Skip to main content
PMC home page
Ecology and Evolution logoLink to Ecology and Evolution
. 2020 Oct 8;10(22):12450–12456. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6849

Scientist Spotlights: Online assignments to promote inclusion in Ecology and Evolution

Samantha Brandt 1, Sehoya Cotner 1,✉, Zoe Koth 1, Suzanne McGaugh 2
PMCID: PMC7679542  PMID: 33250985

Abstract

Scientific disciplines face large diversity challenges, with the fields of ecology and evolution being among the most homogeneous—specifically with respect to race and ethnicity. These problems have been recently compounded by large‐scale racial unrest, highlighting some of the underlying disparities that have led to these diversity challenges, and a global pandemic, which, by moving instruction online, has created new challenges for inclusive teaching. Among the inclusive‐teaching techniques that can be implemented during remote instruction are Scientist Spotlights—role‐model interventions that use available online materials to highlight the work of scientists representing multiple axes of diversity. We report here on the implementation of Scientist Spotlights in two courses, both of which emphasize ecology and evolution. We conclude with sample resources and suggestions for adopters.

Keywords: ecology, evolution, inclusive teaching, role models, Scientist Spotlights

Among the inclusive‐teaching techniques that can be implemented during remote instruction are Scientist Spotlights—role‐model interventions that use available online materials to highlight the work of scientists representing multiple axes of diversity. We report here on the implementation of Scientist Spotlights in two courses, both of which emphasize ecology and evolution. We conclude with sample resources and suggestions for adopters.

graphic file with name ECE3-10-12450-g006.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

In order to address the current need to train more science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) professionals, we must address the diversity crisis in STEM disciplines. Specifically, these disciplines are plagued by lower performance, participation, and retention of students characteristically underrepresented in STEM—women, certain ethnic and racial minorities, and first‐generation college students (Chen, 2013; Graham et al., 2013; Hill et al., 2010; President's Council of Advisors on Science & Technology, 2012; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). The reasons for these disparities are complicated, and both context‐ and identity‐dependent, however, suggested causes include discrepancies in preparation (Kugler et al., 2017), depersonalized and didactic teaching methods (Malone et al., 2009; Mervis, 2010; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018), stereotype threat (Cohen, 2006; Steele, 1997; Walton & Cohen, 2007), implicit biases (Moss‐Racusin et al., 2012; Staats, 2015), and a lack of role models to whom aspiring scientists can relate (Herrmann et al., 2016; O'Brien et al., 2017; Stout et al., 2011). Collectively, these reasons constitute the “opportunity gap” for full representation in STEM. As educators and practicing scientists, we can counter this opportunity gap by: bridge programs and supplemental instruction (i.e., to mitigate discrepancies in preparation; (Ballen & Mason, 2017; Cooper et al., 2017)); inclusive, empathetic teaching practices (Dewsbury & Brame, 2019; Tanner, 2013); implicit‐bias training (Chang et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2014); and role‐model interventions (Ramsey et al., 2013; Van Camp et al., 2019).

The work described herein focuses on role models in STEM—specifically in ecology and evolution (E&E), and specifically in a remote‐teaching environment. E&E are especially homogeneous fields, historically, and currently being the domain of White men. For example, a study of authorship in the journal Ecology showed that, of 922 authors in 2011, 72% were men; further, 33% of first authors, and 21% of last authors, were women (Martin, 2012). Fisheries science is especially homogeneous, with men representing over 70% of tenure‐track faculty; 88% of these faculty are White (Arismendi & Penaluna, 2016). Similar trends have been documented in evolutionary biology (Graves, 2019; Schroeder et al., 2013). Other studies have shown that students (including those in higher education) picture scientists as older White men in laboratory coats (Barman, 1999; Long et al., 2001; Schinske et al., 2015; Steinke et al., 2007); if a student's identity or identities differ from this mental image, they may have difficulty seeing their possible selves in science (Chang et al., 2011; Schmader et al., 2004).

