In 2020, the Fly Board voted to use part of its reserve fund to support efforts to increase trainee participation as well as equity and diversity in the Drosophila community. An awards committee decides how the money will be spent each year, and from 2020–2022, the committee posted a very broad call for applications from non-profit programs that introduce middle school, high school, or college students to Drosophila research. Five or six such applications were funded in each of the three years, and the programs have recruited a diverse set of students worldwide to learn about working with flies. This year’s awarded programs and individuals are:

eCLOSE provides training in genetics research to participants from age 10 through retirement. The Fly Board award supported eight undergraduates in their most advanced program, the Undergraduate Bridge to Research. Over the course of 10 weeks during the summer, participants identified a major health challenge facing a community that was meaningful to them on a personal level. They conducted a chemical genetic screen to identify nutrients that might alter phenotypes in fly models of the disease of interest. Leveraging those results, the students designed independent research projects ranging from biochemical analysis of signaling pathways to developmental biology of ovaries, brains, intestines, and social behavior changes among treated and/or mutant flies. Two students have already attained research positions in fly labs, with plans to use their work for honors thesis and capstone projects as they complete their undergraduate degrees. The Fly Board award provided the reagents and materials needed for students to conduct their independent work, expanding the experimental options available and increasing the depth of the research. 

The Drosophila Stock Center at the University of Mysore, Karnataka, India is currently maintaining a collection of 50 Drosophila species and over 2,000 stocks that are provided to researchers and teaching faculty at colleges and universities in India for use in teaching and learning genetics. The Stock Center also trains teachers and individual researchers through hands-on training workshops and short-term collaborations. The Fly Board funding was used to support a hands-on training program in December 2023 to introduce teachers of undergraduate students in India to lab techniques that they can then use in their classes. The workshop covered morphology, genetic mutants, polytene chromosome inversions, use of Drosophila for understanding biological inheritance, behavioral exercises, collection and categorization of wild type Drosophila, study of polygenic traits, and study of gene expression using reporter constructs.

Games of Flies and Genes is the new, ambitious project of Engage Nepal with Science that will be supported by Fly Board funding. It aims to encourage science educators in Nepal to work collaboratively with fly researchers to make their genetics lessons more interactive and dynamic and facilitate the learning of this important part of the biology curriculum. The project involves four fly researchers from the US and Nepal, who will work directly with educators and students from five schools in Nepal to explore Drosophila genetics and gain hands-on experience with fly research by visiting the Research Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology. Participants will learn about Drosophila through various engaging methods, look at flies under the microscope, play a game based on genes and laws of heredity, and will also make their own fly models with modeling clay. These workshops have the potential to revolutionize the field of genetics education in Nepal, offering students an experience that will not only deepen their understanding of genetics but also inspire the next generation of scientists.

Osamu Shimmi is using Fly Board funding for an outreach initiative to improve Drosophila research and education in Estonia. His outreach efforts aim to develop easy-to-use study materials on Drosophila for middle and high school students in the Estonian language. He also writes articles for a popular science magazine to introduce Drosophila as a learning model for biology teachers in middle and high school. On September 29, 2023 he hosted school children in the lab as part of the activities for Science Day at the University of Tartu, Estonia, to promote Drosophila research through outreach.

Small But Mighty: Drosophila as a Powerful Tool for Biomedical Research is aimed at educating secondary school students in Akure, Nigeria, about the possibilities of Drosophila research, and providing them with educational materials to take back to their schools. The Fly Board-funded workshop was hosted at the Federal University of Technology Akure in November 2023 and featured lectures on basic Drosophila husbandry and genetics, practical hands-on activities, career talks, and more. Nilda Barbosa, a professor from the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Brazil, gave a virtual lecture, while Ganiyu Oboh and Adedayo Ademiluyi from the Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria spoke in person. This event had a large impact on awareness of Drosophila research in Nigeria and has the potential to be self-sustaining.

Enhancing Biology Education held a three-day workshop in November 2023, funded by the Fly Board, to train teachers-in-training (B.Sc(ed.)/B.Ed students) in Nigeria on the utilization of Drosophila as a cost-effective teaching tool in high school biology. Of the 20 in-person participants, 60% were females from underrepresented regions in Nigeria. Additional applicants were able to join virtually. The workshop ran from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day and the curriculum included talks, practical sessions, and micro-teaching. 

Ed Smith knows the power of having footsteps to follow. Six of his older brothers earned PhDs, he says, and observing their experiences helped him set his course. “It was important to me to learn from them,” he says. “If you have a good role model, you’ll be able to follow their paths, and you don’t make the same mistakes.” 

As a professor, Smith has dedicated tremendous effort to providing that kind of support to undergraduate and graduate students in genetics and biomedical programs, particularly those from historically excluded and underrepresented groups. For his work, Smith is the recipient of the 2021 Genetics Society of America Elizabeth W. Jones Award for Excellence in Education, in recognition of his highly successful mentoring programs at Virginia Tech.

Growing up in Sierra Leone, West Africa, Smith recalls getting up at 5 a.m. to work on the farm with his father. From a young age, he associated early rising with physical labor, and expected that earning a graduate degree meant the end of pre-dawn wake-ups. But even now, he starts his day early, relishing the brief peace to get some uninterrupted work time before the daily bustle begins.

“I always thought education took that away, that if you get a PhD there’s no need to get up at 5 o’clock to work,” he says with a laugh. “My postdoc mentor, Susan Lamont, taught me that just like those farmers, you have to get up early if you want to do a lot.”

For his first faculty position, Smith went to Tuskegee University, where he was instrumental in bringing a comparative animal genomics program to the university. “I had never heard of HBCUs,” he says. “I really liked it. Since I didn’t go back to Sierra Leone, this was an opportunity to join an institution that represents my background.”

While at Tuskegee, Smith worked with colleagues at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Auburn University, Research Genetics (now Hudson Alpha Institute) and Alabama A&M to organize a biotechnology and genomics summer learning program for K-12 students and teachers. He spent 8 years at Tuskegee before moving to Virginia Tech in 2000, where he would have the opportunity to train PhD students and advance his research program in poultry genetics and genomics in the Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences. 

