Fostering Equitable Outcomes in Introductory Biology Courses through Use of a Dual Domain Pedagogy

Abstract

Recent studies demonstrate that significant learning gains can be achieved when instructors take intentional steps to address the affective components of learning. While such efforts enhance the outcomes of all students, they are particularly beneficial for students from underrepresented groups and can reduce performance gaps. In the present study, we examined whether intentional efforts to address the affective domain of learning (through growth mindset messaging) can synergize with best practices for addressing the cognitive domain (via active-learning strategies) to enhance academic outcomes in biology courses. We compared the impact of this two-pronged approach (known as dual domain pedagogy, or DDP) with that of two other pedagogies (lecture only or active learning only). Our results demonstrate that DDP is a powerful tool for narrowing performance gaps. DDP, but not active learning, eliminated the performance gap observed between Black and white students in response to lecture. While a significant gap between white and Latin@ students was observed in response to active learning (but not lecture), this gap was reduced by DDP. These findings demonstrate that DDP is an effective approach for promoting a more equitable classroom and can foster learning outcomes that supersede those conferred by active learning alone.

Student Perceptions of Instructor Supportiveness: What Characteristics Make a Difference?

“…For example, sharing anecdotes about their own struggles in learning biology ( Goldman and Goodboy, 2014 ), having class policies that indicate ways students can make up missed work ( Young-Jones et al ., 2019 ), or using nonverbal behaviors like eye contact and smiling ( Allen et al ., 2006 ). These, along with other practices derived from the literature related to autonomy-supportive practices, may be ways to increase the persistence of students in the biology major, especially students historically underserved in science ( Bauer et al ., 2020 ).…”

Demystifying the Meaning of Active Learning in Postsecondary Biology Education

“…Although many articles do not define the exact parameters of active learning, the research has demonstrated the positive effects of active learning on student achievement and affect across multiple contexts. For example, researchers demonstrated that active learning yields disproportionate learning gains among the most at-risk student groups, such as first-generation college attendees and those who identify with races/ethnicities historically underrepresented in STEM fields (Beichner et al, 2007;Haak et al, 2011;Eddy and Hogan, 2014;Ballen et al, 2017;Wilton et al, 2019;Bauer et al, 2020). Additionally, a meta-analysis conducted by Theobald et al (2020) demonstrated that active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate STEM disciplines.…”

Growth mindset interventions improve academic performance but not mindset in biochemistry

“…Two independent groups reported using metacognitive interventions with students enrolled in a general chemistry I and introductory biology course, respectively, demonstrated a selective effect on underrepresented minority students by reducing the achievement gap. [18][19][20] The present study investigates undergraduate Biochemistry students' self-reported mindset beliefs and their implications for students' academic performance. Our research questions were (1) would growth mindset interventions promote a growth mindset in biochemistry students?…”

“…However, the use of metacognitive interventions (although assumed to be effective across disciplines) has not been fully investigated in biochemistry classrooms. Two independent groups reported using metacognitive interventions with students enrolled in a general chemistry I and introductory biology course, respectively, demonstrated a selective effect on underrepresented minority students by reducing the achievement gap 18–20 …”