Do Biology Majors Really Differ from Non–STEM Majors?

Abstract

This study clarifies, in broad terms, how biology majors differ from those not intending to major in STEM fields. The article concludes with suggestions for inclusive teaching for future scientists as well as an informed citizenry.

In a “Scientist Spotlight” Intervention, Diverse Student Identities Matter

“…Pre-course science identities and average science confidence scores (Table 4) were similar to those reported previously (26,43,47), whereby females typically enter introductory-biology courses exhibiting lower science confidence (2.67 on a 5-point scale), and claiming a lower sense of science identity (2.15 on a 5-point scale) than their male counterparts (2.85 and 2.66, respectively). We did not see differences between non-URM and URM students or between continuing-generation and first-generation college students; however, smaller sample sizes may have led our results to be less representative of the population as a whole.…”

“…And lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students have shared their concerns about "outing" themselves in these same discussions. These findings complement prior work illustrating that our underrepresented students (i.e., women and racial and ethnic minorities) express less identity as a scientist than do the white men in our introductory biology courses (38), as well as the work of others illustrating how religious students may feel they do not belong in biology (39). Thus, we are concerned about sense of belonging and science identity in students considered traditionally underrepresented in STEM (e.g., women, certain racial and ethnic groups) as well as those with hidden identities (e.g., religion, politics, sexual orientation) that have led to feelings of marginalization.…”

“…Science confidence was measured by averaging responses to an eleven-item construct that asked students about their confidence in their ability to do various tasks related to science, such as "Design a well-controlled experiment to test a hypothesis," or "Explain an experiment, the results, and analysis in writing." These items were developed in-house, loosely based on other work (45,46), and have been used in several other studies with a similar population (26,43,47); further, individual items have undergone think-aloud validation with a subset of a similar group of students (previously enrolled in this course). For science identity, students were specifically asked to rate how much the phrase "a science person" described themselves-from "not at all like me" to "very much like me" (48).…”

Clustering Analysis Reveals Authentic Science Inquiry Trajectories Among Undergraduates

“…We also found that major was weakly correlated with performing a complex investigation (Phi = 0.33, Cramer's V = 0.24, p =0.024). Previous work suggests that non-STEM majors are more likely to hold misconceptions about how science works than biology majors [7], therefore our observation that biology majors are slightly more likely to perform complex investigations than non-STEM majors, where complex investigations are more expert like [17], supports the hypothesis that understanding of the process of science is reflected in practices. However, since the investigation type and relative experiences are weakly correlated, there are likely additional factors that are important for fully understanding the diversity of practices among these two populations of novices.…”

Small group gender ratios impact biology class performance and peer evaluations

“…The course we focused on is a biology course taken by non-biology majors, or those who do not intend to pursue a biology degree. Previous work shows that non-biology majors differ from biology majors with respect to incoming knowledge, perceptions, backgrounds, and skills [ 50 ]. However, there is no current evidence as to the transferability of this work.…”