3 (Ar48), 2016. M. Ghee, M. Keels, D. Collins, C. Neal-Spence and E. Baker. Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students' persistence in the STEM pathway. CBE-Life Sciences Education 15: 3 (Ar28), 2016. Citation Format: Karen Burns White, Emily McMains, Diedra Wrighting, Joan Becker, Kathynie Hinds. Lessons learned from seventeen years of cancer research experiences program for under-represented high school and college students [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr IA16.

Biology education research (BER) is a growing field, as evidenced by the increasing number of publications in CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE) and expanding participation at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) annual meetings. To facilitate an introspective and reflective discussion on how research within LSE and at SABER has matured, we conducted a content analysis of LSE research articles (n = 339, from 2002 to 2015) and SABER abstracts (n = 652, from 2011 to 2015) to examine three related intraresearch parameters: research questions, study contexts, and methodologies. Qualitative data analysis took a combination of deductive and inductive approaches, followed by statistical analyses to determine the correlations among different parameters. We identified existing research questions, study contexts, and methodologies in LSE articles and SABER abstracts and then compared and contrasted these parameters between the two data sources. LSE articles were most commonly guided by descriptive research questions, whereas SABER abstracts were most commonly guided by causal research questions. Research published in LSE and presented at SABER both prioritize undergraduate classrooms as the study context and quantitative methodologies. In this paper, we examine these research trends longitudinally and discuss implications for the future of BER as a scholarly field.

In biology education research, it has been common to model cognition in terms of relatively stable knowledge structures (e.g., mental models, alternative frameworks, deeply held misconceptions). For example, John D. Coley and Kimberley D. Tanner recently proposed that many student difficulties in biology stem from underlying cognitive frameworks called cognitive construals (CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11[3], 209–215 [2012]; CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14[1], ar8 [2015]). They argued that three such frameworks—teleology, anthropocentrism, and essentialism—cause undergraduate students to hold a range of misconceptions about the biological world. Our purpose in this article is to present an alternative perspective that considers student thinking to be dynamic and context sensitive. Using the example of cognitive construals, we argue that a dynamic perspective creates a burden of proof for claims of cognitive stability—to demonstrate that patterns of thinking are indeed stable across contexts. To illustrate our argument, we report on the results of a study designed to explore the stability of students’ apparent teleological, anthropocentric, and essentialist thinking. Our results are inconsistent with framework models. We propose instead that response patterns stem from students’ context-specific interpretations of the statements, consistent with dynamic models of cognition. Building on these preliminary findings, we discuss the implications of a dynamic view of cognition for biology education research and biology instruction.

This editorial discusses next steps toward sustaining the journal.

THE Genetics Society of America's Elizabeth W. Jones Award for Excellence in Education recognizes significant and sustained impact on genetics education. As well as having made major contributions to biochemistry and developmental genetics, the 2016 awardee William B. Wood has been a pioneer in the reform of science teaching. Wood's leadership has been crucial in several national initiatives and programs, including the development of the influential National Academies Summer institutes on Undergraduate Education in Biology. He has also catalyzed change in education through his service as Editor-in-Chief of CBE-Life Sciences Education, a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Society for Cell Biology, in editorial partnership with the GSA.

Students often memorize the definition of a transcriptional promoter but fail to fully understand the critical role promoters play in gene expression. This laboratory lesson allows students to conduct original research by identifying and characterizing promoters found in prokaryotes. Students start with primary literature, design and clone a short promoter, and test how well their promoter works. This laboratory lesson is an easy way for faculty with limited time and budgets to give their students access to real research in the context of traditional teaching labs that meet once a week for under three hours. The pClone Red Introductory Biology lesson uses synthetic biology methods and makes cloning so simple that we have 100% success rates with first year students. Students use a database to archive their promoter sequences and the performance of the promoter under standard conditions. The database permits synthetic biology researchers around the world to find a promoter that suits their needs and compare relative levels of transcription. The core methodology in this lesson is identical to the core methodology in the companion <a href="/node/1710" target="_blank">Genetics Lesson</a> by Eckdahl and Campbell. The methods are reproduced in both lessons for the benefit of readers. The two <em>CourseSource </em>lessons provide the detailed information needed to reproduce the pedagogical research results published in <em>CBE - Life Sciences Education by Campbell </em><em>et al., 2014</em>.

A recent essay in CBE-Life Sciences Education criticized biology education researchers' use of the term misconceptions and recommended that, in order to be up-to-date with education research, biology education researchers should use alternative terms for students' incorrect ideas in science. We counter that criticism by reviewing the continued use and the meaning of misconceptions in education research today, and describe two key debates that account for the controversy surrounding the term. We then identify and describe two areas of research that have real implications for tomorrow's biology education research and biology instruction: 1) hypotheses about the structure of student knowledge (coherent vs. fragmented) that gives rise to misconceptions; and 2) the "warming trend" that considers the effects of students' motivation, beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning (their epistemic beliefs), and learning strategies (their cognitive and metacognitive skills) on their ability to change their misconceptions in science. We conclude with a description of proposed future work in biology education research related to misconceptions.

