Student-Authored Scientist Spotlights: Investigating the Impacts of Engaging Undergraduates as Developers of Inclusive Curriculum through a Service-Learning Course

Abstract

Scientist Spotlights-curricular materials that employ the personal and professional stories of scientists from diverse backgrounds-have previously been shown to positively influence undergraduate students' relatability to and perceptions of scientists. We hypothesized that engaging students in authoring Scientist Spotlights might produce curricular materials of similar impact, as well as provide a mechanism for student involvement as partners in science education reform. To test this idea and investigate the impact of student-authored Scientist Spotlights, we developed a service-learning course in which teams of biology students partnered with an instructor to develop and implement Scientist Spotlights in a biology course. Results revealed that exposure to three or four student-authored Scientist Spotlights significantly shifted peers' perceptions of scientists in all partner courses. Interestingly, student-authored Scientist Spotlights shifted peers' relatability to scientists similarly among both white students and students of color. Further, student authors themselves showed increases in their relatability to scientists. Finally, a department-wide survey demonstrated significant differences in students' perceptions of scientist representation between courses with and without student-authored Spotlights. Results suggest that engaging students as authors of inclusive curricular materials and partners in reform is a promising approach to promoting inclusion and addressing representation in science.

FIGURE 1.

Demographic disaggregation of students’ relatability to scientists before and after student-authored Scientist Spotlights across all partner courses. Students’ pre and post agreement with the prompt: “I know of one or more important scientists to whom I can relate” by student demographic characteristics. For pre data: “agree” is shown in gray and “disagree” in white; for post data: “agree” is shown in black and “disagree” in white. Pre–post differences are significant at **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.

FIGURE 2.

Demographic disaggregation of students’ non-stereotype scientist descriptions before and after student-authored Scientist Spotlights. Coding of students’ pre and post responses to the prompt: “Describe the types of people that do science” for those expressing nonstereotypical descriptors of scientists, disaggregated by (A) gender, (B) URM student status, and (C) Pell Grant–eligible student status. All students are shown in D. Pre data are shown in gray; post data are shown in black. Pre–post differences are significant at *p < 0.05 and ***p < 0.001.

FIGURE 3.

Demographic disaggregation of nonstereotypical scientist names offered by students before and after student-authored Scientist Spotlights. Coding of students’ pre and post responses to the prompt: “Describe the types of people who do science” for those expressing nonstereotypical scientist names, disaggregated by (A) gender, (B) URM status, (C) Pell Grant–eligible status. All students are shown in D. Pre data are shown in gray; post data are shown in black. Pre–post differences are significant at ***p < 0.001 for all student subpopulations, except men.

FIGURE 4.

Analyses of LEADS student authors’ assessment responses before and after authoring Scientist Spotlights themselves. LEADS students’ pre and post agreement to the prompt: “I know of one or more important scientists to whom I can relate.” For pre data, “agree” is shown in gray and “disagree” is in white; for post data, “agree” is shown in black, and there was no disagreement (A). LEADS students’ pre and post responses to the prompt: “Describe the types of people who do science” for those offering positive stereotype descriptors, negative stereotype descriptors, or nonstereotypical descriptors of scientists (B) and those offering names of stereotypical or nonstereotypical scientists (C) before and after authoring Scientist Spotlights themselves. Pre data are shown in gray; post data are shown in black. n = 16 for all panels. Pre–post differences are significant at *p < 0.05 for the relatability prompt.

FIGURE 5.

Independent department-wide survey of students’ agreement that they studied multiple scientists, multiple scientists of color, or multiple women scientists in biology courses. Responses from students in LEADS partner courses (with Scientist Spotlights, n = 278) compared with departmental students in non-LEADS courses (without Scientist Spotlights, n = 792) indicating level of agreement to (A) “I have studied multiple scientists in this course.” (B) “I have studied multiple scientists of color in this course.” (C) “I have studied multiple women scientists in this course.” “Agree” is shown in black, “not sure” in gray, and “disagree” in white. Differences are significant at ***p < 0.001.