Abstract

This unit, Defining Life, engages students in thinking like scientists, applying creativity to science, and learning biology core concepts as they explore the defining characteristics of life. This unit provides an example of a curriculum designed for a disciplinary first-year seminar that engages aspiring biology majors in thinking like scientists, rather than acquiring detailed content knowledge, as they develop disciplinary ways of thinking and skills that support their transition to college. Defining Life includes a collection of active learning activities that span three areas of emphasis: (i) process of science and experimental design, (ii) biology core concepts connected to characteristics of life, and (iii) STEAM (STEM + Arts). After exploring criteria for being alive, students examine a case study about the discovery of DNA as the hereditary unit of life, learning about the process of science. Next, students participate in several activities focused on the biology core concepts, with an emphasis on the core concepts of Structure and Function, Evolution, and Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage. Then, students are introduced to STEAM and how art and science can be integrated. In the culminating activity, students apply elements from each area of emphasis to create an organism and use the process of science and core concepts to evaluate if the organism is living. Student performance and feedback indicates that students were successful in achieving the learning objectives across each area of emphasis and that students appreciated the engaging activities that allowed them to develop their creativity.

Primary Image: In this image, students are engaging in one of the hands-on activities described in this lesson plan. In groups, students work through their assignments, using whiteboards and other technologies to assist in their learning. 

Citation

Society Learning Goals

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

• Discovery requires objective measurement, quantitative analysis and clear communication
• What is the scientific process?
• Evolution
• How is natural selection a key evolutionary mechanism?

Genetics

• Genetics & Ethics
• How does genetics impact society and society impact genetics?

Microbiology

• Evolution
• How do human impacts on the environment influence the evolution of microorganisms (e.g., emerging diseases and the selection of antibiotic resistance)?

Lesson Learning Goals

• begin to recognize scientists’ approaches to their experiments, including how they incorporate critical analysis, observation-based reasoning, and creativity.
• develop their collaboration skills.
• relate the biology core concepts of (i) Structure and Function, (ii) Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage, and (iii) Evolution to the characteristics of living things.
• design an experiment to apply creative thinking to the process of science.

Lesson Learning Objectives

Introduction

• recognize the characteristics that help scientists distinguish between living and non-living things.

Area of Emphasis: Process of Science and Experimental Design

• identify the process behind scientific discoveries.
• provide an example of how discovery can change our understanding of the world.
• describe the innovation and creativity involved in determining that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is genetic material.

Area of Emphasis: Core Concepts Connected to Characteristics of Life

• explain how the core concept of Structure and Function relates to the characteristics of living things, focusing on the internal organization of cells.
• apply the Evolution and Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage core concepts to illustrate connections among genetics terms and the characteristics of living things.
• demonstrate the concept of natural selection through a hands-on experimental process, which will allow them to understand the Evolution core concept and how the ability to evolve is a key aspect that defines life.

Area of Emphasis: STEAM and Creativity in Science

• discuss the important role of creativity in science.
• describe how diverse scientists have incorporated artistic creativity into their profession.

Culminating Activity: Creating an Organism

• apply and integrate their understanding of characteristics that define life, the process of science, and the biology core concepts as they play the role of scientists discovering new life.
• design an experiment that tests the hypothesis that their discovery organism is alive.

Introduction

The role of innovation and creativity in the scientific process can be undervalued, especially by students who may think of science as purely methodical and linear. However, framing science as requiring creativity can help students to learn science successfully (1) and to see science as more than a purely objective endeavor, which can also help students who struggle to see themselves in science feel a sense of belonging. Through the topic of defining life, this unit engages students in thinking creatively, learning about science as a dynamic and creative process, and exploring how scientists’ understanding of the natural world is changing based on new discoveries. Taught as part of a disciplinary first-year seminar (FYS) called Exploring Biology, this unit is also designed to support students’ transition to college and entry into an academic community by integrating collaborative learning and orienting students to the core concepts in biology (Supporting File S1). Here, we present the approach and components of the entire unit to illustrate the current model for this disciplinary FYS. Individual activities can also be easily adapted to be used independently.

Exploring Biology: A Disciplinary First-Year Seminar

Disciplinary first-year seminars are a type of course that emphasize and create a disciplinary community (2–4). Along with other types of first-year seminars, they have been shown to promote gains in academic skills, student retention and persistence, and positive academic outcomes (4–7). Exploring Biology is a disciplinary FYS designed to support bioscience students as they transition into a large research university. Through active and collaborative activities, the course introduces students to the Vision and Change disciplinary learning framework of the five core concepts in biology (8), as well as promotes an appreciation of disciplinary ways of thinking as students learn about scientific discovery and explore careers in biology (9–12). In the process of learning about the core concepts and the process of science, first-year students become more comfortable and confident engaging with active learning approaches, collaborating with classmates, and constructing their own understanding through structured activities, rather than passively receiving information (13–16). The Exploring Biology approach has been demonstrated to support aspiring first-year biology students’ transitions to college and was proposed as a model intervention that can be adapted by other campuses to increase academic success and retention in biology (12).

As Exploring Biology serves to support students’ transition to college and orient them to the discipline, it is not intended to be an introductory biology course. The course is taken before introductory biology and enrolls students with widely varying prior experience with biology. Thus, it is less important that students develop a foundational understanding of introductory biology concepts, and more important that they can see how the core concepts are represented in biological phenomena across topics and scales, and that they have an appreciation of and excitement for the process of science. This goal is achieved by organizing the course around four topical units that are selected to expose students to a breadth of subdisciplines, scales, and careers in biology. Each unit also emphasizes several core concepts so that by the end of the course, students have an appreciation for how all five core concepts apply across biological topics and scales. Scientific thinking skills that are important for future bioscience courses (e.g., interpreting figures, reading primary literature, evaluating sources, seeing societal application of science, appreciating the process of science) are also integrated throughout each topical unit.

Focusing on Defining Life to Engage Students in Scientific Thinking, Biology Core Concepts, and Creativity in Science

This lesson article provides an example of a unit that was taught in Exploring Biology. We illustrate how the unit topic of defining life serves to introduce first-year students to a subset of core concepts, elements of the scientific process, and bioscience careers. Through a collection of active learning activities, this unit enables students to first understand the defining characteristics of life, then explore key scientific discoveries that led to our current understanding of what it means to be living, and finally apply their ingenuity and scientific reasoning skills to a new discovery. Aligning with the overall course goals described above, the unit includes three areas of emphasis: (i) the process of science and experimental design, (ii) biology core concepts connected to characteristics of life, and (iii) STEAM (STEM + Arts) and creativity. Active learning activities are included for each area of emphasis that can be implemented independently or as presented in this lesson.

