Dataset Information

How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?

ABSTRACT: Cisheteronormative ideologies are infused into every aspect of society, including undergraduate science. We set out to identify the extent to which students can identify cisheteronormative language in biology textbooks by posing several hypothetical textbook questions and asking students to modify them to make the language more accurate (defined as "correct; precise; using language that applies to all people"). First, we confirmed that textbooks commonly use language that conflates or confuses sex and gender. We used this information to design two sample questions that used similar language. We examined what parts of the questions students modified, and the changes they recommended. When asked to modify sample textbook questions, we found the most common terms or words that students identified as inaccurate were related to infant gender identity. The most common modifications that students made were changing gender terms to sex terms. Students' decisions in this exercise differed little across three large biology courses or by exam performance. As the science community strives to promote inclusive classrooms and embrace the complexity of human gender identities, we provide foundational information about students' ability to notice and correct inaccurate language related to sex and gender in biology.

SUBMITTER: Dunk RDP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11235110 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?

Dunk Ryan D P RDP Malmquist Sarah J SJ Prescott Kristina K KK Ewell Sharday N SN Henning Jeremiah A JA Ballen Cissy J CJ

CBE life sciences education 20240601 2

Cisheteronormative ideologies are infused into every aspect of society, including undergraduate science. We set out to identify the extent to which students can identify cisheteronormative language in biology textbooks by posing several hypothetical textbook questions and asking students to modify them to make the language more accurate (defined as "correct; precise; using language that applies to all people"). First, we confirmed that textbooks commonly use language that conflates or confuses s ...[more]

PMID: 38728229

Similar Datasets

Project description:Critical thinking is the process by which people make decisions about what to trust and what to do. Many undergraduate courses, such as those in biology and physics, include critical thinking as an important learning goal. Assessing critical thinking, however, is non-trivial, with mixed recommendations for how to assess critical thinking as part of instruction. Here we evaluate the efficacy of assessment questions to probe students' critical thinking skills in the context of biology and physics. We use two research-based standardized critical thinking instruments known as the Biology Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking in Ecology (Eco-BLIC) and Physics Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking (PLIC). These instruments provide experimental scenarios and pose questions asking students to evaluate what to trust and what to do regarding the quality of experimental designs and data. Using more than 3000 student responses from over 20 institutions, we sought to understand what features of the assessment questions elicit student critical thinking. Specifically, we investigated (a) how students critically evaluate aspects of research studies in biology and physics when they are individually evaluating one study at a time versus comparing and contrasting two and (b) whether individual evaluation questions are needed to encourage students to engage in critical thinking when comparing and contrasting. We found that students are more critical when making comparisons between two studies than when evaluating each study individually. Also, compare-and-contrast questions are sufficient for eliciting critical thinking, with students providing similar answers regardless of if the individual evaluation questions are included. This research offers new insight on the types of assessment questions that elicit critical thinking at the introductory undergraduate level; specifically, we recommend instructors incorporate more compare-and-contrast questions related to experimental design in their courses and assessments.

Project description:BackgroundIn varied educational settings, narrative evaluations have revealed systematic and deleterious differences in language describing women and those underrepresented in their fields. In medicine, limited qualitative studies show differences in narrative language by gender and under-represented minority (URM) status.ObjectiveTo identify and enumerate text descriptors in a database of medical student evaluations using natural language processing, and identify differences by gender and URM status in descriptions.DesignAn observational study of core clerkship evaluations of third-year medical students, including data on student gender, URM status, clerkship grade, and specialty.ParticipantsA total of 87,922 clerkship evaluations from core clinical rotations at two medical schools in different geographic areas.Main measuresWe employed natural language processing to identify differences in the text of evaluations for women compared to men and for URM compared to non-URM students.Key resultsWe found that of the ten most common words, such as "energetic" and "dependable," none differed by gender or URM status. Of the 37 words that differed by gender, 62% represented personal attributes, such as "lovely" appearing more frequently in evaluations of women (p < 0.001), while 19% represented competency-related behaviors, such as "scientific" appearing more frequently in evaluations of men (p < 0.001). Of the 53 words that differed by URM status, 30% represented personal attributes, such as "pleasant" appearing more frequently in evaluations of URM students (p < 0.001), and 28% represented competency-related behaviors, such as "knowledgeable" appearing more frequently in evaluations of non-URM students (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMany words and phrases reflected students' personal attributes rather than competency-related behaviors, suggesting a gap in implementing competency-based evaluation of students. We observed a significant difference in narrative evaluations associated with gender and URM status, even among students receiving the same grade. This finding raises concern for implicit bias in narrative evaluation, consistent with prior studies, and suggests opportunities for improvement.

Dataset Information

How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?

Publications

How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets