Active learning is not well-defined in the context of undergraduate biology education. To clarify this term, this study explored how active learning is defined and what active learning strategies are used. This work highlights the importance of elaboration and specificity when using the term "active learning" to characterize teaching.

Development and integration of ideological awareness curriculum enhances students’ ability to apply traditional biology learning objectives to societally relevant topics by understanding the biases, stereotypes, and assumptions that shape the world around them.

The coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) outbreak forced an emergency transition to online classes across the world with little warning or instruction for faculty and students. The goal of this research was to document how this response impacted undergraduate students studying the principles of evolution in an introductory organismal biology class over time; specifically, how their study habits for exams differed (a) one week and (b) one month after a university's decision to transition to emergency remote instruction. We asked students about the extent to which COVID‐19 impacted their study habits, and we categorized students’ responses using open coding. We identified a number of consistent similarities—as well as dramatic differences—in their responses as the time away from campus increased. The report that follows is a summary of the documented barriers and recommendations based on literature concerning crises and equitable practices.

A national survey of biology instructors shows that instructors view the primary goal of science education as “understanding the world,” yet instructors hesitate to incorporate societally relevant content. This study addresses how an ideological awareness curriculum may bridge this gap and how instructor values and hesitancies affect teaching practices.

Early exposure to course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in introductory biology courses can promote positive student outcomes such as increased confidence, critical thinking, and views of applicability in lower-level courses, but it is unknown if these same impacts are achieved by upper-level courses. Upper-level courses differ from introductory courses in several ways, and one difference that could impact these positive student outcomes is the importance of balancing structure with independence in upper-level CUREs where students typically have more autonomy and greater complexity in their research projects. Here we compare and discuss two formats of upper-level biology CUREs (Guided and Autonomous) that vary along a continuum between structure and independence. We share our experiences teaching an upper-level CURE in two different formats and contrast those formats through student reported perceptions of confidence, professional applicability, and CURE format. Results indicate that the Guided Format (i.e., a more even balance between structure and independence) led to more positive impacts on student outcomes than the Autonomous Format (less structure and increased independence). We review the benefits and drawbacks to each approach while considering the unique elements of upper-level courses relative to lower-level courses. We conclude with a discussion of how implementing structured skill-building can assist instructors in adapting CUREs to their courses.