A theme that spans multiple areas of emphasis throughout the unit is creativity in science, including how creative thinking is part of the scientific process, as well as how creative expression can be integrated with science in a variety of ways. The process of scientific inquiry necessarily involves creativity, with creative thinking playing a role as scientists propose and test hypotheses, evaluate unexpected results, make connections, and apply ideas across contexts (1, 17, 18). Thus, to train future scientists, it is valuable to both explicitly teach students about the creative nature of science, as well as to use teaching approaches that explicitly support the development of creative thinking and creative problem solving (19, 20). In addition to considering creativity as an important scientific thinking skill, science also routinely integrates creative expression. Drawing and other art forms can be integrated in science not as artistic practice, but to use for creative data visualization, to visually depict relationships, and to represent connections (21, 22). Including opportunities for students to create their own visual representations, rather than just interpreting existing visualizations, can support student engagement, deepen student understanding, promote enhanced reasoning abilities and development of mental models, and give students opportunities to demonstrate learning in different ways (21, 23, 24). This integration of science, creativity, and art is reflected in the acronym STEAM: STEM + Arts, with “Arts” also reflecting creativity more broadly (25 and references therein). STEAM education aims to increase student interest in and preparation for STEM careers, and may especially help to make science more equitable by supporting engagement of female and minority students in STEM (22, 25, 26).

This lesson is unique from published lessons in how it emphasizes creativity in science and combines a series of activities to support students in learning about the core concepts and scientific discovery, as well as in how it is designed for a disciplinary FYS. Several activities included here build on existing curricula, including those focused around the discovery of DNA, antibiotic resistance, and art in science. In an activity aligned with the first area of emphasis (process of science and experimental design), students discuss the classic 1950’s Hershey and Chase experiments to consider an important scientific question of the time—whether protein or DNA was the genetic material that is passed on. Students get a glimpse into the creativity scientists employed to investigate this question before development of modern molecular tools. Students also learn about the process of science (27)—more specifically, how scientists’ ability to employ critical and creative thinking beneficially impacts society at large. Similarly, Dai and colleagues developed a two-class lesson on the history of DNA discovery (28). Students learned about the discovery process, Rosalind Franklin’s contributions, as well as the role of women in STEM throughout time (28). These are examples of lessons that present the people behind the science, which is reflected in the Defining Life unit, as well.

In another activity aligned with the second area of emphasis for this unit (core concepts connected to characteristics of life), students simulate the development of antibiotic resistance in a bacterial community. Students engage in the process of science, playing the role of researchers as they gather and analyze data. This activity was adapted from an existing lesson about antibiotic resistance (29), which uses a simulated lab with candy as a model for bacteria to engage students in the complicated topic of natural selection in evolution. The activity promotes creative thinking as students consider and discuss any unexpected results. Finally, the culminating activity for the unit challenges students to consider a futuristic, hypothetical scenario and aligns with the third area of emphasis, STEAM and creativity in science. Students think creatively to imagine an organism in space and then design an experiment to determine whether it would be considered living. Students apply what they learned throughout the unit about scientific discovery and the core concepts as they again imagine themselves as scientists. This activity also allows students to engage their creativity through art, and it provides students with a scenario where art can be integrated into science (30). This draws on Wu and colleagues’ findings that students were highly engaged with in-class activities that probed creativity to teach students about gene expression in a STEM course (31).

Overall, this lesson incorporates several opportunities for students to consider the creativity of the scientific process as they examine past scientific discoveries and use their own creativity to design an experiment. It is also designed to incorporate teaching approaches recommended to promote creativity, including active and collaborative learning, open-ended activities that involve higher-order thinking skills, and prompts that encourage students to make connections across contexts (19, 20). In particular, the overall flow of the unit culminating with the “Creating an Organism Activity” incorporates specific principles for how to support development of creative and critical thinking skills, namely: (i) sequencing activities to progress from simple and observable, to non-observable and more complex; (ii) engaging students with novel inquiries that draw on previous experience; and (iii) challenging students to design tests of their own proposed explanations (20).

While described here as a unit focused on defining life, we invite instructors to utilize this lesson for different purposes depending on their needs, from implementing individual activities to drawing on this model as inspiration for their own disciplinary FYS. Many individual activities can be integrated within other topics (without the focus on characteristics of life) to provide an engaging active learning experience that explicitly teaches a specific core concept or highlights a scientific discovery. As a collection of activities, this unit provides an example of how to design curricula for a disciplinary FYS that engages aspiring biology majors in thinking like scientists. Rather than acquiring detailed biology content knowledge, students gain an appreciation for the biology core concepts, excitement for scientific discovery, and a sense of how creativity contributes to science.

Intended Audience

This collection of activities is appropriate for first- and second-year undergraduate students, either bioscience majors or non-majors. It was taught in a disciplinary FYS for students interested in pursuing a biology-related major at a large, public research institution. The course was taught in a SCALE-UP style (32) active learning classroom, although the unit could also be taught in classrooms that are less optimized for active learning.

Required Learning Time

This unit is designed for approximately six hours of in-class time distributed over three class sessions. It was taught over two full classes and one-half class in a course that met once a week; however, it could be implemented in various ways, depending on the area of emphasis or activity of interest. Individual activity times range from 25 to 90 minutes (Table 1). The unit assessment can be done outside of the classroom in the students' own time.

Table 1. Teaching timeline overview. This chart includes the main unit activities, descriptions of the activities, and estimated timing. The noted Supporting Files contain pre-class preparation, in-lesson script, and additional activity details.

Prerequisite Student Knowledge

Students should be aware of the five biology core concepts and their utility as a framework for organizing biological phenomena across sub-disciplines and scales (8). In our course, the core concepts are introduced in a short (15 minute) lecture at the start of the semester. Students are also provided with a reference sheet that includes the core concept definitions and corresponding conceptual elements for each (Supporting File S1).

Prerequisite Teacher Knowledge

Instructors should understand the process of science and be able to explain the role of creativity in science. Articles referenced in the introduction provide helpful background information about STEAM, including creativity in the scientific process and creative expression through art. Instructors should also have a basic understanding of types of cells and cellular structures, DNA, natural selection, antibacterial resistance, and genetics, and understand how these topics relate to the core concepts. As this lesson was designed for a FYS, only minimal background knowledge on the listed topics is necessary.

Scientific Teaching Themes

Active Learning

The ICAP (Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive) framework is a model that differentiates learning activities based on how different types of student behaviors and actions correspond with different cognitive levels, and it predicts that student learning will increase as students become more engaged (33, 34). This unit engages students with the content and with one another in a collection of active learning activities that span the interactive, constructive, and active engagement levels of the ICAP framework, focusing primarily on the higher interactive and constructive levels, and less on the active and passive levels (33, 34). Activities in this lesson that involve “active” engagement include responding to polling questions, think-pair-share, and a simulated lab where students manipulate materials and collect data. Polling questions are designed to be conceptual rather than factual, which promotes understanding of concepts rather than recall of facts (35). “Constructive” and “interactive” activities include group concept mapping (36), a data analysis group activity, and a creative activity where students create an organism and design an experiment to test if it is alive. Discussing their ideas and collaborating with classmates forces students to organize and present their own ideas, helping them to identify gaps in their understanding and reinforcing their knowledge. They also benefit from working with classmates who have different backgrounds and ways of thinking (37, 38). Furthermore, this lesson intentionally includes multiple elements to reduce student resistance to active learning. These elements include providing clear instructions and expectations for activities, the instructor circulating the room to interact with students during active learning, including activities that require and reward participation, and celebrating diverse approaches and ways of thinking (39, 40). Finally, the activities span the first three of four levels of the continuum of active learning, which describes different degrees of complexity for an instructor to enact. This ranges from level one with activities that involve individual student responses to assess knowledge acquisition after instructor presentation, to students collaborating in groups to engage with and question content in deeper ways to construct their own understanding in level three (37, 41). Thus, instructors with varying degrees of comfort and prior experience using active instructional approaches will be able to adapt elements of this lesson.