This is an exciting time to be a biologist. The advances in our field and the many opportunities to expand our horizons through interaction with other disciplines are intellectually stimulating. This is as true for people tasked with helping the field move forward through support of research and education projects that serve the nation's needs as for those carrying out that research and educating the next generation of biologists. So, it is a pleasure to contribute to this edition of CBE-Life Sciences Education. This column will cover three aspects of the interactions of physics and biology as seen from the viewpoint of four members of the Division of Undergraduate Education of the National Science Foundation. The first section places the material to follow in context. The second reviews some of the many interdisciplinary physics-biology projects we support. The third highlights mechanisms available for supporting new physics-biology undergraduate education projects based on ideas that arise, focusing on those needing and warranting outside support to come to fruition.

In this editorial we link the articles published in this Special Issue with the framework from Vision and Change and summarize findings from the editorial process of assembling the Special Issue.

Dear Editor: We would like to bring to the attention of readers a novel participatory movement–based technique we have been using to teach science and to encourage students to think creatively about science: science choreography. The project evolved as part of a Howard Hughes Medical Institute–funded multiyear collaboration between a team of scientist-educators at Wesleyan University and other institutions and dancer-choreographers from the Liz Lerman Dance Exchange. When the sequencing of the human genome was announced to the public, choreographer and MacArthur Fellow Liz Lerman was one of many who asked what this might mean for our future and the future of our children. To help answer these questions, she decided to make a multimedia piece, Ferocious Beauty: Genome, in collaboration with scientists at Wesleyan University and across the country (Science Choreography, 2011 ). After the work premiered, it became evident to us that we could use video performance clips from Ferocious Beauty: Genome as a “second textbook”—a launching point and source of enrichment for learning and thinking about concepts in biology. We also came to realize that a number of the tools used in dance making by the Dance Exchange could be easily adapted for use in the classroom, either alone or in combination with video clips from Ferocious Beauty: Genome. We were motivated by a variety of challenges faced by science teachers at all levels, including the perception by some that our subjects are difficult to teach and hard to learn, as well as threatening or uninteresting to many. Our immediate goal was to make science more accessible to a broad base of students. One target student is the kinesthetic learner (Gardner, 1983 ; Snyder 2000 ). The value of a movement-based approach in reaching a diverse student body is underscored by the observation that embodied learning is particularly effective at engaging at-risk teens and ethnic minorities (Park, 1997 ; Tanner and Allen, 2004 ). Our work together has generated a website for science educators from middle school through college (Science Choreography, 2011 ). It provides a rationale for the approach; descriptions of a toolbox of teaching and learning exercises, including video demonstrations; and examples of content-based modules we have developed on a number of topics. Imagine students who have recently begun to explore concepts of genetics—phenotypes, genes, genetic crosses—meeting with Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, to discuss his experiences as a founding scientist in biology. What was he thinking? What led him to design his classic experiments? How is modern biology dependent on Mendel's pioneering work? What is a gene? These are some core questions that students and teachers can raise in the Genes and Mendel module, which includes a clip from Ferocious Beauty: Genome that features a dancer in the character of Mendel. In another module, we focus on bringing ethical considerations into biology teaching, a challenge for which science teachers may feel they do not have the necessary expertise. In the Ethics and Genetic Testing module, we use two tools: Ask a Question in small groups or Walk and Talk in larger settings, to transition from a lecture-style, PowerPoint-based presentation on the “why, what, when, and how?” of genetic testing to thinking and talking personally about related ethical issues, with questions such as “Would you want to get a genetic test for a disease?,” What if you were predisposed to it?,” “Who should know the results?” We also view a relevant segment of Ferocious Beauty: Genome that features a performer with osteogenesis imperfecta who dances in a wheelchair and on crutches. In the DNA Helix module, the aim is for students to learn DNA properties from one another and engage in model building, but rather than using the machined metal pieces Watson and Crick used, they use their own bodies (Figure 1). By doing this in stages, the students can start to understand more viscerally what the structures are, and how some models are more robust than others. The embodying tools are designed so they can be used independently of the specific modules, for example, as a kinesthetic mnemonic to help students remember a pathway or as a means for an instructor to find out what students know about a specific topic. Getting the students up on their feet in the midst of a conventional sedentary classroom setting is restorative and invigorating. Figure 1. High school students building DNA. While informal feedback and survey responses from students and teachers has been positive (Science Choreography, 2011 ), future studies are needed to directly test the efficacy of the approach.

