CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Science Education and PedagogyEvolution and Science EducationConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education

A Vision for University Biology Education for Non-science Majors

Open access
Gormally, Cara, Heil, Austin·2022·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.21-12-0338PMC PMC9727605
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

College biology education must prepare future college graduates to be engaged, science-literate citizens. This is especially important, because the vast majority of college students (82%) are non-science majors. This essay identifies aspects of science education critical for preparing science-literate non-science majors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.21-12-0338

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 82 · Cited by 28

Research works printed but not linked: 87

  1. Ajzen, I. Joyce, N. Sheikh, S. Cote, N. G. (2011). Knowledge and the prediction of behavior: The role of information accuracy in the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 101– 117.
  2. Allen, J. M. Muragishi, G. A. Smith, J. L. Thoman, D. B. Brown, E. R. (2015). To grab and to hold: Cultivating communal goals to overcome cultural and structural barriers in first-generation college students’ science interest. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 331. 26807431 PMC4718605
  3. Allum, N. Besley, J. Gomez, L. Brunton-Smith, I. (2018). Disparities in science literacy. Science, 360(6391), 861– 862. 29798873
  4. Allum, N. Sturgis, P. Tabourazi, D. Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35– 54.
  5. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2019). Encountering science in America. Cambridge, MA.
  6. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Anderson, A. A. Brossard, D. Scheufele, D. A. (2010). The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(4), 1083– 1094. 21170132 PMC2988218
  9. Belanger, A. L. Diekman, A. B. Steinberg, M. (2017). Leveraging communal experiences in the curriculum: Increasing interest in pursuing engineering by changing stereotypic expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(6), 305– 319.
  10. Bowers, C. A. (2002). Toward an eco-justice pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 21– 34.
  11. Bowling, B. V. Huether, C. A. Wagner, J. A. (2007). Characterization of human genetics courses for nonbiology majors in US colleges and universities. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(3), 224– 232. 17785405 PMC1964520
  12. Brand-Gruwel, S. Wopereis, I. Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using Internet. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1207– 1217.
  13. Bråten, I. Strømsø, H. I. Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180– 192.
  14. Brem, S. K. Russell, J. Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 191– 213.
  15. Brickman, P. Gormally, C. Francom, G. Jardeleza, S. E. Schutte, V. G. Jordan, C. Kanizay, L. (2012). Media-savvy scientific literacy: Developing critical evaluation skills by investigating scientific claims. American Biology Teacher, 74(6), 374– 379.
  16. Britt, M. A. Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485– 522.
  17. Brown, E. R. Thoman, D. B. Smith, J. L. Diekman, A. B. (2015). Closing the communal gap: The importance of communal affordances in science career motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(12), 662– 673. 26806983 PMC4717480
  18. Cheryan, S. Master, A. Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 49. 25717308 PMC4323745
  19. Cho, K.-L. Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5.
  20. Clemmons, A. W. Timbrook, J. Herron, J. C. Crowe, A. J. (2020). BioSkills guide: Development and national validation of a tool for interpreting the vision and change core competencies. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), ar53. 33001766 PMC8693931
  21. Colvin, W. Lyden, S. León de la Barra, B. A. (2013). Attracting girls to civil engineering through hands-on activities that reveal the communal goals and values of the profession. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 13(1), 35– 41.
  22. Cook, M. Mulvihill, T. M. (2008). Examining US college students attitudes towards science: Learning from non-science majors. Educational Research and Reviews, 3(1), 038– 047.
  23. Cotner, S. Thompson, S. Wright, R. (2017). Do biology majors really differ from non–STEM majors? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), ar48. 28798210 PMC5589428
  24. Crowell, A. Schunn, C. (2014). Scientifically literate action: Key barriers and facilitators across context and content. Public Understanding of Science, 23(6), 718– 733. 23825276
  25. Crowell, A. Schunn, C. (2016). Unpacking the relationship between science education and applied scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 46(1), 129– 140.
  26. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582– 601.
  27. d’I Treen, K. M. Williams, H. T. P. O’Neill, S.J. (2019). Online misinformation about climate change. WIRES Climate Change, 11, e665. doi: 10.1002/wcc.665 · DOI