Assessment

This unit incorporates formative and summative assessments that are aligned with the learning objectives and with each area of emphasis. Regular low-stakes formative assessments provide opportunities for students to practice, reflect, and receive feedback on their learning, in a way that promotes learning and growth (13, 42). Students receive formative feedback on in-class polling questions and collaborative learning activities. By responding to in-class polling questions, the instructor and students receive immediate feedback that they can use to adjust the lesson or focus their review of class material (43 and references therein). The correct answer is shown and discussed, but students are only graded based on their participation in the poll and not based on correctness. This encourages students learning from the questions rather than focusing on how it will affect their grade (43). Students also receive formative feedback as they interact with peers and the instructor during collaborative activities, including sorting, drawing, and concept mapping. Students engaging in peer discussion are able to check their understanding of content with their classmates which allows for self-assessment and greater learning (44). The instructor circulates among groups to ask questions, reinforce student responses on group learning, and provide feedback on student progress. For many activities, the instructor can easily monitor student progress as students write or draw on their group whiteboards, which allows instructors to give just-in-time feedback to groups as they circulate the room. Following collaborative learning activities with formative feedback, the instructor-facilitated debrief with the whole class serves to further reinforce key takeaways, address misconceptions, and provide feedback based on the activity, which promotes greater learning than instructor explanation alone (45, 46). At the end of the unit, students individually complete a summative unit assessment. The assessment is administered online and contains short answer questions that align with each area of emphasis. Responses are evaluated using a rubric, and the instructor provides written feedback to reinforce key points and correct misconceptions.

Inclusive Teaching

This unit incorporates varied active instructional approaches and regular formative assessments because these practices have been shown to increase student learning gains, especially for students who have been historically underrepresented in STEM (47–49), and a wide range of activity types are incorporated to engage students in different ways. In particular, structured in-class activities and embedded low-stakes formative assessments serve to structure the learning experience and give all students feedback on their learning, which has been shown to especially benefit underrepresented student populations (48).

Individual activities were also designed to align with different inclusive teaching principles. For instance, the unit begins with activating students’ prior knowledge about the characteristics that define life and then builds from there, engaging students with varied prior exposure to the topic and allowing them to situate the unit into their existing framework (50). In-class polling activities were set up to be anonymous and graded based on participation rather than correctness to promote a growth mindset and to help all students feel comfortable and benefit from the activities (43). Throughout the lesson, students work in groups to benefit from hearing perspectives of their classmates, and activities are structured to follow best practices for cooperative learning (51), which promotes equitable participation from students in a group, preventing one student from dominating the discussion. The way that information was presented to students also considered students' different learning needs and preferences. Content and instructions were shared with students verbally, on slides, and on printed handouts. For many activities, students wrote their ideas on the whiteboards, making their thinking visible to all students and helping all students to both see and hear the main ideas from their discussions, serving to focus and include students with varying capability to engage in group discussion.

In addition to how the unit is taught, the content of the unit is also inclusive in how it emphasizes the process of science, the role of creativity in science, and the people doing science. This focus is in contrast with how science is often taught as decontextualized facts and neutral to any personal characteristics, which has been shown to especially negatively impact women of color in undergraduate science courses (52). The unit’s focus on the role of creativity in science and the connection between art and science may also draw students from underrepresented groups (22, 25, 26), including students who may struggle to see themselves in science if they see it as purely objective. The lesson also highlights diverse scientists as examples of individuals working at the intersection between art and science, which can help underrepresented students to see themselves in science (53).

Finally, the lesson does not include any outside materials, such as a textbook, which is inclusive for students with varying socioeconomic status. The lesson can also be implemented with free polling platforms so that students do not need to purchase hardware or a subscription. For example, TopHat Basic can be used for free and includes all necessary features for students to anonymously respond to and receive feedback on their responses to in-class polling questions. (A paid subscription is required if the instructor wishes to assign points for participation.)

Lesson Plan

This unit includes a collection of active learning activities that span three areas of emphasis: (i) the process of science and experimental design, (ii) biology core concepts connected to characteristics of life (Supporting File S1), and (iii) STEAM and creativity in science. Following an introductory activity, the instructor can choose which area(s) of emphasis to focus on and then conclude the unit with a culminating activity that can be adapted based on which area(s) of emphasis were included (Figure 1). For example, the instructor may choose to include just the introductory activity, one area of emphasis, and the culminating activity, or may choose to include multiple areas of emphasis. Here, we provide an overview of the main activities and assessments, mapped to their corresponding area of emphasis. A high-level description and timeline of unit activities are provided in Table 1. Activities are presented as they were taught over three class sessions. Background content for specific activities is also included within the timeline and text below. Detailed lesson plans, slides, and other materials are available in Supporting Materials (Supporting Files S2–S18).

This unit was taught twice in different sections of the same course and revised between offerings based on student feedback, the instructors’ reflections, and peer observations. The descriptions here reflect the improved unit as taught in the second iteration. The slides and lesson plans provide details necessary to implement the lesson, including detailed timing, suggested scripts for instructors, and instructions for students.

To begin the unit, the instructor provides an introduction to the unit learning objectives and the applicable area(s) of emphasis that students will engage with. The instructor can also provide personal background information about why they are interested in this topic or any connections to their own research. When we implemented the unit, we each provided a brief background of our personal and scientific identity, shared something interesting to humanize us, and explained why we value inclusion and diversity in our teaching and research.

Introductory Activity: Living and Non-Living Sorting Activity

This first activity provides a foundation to the overall unit. It introduces students to the topic of defining life, activates prior knowledge, and engages students in thinking like scientists. Students work together to group items (e.g., fungi, paper, pine trees, fossils) as either living or non-living and then propose characteristics that distinguish their groupings. Since sorting the items is straightforward and may be perceived as too basic by students, the instructor should emphasize the task of determining the criteria that define living things by comparing the items in the two groups. In selecting items, it is important to include those that intentionally highlight potential misconceptions or force students to be nuanced in defining their criteria (Supporting File S2). For example, a wooden chair was used because it is certainly non-living, though it was created from once living trees and therefore retains some living characteristics. Additionally, a virus is included because though it contains components found in living things, such as DNA and RNA, the scientific community classifies viruses as non-living (54). After determining their criteria for being alive, students compare their lists with the list of seven characteristics scientists currently use to define life, including organization, metabolism, homeostasis, growth, reproduction, response, and evolution (Supporting File S3) (55). To illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific discovery, students are told that this list has changed through time and that some scientists today disagree about the criteria that qualify something as living. Following this introductory activity, the instructor can provide an overview of the upcoming activities, objectives of each activity, and how the activities align with overall course goals.

