The scale and importance of Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action challenges us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology instruction. I propose that we have clarified the “vision” but lack research-based models and evidence needed to guide the “change.” To support this claim, I focus on several key topics, including evidence about effective use of active-teaching pedagogy by typical faculty and whether certain programs improve students’ understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts. Program evaluation is especially problematic. While current education research and theory should inform evaluation, several prominent biology faculty–development programs continue to rely on self-reporting by faculty and students. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty-development overviews can guide program design. Such studies highlight viewing faculty members as collaborators, embedding rewards faculty value, and characteristics of effective faculty-development learning communities. A recent National Research Council report on discipline-based STEM education research emphasizes the need for long-term faculty development and deep conceptual change in teaching and learning as the basis for genuine transformation of college instruction. Despite the progress evident in Vision and Change, forward momentum will likely be limited, because we lack evidence-based, reliable models for actually realizing the desired “change.”

Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education outlined five core concepts intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) evolution; 2) structure and function; 3) information flow, exchange, and storage; 4) pathways and transformations of energy and matter; and 5) systems. We have taken these general recommendations and created a Vision and Change BioCore Guide—a set of general principles and specific statements that expand upon the core concepts, creating a framework that biology departments can use to align with the goals of Vision and Change. We used a grassroots approach to generate the BioCore Guide, beginning with faculty ideas as the basis for an iterative process that incorporated feedback from more than 240 biologists and biology educators at a diverse range of academic institutions throughout the United States. The final validation step in this process demonstrated strong national consensus, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing with the importance and scientific accuracy of the statements. It is our hope that the BioCore Guide will serve as an agent of change for biology departments as we move toward transforming undergraduate biology education.

Despite ongoing dissemination of evidence-based teaching strategies, science teaching at the university level is less than reformed. Most college biology instructors could benefit from more sustained support in implementing these strategies. One-time workshops raise awareness of evidence-based practices, but faculty members are more likely to make significant changes in their teaching practices when supported by coaching and feedback. Currently, most instructional feedback occurs via student evaluations, which typically lack specific feedback for improvement and focus on teacher-centered practices, or via drop-in classroom observations and peer evaluation by other instructors, which raise issues for promotion, tenure, and evaluation. The goals of this essay are to summarize the best practices for providing instructional feedback, recommend specific strategies for providing feedback, and suggest areas for further research. Missed opportunities for feedback in teaching are highlighted, and the sharing of instructional expertise is encouraged.

Researchers, university administrators, and faculty members are increasingly interested in measuring and describing instructional practices provided in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses at the college level. Specifically, there is keen interest in comparing instructional practices between courses, monitoring changes over time, and mapping observed practices to research-based teaching. While increasingly common observation protocols (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol [RTOP] and Classroom Observation Protocol in Undergraduate STEM [COPUS]) at the postsecondary level help achieve some of these goals, they also suffer from weaknesses that limit their applicability. In this study, we leverage the strengths of these protocols to provide an easy method that enables the reliable and valid characterization of instructional practices. This method was developed empirically via a cluster analysis using observations of 269 individual class periods, corresponding to 73 different faculty members, 28 different research-intensive institutions, and various STEM disciplines. Ten clusters, called COPUS profiles, emerged from this analysis; they represent the most common types of instructional practices enacted in the classrooms observed for this study. RTOP scores were used to validate the alignment of the 10 COPUS profiles with reformed teaching. Herein, we present a detailed description of the cluster analysis method, the COPUS profiles, and the distribution of the COPUS profiles across various STEM courses at research-intensive universities.

Relationships with colleagues have the potential to be a source of support for faculty to make meaningful change in how they teach, but the impact of these relationships is poorly understood. We used a mixed-methods approach to investigate the characteristics of faculty who provide colleagues with teaching resources and facilitate change in teaching, how faculty influence one another. Our exploratory investigation was informed by social network theory and research on the impact of opinion leaders within organizations. We used surveys and interviews to examine collegial interactions about undergraduate teaching in life sciences departments at one research university. Each department included discipline-based education researchers (DBERs). Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that DBERs promote changes in teaching to a greater degree than other departmental colleagues. The influence of DBERs derives, at least partly, from a perception that they have unique professional expertise in education. DBERs facilitated change through coteaching, offering ready and approachable access to education research, and providing teaching training and mentoring. Faculty who had participated in a team based–teaching professional development program were also credited with providing more support for teaching than nonparticipants. Further research will be necessary to determine whether these results generalize beyond the studied institution.

Undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform continues to be a national priority. We studied a reform process in undergraduate biology at a research-intensive university to explore what leadership issues arose in implementation of the initiative when characterized with a descriptive case study method. The data were drawn from transcripts of meetings that occurred over the first 2 years of the reform process. Two literature-based models of change were used as lenses through which to view the data. We find that easing the burden of an undergraduate education reform initiative on faculty through articulating clear outcomes, developing shared vision across stakeholders on how to achieve those outcomes, providing appropriate reward systems, and ensuring faculty have ample opportunity to influence the initiative all appear to increase the success of reform. The two literature-based models were assessed, and an extended model of change is presented that moves from change in STEM instructional strategies to STEM organizational change strategies. These lessons may be transferable to other institutions engaging in education reform.

Discipline-based education research (DBER) publications are opportunities for professional development around science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform. Learning theory tells us these publications could be more impactful if authors, reviewers, and editors pay greater attention to linking principles and practice. This approach, which considers faculty as learners and STEM education reform as content, has the potential to better support faculty members because it promotes a deeper understanding of the reasons why a pedagogical change is effective. This depth of understanding is necessary for faculty members to successfully transfer new knowledge to their own contexts. A challenge ahead for the emergent learning sciences is to better integrate findings from across sister disciplines; DBER reports can take a step in that direction while improving their usefulness for instructors.

The PULSE Vision & Change Rubrics, version 1.0, assess life sciences departments’ progress toward implementation of the principles of the Vision and Change report. This paper reports on the development of the rubrics, their validation, and their reliability in measuring departmental change aligned with the Vision and Change recommendations. The rubrics assess 66 different criteria across five areas: Curriculum Alignment, Assessment, Faculty Practice/Faculty Support, Infrastructure, and Climate for Change. The results from this work demonstrate the rubrics can be used to evaluate departmental transformation equitably across institution types and represent baseline data about the adoption of the Vision and Change recommendations by life sciences programs across the United States. While all institution types have made progress, liberal arts institutions are farther along in implementing these recommendations. Generally, institutions earned the highest scores on the Curriculum Alignment rubric and the lowest scores on the Assessment rubric. The results of this study clearly indicate that the Vision & Change Rubrics, version 1.0, are valid and equitable and can track long-term progress of the transformation of life sciences departments. In addition, four of the five rubrics have broad applicability and can be used to evaluate departmental transformation by other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines.

The seminal report Vision and Change outlined improvements necessary for undergraduate biology courses to accomplish widely recognized learning objectives. Over the past 8 years, we have developed a two-semester introductory biology course that incorporates the core concepts and competencies recommended in Vision and Change. Using published research on how students learn, we focused our efforts on three main areas of change: pedagogy, course content, and technology. We introduced active-learning strategies to improve our classroom environments, wrote an e-textbook that provides students with the tools they need to construct their own knowledge, and employed an online learning hub to assist students who needed extra support. The redesigned courses have been well received by students, and we have seen good student learning outcomes. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate to faculty that Vision and Change’s recommendations are feasible and students welcome the improvements.

The Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education final report challenged institutions to reform their biology courses to focus on process skills and student active learning, among other recommendations. A large southeastern university implemented curricular changes to its majors’ introductory biology sequence in alignment with these recommendations. Discussion sections focused on developing student process skills were added to both lectures and a lab, and one semester of lab was removed. This curriculum was implemented using active-learning techniques paired with student collaboration. This study determined whether these changes resulted in a higher gain of student scientific literacy by conducting pre/posttesting of scientific literacy for two cohorts: students experiencing the unreformed curriculum and students experiencing the reformed curriculum. Retention of student scientific literacy for each cohort was also assessed 4 months later. At the end of the academic year, scientific literacy gains were significantly higher for students in the reformed curriculum (p = 0.005), with those students having double the scientific literacy gains of the cohort in the unreformed curriculum. Retention of scientific literacy did not differ between the cohorts.