  28. Diekman, A. B. Brown, E. R. Johnston, A. M. Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051– 1057. 20631322
  29. Ede, A. (2000). Has science education become an enemy of scientific rationality? Skeptical Inquirer, 24(4), 48– 48.
  30. Falk, J. H. Storksdieck, M. Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455– 469.
  31. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168– 185. 10.1002/sce.20414 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Feinstein, N. W. (2014). Making sense of autism: Progressive engagement with science among parents of young, recently diagnosed autistic children. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 592– 609. 25414924
  33. Fredeen, D. A. (2012). Weaving a tapestry of change: Implementing SENCER on campus. In Sheardy, R. Burns, W. D. (Eds.), Science education and civic engagement: The next level (pp. 31– 54). Washington, DC: ACS Publications.
  34. Glynn, S. M. Brickman, P. Armstrong, N. Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159– 1176.
  35. Goodstein, D. (1992). The science literacy gap: A Karplus lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1(3), 149– 155.
  36. Gormally, C. Brickman, P. Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 364– 377. 23222832 PMC3516792
  37. Gormally, C. Inghram, R. (2021). Goggles and white lab coats: Students’ perspectives on scientists and the continued need to challenge stereotypes. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1), ev22i1– 2273. PMC7861208 33584944
  38. Gormally, C. L. Marchut, A. (2017). “Science is not my thing”: Exploring deaf non-science majors’ science identities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 20(1), 1– 15.
  39. Haffie, T. L. Reitmeier, Y. M. Walden, D. B. (2000). Characterization of university-level introductory genetics courses in Canada. Genome, 43(1), 152– 159. 10701124
  40. Hazari, Z. Sadler, P. M. Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 82– 91.
  41. Hebert, S. Cotner, S. (2019). A comparison of nonmajors’ & majors’ incoming science process skills. American Biology Teacher, 81(8), 554– 560.
  42. Heil, A. D. Brickman, M. Gormally, C. (2021, July). What do faculty want non-majors to know? Characterizing the content, skills, and stated learning objectives from non-major syllabi. Paper presented at: Society of Advancement in Biology Education Research Conference (conference virtual due to COVID precautions).
  43. Heil, A. D. Gormally, C. Brickman, P. (in press). Low-level learning: Leaving behind non-science majors. Journal of College Science Teaching.
  44. Hewitt, K. M. Bouwma-Gearhart, J. Kitada, H. Mason, R. Kayes, L. J. (2019). Introductory biology in social context: The effects of an issues-based laboratory course on biology student motivation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar30. 31298623 PMC6755311
  45. Hilton, S. Hunt, K. Petticrew, M. (2007). Gaps in parental understandings and experiences of vaccine-preventable diseases: A qualitative study. Child Care, Health and Development, 33(2), 170– 179. 17291321
  46. Hott, A. M. Huether, C. A. McInerney, J. D. Christianson, C. Fowler, R. Bender, … & Karp, R. (2002). Genetics content in introductory biology courses for non-science majors: Theory and practice. BioScience, 52(11), 1024– 1035.
  47. Johnson, A. C. (2007). Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of color. Science Education, 91(5), 805– 821.
  48. Johnson, M. Pigliucci, M. (2004). Is knowledge of science associated with higher skepticism of pseudoscientific claims? American Biology Teacher, 66(8), 536– 548.
  49. Kahan, D. M. Peters, E. Wittlin, M. Slovic, P. Ouellette, L. L. Braman, D. Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732– 735.
  50. Knight, J. K. Smith, M. K. (2010). Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn genetics. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 34– 44. 20194806 PMC2830160
  51. Kua, E. Reder, M. Grossel, M. J. (2004). Science in the news: A study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 309– 322.
  52. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319– 337.
  53. Maienschein, J. (1998). Scientific literacy. Science, 281(5379), 917.
  54. MaKinster, J. G. Beghetto, R. A. Plucker, J. A. (2002). Why can’t I find Newton’s third law? Case studies of students’ use of the Web as a science resource. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 155– 172.
  55. Millar, R. Osborne, J. Nott, M. (1998). Science education for the future. School Science Review, 80(291), 19– 24.
  56. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203. 23832159
  57. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273– 294.
  58. Miller, J. D. (2010). The conceptualization and measurement of civic scientific literacy for the twenty-first century. Science and the educated American: A core component of liberal education (pp. 241– 255). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
  59. Miller, M. C. D. Montplaisir, L. M. Offerdahl, E. G. Cheng, F.-C. Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 45– 54. 20194807 PMC2830161
  60. Mulkay, M. (1997). Book review of: Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 22(2), 254– 264.