Area of Emphasis: Process of Science and Experimental Design

Discovery of DNA Activity

Within the Process of Science and Experimental Design area of emphasis, students engage in an activity about the discovery of DNA. This activity illustrates the role of experiments in the process of science, as well as engages students with two key elements that define life (relating to the growth and reproduction characteristics of life). Instructors first introduce the “Understanding Science” flowchart that provides an overview of the process of science (Supporting File S4) (27). Next, students engage with the process of science by reviewing and analyzing a historic experiment. The students watch a short video about the experiment where Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase found that DNA is the hereditary unit of life, and then work in groups to answer a series of questions about the experiment (Supporting File S5). In a whole-class debrief, some students are asked to provide their groups’ answers. During this debrief, the instructors should emphasize the incorporation of creativity in the process of science that allowed for scientists to make the discovery that DNA is the genetic material. Specifically, scientists used their creative thinking when they used two different radioactive tags to determine whether proteins or nucleic acids are the biologic material that has some function related to bacterial replication. The discovery took place over time, rather than in one single experiment, as the initial discovery of MacLeod and McCarty led to the eventual findings of Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase. The instructors can also point out that a woman (Martha Chase) was part of this important finding in the 1950’s, a time when women were even more underrepresented in science than they are today, and that progress has been made since then to include more women in science.

Area of Emphasis: Core Concepts Connected to Characteristics of Life

This area of emphasis includes three activities that are designed to be completed in the order written.

Cell Structure and Function Activity

In this activity, students work in groups to draw cell structures and describe their corresponding functions on their whiteboards. This connects to the organization characteristic that defines life, as well as illustrates the Structure and Function core concept. First, the instructor gives a short lecture that introduces students to the general structure and characteristics of cells, and how they can vary in size, shape, color, function, and other ways (Supporting File S6). Next, in groups of three, students select a cell structure to draw on a piece of paper. In order to emphasize the Structure and Function core concept, students are limited to choosing either the nucleus or chloroplasts, as these organelles both have physical structures that clearly connect to specific functions. Students are encouraged to use online resources to accurately depict as many details as they can for one of these structures. Then in larger groups, students share, explain, and depict the chosen organelle’s structure and function on their whiteboard. As the instructor walks around the room to check in with student groups, they should direct students to relate specific physical properties, like size and shape, to their corresponding functions in their drawings, as opposed to simply stating that a structure executes a function. Students write a description next to their drawing of how the structure relates to the function. For example, the double phospholipid membrane structure with pores around the nucleus leads to its function of controlling passage of small molecules into and out of the nucleus. At the end of the activity, students take photos of their whiteboards to submit through the learning management system, and they are evaluated based on their description of the Structure and Function core concept and how it relates to their drawing. To debrief the activity, the instructor asks some groups to present their ideas to the class and comments on how they explained the Structure and Function relationship. This gives students feedback in real time, allowing for other students in the class who thought of similar ideas to self-assess. Students also hear about the other cellular structure that they did not focus on, which provides them with another example of the Structure and Function core concept (Supporting File S7).

Genetics Concept Map Activity

In this concept map activity, students learn and discuss the connections among various introductory concepts within the field of genetics, which connects to several defining characteristics of life and to the Evolution and Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage core concepts. First, the instructor gives a brief lecture on key evolution and genetics terms (Supporting File S8). Then, students create a concept map starting with genetics terms provided by the instructor (e.g., genes, central dogma, etc.). This is a modified think-pair-share activity where students begin their concept map individually and then discuss their maps with each other, drawing an integrated concept map on the whiteboard. After making the group concept map, student groups select two terms and describe how they are connected to the characteristics that define life (e.g., reproduction, growth). Finally, they explain how these terms relate to one of the biology core concepts. While the students are working in groups, the instructor interacts with students to discuss their maps. The instructor should focus on helping students to make connections between the characteristics of living things and the biology core concepts and how they relate to the genetics terms, rather than emphasizing an in depth understanding of all genetics concepts introduced (Supporting File S9).

Antibiotic Resistance Activity

In this hands-on activity related to antibiotic resistance, students engage with the core concept of Evolution, which is also a defining characteristic of living things. Before class, students watch two videos about the cause of antibiotic resistance and the challenges scientists face when trying to find new antibiotics (Supporting File S10). These can be shared with students through the learning management system and assigned as homework. Then in class, the instructor gives a short lecture to introduce how bacterial populations can become resistant to antibiotics, explaining how this illustrates the core concept of Evolution (Supporting File S11). These complex evolutionary concepts will be modeled in real time by the students, by using candy and toothpicks to represent bacteria and antibiotics, respectively. The Structure and Function and Evolution core concepts can be connected by highlighting the impact of the bacterial cell wall structure on bacterial natural selection.

After the lecture, students complete an activity that models antibiotic resistance where they collect, present, and interpret experimental data (Supporting File S12). This activity was modified from a published lesson on antibiotic resistance (29) to focus on the core concept of Evolution. Pairs or small groups of students work with a model system where toothpicks, marshmallows, and hard-shell candies (like M&Ms or jelly beans, as an option free of common allergens) represent antibiotics, bacteria affected by the antibiotic, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, respectively. After a brief introduction from the instructor, students follow a lab report worksheet that guides them through a simulation of multiple timed cycles where students use the antibiotic to attack the bacteria and then count the number of surviving bacteria after each cycle. After students collect their data and fill out the worksheet, they combine with another group to share their results and plot the amount of resistant and susceptible bacteria throughout time on their whiteboards, discussing any differences in their results. Instructors should walk around to discuss results with groups during the activity and to identify and correct any misconceptions.

Finally, students discuss several questions that ask them to connect their results with the Evolution core concept and consider how scientists can work to solve the problem of antibiotic resistance. Students take a photo of their whiteboard and submit the image on the learning management system to be evaluated (Supporting File S13). After the simulation and small group discussion, the instructor discusses the expected results and any variations amongst groups with the whole class. They should emphasize that the experiment demonstrates how antibiotic resistant bacterial populations increase after many cycles of antibiotic use, and how scientists can apply the core concepts to identify solutions. Overall, this activity allows students to engage in the process of science and see how the core concepts of Evolution and Structure and Function apply to the real-word problem of antibiotic misuse in society, helping students to see the relevance of what they are learning.

Area of Emphasis: STEAM and Creativity in Science

Within the STEAM and Creativity in Science area of emphasis, students are presented with an engaging lecture focused on creativity and art in science (Supporting File S14). First, the instructor defines STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) and describes how art and science are both human attempts to describe and understand the world (Supporting File S15) (56). Along with being introduced to the important role that creativity plays in science (i.e., as scientists consider experimental design, how to approach scientific questions effectively, and the overall process of science), students learn about diverse scientists who are also artists, including Leonardo da Vinci, Dr. Ahna Skop, and Dr. Mónica Feliú-Mojer. The instructor may choose to highlight different scientists from their campus or community, but should select scientists with identities that have been historically underrepresented in STEM careers, including scientists who may identify as female, part of the LGBTQ+ community, or from racial or ethnic minority groups. Additionally, students are provided with potential careers that integrate science and art, including science communication, animation, illustration, data visualization, and using microscopy and scientific imaging to analyze and authenticate artwork of the past. Then, students engage in an activity to individually research and find one person, project, or career of interest that integrates science and art. Students reflect on how their selection can potentially impact society, and if the student sees themselves in this type of STEAM work. Examples of search terms and suggested artists can be provided, though students should feel they can select an artist or project that most resonates with them. After individual work and with time permitting, they briefly share what they found with a partner and then classmates at their table so that they can learn about even more examples of STEAM in practice. Optionally, students may submit this work. Students ultimately learn how science and art are intertwined, and see examples of how both scientific mastery and creative thinking are essential in the process of science, as scientists innovate experimental techniques and visualize data in novel and creative ways.

