Abstract Enrollment in courses taught remotely in higher education has been on the rise, with a recent surge in response to a global pandemic. While adapting this form of teaching, instructors familiar with traditional face‐to‐face methods are now met with a new set of challenges, including students not turning on their cameras during synchronous class meetings held via videoconferencing. After transitioning to emergency remote instruction in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, our introductory biology course shifted all in‐person laboratory sections into synchronous class meetings held via the Zoom videoconferencing program. Out of consideration for students, we established a policy that video camera use during class was optional, but encouraged. However, by the end of the semester, several of our instructors and students reported lower than desired camera use that diminished the educational experience. We surveyed students to better understand why they did not turn on their cameras. We confirmed several predicted reasons including the most frequently reported: being concerned about personal appearance. Other reasons included being concerned about other people and the physical location being seen in the background and having a weak internet connection, all of which our exploratory analyses suggest may disproportionately influence underrepresented minorities. Additionally, some students revealed to us that social norms also play a role in camera use. This information was used to develop strategies to encourage—without requiring—camera use while promoting equity and inclusion. Broadly, these strategies are to not require camera use, explicitly encourage usage while establishing norms, address potential distractions, engage students with active learning, and understand your students’ challenges through surveys. While the demographics and needs of students vary by course and institution, our recommendations will likely be directly helpful to many instructors and also serve as a model for gathering data to develop strategies more tailored for other student populations.
Biology laboratory courses with hands-on activities faced many challenges when switched to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. The transition back to in-person instruction presents an opportunity to redesign courses with greater student input. Undergraduates in an ∼350-student laboratory course were surveyed about their preferences for online or in-person instruction of specific laboratory course components. We predicted that students who have taken a virtual laboratory course prefer keeping some of the components online. We also hypothesized that their preferences are affected by their experience with online-only or with both online and in-person instruction. The results showed that students would like to move the laboratory component and group meetings back to in-person instruction, even if they never experienced college-level in-person courses. Also, many components, including the lectures, exams, assignment submission, and office hours are preferred to be held online. Surprisingly, students who have only taken online courses would rather give group presentations in person, while those who experienced both online and in-person instruction were undecided. Group presentations were the only component where the preference of the two groups significantly differed. Self-assessed learning gains showed that students performed very well in both the online semesters and the in-person semesters. Therefore, the preferences measured in this study were likely developed based on students' future expectations and personal gains, and not only on their metacognitive decisions and academic performances. This study provides considerations for redesigning components of laboratory courses to be more student-centered after the pandemic.
Abstract Intraspecific variation in sociosexual behavior has typically been investigated in the context of its relationship with environmental factors, but neurogenetic factors can also influence sociosexual behavior. In laboratory studies of prairie voles ( Microtus ochrogaster ), length polymorphism of microsatellite DNA within the gene ( avpr1a ) encoding the vasopressin 1a receptor is correlated with variation in male sociosexual behavior. However, field studies of prairie voles have found the relationship between male avpr1a microsatellite allele length and sociosexual behavior to be more ambiguous, possibly because most males had alleles of intermediate length. We tested the hypothesis that avpr1a microsatellite allele length mediates male sociosexual behavior in field settings by releasing voles into field enclosures where every male possessed two avpr1a microsatellite alleles at least one standard error longer or shorter than the mean length in their population of origin. Voles from an Illinois and Kansas population were examined separately as social monogamy appears more prevalent in the Illinois population. Illinois males with long avpr1a microsatellite alleles had smaller home ranges and overlapped a greater proportion of the home range of the female that they overlapped the most. Kansas males showed the opposite pattern. Illinois, but not Kansas, males with long avpr1a microsatellite alleles sired offspring with more females and sired more litters. Our results support the hypothesis that genetic variation associated with the avpr1a gene plays a role in mediating male prairie vole sociosexual behavior in nature. However, the relationship between specific male behaviors and male avpr1a microsatellite allele length sometimes differed significantly between Kansas and Illinois voles, suggesting relationships between specific male sociosexual behaviors and polymorphism associated with the avpr1a locus are complex, possibly involving specific nucleotide sequences or other population‐specific genetic differences.
Speciation provides a framework for classifying biodiversity on Earth and is a central concept in evolutionary biology. To help undergraduate students learn about speciation, we designed a student-centered lesson that uses active-learning techniques (e.g., clicker questions, small group work, and whole class discussion) and compares multiple species concepts (morphological, biological, and phylogenetic) using giraffes as an example. Giraffes were chosen as the focus of this lesson because they are familiar and have broad appeal to students; are in danger of becoming extinct; and have ecological, economic, and cultural importance. Students also learn about contemporary giraffe conservation issues and the current debate in the literature regarding the total number of giraffe species. Students then apply their knowledge by working in small groups on speciation scenarios that highlight organisms across the tree of life. Student understanding is assessed using multiple-choice pre/post-test questions, in-class clicker questions with peer discussion, and exam questions. Here we provide details about the lesson and report that student learning is improved.