Underrepresented students failing to identify with ecologists and evolutionary biologists is a known problem, so we can explore the potential of role‐model interventions in our classrooms (Shin et al., 2016; Van Camp et al., 2019). Role‐model interventions can take many forms, from the simple (Schinske et al., 2016; Yonas et al., 2020) to the more complex (Barnes et al., 2017). For example, in order to mitigate student perceptions of the conflict between science and religion, Jim Elser of Arizona State University invited a scientist—who also identified as religious—to speak, via videoconference, to his introductory‐biology class (Barnes et al., 2017); the number of students who perceived a conflict between science and religion decreased after this experience. These findings suggest that students who do not identify with evolutionary biology on religious grounds may benefit from these interventions. Both Schinske et al. (2016) and Yonas et al. (2020) describe small, online “Scientist Spotlight” assignments designed to introduce students to a diverse group of scientists working in the domain of course topics. Specifically, students learn about the work and life experiences of a diverse array of scientists, many with counter‐stereotypical (e.g., LGBTQ, non‐White) expressed identities. Typically, the science content takes a secondary role to the scientist's personal story. At the end of the courses described, students participating in Spotlights express an ability to relate more to scientists (Schinske et al., 2016; Yonas et al., 2020), and use more counter‐stereotypical examples in their descriptions of who does science (Schinske et al., 2016). Yonas et al. (2020) add to the dialogue by urging the incorporation of “hidden identities” into our concept of diversity—for example, by including scientists that are religious, politically conservative, etc.

In sum, past research has shown that it is possible to change students' perceptions of who can do science. The current work adds to prior work by focusing on students and role models in E&E (specifically, General Zoology and Evolution & Biology of Sex) courses and asks the following questions:

  • Can these Scientist Spotlight assignments mitigate some of the diversity concerns that characterize E&E?

  • Do students specify being able to relate to scientists based on gender, race/ethnicity, or other categorical descriptors of identity?

We use survey data to respond to these questions, and, given our numerical limitations, we emphasize qualitative data in our assessment of the Scientist Spotlights.

Our specific aim with the current paper is primarily to present to our colleagues in E&E a simple, adaptable course addition that can complement any of our course topics while introducing students to a diverse group of possible role models. We also conclude by providing potential adopters with resources for incorporating Scientist Spotlights into their own courses. We conclude with suggestions and resources for adopters.

2. SCIENTIST SPOTLIGHTS FOR ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION

2.1. Student population

We describe Scientist Spotlight interventions in two Biology courses at the University of Minnesota. The Evolution and Biology of Sex course (Biology 1003) is a nonmajor introductory‐biology course emphasizing evolution from the lens of sex—reproduction, sexual orientation, mating systems, etc. Two‐hundred and thirty‐four students took part in the assignments, and assessments described herein. This was the second iteration of the Scientist Spotlight intervention in Biology 1003 (see Yonas et al. (2020) for additional details from the initial implementation). General Zoology (Biology 2012) is an organismal biology course, emphasizing ecology and evolution throughout, for students majoring in multiple natural‐sciences fields, from Ecology, Evolution and Behavior to Fisheries and Wildlife. Ninety‐one students took part in the assignments, and assessments we describe.

2.2. Scientist Spotlight assignments

In both courses, Scientist Spotlights were posted online throughout the course (Appendix S1 includes links to several example spotlights), and students were instructed to complete each assignment by its given deadline. Eight Spotlight assignments were used throughout the semester. This number was chosen so that there was enough exposure to the content for it to have an effect on students and for the assignments to become a reliable and anticipated part of the course, but not so many so as to make the workload overwhelming. In each case, students viewed a video or listened to a podcast of a current scientist discussing either their work, their experiences as a scientist, or both. Afterward, students were asked to reflect on what they learned from the Spotlight and how it influenced their perceptions of real‐world scientists. These assignments were graded on completion alone.

Scientists were chosen based on their field of study (and how it relates to the course topics), as well as their identity (or identities) along multiple axes of diversity—race/ethnicity, gender, ability, sexual orientation, religiosity, etc., and their status as currently active scientists. For example, they can learn about the work of Dr. Delbert André Green, an associate professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan. Dr. Green studies the genetics and evolution of migration, with monarch butterflies as a model system. Some of the scientists address their underrepresented identities head‐on. For example, Dr. Mimi Koehl of the University of California Berkeley tells a story about being dyslexic and how that has affected her work in science. And Dr. Jessica Ware, of Rutgers University‐Newark, discusses both her research on cockroaches and her experiences being an LGBTQ mother to LGBTQ children.