Culminating Activity: Creating an Organism Activity

After completing the introductory activity and other activities within one or more area(s) of emphasis, students apply their knowledge in this culminating activity. Prior to introducing the culminating scenario and task, the instructor first provides their personal perspective on creativity within their scientific careers. An example of instructor input is provided in the slides and lesson plan (Supporting Files S16, S17). Next, as students may not all have background with experimental design, which is necessary for them to complete the culminating activity and write-up, students engage in an activity where they practice formulating a testable hypothesis, and determining proper independent and dependent variables, experimental controls, and methodology (Supporting Files S16, S17). To introduce these concepts, students watch two short videos about formulating hypotheses and control and variable groups. Next, students individually consider a scenario and determine an appropriate hypothesis, variables, methods, and other experimental considerations, and expected results. Then, they discuss the scenario and experimental approach in small groups. After this, the instructor reviews the validity of the hypothesis, variables, and overall experimental design with the whole class. This portion of the lesson focused on experimental design is intended for student practice leading up to the culminating activity, and it was not submitted for a grade. If students are already familiar with experimental design, this activity could be skipped or replaced with a shorter review of key concepts.

After this introduction and initial activity, students are presented with instructions for creating and studying their organism. To begin the “Creating an Organism Activity,” the instructor introduces the scenario and task: the students are scientists in the year 3034. Life is still defined by the seven traits that were introduced in the “Living and Non-Living Sorting Activity” and reinforced throughout other activities. Students conceive of an organism and design an experiment to test whether it is considered living or not, applying the process of science and unit topic in a creative way. Specifically, students work individually to use art supplies to create their organisms. Then, they design an experiment to test whether their organism is alive. They must apply their creativity to imagine what other forms life could take in the universe, while also applying the characteristics of life and the process of science. We have included several images of student-created organisms to provide a range of examples of what our students designed (Supporting File S17). Instructors may choose to show some of these examples to students, but should emphasize that students should use their own creativity and not feel like their organisms need to resemble these examples. Students also describe a potential collaboration to further study their organism, illustrating the importance of teamwork within science (57). For example, students may discuss why working with a marine biologist would benefit their studies if their organism evolved from a sea creature. Lastly, each student presents a summary of their work to a group of classmates, practicing their scientific communication skills. The presentation serves as a form of peer feedback, as they can hear other students’ ideas and receive preliminary feedback on their own ideas prior to completing the unit assessment (Supporting File S18).

After this in-class activity, students deepen their understanding and are assessed on what they learned in a summative unit assessment (Supporting File S18). The activity and associated unit assessment can be adapted based on which areas of emphasis were included in the unit to emphasize the process of science, the biology core concepts, and/or the role of creativity in science. In the unit assessment, which can be assigned for in- or out-of-class, students individually answer open-ended questions designed to measure how effective the learning goals of each area of emphasis were achieved. For example, if the core concepts area was emphasized, students can be asked to describe how the core concept of Structure and Function relates to the characteristics of living things based on the organism they created. Students should receive detailed instructor feedback that focuses on the areas of emphasis that were included.

Teaching Discussion

Unit Effectiveness

This unit was designed to help students think like scientists, connect biology core concepts to the defining features of life, and appreciate the role of creativity in science. Activities such as the “Antibiotic Resistance Activity” and “Discovery of DNA Activity” helped students to engage in the process of science and learn about how the process applied to a key discovery. Students engaged explicitly with the biology core concepts by exploring cell Structure and Function, mapping genetics concepts to the characteristics of life and to the Evolution and Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage core concepts, and considering how antibiotic resistance relates to the core concept of Evolution. Students learned about the role of creativity in science as they considered how creative thinking contributed to discovery and learned about connections between art and science. The culminating activity brought elements from each area of emphasis together as students imagined an organism and used the process of science and core concepts to evaluate and explain how the organism is living. The effectiveness of this lesson was evaluated as part of standard course evaluation with the goal of quality improvement, and was certified to not meet the definition of research through our institution’s IRB office. We examined student performance on course assessments as well as student feedback on a unit survey as part of evaluating this lesson. The IRB office approved the use of de-identified student work and direct quotes as part of this project.

The summative unit assessment was designed to evaluate how students achieved the overall unit learning goals across the three areas of emphasis, with a focus on the culminating activity. Students were evaluated using a grading rubric that aligns with the unit learning goals. Student scores on the unit assessment are reported for students who attempted all questions the second time the unit was taught. Several questions related to the process of science and experimental design area of emphasis. Students were asked to design an experiment that would allow them to test if their creature was alive based on the characteristics of living things they learned. To determine if their creatures are alive, students noted they could, for example, attempt to extract and isolate nucleic acids from cells of their organism, monitor growth of their creature over time with various nutrient sources, or assess the mobility of the organism, which could imply metabolic processes are taking place. Example photos and further descriptions of experimental design are provided (Supporting Files S16, S17). For questions focused on experimental design, students received an average score of 93%, with 66% of students earning full credit and 89% of students earning at least 80%. This demonstrates that most students were able to apply the process of science to designing their own experiment and that the students understood scientists’ roles in defining the characteristics of life and the process by which scientific discovery happens. The following quote illustrates how one student demonstrated their understanding of the process of science and experimental design on the unit assessment:

One of the characteristics of a living creature is that it maintains homeostasis. One way in which creatures maintain homeostasis is to maintain a near constant body temperature, or move to maintain a near constant environmental temperature. The experiment would be to place the creature into a room in which we have perfect control over the temperature in small units. Then we will slowly change the temperature so that the creature's ideal environmental temperature shifts away from them. If the creature is living, then it should either follow the temperature, or it should adjust its own body temperature in order to keep it near constant, which can be monitored with biometric equipment. As a control, we can keep one of the creatures in a room with a constant temperature and monitor the creature to see how it behaves, so that we can compare it to the behavior of the creature in the variable temperature room. The independent variable of the experiment is the changing temperature, while the dependent variable is the behavior of the creature, as well as its internal temperature. Either the creature will behave differently, moving towards its ideal temperature, its temperature will adjust while the creature doesn't move, or the creature will not react and its temperature will not adjust, which indicates it is not alive.

This response demonstrates student understanding of all the key elements of an experiment to answer a question, including the appropriate variables, experimental conditions, and controls. Other students who earned full credit similarly were able to demonstrate a full understanding of the critical experimental design aspects described. For students who earned lower than 80%, they most commonly lost points because they did not add the independent and dependent variables, the correct characteristics of living things, or inappropriate experimental conditions and controls in their experiment.