At Virginia Tech, Smith played key roles in sequencing the turkey genome and initiated two NIH-funded training programs: the Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD) and the Post-Baccalaureate Research and Education Program (PREP). The two programs have provided research and training opportunities to dozens of students from underrepresented groups who are pursuing careers in science.

“I was in the first cohort of IMSD students that were brought into Virginia Tech,” says Anjolii Diaz, now an Associate Professor of psychological science at Ball State University. “It was one of the best things that has ever happened to me.”

The programs give students the chance to conduct research and present their results at meetings, but perhaps more importantly, they form a supportive community for students who may be the first in their families to pursue STEM careers. “Our emphasis has always been, if you come, we are a family,” Smith says. “We do a lot of eating together, and we have a lot of interaction so you don’t fall off.” He recalls how his own graduate school advisor, Tom Savage at Oregon State University, used to invite students to come for Thanksgiving dinner. That experience of sharing food created a strong sense of belonging, and Smith says it has shaped his own mentoring philosophy.

“Dr. Smith was always more than just an advisor, he really was a mentor, because he would advocate for each and every one of us,” recalls Diaz. “He was someone that we would always be able to turn to if we were experiencing barriers that we didn’t know how to maneuver.”

IMSD includes both undergraduate and graduate students at Virginia Tech. 85 percent of the program’s grad students completed their doctorate degrees, and 70 percent of the undergraduates went on to PhD programs at schools such as Brown, Yale, and Stanford.

Similarly, PREP recruits students who may not have had research opportunities at their undergraduate institution and prepares them to apply to competitive graduate programs in biological sciences. 88% of PREP participants have been accepted into PhD programs.

After going through the programs, the students go on to form a network of colleagues and friends across institutions. Having a connection with other scientists from historically excluded groups can feel like a breath of fresh air, says Margaret Werner-Washburne, Regents’ Professor Emerita of Biology at the University of New Mexico, who nominated Smith for the award. She recalls the first time she met Smith, as members of an NHGRI study section. 

“It’s lonely,” she says. “I’d go to these big meetings, and usually I’m the only Hispanic and the only minority.” Meeting Smith, she says, was like running across a long-lost sibling. The two have kept in touch over the years, and she’s been pleased to see the fruits of Smith’s mentoring programs.

“I had a student who was capable, but his self-esteem was not great,” says Werner-Washburne. “I got him to apply to Ed’s program, and it was miraculous to see the turnaround.” 

Part of the programs’ impact comes from the amount of personal effort Smith puts in for each student, says Werner-Washburne. 

“A lot of what we have done in terms of minority student development has been to help students see that the magic is inside them,” she says. “Ed Smith is single-handedly transforming science by opening the door to so many students who now feel they are a part of the scientific enterprise, that they belong.”

Smith will accept the award and present an Award Seminar online on Wednesday, May 5, at 1-2 p.m. EDT on “Culturally Aware Research Education: Pay Attention to the Differences”. Register at the button below.

Register for Award Seminar

The Elizabeth W. Jones Award for Excellence in Education recognizes individuals or groups who have had significant, sustained impact on genetics education at any level, from K-12 through graduate school and beyond. The award was named posthumously for Elizabeth W. Jones (1939-2008), who was the recipient of the first GSA Excellence in Education Award in 2007. She was a renowned geneticist and educator who served as GSA president (1987) and as Editor in Chief of GENETICS for nearly 12 years. 

FlyBoard is pleased to offer funding to five outreach programs, which aim to increase early career scientist participation, equity, and diversity in the Drosophila research community.

Amos Abolaji, Drosophila Research and Training Centre
The Drosophila Research and Training Centre (DRTC) is a not-for-profit and non-political organization based in Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria. It facilitates the use of Drosophila melanogaster as a cost-effective, alternative model for biomedical research and teaching in Sub-Saharan African countries. As part of its Drosophila for Schools initiative, DRTC will work with 10 public and private secondary schools in Ibadan to introduce students to Drosophila research. Researchers will visit the schools to discuss the importance of fly research and demonstrate fly handling and microscopy, and two students from each school will then visit the DRTC for further training.

Dotun Adeyinka, Science Education for Youngsters 
Science Education for Youngsters (SEFY) is a registered non-governmental and non-profit organization working to create science-awareness in Nigeria. In collaboration with Osun State University, SEFY will organize an event for 50 secondary school students in Osogbo, Nigeria to introduce the Drosophila model system, demonstrate lab equipment, and carry out hands-on training using Foldscope microscopes.

Eric Hastie, Discovering Drosophila Development
Discovering Drosophila Development is a summer research experience for undergraduates, which will be held at UNC-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in collaboration with Durham Technical Community College (DTCC). About 10-15  DTCC students will be trained in multiple scientific techniques to conduct student-driven discovery with unknown outcomes including: meeting and collaborating with scientists in UNC-CH Drosophila labs, learning fly culture and maintenance, researching literature to develop hypotheses, and using microscopy and antibody labelling. The goal of the program is to create micropublications via microPublication Biology and to encourage DTCC students to transfer to UNC.

Stephen Klusza, Genomics Education Partnership 
The Genomics Education Partnership (GEP) is a 140+ faculty collective that provides undergraduate students with bioinformatic CUREs on manual gene annotation in multiple Drosophila fruit fly species. As part of a global initiative to increase accessibility and diversity retention, GEP is working to translate their “Understanding Eukaryotic Genes” modules on manual gene annotation for undergraduates from English to Spanish. They are also creating accompanying Spanish-language videos. These new materials will be a first step to recruiting and retaining English as a Second Language students in Drosophila research across all postsecondary institutions.

Alana O’Reilly, eCLOSE Institute
The eCLOSE Institute will host a one-week summer camp program that introduces biomedical research to students in Philadelphia, more than 60% of whom are under-represented minorities. Due to Covid-19, the current hybrid format will ship students a “lab in a box” that they use to investigate the influence of diet on Drosophila development, guided by online instructors. The program aims to increase students’ research literacy, providing them with an understanding of what a research career is and technical and conceptual foundations for continuation in science.

Biology students who participated in a one-on-one homework activity with a classmate showed increased learning gains.

The huge sizes of many undergraduate science courses make it rare for a student to get valuable one-on-one interaction with a professor. Teaching assistants and student tutors can help with this problem, but an expert may not actually be required to help students attain deeper levels of understanding—simply engaging with the material with another person might be enough. In CBE-Life Sciences Education, Bailey et al. asked if a simple peer-tutoring homework assignment could help students in a general biology course learn the content.

The authors used two sections of an undergraduate biology class for non-majors. The experimental section was given peer-tutoring assignments in which two students would meet outside of class. One student, the “teacher,” instructed their peer based on a set of learning objectives. The other student, the “questioner,” asked the teacher questions about the material. After 15 minutes, the two students switched roles. These sessions were recorded, and the audio was sent to the instructors for credit. The control section was instructed to study the learning objectives on their own for 30 minutes in lieu of the peer-tutoring exercise.

Based on a preliminary assessment given at the beginning of class, the two sections were essentially equivalent in terms of starting scientific knowledge and interest. After the exercise, students in the section that completed the peer-review assignment performed better on all class tests, averaging 6% higher scores than their counterparts who studied alone.

Interestingly, the highest gains were seen for students who scored lowest on the preliminary assessment, suggesting that this peer-tutoring activity might be particularly effective for students starting out with less developed scientific skills. Additionally, students who asked more questions during the peer-review assignment were more likely to do well on the final exam.

Students in both sections were also given a survey on their perceptions of the peer-tutoring exercise, and they reported it being helpful. Students given the exercise consistently ranked it highly among the class activities that helped them learn, and students in the control section generally reported believing that being required to study with a peer would have been helpful to them. This shows that students are receptive to peer-tutoring exercises.

Although this study only reported on two sections of one class, the methods described are particularly useful to instructors due to their simplicity: the teacher/questioner peer-tutoring exercise does not take up class time, but it still gives students a chance to ask questions and verbally engage with class content. The authors conclude their paper with suggestions for instructors on implementing similar assignments in undergraduate classrooms.

CITATION:

Learning Gains from a Recurring “Teach and Question” Homework Assignment in a General Biology Course: Using Reciprocal Peer Tutoring Outside Class

E. G. Bailey, D. Baek, J. Meiling, C. Morris, N. Nelson, N. S. Rice, S. Rose, P. Stockdale

CBE-Life Sciences Education 11 May 2018; https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0259

https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0259

Guest post by Michelle Smith, Cornell University.

Teaching genetics and looking for some new course ideas?  Check out CourseSource, which is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes articles describing undergraduate biology activities. All the activities are aligned with learning goals written by life science professional societies, including GSA.

Here are some recent genetics articles:

Meiosis: A Play in Three Acts, Starring DNA Sequence

Newman and Wright designed a new way to have students demonstrate meiosis with long strips of paper that contain DNA sequence. The questions instructors ask students help them learn about sister chromatids, homologous chromosomes, and chromosome pairing. The big “ah-ha” moment comes when students figure out they can use DNA sequence to find their homologous pair.

A Clicker-based Case Study that Untangles Student Thinking About The Processes in The Central Dogma

Pelletreau and colleagues from six different institutions designed a clicker-based case study activity that asks students to predict the effects of different types of mutations on DNA replication, transcription, and translation. Students often have mixed models of the Central Dogma of Biology and this activity helps them better understand what information is encoded at each stage.

A Hands-on Introduction to Hidden Markov Models
Weisstein and colleagues designed an interactive lecture, examples, and homework problems to teach students about Hidden Markov Models (HMM), which form the basis for many gene predictors. Student understanding of HMM is becoming increasingly critical in the era of big data, where biologists and computer scientists often collaborate on important scientific questions.

Linking Genotype to Phenotype: The Effect of a Mutation in Gibberellic Acid Production on Plant Germination
CourseSource also publishes laboratory lessons that can be performed in a variety of environments. For example, Mann and colleagues developed a hands-on activity about the effect of the plant hormone gibberellic acid (GA) on plant germination.

There are many more activities covering concepts such as linkage, insertion/deletion mutations, conservation biology, and genetically modified organisms. Having access to these high-quality, well-vetted active learning activities can help you with class preparation and provide new learning opportunities for your students.

About the author:

Michelle Smith is Editor in Chief of CourseSource and an Associate Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Cornell University.

Kelley Harris is the Biology Major Program Manager at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Strong mentorship and her graduate training prepared Kelley for this multifaceted position that includes advising, administration, and communication.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

As an undergraduate, Kelley Harris was encouraged by mentors to pursue her interest in genetics. Now, as the Biology Major Program Manager at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Kelley encourages students to identify their strengths and choose their future. Kelley uses skills she learned from managing multiple projects during her PhD to balance the many responsibilities of her current role, from advising students to coordinating with university leadership. She also applies them to maintaining work-life balance.

When did you know you wanted to be a geneticist?

Harris on the very first day of graduate school, full of excitement and enthusiasm.

I came to that determination fairly early in my undergraduate experience. I started college on the pre-med track, and I chose to attend Xavier University of Louisiana, which is a small, historically black college and university that is highly ranked for sending African Americans to medical school. I was mesmerized in my freshman introductory biology class when we covered molecular biology, heredity, transmission genetics, developmental biology, and population genetics. I was excited about these topics and really hungry to learn more. It took a while to embrace this new identity as a scientist and make the decision not to go to medical school. I am a first-generation college student, so I felt a lot of responsibility and pressure to be the first “doctor” in the family, and I worried I was going to disappoint them by choosing a career path other than medicine.

What was your biggest driving force to succeed?

Poverty! I grew up poor, and I did not want to live poor as an adult. I wanted to have a family, and I wanted to give them a life I didn’t have. Tuition at Xavier was expensive, and I was on a scholarship, so I knew failure was not an option. It was either success or poverty, and I knew I didn’t want the latter as an outcome. I worked really hard to succeed both in undergrad and as a graduate student. I still feel some of that pressure today; even though I’m financially secure and a long way from poverty, that experience changes you, and the fear will always stay with you on some level.

What do you do, and what does a typical day at work look like for you?

I provide day-to-day management for the Biology Major Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is a unique academic program that is shared across two colleges. My role consists of supervision and leadership, academic advising, administrative duties, and cross-campus communication. I have budgetary and curricula management duties, and I am a key liaison for the leadership team, which consists of myself and two faculty co-chairs from each college within the biology program. My days can vary a lot, which is great for my personality type as I like to be working on different things during the course of the day. It helps me move all of my projects forward in a timely manner.

Our program is at the center of making decisions with respect to course access issues and exploring opportunities for our bioscience students. We also evaluate how changes in other aspects of campus life and the university will impact our students. In this role, I have conversations with faculty, staff, academic deans, vice provosts, and senior level leadership to ensure we best meet the needs of our students.

What are some valuable skills you acquired during graduate training?

Being comfortable not knowing something. It took me a while to be okay with saying “I don’t know,” but now I say it all the time! It’s important to recognize what you don’t know and to let it motivate you. Most importantly, I learned how to develop a solid question, identify what I need to learn, collect and interpret the data, and then communicate these ideas to a variety of audiences. Grad school also taught me to successfully work on multiple projects at the same time. I’ve relied on these skills throughout my career, and they have allowed me to be successful in roles outside of the lab.

How have mentors influenced your career, and what advice do you have for trainees on seeking out mentorship?

I’ve been really fortunate to have amazing mentors, which is one of the reasons I like working in student services. It was my undergraduate advisor who gave me the “permission” to be and own who I wanted to be when I had so much external pressure telling me to be something else. My mentoring philosophy is to provide students with all of the relevant information needed to make a decision and then to give them the freedom to choose. I’m a big fan of solution-based therapy, and I adapt some of these methods for advising.

Trainees should build a core network of mentors that have a range of expertise in terms of training and career. I have a diverse group of mentors, each with unique perspectives and experiences that I can call on. I have gained insight into their various career paths and how they’ve gotten there. It’s important to have a network of individuals who genuinely care about you and are willing to support your career. I encourage students to build a network of mentors that includes people who look like them (which is something each person can define for themselves) and people who don’t. The important thing is that all mentors have a sincere interest in your success.

How does your life outside of science influence your career?

My daughter is my absolute top priority. I’ve missed important meetings because I’ve had to be with my daughter when things come up that can’t be planned for—like illness. On the other hand, I’ve also missed activities at her school because I had an important meeting. Some days I lean very far into the work zone, and some days I’m very far into the family zone. I’m okay with that because I think it balances out for me. It is important to set boundaries and be transparent about having a family; you want your employer to know you have a life outside of work. Graduate school taught me how to rotate priorities, so while my daughter is my top priority, I want her to understand that her mother has many identities, including being a scientist and a professional. It’s important for her, as a young woman, to see that.

About the author:

Elaine Welch is a liaison on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and is an Associate Human Molecular Geneticist at PreventionGenetics. In addition to her work in clinical genetics, Elaine is committed to mentoring early career scientists—especially those belonging to underrepresented minority groups—to help them successfully transition from academic training to varied career paths.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

You’ve probably encountered at least one diagram in a biology textbook that didn’t make any sense to you. Although these pictures are supposed to clarify ideas, sometimes they leave readers befuddled. This is a particular problem for students; experts looking at schematics are able to fall back on their knowledge of a subject, while novices cannot. To help students learn, textbook illustrations must be as clear as possible.

In a paper published in CBE-Life Sciences Education, Wright et al. examined the use of arrows in biological diagrams. They looked at two introductory textbooks and found a wide variety of arrow styles used—including fat, skinny, dashed, and curved—to convey many distinct meanings—like chemical reactions, movement, and energy transfer. They found that many arrow styles were used to represent different processes throughout the textbook, and often, arrow styles were used inconsistently within sections, or even within a single figure.

Could the inconsistent use of arrow styles be contributing to students’ confusion? The authors conducted surveys and interviews with undergraduates, concluding that, yes, students are often uncertain about the meanings of the arrows. They found that most arrow styles don’t have any intrinsic meaning to students, and while some individuals correctly make inferences from context, many end up being unnecessarily confused by the use of arrows.

This study highlights a common problem in life sciences education: ideas that seem intuitive for experts can be problematic for novices. For a professor who has been up to their neck in biology for decades, it can seem obvious that a “bouncing” arrow represents phosphorylation, but for students at the start of their education, it’s far from intuitive. The authors recommend that instructors take the time to work with students on increasing their visual literacy and discuss the common representations used in their fields to maximize understanding.

CITATION

Arrows in Biology: Lack of Clarity and Consistency Points to Confusion for Learners 

L. Kate Wright, Jordan J. Cardenas, Phyllis Liang, and Dina L. Newman

CBE Life Sci Educ March 2018 17:ar6; doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-04-0069

Sally G. Hoskins

The Genetics Society of America’s Elizabeth W. Jones Award for Excellence in Education recognizes significant and sustained impact on genetics education. The 2017 recipient is Sally G. Hoskins, in recognition of her role in developing and promoting the transformative science education method CREATE (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret data, and Think of the next Experiment). This innovative approach uses primary literature to engage students, allowing them to experience for themselves the creativity and challenge of study design, analysis, interpretation, collaboration, and debate. Comprehensive evaluation of CREATE has consistently found that students improve in difficult-to-teach skills like critical thinking and experimental design, while showing improved attitudes and beliefs about science.

An abridged version of this interview is published in the December 2017 issue of GENETICS.

What inspired you to become a scientist?

