Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.06.01.446616

Building Back More Equitable STEM Education: Teach Science by Engaging Students in Doing Science

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is a national tragedy, one that has focused our attention on both the need to improve science education and the need to confront systemic racism in our country. We know that active learning strategies, in particular research experiences, can engage and empower STEM undergraduates, effectively closing the achievement gap for historically excluded persons. The apprenticeship model for STEM training - supervised research under a dedicated mentor - is highly effective, but out of reach for most students. Recent efforts have demonstrated that Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) can be an effective approach for making STEM research accessible for all. Our meta-analysis of CUREs finds that published examples now cover the breadth of the typical undergraduate biology curriculum. A thoughtfully designed CURE can go beyond foundational knowledge and analytical thinking to include career-related skills, e.g., teamwork and communication. Similarly, it can be designed with equity as a foundational principle, taking into account the unique contributions of all students and their varying needs. We provide here an example framework (The "Do Science Framework") for making STEM training more effective and inclusive using CUREs. While CUREs do not inherently address equity, there can be no equity in STEM education without equal access to research participation, and progress toward this goal can be achieved using CUREs. However, implementing new CUREs is not a trivial undertaking, particularly at schools with high teaching loads and little or no research infrastructure, including many community colleges. We therefore propose a National Center for Science Engagement to support this transition, building on experiences of current nationally established CUREs as well as the work of many individual faculty. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, academia has a renewed responsibility to dismantle structural inequities in education; engaging all STEM students in research can be a key step.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Elgin, S. C. R., Hays, S., Mingo, V., Shaffer, C. D., Williams, J.. 2021-06-01. Building Back More Equitable STEM Education: Teach Science by Engaging Students in Doing Science. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.446616

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