For questions related to the core concepts as they relate to characteristics of life, students received an average score of 95%, with 66% of students earning full credit and 94% of students earning at least 80%. Responses on individual questions indicated that students had a stronger grasp of Evolution than Structure and Function. In one question that assessed understanding of the core concept of Evolution, students explained why two separate populations of the same organism that lived in different environments would share all their traits except one. Ninety-eight percent of students received 5/5 or 4/5 for this question, where missing one point most frequently indicated a slight misconception about natural selection or selection pressure. One example of a student response to this question that reflected an adequate understanding of the Evolution core concept was:

Oxygen levels differ in different parts of the planet. While these two separate populations are different now in their ability to intake oxygen, they must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, as the different populations moved away from each other, they most likely experienced different climates, one with a more plentiful amount of oxygen, and one with less. The population in the area with less oxygen had to adapt to the environment to survive, so the creatures that could survive with the oxygen level at that current level survived and passed their traits down to future generations.

This shows that students had a strong grasp of the concept of natural selection, and they were able to apply it to the unit activities.

The Structure and Function core concept was more challenging for students. Most students responded to a question about the structure and function of their organism with a generic statement that did not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the core concept, where the importance of how structure dictates function is emphasized. One example of a vague answer that did not demonstrate a complete grasp of the Structure and Function core concept was the following:

Structure and function applies directly to my animal Joe because it defines his makeup and why he is considered a living thing. The specific conceptual element would be SF3 because it describes how biological entities change over time during the time that organisms begin to thrive in certain areas.

Students who write vague responses that fail to connect biological structures to their functions may benefit from more examples within the “Cell Structure and Function Activity” of how structure informs function.

Finally, for the question that related to integrating art and science, students received an average score of 99% with 95% of students earning full credit. The question asked students to comment generally on (a) the definition of STEAM, (b) the way in which incorporating art can help advance scientific discovery, and (c) the way in which they could see art supporting their own professional development and career goals. Overall, student responses that received full credit demonstrated an understanding of what STEAM refers to and were able to describe how integrating art, creativity, and science can help to advance scientific processes in general, as well as how this integration may be valuable for their own personal development as a STEM student. One example of a complete answer to the three-part question is the following:

a. STEAM stand for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics. This is a curriculum that incorporates all the categories mentioned above into its learning.

b. Art can help advance science by allowing us to visualize what is going on in many cases. For example, the first drawings and depictions of DNA were a monumental discovery for the scientific community. These depictions were able to help advance science immensely. Seeing things visually and creatively can help us understand much easier what is actually going on. Art allows people to better understand what is being studied and aids to the progression understanding.

c. One way art could help your professional development is by incorporating art into your scientific presentation. Art can help engage your audience and make it easier for you to explain your topic to them. Visuals are much more engaging than a bunch of paragraphs of text and by using visuals you can more effectively get your points across. Additionally, art can help you solve problems in science and expand your creative thinking. Using art in creative ways to address a problem can help to expand your mind and convey more possibilities than you had previously known. Using art allows you to become a more creative thinker and better problem solver overall.

Students that did not receive full credit were extremely vague in their responses, but these were in the minority.

Student Feedback

We gathered student feedback on the unit after each time the unit was taught through an online survey that students completed outside of class. Overall, students indicated that they appreciated the engaging and interactive activities that allowed them to construct their own understanding of how scientists define life and apply their creativity. In response to the short-answer question, “Which activity or assignment did you find the most helpful for your learning in this unit?” the most frequently mentioned activity was the culminating “Creating an Organism Activity,” which 31% of students mentioned (reported for the second time the unit was taught). Students most frequently mentioned that they appreciated using their creativity and designing an experiment for their creation. For example, one student reflected that:

I really enjoyed the creature activity because it allowed us to use our creativity. This led to us being much more engaged in the assignment and gave it a much more personal touch. Caring more about our own creation, we were able to learn more from the assignment because we were more passionate about it.

Another student said:

I liked the creativity assignment at the end. It was a good way to incorporate the whole unit into something not so structured and fun to complete.

The other activities frequently mentioned by students as most helpful for their learning were the “Antibiotic Resistance Activity” (mentioned by 26% of students) and the “Discovery of DNA Activity” (mentioned by 11% of students).

Students were also asked, “What was most effective about this unit?” and, “What is one way this unit could be improved?” Of comments that related to the design of the unit (as opposed to instructor or course characteristics), students most frequently referred to the engaging interactive activities. Multiple students also mentioned ideas related to the following items as being most effective: varied activities between days, “hands-on” activities, activities that engaged student creativity, incorporation of visuals, organization of the unit, and the focus on the core concepts. For areas that could be improved, students most frequently mentioned wanting to go more in depth and that some activities were not challenging enough. Although there were some students that felt they were sufficiently challenged, others indicated they would have liked more challenging or detailed material for some of the activities, even after we revised the unit to make it more challenging than in the initial implementation. Other topics mentioned by multiple students that could be improved related to students wanting more time on group activities, and the organization of the unit, with some students feeling that the unit switched between topics too quickly. Some comments indicated that students didn’t see how all activities connected to the overall goals of the unit. This is reflected in this student comment:

I think that this unit could be better organized, It felt disjointed and random at times.

Possible Modifications

Unit Expansion and Increasing Complexity

Given additional class time, the unit content and activities can be modified to further challenge students. In the “Living and Non-Living Sorting Activity,” integrating research that relates to the origins of life would allow students to explore the research process that led to the seven characteristics for how we currently define life and give students insight into the research process in general (58). Integrating examples of research programs from the university (or a nearby institution) where the course is taught could help students learn more about their own campus and community and inspire them to get involved, which would be especially valuable in a FYS, like that where this unit was taught. The lesson would also be enhanced by including passages from Darwin’s On the Origin of Species or other scientific literature on the origins of life on Earth. Additionally, individual activities could be expanded to introduce additional concepts and go in greater depth on unit topics. For example, the instructor could present specific experiments that evaluated whether viruses are considered living.

The “Genetics Concept Map Activity” could also include keywords related to students’ research and career interests, applicable to their own institution. Instructors could discuss the students’ maps, learn about the students’ interests, and help connect students with related opportunities on campus, such as joining a lab working in an area of interest. The “Antibiotic Resistance Activity” could be enhanced by adding different color hard shell candies that represent different mutations—some deleterious and some harmless—and discussing how this impacts the results. This would add a level of complexity and allow students to more deeply explore the core concepts of Evolution and Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage. The “Creating an Organism Activity” could be modified by giving students more time to develop their organisms. This would allow students to create more intricate and creative organisms and better imagine the characteristics that make them living.

Online and Remote Instruction

While designed for an in-person course, this unit and individual activities can all be adapted for an online or remote instruction course. If implemented in synchronous online class sessions, in class activities can be facilitated through an online meeting platform (e.g., Zoom, Blackboard Collaborate), with breakout rooms allowing for small group discussion. In place of whiteboards, students could write their ideas for group discussion questions in collaborative documents (e.g., Google docs for the “Discovery of DNA Activity”) and use online concept mapping tools (e.g., Padlet for the “Genetics Concept Map Activity”). By using shared tools rather than students working in individual documents, students will be better able to collaborate, and the instructor can view student progress in real time and then address themes and misconceptions in a whole class debrief following breakout room activities. The “Antibiotic Resistance Activity” may seem the most challenging to replicate in an online course, but because the required materials are readily available for purchase, students could likely easily complete the simulation and gather data on their own. After students interpret their results and share results to a class data repository, the instructor could discuss the results and implications in a live class session. These activities could also be adapted for a course with fully asynchronous interaction. Instructors could record audio or video introductions to activities and video mini-lectures using voice-over slides, helping to establish instructor presence. Live discussions and group work could be replaced with students contributing ideas to a shared workspace (e.g., Google docs, Padlet), followed by discussion and commenting in the shared workspace or in an online discussion forum, which would promote student-student interaction. Finally, the “Creating an Organism Activity” could be started as an individual activity, followed by students recording a video of themselves presenting their organism and experiment to classmates, so that students would still benefit from sharing and learning from one another. By embedding the videos into discussion forums or using the built-in commenting feature in a video sharing platform (e.g., Kaltura), students will be able to discuss one another’s creatures and experiments, and the instructor can also contribute feedback.