In the seventh grade, we got to dissect a worm, and I just loved working with my hands and with a dissecting microscope and seeing what was inside—I was very captivated. I worked on retina development and frog embryos for a long time; they’re very beautiful, and I continued to enjoy the hands-on aspects. It’s kind of weird though, because if you meet people at a party and you say you’re a scientist, and they say, “Eww, you dissect frogs!”, then I have to say, “Yes, I conform to all your stereotypes.”

What’s your most memorable moment from your career so far?

In grad school, I was working on a frog retinal development question, and I had this idea of how to do one of the experiments by “birth dating” of cells, where you tag them with a radioactive label. It was a bit of a complicated experiment, and my advisor didn’t really want radioisotopes in the lab. Anyway, when I eventually got to do it, and I developed the first set of slides and put them under the microscope, I realized it had worked. I could see the sharp dividing line between the labeled and the unlabeled retinal cells, and I was like, “Oh, wow! ”

I had the idea, I fought for the experiment, the experiment worked. That was a good feeling.

One of the things we do in CREATE is interview the authors of papers by email, using students’ questions. In one of our courses recently, Elaine Ostrander, who works on dog genetics, did a phone interview where the students asked what she liked best about being a scientist. She said something along the lines of: “I love that moment when you look at the data, and something comes together, and you figure something out, and for that moment you’re the only one who knows it. And you savor that discovery before you call the rest of the lab.” It was nice to have somebody articulate that for our students. Unfortunately, the image of scientists is very distorted in pop culture, so it’s nice for students to get behind the scenes and learn scientists are simply people who love trying to figure things out.

Why did you choose to focus on primary literature as a teaching mode?

It grew out of my teaching at City College. I really hated lecturing and I had had some very good teachers in undergrad and grad school who used literature in classes, and so I started to introduce that approach. CREATE came about because I’d been giving out papers with the very poor approach of just saying to the students, “read this.” I’d be miffed that they didn’t really have a lot to say about the paper. It’s a big jump from reading textbooks to reading papers, and I hadn’t helped them at all.

Then at one point while we were studying a paper, a follow-up paper came out, and I thought it would be cool for them to read it. But the second paper was so much easier for everyone that a light bulb went on for me. Now everyone understood the set-up, and the technology, and the basic question, and they also now cared about the questions. So, I realized it would be smart to do these papers in series. Then my collaborator Leslie Stevens and I further developed the idea by first figuring out how we had learned to read papers in grad school, and then codifying that process to guide students through deep analysis of study designs and the data produced.

No offense to textbook authors—I know there are some really heroic efforts going on to write new kinds of textbooks—but in general textbooks are easier reading than the original papers because they simplify papers drastically. But if our students get out into the world, if they do science they’re going to be reading papers, not textbooks. It’s a skill that’s worth learning, and it’s not as hard as it looks, it’s just that the jargon is so dense and the initial hurdle is high. Some students have also developed this habit of just reading the abstract. If you’re in a class where papers are “read” really fast, and you have to get through 30 papers in a semester, then the abstract may be all you need. But we wanted to go slower and deeper, basing it on how we learned this skill in grad school.

CREATE has been successful, and we’ve tweaked and expanded it in various ways. For example, we started it as an elective course for upper-level undergraduates, a focus course to be taken after you’re taken your pre-requisites. Then we realized there are some advantages to introducing this kind of thinking and science literacy in the Freshman year, so we have a version of it for Freshmen. We also have tested it with success in two-year colleges.

What is the most rewarding aspect of your work?

I think the most rewarding aspect is the idea that you’re teaching students that they can figure out how we know what we know—not just what our current state of understanding is. The papers provide enough information to take you inside the lab or into the field, if you delve deeply. Plus, students develop transferable skills of critical analysis. You’re teaching them approaches and learning strategies that they can apply to any future challenging or analytical task. Biology is changing so fast. There is maybe 30 years’ more stuff in Intro Bio than when I took it. But the semester is still the same length. So, if you do the math, it doesn’t work! How can we keep putting more and more information into these semester-long courses and expect the students to be able to learn it, retain it, and apply it? With CREATE we don’t try to do that, we try to teach an analytical skill set and an attitude that you can take with you, along with a deeper understanding of both how research is done, and the people behind the papers.

It’s not like teaching Intro to French. OK I’ve never taught Intro French, but I would guess that you could teach it the same way for 30 years. Maybe there’s a new theory of language teaching, and I’m wrong, but still, you have to learn the present tense and you have to learn the possessive form and the vocabulary words and so on. Yet biology has really changed a lot, and I don’t know that our teaching is reflecting that. For example, there’s probably been six different ways to clone that have come and gone since I was an undergrad. And maybe now someone would just sequence the genome instead!

We approach science as an open book activity. People don’t go to their labs and do everything from memory, including making media, calculating antibody dilutions, and the like. But when we evaluate learning only through closed-book tests, that’s the skill we’re saying you need. CREATE doesn’t emphasize memorization. We emphasize putting ideas together, thinking, logic, collegial argumentation, and creativity.

I’ve run a lot of workshops with faculty from a wide range of institutions, and all of them say, “Yes, my students took  multiple pre-requisite courses, and no, they don’t come into my class knowing what they “should” know from the pre-requisite classes.” So, I think something is wrong. Part of the reason may be that most college teachers, including myself, had no training in teaching or in the science of learning. This is a well-kept secret from people’s parents, that their kids could be being taught by somebody who’s never been in the classroom before; or even if “experienced”, someone lacking training. Your third-grade teacher has studied something about teaching and learning, and has student-taught and been observed in the classroom, and that’s not true for most scientists. Things are changing, but still some college faculty have this boot camp kind of thinking: “Well I went through it (being taught only through lectures), so why can’t you?” Maybe there’s a better way. Maybe there’s a way that would not just get students through biology, but also get them excited about it.  Many people are working on this; our way is through in-depth analysis of primary literature.

Who have been your most important mentors?