  61. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 10.17226/11463 · DOI
  62. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  63. Opitz, A. Heene, M. Fischer, F. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning–a review of test instruments. Educational Research and Evaluation, 23(3–4), 78– 101.
  64. Orr, D. Baram-Tsabari, A. (2018). Science and politics in the polio vaccination debate on Facebook: A mixed-methods approach to public engagement in a science-based dialogue. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1). 19.11. 80. PMC5969418 29904532
  65. Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49.
  66. Puri, N. Coomes, E. A. Haghbayan, H. Gunaratne, K. (2020). Social media and vaccine hesitancy: New updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 16(11), 2586– 2593. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1780846 32693678 PMC7733887 · DOI
  67. Rowe, M. P. Gillespie, B. M. Harris, K. R. Koether, S. D. Shannon, L.-J. Y. Rose, L. A. (2015). Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(3), ar30. 26231561 PMC4710388
  68. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513– 536.
  69. 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. 26338318 PMC4710393
  70. 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), 1– 18. PMC5008894 27587856
  71. Shaffer, J. F. Ferguson, J. Denaro, K. (2019). Use of the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills reveals that fundamental literacy is an important contributor to scientific literacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar31. 31397654 PMC6755321
  72. Sharon, A. J. Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life? Science Education, 104(5), 873– 894.
  73. Shauli, S. Baram-Tsabari, A. (2019). The usefulness of science knowledge for parents of hearing-impaired children. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 19– 37. 29683057
  74. Singer, S. R. Nielsen, N. R. Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  75. Smith, C. N. Seitz, H. H. (2019). Correcting misinformation about neuroscience via social media. Science Communication, 41(6), 790– 819.
  76. Southwell, B. G. Babwah Brennen, J. S. Paquin, R. Boudewyns, V. Zeng, J. (2022). Defining and measuring scientific misinformation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 98– 111. doi: 10.1177/00027162221084709 · DOI
  77. Speth, E. B. Momsen, J. L. Moyerbrailean, G. A. Ebert-May, D. Long, T. M. Wyse, S. Linton, D. (2010). 1, 2, 3, 4: Infusing quantitative literacy into introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 323– 332. 20810965 PMC2931680
  78. Steinberg, M. Diekman, A. B. (2018). Considering “why” to engage in STEM activities elevates communal content of STEM affordances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 107– 114.
  79. Suarez-Lledo, V. Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021). Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), e17187. doi: 10.2196/17187 33470931 PMC7857950 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Tankard, J. W., Jr. Ryan, M. (1974). News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 51(2), 219– 225.
  81. Waldo, J. T. (2014). Application of the test of scientific literacy skills in the assessment of a general education natural science program. Journal of General Education, 63(1), 1– 14.
  82. Walker, W. R. Hoekstra, S. J. Vogl, R. J. (2002). Science education is no guarantee of skepticism. Skeptic (Altadena, CA), 9(3), 24– 29.
  83. Walraven, A. Brand-Gruwel, S. Boshuizen, H. P. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234– 246.
  84. Weasel, L. H. Finkel, L. (2016). Deliberative pedagogy in a nonmajors biology course: Active learning that promotes student engagement with science policy and research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 38– 45.
  85. West, J. D. Bergstrom, C. T. (2021). Misinformation in and about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 118(15), e1912444117. 10.1073/pnas.1912444117 PMC8054004 33837146 · DOI · Paper page
  86. Wineburg, S. McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information (Stanford History Education Group Working Paper No. 2017-A1). Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3048994
  87. Woloshin, S. Schwartz, L. M. (2006). Giving legs to restless legs: A case study of how the media helps make people sick. PLoS Medicine, 3(4), e170. 16597175 PMC1434499

Authors
Gormally, C., & Heil, A.
Affiliations
  • Gallaudet University (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Gormally, Cara
ORCID
Heil, Austin
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2022-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
es5-es5
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.21-12-0338
PMC
PMC9727605
OpenAlex
W4296035678
Cited by
28
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3
FWCI
10.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Keywords
biology education, non-science majors, scientific literacy, socioscientific issues, community participation, science skills, science education reform
MeSH terms
Biology, Humans, Students, Universities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review