Additional Modifications

Other possible modifications include varying the activities to allow for more individual contributions, teaching in traditionally arranged classrooms, and implementing only a portion of the unit. The current unit includes a variety of ways for students to engage, but would be enhanced with an even wider range of activities to vary the types of activities within one class session. In particular, the unit would benefit from additional individual activities such as more frequent self-reflections, free writing, and think-pair-share activities, which blend individual thinking with partner or group discussion. This would avoid privileging learners who perform well in groups over students who benefit from more time to think through concepts individually. Individual thinking and writing could also be added as student preparation before class to allow students to take the time they need to prepare for discussion and in-class activities. Pre-class preparation and more varied activities would make the unit more inclusive for students with different learning needs.

Activities could also be modified for different classroom types. While the unit benefits from a classroom designed for active learning, most activities can be modified for more traditional classrooms by having students work in pairs instead of groups and writing on paper, index cards, or tablets instead of on whiteboards. Online tools, described above for use in online or remote courses, could also be used during an in-person class session to facilitate collaboration.

Finally, while this series of activities was taught as a unit, the modular design allows instructors to focus on different areas of emphasis depending on their needs (Figure 1). Instructors can pick one out of the three areas of emphasis (Process of Science + Experimental Design, Core Concepts Connected to the Characteristics of Life, or STEAM + Creativity). Then, they can use the introductory activity (“Living and Non-Living Sorting Activity”), the activities related to the chosen area(s) of emphasis, and the concluding activity (“Creating an Organism Activity”) to align with the learning objectives of interest. Instructors can also implement any activity independently. Students would benefit from instructors being transparent about the areas of emphasis they are addressing, which may help them to understand how individual activities relate to the learning goals. Even if the unit does not feel cohesive to students, this will help students to make connections between the different activities.

Concluding Thoughts

This unit about defining life actively engages students with the defining characteristics of life as they learn about biology core concepts, the process of science, and creativity and art in science. In addition to offering a collection of engaging activities, we hope that this unit offers a helpful example for how to design curricula for a disciplinary FYS. Scientific thinking skills and biology core concepts are integrated within short topical units that focus on engaging with these big ideas rather than developing detailed biology content knowledge. This focus on the process of science, scientific discovery, and core concepts is intended to help first-year students establish a foundation for future success in the biosciences by gaining an awareness of the biology core concepts and an appreciation of science as a dynamic and creative process.

Supporting Materials

• S1. Defining Life – Biology Core Concepts Handout
• S2. Defining Life – Living and Non-Living Sorting Slides
• S3. Defining Life – Living and Non-Living Sorting Lesson Plan
• S4. Defining Life – Discovery of DNA Slides
• S5. Defining Life – Discovery of DNA Lesson Plan
• S6. Defining Life – Cell Structure and Function Slides
• S7. Defining Life – Cell Structure and Function Lesson Plan
• S8. Defining Life – Genetics Concept Map Slides
• S9. Defining Life – Genetics Concept Map Lesson Plan
• S10. Defining Life – Antibiotic Resistance Lesson Plan
• S11. Defining Life – Antibiotic Resistance Slides
• S12. Defining Life – Antibiotic Resistance Student Handout
• S13. Defining Life – Antibiotic Resistance Rubric
• S14. Defining Life – Intro to STEAM Lesson Plan
• S15. Defining Life – Intro to STEAM Slides
• S16. Defining Life – Creating an Organism Lesson Plan
• S17. Defining Life – Creating an Organism Slides
• S18. Defining Life – Unit Assessment

Acknowledgements

This unit was developed as part of the WISCIENCE Scientific Teaching Fellows Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Scientific Teaching Fellows Program is a professional development program for graduate and postdoctoral students that integrates training and practical experience in college science teaching. We obtained certification from the UW-Madison IRB that IRB review was not required for this project because it is characterized as program evaluation and does not constitute research. The UW-Madison IRB also approved use of direct de-identified students’ quotes, in line with guidelines for reporting on evaluation.

We thank those who have provided feedback on the unit and this manuscript, including David Baum, Danny Minahan, Elliot Vaughan, Benjamin Baird, Michael Crossley, Corri Hamilton, Jennifer Riehl, and Sarah Alexander. We also acknowledge the support of Amanda Butz for her guidance on evaluating lessons developed for Exploring Biology and feedback from CourseSource reviewers and editors who helped to greatly improve this manuscript.