My students. Because of the feedback you get about what’s working and what’s not. Let me give you an example. Around the time we started CREATE I’d had a PhD for 20 years and had been teaching in college for 15 years, and I didn’t even know science education journals existed! That’s how out of it I was. A colleague brought me a bag of books about teaching and learning and I realized, “Oh my gosh, people actually study this!”

Anyway, I read up, and I wrote a grant on my sabbatical. It was totally hypothetical, we didn’t have pilot data. But the grant reviewers really loved the idea, and we got the money. We started teaching the course, and it immediately started flopping. It was not working at all. I didn’t understand. The grant reviewers had loved it, and we were doing what we said we would, so what was wrong? It turns out that when scientists read a methods section, they can visualize what happened. But when students “read” the methods section, they either weren’t really reading it or else they weren’t reading it with an eye towards picturing what went on in the lab. And when I added a “sketching,” step—where they draw in their notebook how the study was done in the lab or field to generate the data represented in each figure—that was when everything started to work. The class was much more lively, and people were “getting it” and having things to say, rather than just limping along or waiting for me to revert to a lecture. Discussing the data made much more sense once students “saw” where it came from. You can’t fake a sketch; to produce one you must read the methods closely. That made a huge difference. So it was the students who revealed that there was a gap in the approach, and it turned out to be really key to the whole thing—we needed to add a visualization step.

What would you say to someone concerned about trying the CREATE approach?

Some faculty, especially (and understandably) if they are only evaluated through student reviews, are very afraid of students’ negative reactions to any change in teaching. With CREATE we’ve generally had around 75 to 80% positive reaction. We’ve also always looked at both cognitive gains, like critical thinking or experimental design, and effective gains, like students’ attitudes and epistemologies of science. I’m really happy that we see significant positive changes in both. So, it’s not that CREATE makes you feel better about science, but you don’t learn anything.  The strategy affects students in multiple ways, building transferable thinking skills along with positive views of research/researchers.

There’s a big issue with science education reform where people say, “I would like to change but I can’t because I have to cover content.” But a) covering is not teaching, and b) CREATE includes content! To really understand a paper, you’ve got to understand key content. A huge amount of content is reviewed and consolidated in a CREATE class, but it’s in context. In fact, you have a lot of opportunities in a CREATE classroom to integrate the sciences, for example quickly reviewing some of the underlying principles of chemistry or physics, that are associated with the experiment you’re studying.

Some people are also a bit iffy about the e-mail interviews of authors. But the things we learn from the interviews are profound. Dr. Elaine Ostrander, a Distinguished Investigator and Comparative Genomics section head at NIH, was asked what happens if an experiment doesn’t work and a hypothesis must be discarded, and students always assume the answer will be “Oh, I feel so bad, I want to die!” But there are many rejected hypotheses on the road to success, which is not something you really learn in many Intro Bio labs. So, when Elaine Ostrander got that question, she said, “If all your experiments work, then you really aren’t asking very interesting questions.” Failure is a normal part of science. If I had learned that as a sophomore, it would have changed me!

Another cool thing that happens with the e-mails is the insider info you can get. We read two papers that had been published back-to-back in Science about regeneration and the Wnt pathway of Planaria. One lab had knocked down one molecule in the pathway and their animals regenerated tail-tail. And the other group altered a different part of the pathway and got head-head. We send the same questions to the grad students and postdocs as we do to the PIs. When we wrote asking how they set up the back-to-back publishing, one post-doc said, “I went to a meeting and I was going to present my tail-tail stuff and saw another post-doc present the head-head stuff. So, I called my PI and the two PIs discussed it and we decided to not communicate for three months and then publish together.” In class, we discussed alternative ways the PIs might have reacted. We got a lot of mileage out of closely comparing the two papers; the students pulled out all the similarities and differences in experimental paths taken by two different groups to reach the same basic conclusion. So, the e-mails really complement the deep understanding of the papers by putting context around it and making it clear that these studies are done by “real people” who remind my students of themselves, and not only by famous senior PIs.

Ultimately, for change in education, you have to get the teachers to change what they do. And that’s challenging because for many people teaching can’t be their number one focus. When we invented CREATE, we felt like we were really helping in that regard, in the sense that we were leveraging people’s deep understanding of research that they didn’t get to bring to class because they were busy lecturing, lecturing, lecturing. Professors’ understanding of how research is done and critically evaluated, built over years of study, comes into play in virtually every CREATE class. You can switch over your upper level elective to a CREATE course pretty easily, especially if the elective is in your area of expertise. I think it’s valuable for students to realize that their faculty are serious researchers and not just PowerPoint presenters. I understand that there are multiple pressures on people these days, but I think this is a much more fun way to teach. It’s not just that it’s good for the students, there’s a big payoff for the faculty as well. Unless you really love your PowerPoint.

What are you currently working on?

I have a collaboration with Kristy Kenyon and Stanley Lo following up with faculty who use CREATE. We’re interested in what it takes to change a teacher’s approach. There are a lot of different workshops and training on alternative ways to teach, but there isn’t a lot of evidence yet that they have a lasting effect on teachers. We’re trying to help with course design by posting tested CREATE modules on our website, www.teachcreate.org.

Of course, we’re also interested in the effect of CREATE on students. We’ve been looking at the extent to which CREATE shifts students; perspectives on science to be more like experts’ perspectives. The interesting thing is that CREATE courses don’t have a hands-on component, and yet we’re seeing a lot of shifts in student thinking to be more like that of someone who holds a PhD.

Another project is a collaboration with Alison Krufka of Rowan University on a variation where you take a traditionally taught course, and you take just two weeks to do CREATE. We’re testing whether a small dose of CREATE will have an impact or not. We also have a project on a new approach to using CREATE in introductory biology at community colleges. We originally designed it for upper-level courses, and then we designed a scientific thinking course for Freshmen. But what if you have to teach Intro Bio with ten major topics? Is there an easy way to use CREATE there? We’re just analyzing the data now on whether you can increase student understanding by using CREATE modules focused on the major themes that you always find in Intro Bio, like meiosis, rather than purely textbook teaching.

If you weren’t a scientist, what would you be?

Maybe something in music, which has been an important part of my life. I founded a womens’ chorus in Manhattan and ran it for about seven years. I also like design. Again, it’s working with your hands and making things.

What advice would you give to younger scientists? 

Be bold! Take advantage of opportunities like visiting the Marine Biological Lab in Woods Hole or calling somebody up and asking, “Can I come to your lab to learn this technique,” or “Can we collaborate?” Don’t try to do everything yourself. Be willing to collaborate and travel and meet people widely. It’s hard for every person to do every technique. Don’t be shy about asking for help. I think one thing that comes out in the CREATE e-mails with scientists that I kind of like is that people come across as quite open and friendly. Students comment, “Wow, I didn’t think she would answer in such detail,” or “I didn’t realize that scientists collaborated or that you could call somebody up and they would send you antibodies.” So, I think as a young scientist you may not have realized that yourself; even if someone is a big shot, try to chat to them at a meeting or talk to their postdoc. Many people really enjoy sharing their knowledge, so don’t be so intimidated by rank. Give yourself a lot of different experiences. Sometimes you’ll do something like to go to Woods Hole and suddenly, boom! You meet somebody there, and you realize, “now I just have to go to Italy and work on squid because I’ve fallen in love with this system.”

And also, there are all kinds of ways to be a scientist, so if you do an undergrad research project, and you’re not thrilled with bioinformatics, for example, there are a million other things you could do. One thing nice about CREATE is that you can teach diverse modules where, say, one is all about regeneration in Planaria, and one is all about behavior in ants and so on. Some people love doing field work and some people would never do field work and some people would never sit and look through a microscope all day; there are distinct research options available for all these individuals. Intensively analyzing papers in different fields can give you a taste of what the work is like.

Are you a postdoc looking for hands-on education experience and mentoring? Or a faculty member interested in bringing evidence-based, effective active learning strategies into your classroom? The PALM (Promoting Active Learning and Mentoring) network helps faculty and postdoctoral fellows gain hands-on experience and long-term mentorship in putting active learning strategies into practice.

GSA is proud to partner with the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) and the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) in the development of the PALM network. In addition to resources and support, the program provides up to $2000 mentoring visit expenses per fellow, $500 mentor stipend, and $1000 meeting travel each for both fellow and mentor.

We spoke to one of the first PALM fellows, Christopher Baker, and his PALM mentor Michelle Smith to learn about what makes this experience so valuable for both the mentors and mentees.

Christopher Baker

Baker is an Assistant Professor at the Jackson Laboratories (JAX). He was a PALM fellow during his postdoctoral training (also at JAX), working with Smith to design and teach classes at the University of Maine. He investigates the genetic and molecular regulatory system that controls the location and rate of meiotic recombination.

Michelle Smith

Smith is an Associate Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Maine. She is a science education researcher whose work focuses on how to help students learn biology and how to help faculty adopt promising educational practices in their classrooms.

Why were you interested in the PALM program?

CB: At JAX, we don’t have as many teaching opportunities as at a university, although we do have a few options, including graduate classes and a college-level genetics course for JAX employees. I had interacted with Michelle a little in courses at JAX, including one for grad students and postdocs called “The Whole Scientist” that filled out training on the non-research aspects of being a scientist. Michelle talked to us about teaching and introduced the concept of active learning methods. I realized that meeting Michelle was a great opportunity, and she was someone who could help me get into the classroom and get some more experience. I observed her in the classroom and had asked about the possibility of teaching a few classes at U Maine. When we heard about the PALM fellowship, we thought it was the perfect chance to do just that.

MS: I knew about the PALM program through my involvement with the GSA [Smith serves on the GSA Education Committee]. I think instructional coaching opportunities are really valuable, and I was interested in providing that mentorship. Chris and I were thinking about doing something like this anyway, but we realized the PALM program would provide us with extra support and opportunities. It would allow us to see the project all the way through, from having an idea, collecting student learning data, and analyzing the data, to revising the classroom materials.

Why do you think the PALM program is important?

MS: It’s the next step in getting people into active learning 2.0. It’s been shown that active learning methods are more effective for students, but how do we actually get instructors to use them effectively in the classroom? Many instructors first become interested in active learning through a workshop or seminar, but when they try using the methods in their classes, they can get really bogged down in the logistics—like, how do I ask a clicker question? How long do I give them for discussion? PALM gives postdocs a chance to practice in an environment with someone there who’s got your back and can help out.

Chris, what teaching experience did you have before applying?

CB: I had never taught a course or given a lecture in a large-enrollment undergraduate setting, although I had helped teach some study sections. I had enjoyed giving public lectures and talking about my research at local middle schools, so even though I didn’t have formal experience, I did like the idea of teaching.

What was your goal?

CB: I wanted to get some first-hand experience of some of the active learning concepts that Michelle has helped pioneer, particularly the use of in-class clicker content questions that are accompanied by peer discussion. Basically, that’s giving the students a question and getting them to answer it, then getting them to talk among themselves in small groups and then answer again. That peer instruction gives them a chance to think through the question and to have to explain their reasoning aloud. I thought that interaction, and what it takes to facilitate it, was really interesting. I also generally wanted experience with putting together class activities that encourage students to interact with one another.

How did you work together?

CB: Michelle had a large-enrollment course in genetics with several classes on meiosis and recombination, which is what I was studying. So, we came up with concepts that we could build the classes around and made an outline. I spent some time putting together potential genetics problems that could be incorporated into clicker questions and reviewing and editing Michelle’s current lectures on the topics. Then we met over two full days to review my material, which was super helpful. We also used the time to flesh out the mechanics of what was going to happen in the classroom, how to manage technology and, hopefully, the class. I taught my lessons over two class periods in the same week. Having two classes was very helpful, as it allowed us to review how things went during the first class. It also gave me more confidence to relax into the role.

MS: One of the nice things was that, because there were times when the students were discussing clicker questions with each other, we could communicate while Chris was teaching—in real time. For example, after he’d asked a question, I could come up and say: “OK, here’s what we can do next”, or “maybe you could try this”, or “remind them about that”. Often when you try active learning for the first time, it can be really daunting to let the students talk to each other and volunteer their answers because you don’t know what to expect. It helps to have someone else there to say, “It’s OK, I’ve seen this before,” or “you’re probably going to get this answer.”

CB: That was really useful. I almost wish we could have the same thing for presenting at a research conference! Someone to say, “OK, let’s all take a break now.”

MS: The other thing that was important was involving the students in the process. There’s a lot involved in turning over your class to somebody new. At this point, it was midway through the semester, and active learning involves building a lot of trust with the students. To help with this, I talked to them about why Chris was coming, and told them about his expertise, and then at the end I asked the students to give him feedback. That was nice—he did a recombination demonstration with pool noodles, and they wrote about how that really helped them visualize the process. But it also helped the students to see Chris’ involvement as part of a larger plan and see themselves as partners in helping Chris out.

CB: One of the goals of the PALM fellowship is also to disseminate our experiences to the wider community. In part through support of the PALM program, Michelle and I attended The Allied Genetic Conference in 2016, which had a significant education component. We presented a poster incorporating analysis of the students’ and instructors’ time spent engaged in active versus passive learning, as well as student assessment and feedback.

How was this experience useful for your careers?

CB: When I was on the job market and interviewing at universities, I was often asked about the program. I think people were interested, particularly at places where active learning techniques hadn’t been promoted much in the past. It certainly caught people’s eye, and it was helpful. I ended up at an institute that’s primarily focused on research, and I don’t have an undergrad classroom, but I try hard to incorporate peer discussion into my graduate teaching. 

MS: A lot of times people focus on the benefits of these programs to the mentee, but there were a lot of benefits to me as well! For example, Chris taught about meiosis and recombination, which is his research area. I had been teaching meiosis and recombination for many years, but for me it had become a bit predictable, and I was using the same types of problems every time. It was great not only that he provided new content, but also that he helped me step back a bit and think about why we have students learn about this topic.

The experience also helped me think through what I actually do in the classroom. For example, there are things I do to get ready that are important to me—like making sure the slides are posted ahead of time or making sure I run through the clicker questions—but I hadn’t verbalized those aspects. I promote active learning, but what are the steps that are actually involved when you put it into practice? Having to reflect on that has really helped me with the education workshops I give.

For mentees, I’d also point out this program can open doors to publishing education research. For example, there are places like CourseSource where you can publish the activities you develop.

Do you have advice for people thinking of applying?

MS: My advice is if you’re at all interested, to go for it. If you’re concerned about finding a mentor, or don’t know where to start, I would encourage you to reach out to Sue Wick at the ASCB. She will help answer your questions, assist in finding a mentor, and help you solve problems. Don’t let anything on the application intimidate you.

CB: If you have any interest in teaching, it’s a really valuable experience to be involved in a program like this. Get involved and have fun; it will be worth it!

Learn more about the PALM network here!

We are pleased to announce that Sally G. Hoskins, PhD is the 2017 recipient of the Elizabeth W. Jones Award for Excellence in Education. This award recognizes her role in developing and promoting the transformative CREATE (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret data, and Think of the next Experiment) method. This innovative approach uses primary literature to engage students and help them understand the collaborative problem-solving process that is real science. Hoskins is a Professor in the Department of Biology at City College of the City University of New York.

Sally G. Hoskins is the 2017 winner of the Elizabeth W. Jones Award for Excellence in Education.

Originally a developmental neurobiologist, Hoskins has a strong interest in science education research. To enhance students’ critical thinking skills and give them a firmer grasp of how science research projects build understanding, she developed CREATE at City College CUNY. Instead of mostly memorizing facts, students analyze data from selected primary scientific literature as if it described their own projects. Students learn about the research process by experiencing for themselves the creativity of study design and the challenges of data analysis and interpretation. They propose potential follow up projects during in-class peer review activities such as grant panels, which encourage the collaborative discussions and debate typical of real research labs.

“CREATE courses provide students with transferable skills that will help them navigate STEM developments in the 21st century, while stimulating their excitement about research careers,” says Shubha Govind, PhD, (City College of the City University of New York).

Hoskins and collaborators have comprehensively evaluated the effectiveness of the CREATE method and consistently found that students taking CREATE courses improve in difficult-to-teach skills like critical thinking and experimental design. At the same time, taking the course improves students’ attitudes and beliefs about science. This is true of students of all levels. One of the many strengths of the CREATE method is that it is flexible enough to be adopted in introductory or advanced level courses at all types of institutions, from community colleges to the Ivy League. Over 100 faculty members have taken part in multi-day intensive CREATE workshops led by Hoskins with support from the National Science Foundation and brought the method back to their own classrooms across the country.

“It is rare for an educational innovation developed at a minority-serving institution to become a national model,” says Gillian Small, PhD (Provost, Fairleigh Dickinson University). “Professor Hoskins’s CREATE project has had significant impact on STEM teaching and student learning at many institutions right across the country.”

The Elizabeth W. Jones Award for Excellence in Education recognizes significant and sustained impact on genetics education. Recipients of the award have promoted greater exposure to and deeper understanding of genetics through distinguished teaching or mentoring, development of innovative pedagogical approaches or tools, design of new courses or curricula, national leadership, and/or public engagement and outreach. The award was named posthumously for Elizabeth W. Jones (1939–2008), the recipient of the first GSA Excellence in Education Award in 2007. She was a renowned geneticist and educator who served as the 1987 GSA president and as Editor-in-Chief of GSA’s journal GENETICS for almost 12 years (1996–2008).

The award will be presented to Hoskins at the 58th Annual Drosophila Research Conference, March 29-April 2, 2017, San Diego, CA.

To learn more about the GSA awards, and to view a list of previous recipients, please see http://www.genetics-gsa.org/awards.