The Vision and Change effort to explore and implement needed changes in undergraduate biology education has been ongoing since 2006. It is now time to take stock of changes that have occurred at the faculty and single-course levels, and to consider how to accomplish the larger-scale changes needed at departmental and institutional levels. This article is a continuation of our efforts to keep people informed about the next steps for Vision and Change, in particular ongoing activities that need community (your) input, and what resources are available to support the Vision stated in 2009: “the biology we teach should reflect the biology we do” (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ).

This has been an exciting year in biology education research (BER). A National Research Council (NRC) report was published on discipline-based education research (DBER) that "investigates learning and teaching in a

Can we model scientific practice better through conscientious course design and lecture strategies? Transformations is an up-to-date source book that addresses this question with teaching ideas drawn from the primary literature of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and accumulated teacher lore in biology. This book starts from the uncontroversial premise that more active-learning approaches will promote learning in biology courses, but extends this premise toward course engagement and self-reflection about how we interact with our students.The authors have reprinted a series of features they published in CBE–Life Sciences Education. These features, arranged thematically, are intended to be used as independent segments for faculty who want to tool up on particular topics or practices. The volume opens with seven techniques for boosting active learning in lectures, briefly introduced in order of increasing prep time for the instructor. Several of these techniques – especially problem-based learning (PBL), peer-teaching, and cooperative learning – are elaborated upon in later chapters. The second group of chapters outlines ideas about course design, assessment, and content standards, and the reader is directed to more in-depth sources on those topics.For me, some of the most interesting ideas were from the section about student engagement, particularly the chapters about developing cultural competence as well as the practice of framing scientific content with historical or cultural perspectives in order to engage students. Their discussion of cultural competency offered starting points for faculty to self-reflect about our attitudes when working with students whose backgrounds differ from our own. Some of the practices introduced there may stop students from underrepresented groups from switching away from science because they don’t see themselves as belonging to the scientific culture.The final chapters emphasize teaching scientists’ ongoing development in scientific education. Many of these ideas are attainable by a single faculty member, such as exploring the literature of SoTL or developing partnerships with teachers in P–12 settings. Some chapters are more polemical in nature, particularly in regard to developing the teaching skills of biology graduate students as a systematic element of their training. Surprisingly, offices of teaching and learning that are dedicated to faculty development get no mention in this section.Even with the authors’ stated goal of producing stand-alone chapters, I would have preferred more integration across the volume. For example, three fine short chapters about questions in class, student talk, and evaluating answers could have been integrated into a single cohesive unit. The citations also reflect this lack of integration – features the authors had written (often summaries of the primary literature of SoTL) are cited as stand-alone publications in this book, despite also appearing as chapters in the volume. Sometimes the references are even contradictory: for example, student-group projects are introduced offhandedly in chapter 1 as a way to promote active learning, but in an expanded treatment in chapter 13 this model is revealed to be quite intensive in terms of preclass planning and ongoing coordination by faculty.Some practices and resources get very short shrift. The authors basically do not stray into the laboratory at all. I think that the proliferation of worksheet-based laboratory manuals has dulled the discovery aspect of doing science, particularly in the first-year or nonmajor experience. The inquiry-based practices of PBL or cooperative learning appear in several chapters, but they aren’t applied to the activities in the laboratory or the field. Some classroom-response systems are mentioned, but there is little coverage of other classroom technology.As a teaching scientist, I know that I am responsible for setting the tone and the level of the learning experience of my students. However, something crystallized for me in this book when I read about how “students experience learning (p. 157).” Do students experience learning or do they learn? I believe that we should strive to guide students toward more scientific sophistication, but throughout the text the authors seem to attribute very little agency to students for their own learning. Overall, the strategies the authors present for modeling how science is done are quite good, but these feature articles and others are already available as a collection on the journal’s open-access website. More time spent to integrate these ideas for the reader would have made this volume an even stronger contribution in its own right.

A large part of the biology community, including faculty, students, and administrators, as well as representatives of professional societies and funding agencies, met in Washington, D.C., in 2009 to discuss how to bring biology undergraduate education into the 21st century.The aim was to ensure that biology faculty teach in a way that reflects exciting changes in the discipline and current knowledge about how people learn, while making use of new technologies.The initial results were Vision and Change in Undergraduate Education: A Call for Action, a document summarizing the need for change and proposing how that need could be met, and a Web presence to encourage continual dialogue (http://visionandchange.org).The print copy of the document has been distributed to more than 6000 people thus far, and the Web page has had more than 11,000 hits.Many life sciences societies and departments are using Vision and Change as a basis for discussions of how to improve undergraduate education within their field, and there is increasing reference to it in national reports (National Research Council, 2012; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012).Funding agencies are also reporting that many proposals are citing Vision and Change, and the projects they describe reflect recommendations made within that document.Now that the vision is set, the next step is to identify mechanisms for catalyzing change and to document the outcomes of change.Such change is not easy to achieve or catalogue, because it must occur on a scale that crosses institutions and spans the discipline.The agencies involved in the original effort are now supporting a three-pronged effort to 1) understand how change takes place, 2) catalogue and analyze