As part of each Spotlight, students answered open‐ended questions about the featured scientist and their work. A consistent open‐ended question, included in every Spotlight, was “What do these materials tell you about the types of people who do science?” In each course, these Spotlight assignments constituted a small amount of points (<5%) toward a student's overall grade.

2.3. Assessment of the Scientist Spotlights

Students were invited, via email, to complete short pre‐ and postcourse surveys, administered online. Both pre‐ and postcourse surveys met the research aims of multiple investigators and included items not necessarily relevant to this study. For this study, students were asked to indicate the number of scientists they knew of that they found to be relatable. Relatability is defined here as the ability for a person to identify with figures such as those featured in the Scientist Spotlights. This question could be answered from predefined ranges of 0, 1, 2–5, 6–10, and 10+. The postcourse survey repeated this question. Postcourse surveys also asked the students to reflect on the specific Scientist Spotlights. Students were first asked if they had viewed the materials and then to identify which ones had been the most engaging (“Recall the Scientist Spotlight materials from this semester. I've included names and some keyword prompts below. Please comment on the level to which you were engaged by the materials,” followed by a list of the scientists) and relatable (“For whatever reason or reasons, which of the following Scientist Spotlight materials did you connect with, or relate to, the most?” followed by a list of the Spotlighted scientists). Students were also provided with free‐response space to explain their answers (“Please explain your answer to the question above.”).

Demographic data were either self‐reported (e.g., gender, sexual orientation) or institutional (e.g., race or ethnicity, generation in college). After surveys were completed, the data were de‐identified for analysis. Students that only completed one of the surveys were excluded from data analysis. The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (IRB) found this research to pose minimal risk, and thus, it is considered exempt from IRB review; however, all student data discussed here were shared with each student's informed consent.

Because a mixed‐methods approach was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data, different methods were used to assess the impact of the Scientist Spotlight assignments in these two E&E courses. Specifically, we used concurrent triangulation (sensu Warfa, 2016) as follows:

  • Quantitative analysis. The constrained‐choice survey items allowed students to select the number of scientists with whom they could relate. By matching students' pre‐ and postcourse responses, we can report on changes in the number of scientists to whom they can relate before and after engaging with the Spotlights. Due to the small size of our final, matched dataset, we avoid any statistical comparisons beyond descriptive data.

  • Qualitative analysis. While more extensive coding has been used in previous work (Yonas et al., 2020), for this assessment we focus on codes specifically relating to student perceptions of the Spotlight scientists' relatability, and how student perceptions of scientists were swayed by these interventions. Specifically, all student comments from the postcourse surveys were analyzed independently by two researchers (ZK and SB); the first objective was to identify student comments that specifically addressed how the student related to scientists and develop codes incorporating similar sentiments (specifically using a modified “cutting and sorting” technique for qualitative coding). After the first round of coding, the two researchers met to discuss any areas of disagreement and reach consensus. Only consensus codes, pertaining to scientist relatability, are shared below. After coding was completed, students' comments were aligned with student demographics—self‐reported and institutional—to arrive at the student descriptors presented in our discussion below.

3. DO SCIENTIST SPOTLIGHTS INCREASE RELATABILITY?

3.1. Quantitative findings

Change in students' ability to relate to scientists was measured using the number of scientist students reported they knew and could relate to across the pre‐ and postcourse surveys (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4). On the precourse survey in Biology 1003, 50.8% of students reported not knowing or relating to any scientists (Figure 1), with female students reporting a slightly higher inability to relate to scientists (+6.7%) than male students. Following the Scientist Spotlight assignments, the students' overall inability to relate to scientists was reduced to 40.75%, with female students showing a higher ability to relate to scientists, compared to their male counterparts (+2.9%). Overall, both gender groups reported higher rates of relatability in postclass responses. Due to the nature of this assessment, we are unable to identify the extent to which the Spotlights themselves increase relatability to scientists, if at all.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

The number of scientists students relate to before and after Scientist Spotlights in Biology 1003 (n = 214)

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

The number of scientists students relate to before and after Scientist Spotlights in Biology 2012 (n = 62)

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

The change in the number of scientists students relate to following the Scientist Spotlights in Biology 1003 (n = 214)

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

The change in the number of scientists students relate to following the Scientist Spotlights in Biology 2012 (n = 62)

3.2. Qualitative findings

The majority of students in both courses responded to the open‐ended prompts about engagement and relatability. We focus here on the answers to the relatability prompt.