References

1. diki d. 2013. Creativity for learning biology in higher education. LUX J Transdiscipl Writ Res Claremont Grad Univ 3. doi:10.5642/lux.201303.03.
2. Porter SR, Swing RL. 2006. Understanding how first-year seminars affect persistence. Res High Educ 47:89–109. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8153-6.
3. Rogerson CL, Poock MC. 2014. Difference in populating first year seminars and the impact on retention and course effectiveness. J Coll Student Retent: Res Theory Pract 15:157–172. doi:10.2190/CS.15.2.b.
4. Tobolowsky BF. 2008. 2006 National survey of first-year seminars: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. The first-year experience Monograph series No. 51. National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
5. Minchella DJ, Yazvac CW, Fodrea RA, Ball, G. 2002. Biology resource seminar: First aid for the first year. Am Biol Teach 64:352–357. doi:10.2307/4451310.
6. Black A, Terry N, Buhler T. 2016. The impact of specialized courses on student retention as part of the freshman experience. Acad Educ Leadersh J 20:85–92.
7. Starke M, Harth M, Sirianni F. 2001. Retention, bonding, and academic achievement: Success of a first-year seminar. J First-Year Exp Stud Transit 13:7–36.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 2011. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. AAAS, Washington, DC.
9. Trimby C, Wienhold CJ, Branchaw J. 2019. BioMap Degree Plan: A project to guide students in exploring, defining, and building a plan to achieve career goals. CourseSource 6. doi:10.24918/cs.2019.6.
10. Trimby C, Wienhold C, Branchaw J. 2018. Discovery Poster Project. CourseSource 5. doi:10.24918/cs.2018.10.
11. Holzhausen E, Fitz-Henley J, Theisen C. 2022. Online information literacy: Applying the CRAAP test to vaccine (mis)information. CourseSource 9. doi:10.24918/cs.2022.44.
12. Wienhold CJ, Branchaw J. 2018. Exploring biology: A Vision and Change disciplinary first-year seminar improves academic performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 17:ar22. doi:10.1187/cbe.17-08-0158.
13. Zion M, Mendelovici R. 2012. Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Sci Educ Int 23:383–399.
14. Michael J. 2006. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ 30:159–167. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006.
15. Knight JK, Wood WB. 2005. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4:298–310. doi:10.1187/05-06-0082.
16. Tanner K, Allen D. 2004. Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Learning styles and the problem of instructional selection—Engaging all students in science courses. Cell Biol Educ 3:197–201. doi:10.1187/cbe.04-07-0050.
17. Oliveira AW, Brown AO, Zhang WS, LeBrun P, Eaton L, Yemen S. 2021. Fostering creativity in science learning: The potential of open-ended student drawing. Teach Teach Educ 105:103416. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103416.
18. Hadzigeorgiou Y, Fokialis P, Kabouropoulou M. 2012. Thinking about creativity in science education. Creat Educ 3:603–611. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.35089.
19. DeHaan RL. 2009. Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Sci Educ 8:172–181. doi:10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081.
20. Lawson AE. 2001. Promoting creative and critical thinking skills in college biology. Bioscene 27:13–24.
21. Ainsworth S, Prain V, Tytler R. 2011. Drawing to learn in science. Science 333: 1096–1097. doi:10.1126/science.1204153.
22. Segarra VA, Natalizio B, Falkenberg CV, Pulford S, Holmes RM. 2018. STEAM: Using the arts to train well-rounded and creative scientists. J Microbiol Biol Educ 19:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1360. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1360.
23. Watson FL, Lom B. 2017. More than a picture: Helping undergraduates learn to communicate through scientific images. CBE Life Sci Educ 7:27–35. doi:10.1187/cbe.07-07-0045.
24. Quillin K, Thomas S. 2015. Drawing-to-learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 14:es2. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128.
25. Perignat E, Katz-Buonincontro J. 2019. STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Think Ski Creat 31:31–43. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002.
26. Wajngurt C, Sloan PJ. 2019. Overcoming gender bias in STEM: The effect of adding the arts (STEAM). InSight J Sch Teach 14:13–28. doi:10.46504/14201901wa.
27. University of California Museum of Paleontology. n.d. How science works: The flowchart. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20180624221518/https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/scienceflowchart (accessed 2 August 2018).
28. Dai P, Rudge D. 2018. Using the discovery of the structure of DNA to illustrate cultural aspects of science. Am Biol Teach 80:256–262. doi:10.1525/abt.2018.80.4.256.
29. Kittredge H. 2017. Antibiotic resistance lesson. Michigan State University W.K. Kellogg Biological Station. Retrieved from http://www.kbs.msu.edu/2017/01/antibiotic-resistance-lesson/ (accessed 2 August 2018).
30. Jolly A. 2014. STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong? Education Week. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20180909194634/https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html (accessed 2 August 2018).
31. Wu R, Brinkema C, Peterson M, Waltzer A, Chowning J. 2018. STEAM connections: Painting with bacteria. Am Biol Teach 80:305–307. doi:10.1525/abt.2018.80.4.305.
32. Beichner RJ, Saul JM, Abbott DS, Morse JJ, Deardorff DL, Allain RJ, Bonham SW, Dancy MH, Risley JS. 2007. The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. In Redish EF, Cooney P (ed), Research-based reform of university physics. American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD.
33. Chi MTH. 2009. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Top Cogn Sci 1:73–105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.
34. Chi MTH, Wylie R. 2014. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ Psychol 49:219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
35. Lord T, Baviskar S. 2007. Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: Exploiting Bloom’s Taxonomy in creating science questions. J Coll Sci Teach 36:40–44.
36. Novak JD. 1990. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. J Res Sci Teach 27:937–949. doi:10.1002/tea.3660271003.
37. Idsardi R. 2020. Evidence-based practices for the active learning classroom, p 13–25. In Mintzes JJ, Walter EM (ed), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
38. Wood KL. 2009. Pre-service teachers’ experiences in teacher education: What we taught and what they learned about equitable education, p 163–173. In Milner HR (ed), Diversity and education: Teachers, teaching, and teacher education. Charles C Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL.
39. Hodges LC. 2020. Student engagement in active learning classes, p 27–41. In Mintzes JJ, Walter EM (ed), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
40. Tharayil S, Borrego M, Prince M, Nguyen KA, Shekhar P, Finelli CJ, Waters C. 2018. Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. Int J STEM Educ 5:7. doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y.
41. Erol M, Idsardi R, Luft JA, Myers DL, Lemons PP. 2015. Creating active learning environments in undergraduate STEM courses. Center for Teaching and Learning at University of Georgia, Athens, GA. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2787.9121.
42. Freeman S, Haak D, Wenderoth MP. 2011. Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 10:175–186. doi:10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105.
43. Smith MK, Knight JK. 2020. Clickers in the biology classroom: Strategies for writing and effectively implementing clicker questions that maximize student learning, p 141–158. In Mintzes JJ, Walter EM (ed), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
44. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT. 2009. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323:122–124. doi:10.1126/science.1165919.
45. Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK. 2011. Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10:55–63. doi:10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101.
46. Linton DL, Farmer JK, Peterson E. 2014. Is peer interaction necessary for optimal active learning? CBE Life Sci Educ 13:243–252. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-10-0201.
47. Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN, Behling S, Chambwe N, Cintrón DL, Cooper JD, Dunster G, Grummer JA, Hennessey K, Hsiao J, Iranon N, Jones L, Jordt H, Keller M, Lacey ME, Littlefield CE, Lowe A, Newman S, Okolo V, Olroyd S, Peecook BR, Pickett SB, Slager DL, Caviedes-Solis IW, Stanchak KE, Sundaravardan V, Valdebenito C, Williams CR, Zinsli K, Freeman S. 2020. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:6476–6483. doi:10.1073/pnas.1916903117.
48. Eddy SL, Hogan KA. 2014. Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE Life Sci Educ 13:453–468. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050.
49. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S. 2011. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332:1213–1216. doi:10.1126/science.1204820.
50. Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK. 2010. How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
51. Millis BJ, US Air Force Academy. 2002. Enhancing learning — and more! — through cooperative learning – IDEA paper 38. The IDEA Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. https://www.ideaedu.org/idea_papers/enhancing-learning-and-more-through-cooperative-learning/.
52. Johnson AC. 2007. Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of color. Sci Educ 91:805–821. doi:10.1002/sce.20208.
53. Schinske JN, Perkins H, Snyder A, Wyer M. 2016. Scientist spotlight homework assignments shift students’ stereotypes of scientists and enhance science identity in a diverse introductory science class. CBE Life Sci Educ 15:ar47. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-01-0002.
54. Villarreal LP. 2004. Are viruses alive? Scientific American. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20180818212105/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/ accessed 2 August 2018).
55. Khan Academy. n.d. What is life? Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/what-is-life (accessed 2 August 2018).
56. Liao C. 2016. From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Educ 69:44–49. doi:10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873.
57. National Science Foundation (NSF). 2020. STEM education for the future: A visioning report. NSF, Alexandria, VA. https://www.nsf.gov/edu/Materials/STEM%20Education%20for%20the%20Future%20-%202020%20Visioning%20Report.pdf
58. University Communications and University Marketing. n.d. Origins: The universe, life on earth, humankind. University of Wisconsin–Madison. Retrieved from https://origins.wisc.edu (accessed 2 August 2018).