Many students responded positively to the podcasts in general, with statements such as “To be honest I loved most of them, I actually looked forward to completing this assignment because they were all so good and I learned a lot” (Female, White, Continuing‐Generation College Student (CGEN)). Some voiced an appreciation for the exposure to diversity: “I just liked the podcasts in general. I like the purposeful exposure to different types of people and lifestyles while still keeping science as the common denominator” (Female, White, CGEN). Others noted specific aspects of a featured scientist's identity: “I thought Scott Edwards was engaging because he was studying bird evolution, and was a POC scientist in the natural resources field, which is rarer (Female, Asian, First‐Generation College Student (FGEN)).” And still others aligned their appreciation of featured scientists' identities with the student's identities: “I related most to the scientists with backgrounds similar to mine, especially women” (Female, White, First‐generation college student); and “I feel like I relate to indigenous women scientists” (Female, Native American, FGEN).

Additional student comments, aligned with certain student identities (gender, race/ethnicity, generation in college), are presented in Figure 5.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Sample student comments, in response to the open‐ended survey question asking for elaboration on their relatability choices (i.e., which scientists the students found to be most relatable). Available (albeit limited) specifics about each respondent are given in parentheses. FGEN = first‐generation college student (neither parent attended college): CGEN = continuing‐generation college student (one or more parent attended college)

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In implementing these Scientist Spotlights, our hope was that exposure to the stories of diverse scientists would allow students to form counter‐stereotypical views of who does science. Progress in this area is likely to differentially impact students from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, and for our purposes, in ecology and evolution. Specifically, students who may have previously viewed themselves as outside the stereotypical scientist identity might better relate to the field and more easily see themselves as scientists in the present or future. At a minimum, we hoped to increase the number of students who found scientists (and therefore science itself) relatable. Our specific questions were as follows:

  • Can these Scientist Spotlight assignments mitigate some of the diversity concerns that characterize E&E?

  • Do students specify being able to relate to scientists based on gender, race/ethnicity, or other categorical descriptors of identity?

We can answer, in the affirmative, both questions. We are encouraged by the fact that, over the course of the semester, student ability to relate to scientists increased measurably, if not dramatically. Due to the nature of our implementation, we cannot control for other factors that may have contributed to this gain, nor can we pinpoint aspects of the Spotlights that may have been especially meaningful. However, student comments do shed light on these relatability changes; specifically, several students—including those from groups underrepresented in STEM—expressed an appreciation for the inclusion of diverse scientist identities, and several aligned themselves with specific scientists based on the scientists' expressed identities. Thus, we feel that these assignments can be a valuable component of an instructor's attempts at making their Ecology or Evolution course more inclusive. Further, they can be done completely online, lending themselves well to the current demand for remote instruction that fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Because these assignments are compelling, easy to implement, and not intrusive (i.e., they don't need to detract from primary content‐related goals of a course), they are a simple foray into inclusive teaching. Perhaps equally as important, providing these assignments is an easy way to signal an interest in diversity and inclusion, possibly opening the door to continued dialogue between the instructor and students who may typically feel less comfortable—for whatever reasons—approaching a science faculty member. While we by no means see these Spotlights as being capable of solving the capacious diversity challenges in ecology and evolution, we do consider them a valuable component of inclusive teaching and a step in the right direction.

For our colleagues interested in implementing these, or similar, assignments in their courses, we offer the following suggestions:

  • Incorporate these assignments throughout the course, ideally beginning them during the first 1–2 weeks of the term. This way the Spotlights will be viewed as integral to the course, rather than an add‐on and not truly representative of an interest in inclusive teaching.

  • Use existing materials! We've provided (Appendix S1) some suggestions, and options abound:

    1. Scientist Spotlights (scientistspotlights.org) is a searchable resource for “integrating themes of diversity and inclusion while teaching course content.”

    2. Story Collider (storycollider.org) is a searchable resource for “true, personal stories about science.”

    3. Project Biodiversify (https://projectbiodiversify.org/) curates “tools for promoting diversity and inclusivity in biology classrooms.”

    4. PBS' NOVA: Secret Life of Scientists & Engineers (https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/nvslos/) “profiles today's leading scientists—and shows what they're like when the lab coats come off—showing viewers a human side of science that many students can relate to.” There is also a special subsection entitled Diversity in STEM (https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/secret‐life‐of‐scientists‐and‐engineers‐diversity‐in‐stem/)

  • Finally, solicit student feedback throughout. Student populations vary, and depending on the nature of the course, the discipline, and the institutional profile, different groups of students may feel marginalized. For example, in our evolution‐focused nonmajor course, we felt that helping students reconcile the perceived conflict between science and religion was important. In other courses, instructors will be aware of (or will learn from their students) which identities are most in need of representation through these Spotlights.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no competing interests.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Samantha Brandt: Data curation (lead); formal analysis (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review & editing (equal). Sehoya Cotner: Conceptualization (lead); project administration (lead); resources (equal); supervision (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review & editing (equal). Zoe Koth: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review & editing (equal). Suzanne McGaugh: Conceptualization (equal); project administration (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review & editing (equal).

Supporting information

Appendix S1

Click here for additional data file. (53.3KB, pdf)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Sadie Hebert for help with survey management (and so much else), Jeff Schinske for initial advice during the development of the Scientist Spotlights, and our wonderful students in General Zoology and The Evolution and Biology of Sex, Fall 2019. Many thanks to Meaghan Stein for guidance—and cookies—along the way.

Brandt S, Cotner S, Koth Z, McGaugh S. Scientist Spotlights: Online assignments to promote inclusion in Ecology and Evolution. Ecol. Evol. 2020;10:12450–12456. 10.1002/ece3.6849

Funding information

McGaugh was supported by NSF IOS:1546727 during the preparation of this manuscript. This work was also supported in part by a grant to the University of Minnesota from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute through the Science Education Program (PI Laurie Parker); specifically, SC and SM were HHMI Faculty Fellows in the program.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Due to our use of human subjects in this research, we are only able to provide de‐identified, aggregate data upon request.

REFERENCES

  1. Arismendi, I. , & Penaluna, B. E. (2016). Examining diversity inequities in fisheries science: A call to action. BioScience, 66(7), 584–591. 10.1093/biosci/biw041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballen, C. J. , & Mason, N. A. (2017). Longitudinal analysis of a diversity support program in biology: A national call for further assessment. BioScience, 67(4), 367–373. 10.1093/biosci/biw187 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barman, C. R. (1999). Completing the study: High school students' views of scientists and science. Science and Children, 36(7), 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes, M. E. , Elser, J. , & Brownell, S. E. (2017). Impact of a short evolution module on students. Perceived conflict between religion and evolution religion. American Biology Teacher, 79(2), 104–111. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, E. H. , Milkman, K. L. , Gromet, D. M. , Rebele, R. W. , Massey, C. , Duckworth, A. L. , & Grant, A. M. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(16), 7778–7783. 10.1073/pnas.1816076116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, M. J. , Eagan, M. K. , Lin, M. H. , & Hurtado, S. (2011). Considering the impact of racial stigmas and science identity: Persistence among biomedical and behavioral science aspirants. Journal of Higher Education, 82(5), 564–596. 10.1353/jhe.2011.0030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students' paths into and out of STEM fields (p. 102). National Center for Education Statistics; (Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014‐001). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, G. L. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social‐psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307–1310. 10.1126/science.1128317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooper, K. M. , Ashley, M. , & Brownell, S. E. (2017). A bridge to active learning: A summer bridge program helps students maximize their active‐learning experiences and the active‐learning experiences of others. Cbe—life Sciences Education, 16(1), ar17 10.1187/cbe.16-05-0161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dewsbury, B. , & Brame, C. J. (2019). Inclusive Teaching. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(2), fe2 10.1187/cbe.19-01-0021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Graham, M. J. , Frederick, J. , Byars‐Winston, A. , Hunter, A.‐B. , & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455–1456. 10.1126/science.1240487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Graves, J. L. (2019). African Americans in evolutionary science: where we have been, and what's next. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 12(1), 1–10. 10.1186/s12052-019-0110-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Herrmann, S. D. , Adelman, R. M. , Bodford, J. E. , Graudejus, O. , Okun, M. A. , & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2016). The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 258–268. 10.1080/01973533.2016.1209757 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hill, C. , Corbett, C. , & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Association of University Women; 10.1002/sce.21007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackson, S. M. , Hillard, A. L. , & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419–438. 10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kugler, A. D. , Tinsley, C. H. , & Ukhaneva, O. (2017). Choice of Majors: Are women really different from men? (No. w23735). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w23735 [Google Scholar]
  17. Long, M. , Boiarsky, G. , & Thayer, G. (2001). Gender and racial counter‐stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 10(3), 255–269. 10.1088/0963-6625/10/3/301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Malone, K. R. , Barabino, G. , & Coulter, W. H. (2009). Narrations of race in STEM research settings: Identity formation and its discontents introduction: The only one. Science Education, 93(3), 485–510. 10.1002/sce.20307 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Martin, L. J. (2012). Where are the women in ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(4), 177–178. 10.1890/12.WB.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mervis, J. (2010). Better intro courses seen as key to reducing attrition of STEM majors. Science, 330(6002), 306 10.1126/science.330.6002.306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Moss‐Racusin, C. A. , Dovidio, J. F. , Brescoll, V. L. , Graham, M. J. , & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . (2018). Indicators for monitoring undergraduate STEM education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 10.17226/24943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. O'Brien, L. T. , Hitti, A. , Shaffer, E. , Camp, A. R. V. , Henry, D. , & Gilbert, P. N. (2017). Improving girls' sense of fit in science: Increasing the impact of role models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 301–309. 10.1177/1948550616671997 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Science, 130 10.1080/10668921003609210 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ramsey, L. R. , Betz, D. E. , & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2013). The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 377–397. 10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Schinske, J. , Cardenas, M. , & Kaliangara, J. (2015). Uncovering scientist Stereotypes and their relationships with student race and student success in a diverse, community college setting. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(3), ar35 10.1187/cbe.14-12-0231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schinske, J. N. , 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 Sciences Education, 15(3), ar47 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Schmader, T. , Johns, M. , & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women's experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50(11/12), 835–850. [Google Scholar]
  29. Schroeder, J. , Dugdale, H. L. , Radersma, R. , Hinsch, M. , Buehler, D. M. , Saul, J. , Porter, L. , Liker, A. , De Cauwer, I. , Johnson, P. J. , Santure, A. W. , Griffin, A. S. , Bolund, E. , Ross, L. , Webb, T. J. , Feulner, P. G. D. , Winney, I. , Szulkin, M. , Komdeur, J. , … Horrocks, N. P. C. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26(9), 2063–2069. 10.1111/jeb.12198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Shin, J. E. L. , Levy, S. R. , & London, B. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non‐STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427. 10.1111/jasp.12371 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Staats, C. (2015). Understanding implicit bias what educators should know. American Educator, 39, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
  32. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. 10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Steinke, J. , Lapinski, M. K. , & Crocker, N. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school‐aged children's perceptions of women in science using the draw‐a‐scientist test (DAST). Science Communication, 29(1), 35–64. [Google Scholar]
  34. Stout, J. G. , Dasgupta, N. , Hunsinger, M. , & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self‐concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. 10.1037/a0021385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty‐one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. Cbe—life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322–331. 10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Van Camp, A. R. , Gilbert, P. N. , & O'Brien, L. T. (2019). Testing the effects of a role model intervention on women's STEM outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 649–671. 10.1007/s11218-019-09498-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Walton, G. M. , & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Warfa, A. R. M. (2016). Mixed‐methods design in biology education research: Approach and uses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–11. 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Yonas, A. , Sleeth, M. , & Cotner, S. (2020). In a “Scientist Spotlight” intervention, diverse student identities matter†. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(1), 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix S1

Click here for additional data file. (53.3KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

Due to our use of human subjects in this research, we are only able to provide de‐identified, aggregate data upon request.

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES