\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{From panic to pedagogy: Using online active learning to promote
inclusive instruction in ecology and evolutionary biology courses.}



\author[1]{Breanna Harris}%
\author[2]{Pumtiwitt McCarthy}%
\author[3]{April Wright }%
\author[4]{Heidi Schutz}%
\author[5]{Kate Boersma}%
\author[6]{Stephanie Shepherd}%
\author[4]{Lathiena Manning}%
\author[7]{Jessica Malisch }%
\author[2]{Roni Ellington}%
\affil[1]{Texas Tech University System}%
\affil[2]{Morgan State University}%
\affil[3]{Southeastern Louisiana University}%
\affil[4]{Pacific Lutheran University}%
\affil[5]{University of San Diego}%
\affil[6]{Auburn University}%
\affil[7]{St. Mary's College of Maryland}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 02, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
The rapid shift to online teaching in spring 2020 meant most of us were
teaching in panic mode. As we move forward with course planning for fall
and beyond, we can invest more time and energy into improving the online
experience for our students. We advocate that instructors use inclusive
teaching practices, specifically through active learning, in their
online classes. Incorporating pedagogical practices that work to
maximize active and inclusive teaching concepts will be beneficial for
all students, and especially those from minoritized or underserved
groups. Like many STEM fields, Ecology and Evolution shows achievement
gaps and faces a leaky pipeline issue for students from groups
traditionally underrepresented in science. Making online classes both
active and inclusive will aid student learning and will also help
students feel more connected to their learning, their peers, and their
campus. This approach will likely help with performance, retention, and
persistence of students. In this paper we offer strategies and
techniques that weave together active and inclusive teaching practices
and challenge faculty to commit to making small changes in the fall as a
first step to more inclusive teaching in ecology and evolutionary
biology courses.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{1.0 Introduction}

1.1 Framework and Challenge to Instructors

In response to COVID-19, in spring, 2020 many of us rapidly took our
in-person courses to an online format. This was panic pedagogy and we
made the best of an emergency situation. Going forward, we now have a
chance to reflect and think critically about how to best develop and
deliver evolutionary and ecological content online. In this piece we
challenge instructors to use the opportunity created by the COVID-19
pandemic to rethink the way in which they teach. Let us leverage the
situation to increase use of active and inclusive practices in our
(online) classrooms. We encourage instructors to be mindful of the how
and why of their course design and to embrace active and inclusive
teaching practices.

Online teaching offers opportunities to increase equity, inclusion, and
overall teaching effectiveness, but courses must be intentionally
designed with this outcome in mind. The foci of our manuscript are
active learning and inclusive teaching in an online learning
environment. Active learning is often touted as a way to maximize course
effectiveness; enhance student learning; help students feel more
connected to their learning, their peers, and their campus; and to
increase student retention, persistence, and success. To do this,
however, effective active learning practices need to be implemented in a
thoughtful and inclusive way (Andrews et al, 2011; Michael, 2006).
Importantly, active learning is not synonymous with inclusive teaching,
as active learning is not necessarily inclusive and inclusive teaching
practices are not all active in nature. We advocate that instructors
should design their online courses with a particular focus on the
intersection between active learning and inclusive teaching (Figure 1).
Classrooms and active learning exercises that embrace inclusivity
provide a multi-pronged approach to create a student-centered learning
environment that meets goals of \emph{Vision and Change} (AAAS 2011;
2015; 2018).

This manuscript aims to help instructors frame and define the concepts
of active learning and inclusive teaching in their classrooms. Just as
learning is an iterative process for students, teaching is an iterative
process for educators. We would not expect students to be able to
perfectly perform lab techniques just by reading about the methods and
background. Likewise, we cannot expect instructors to master active and
inclusive teaching by reading a few papers. True inclusive teaching will
take continued learning, effort, commitment, personal growth,
confrontation of potentially uncomfortable situations, and support from
departments and institutions. We hope this manuscript helps instructors
progress on their journey of active and inclusive teaching. In Section 1
we provide an overview of active learning and methods by which
instructors can practice inclusive teaching, in Section 2 we discuss
challenges and solutions of online and active learning, and in Section 3
we provide details for three explicit active and inclusive online
teaching strategies that can be used in ecology and evolutionary biology
courses. Our learning goals for the piece are as follows. After reading
this paper, readers will know, will have, or be able to:

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  Compare and contrast active learning and inclusive teaching. Know that
  terms are not interchangeable and explain why each is important.
\item
  Define and provide examples of how instructors can practice inclusive
  teaching.
\item
  Give examples of how inclusive teaching practices can be integrated
  into online active learning.
\item
  List some common challenges and solutions associated with active
  learning.
\item
  Discuss equity concerns associated with online teaching.
\item
  Appreciate that changing the way we teach is difficult and acknowledge
  that small pieces can be adopted over time; changes do not have to
  happen all at once.
\item
  Devise a concrete action plan to incorporate active learning and
  inclusive teaching practices into at least one aspect of their ecology
  or evolutionary biology syllabus.
\end{enumerate}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image1/image1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 1.} Active learning and inclusive teaching are both
important pedagogical practices, however, they are not interchangeable
terms. We propose instructors should aim for the area of center overlap
when developing their courses.

1.2. A new way of knowing

Nearly 40 years have passed since biologist John Moore called for
scientists in higher education to be better educators, namely to teach
science as a way of knowing, focused on the processes of doing science
and not on the memorization of facts (Moore, 1984). Moore's initial call
spurred new directives and initiatives for biology education and science
teaching in general. In 2011, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) published the first edition of\emph{Vision
and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action} . The
AAAS highlighted the need for student-centered learning, teaching the
process of science, and the integration of science with society (AAAS,
2011). \emph{Vision and Change} also called for broadening participation
and making science more inclusive. These documents have been updated
over time (AAAS, 2015; 2018) but the overarching message has stayed the
same: biology education needs to be more inclusive, to engage learners
as doers, and to emphasize the interdisciplinary aspects of biology.

Along the same theme, while John Moore called for teaching science as a
way of knowing, bell hooks called for a different way of knowing. She
advocated for engaged pedagogy and using education as the practice of
freedom (hooks, 1994). This type of teaching includes the voices and
lived experiences of all students in the classroom and calls for
interrogation of ideas and traditional ways of knowing (hooks, 1994).
Educators should embrace cultural diversity and deconstruct academic
biases that uphold racism, sexism, imperialism, and white supremacy
(hooks, 1994). Instructors should also build teaching communities where
students are active participants, educators embrace mind and body, and
reject the ``banking system of education'' in favor of active engagement
(hooks, 1994).

One way in which educators have begun to meet these calls to action is
by using active learning practices which engage students in the learning
process. \textbf{Active learning} requires that students be involved in
their own education and allows them to take agency over understanding
and applying the material. Active learning often focuses on the higher
levels of Bloom's taxonomy, a common framework for understanding
educational outcomes (Bloom, 1956). Students are challenged to develop a
deeper mastery of curricular knowledge by applying concepts, analyzing
data, and creating novel synthesis or knowledge. Active learning methods
are highly effective. As evidenced by a meta-analysis of 225 studies,
active learning practices enhance student learning and reduce failure
rate in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
courses (Freeman et al., 2014). Additionally, active learning
approaches, accompanied by major changes to course structure, improve
performance in evolution courses (Frasier and Roderick, 2011), and can
be used successfully in ecology (Burrow, 2018) and in courses aiming to
integrate ecological and evolutionary concepts throughout the biology
curriculum (White et al, 2013).

On top of the general educational benefits associated with active
learning practices, the use of these strategies in the classroom is
especially beneficial for students from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM. The Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AAC\&U) called for an increase in equity and availability
of high-impact educational practices for all students, but especially
for underserved students, as this demographic shows the highest gains in
grades and persistence when exposed to high-impact, active learning
(Kuh, 2008). Similarly, the National Institute of General Medical
Sciences and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Joint Working Group on
improving persistence in STEM advocated for incorporating active
learning across schools to benefit underrepresented students (Estrada et
al, 2016). These are evidence-based recommendations. For example, when
active learning practices (in this case, five major changes to the
course curriculum) were used in an introductory evolutionary biology and
biodiversity course, African American, Latinx, Pacific Islander, and
Native American students had higher learning assessment gains and course
grades at the end of the semester compared to outcomes in the same
course using traditional lecture teaching (Ballen et al, 2017a). In that
study, the gains were specific to students in the aforementioned
minoritized groups. Learning outcome gains and grades did not differ
between teaching methods for students from non-minoritized groups;
however, for all students, self-efficacy was higher in the course using
active learning (Ballen et al, 2017a). In a separate study, addition of
structured active learning practices (i.e., lecture-free classes with
daily clickers, hands-on activities, and pre-tests) to large
(\textgreater{}300 students) introductory biology courses increased
performance of all students and was able to reduce the achievement gap
between students from disadvantaged backgrounds (defined here primarily
by first generation students and low income) and those from
non-disadvantaged backgrounds (Haak et al, 2011). Lastly, a recent
meta-analysis found that active learning practices can reduce the
achievement gap between students in minoritized groups (based on race,
ethnicity, or income) and those in non-minoritized groups by 33\%
(Theobald et al, 2020).

Active learning has often been touted as a way to increase student
performance as well as inclusion in the classroom, and clearly using
these practices can be effective. However, active learning is not always
beneficial in helping students learn evolutionary concepts (Andrews et
al, 2011) and this is likely due to the way in which instructors
incorporate active learning into their courses (Michael, 2006). For
example, Andrews and colleagues surveyed a random sample of introductory
biology courses taught by 33 different instructors across the nation to
determine if active learning increased student understanding of natural
selection (Andrews et al., 2011). The authors found that it did not.
They attributed this outcome to a few possible scenarios centered on the
implementation of active learning and instructor training and knowledge.
Previous studies showing the effectiveness of active learning were
conducted using instructors who had science education research
experience. Thus, these instructors better understood nuances of active
learning and were able to design effective courses and implement
activities in more meaningful ways. This is not surprising given the
lack of attention to learning how to teach in STEM disciplinary training
(Winberg et al, 2019). Unfortunately, it seems one cannot just use
clickers or periodic class discussion and expect increased gains in
student learning. This is a disappointing take-away as we all strive to
be great educators and having ready-to-use tools to increase performance
is appealing. However, this does not mean we should not try to
incorporate more meaningful active learning assignments into the
classroom, nor does it mean that only science education experts can
effectively use active learning. What it does mean is that we all need
to be more intentional about how we design and implement classroom
activities.

The rapid shift to online learning and the upending of the traditional
day-to-day of teaching in spring, 2020 provided us all with the unique
opportunity to pause and re-calibrate our teaching. Importantly, it
provided an opportunity to think critically about course design. For
many of us, we are now facing the challenge of completely re-working our
course(s) for online delivery. \textbf{Scientific teaching} practices
suggest that course planning should start from the learning outcomes
(Handlesman et al, 2007). That is, instructors first determine what
students should know and be able to do at the end of the course, then
the course framework and assignments are designed to meet those
outcomes. This approach, termed \textbf{backward design} , can
facilitate creation of meaningful active learning assignments.
Instructors can further increase the effectiveness of delivery by
providing clear learning goals for each activity, lecture, and/or unit
(Handelsman et al, 2007). These explicit, direct, and measurable goals
are typically written using verbs corresponding to different levels of
Bloom's Taxonomy (Crowe et al, 2008). However, to truly incorporate
inclusivity in these active learning practices, we challenge instructors
to consider course design above and beyond specific disciplinary content
by incorporating multiple inclusive teaching strategies (see Penner,
2018).

\textbf{1.3 \emph{Incorporating Inclusive Teaching Practices}}

Foundationally, \textbf{inclusive teaching} serves the needs of all
students, but no single, universally accepted definition exists (Ainscow
et al, 2006; Miles and Singal, 2010; Forlin and Loreman, 2014). Rather,
a spectrum of approaches to inclusive teaching that exist including
teaching to accommodate various learning styles and ability levels (Kolb
and Kolb, 2005; Orr and Hamming, 2009) as well as teaching that includes
and empowers historically marginalized learners (Friedrich et al, 2008).
Whatever the approach, the goal of inclusive teaching is to ensure that
diverse learners have equal opportunities to engage in meaningful
learning experiences that maximize their participation and achievement
(Lawrie et al, 2017). For this manuscript, we use the broad definition
proposed by Dewsbury (2017) and see inclusive teaching as ''a philosophy
of teaching that provides equal opportunities for all students to have a
successful learning experience''. However, more complex definitions
exist, and those define inclusive teaching, or deep teaching, as a
radical transformation of education as we know it, a movement away from
teaching science to teaching students (e.g., Dewsbury and Brame, 2019;
Dewsbury, 2020). Although we view the newer, more radical definitions by
Dewsbury and colleagues as the ultimate goal for biology education, this
manuscript does not tackle that paradigm shift. Here, we provide initial
steps for how to increase active learning and inclusivity in the
classroom. Aspects of inclusive teaching can be accomplished in multiple
ways, including via universal design for learning, by practicing
cultural competence, by using trauma-informed practices, and by
management of attitudes and expectations. It should be noted that these
inclusive teaching strategies are not mutually exclusive and
intersection among the frameworks does exist; however, each of these
strategies has its own literature so we presented them separately here.
In practice, these strategies overlap, and some recommendations fulfill
more than one strategy.

1.3.1 Inclusive Teaching through Universal Design for Learning

One approach to inclusive teaching is the implementation
of~\textbf{Universal Design for Learning (UDL)} which is a pedagogical
approach that maximizes learning for all students. UDL suggests
providing multiple access points to the material, multiple modes of
expression to demonstrate learning, and an emphasis on engaging learners
so that students are motivated (Dell et al, 2015). The goals of UDL are
to develop expert learners who are \emph{1.} ) purposeful and
motivated,\emph{2.} ) resourceful and knowledgeable, and \emph{3.} )
strategic and goal-directed (\url{http://udlguidelines.cast.org/}),
which are admirable goals for any classroom. Although the origin and
purpose of UDL is accessibility for individuals with disabilities, this
pedagogical approach can enhance the learning experience for all.
Importantly, individual accommodations for students is not the purpose
of UDL; rather the focus is to design a course to be accessible to all
so that accommodations are unnecessary (Tobin and Behling, 2018).

Beyond the technical aspects of UDL such as closed-captioning, fonts
that are easiest for all readers, color palettes that take
color-blindness into consideration, and simple and consistent slide
structures that are easy to follow, UDL emphasizes that all students
learn differently. Therefore, to be inclusive and maximize learning for
all, courses should capitalize on student variation by providing
multiple approaches to facilitate learning for all students. To produce
learners that are ``purposeful and motivated'', UDL suggests engaging
all students by helping them be motivated to learn about the topic. One
way of accomplishing this through active learning is to provide several
primary sources rather than a traditional lecture. This way students can
select the approach to a topic that is most engaging. Choice will
improve motivation and has the added benefit of allowing students to
avoid material they perceive as threatening and might distract from the
learning goals. To produce learners that are ``resourceful and
knowledgeable'', UDL suggests using an array of media choices for
students to access information. For instance, in the above example, in
addition to providing multiple primary texts, a podcast or TED talk
could be included as options to cover the same topic. Finally, to
develop students who are ``strategic and goal directed'', UDL suggests
providing options for students to demonstrate how they learn through
action and expression. To do this, variable outputs can be proposed for
students to demonstrate what they learned. For example, students could
choose to generate a graphical abstract for a paper they read or
construct a follow up experiment in the form of a research proposal
based on a podcast or TED talk. Allowing students to work either
independently or as a group is another way to provide choice to students
and enhance learning.

Regardless of the activities chosen or assignment options provided,
instructors should be clear in their goals and expectations. That is,
they should use transparent teaching strategies by providing the task
(what students are asked to do), purpose (why they are doing it) and
criteria (how they will be graded) for every assignment or activity (for
more see, the Transparency in Learning and Teaching
Project:\emph{www.tilthighered.com}). This approach is easy to
incorporate into class assignments or activities, it aligns with UDL
goals, helps to remove the effects of ``unwritten rules'' or ``hidden
curriculum'' often present in academia, and promotes inclusivity. All
students benefit from transparent presentation of assignments, but gains
are highest for first-generation students, low-income students, and
students from groups traditionally underrepresented in science
(Winkelmes et al, 2016). Paying close attention to course design, goals,
and expectations is particularly important in an online course where,
traditionally, students have little to no personal guidance from the
instructor and need to navigate the online platform independently
(Garrison et al, 1999; Darby and Lang, 2019).

1.3.2 Inclusive Teaching through Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

\textbf{Culturally responsive or culturally relevant pedagogy} describes
teaching approaches in which students' different cultural experiences
enrich the course material (Ladson-Billings, 1992; 1995). Three pillars
of this pedagogy include high expectations for all students, recognition
and appreciation of different cultural experiences of students (cultural
competence), and development of ``critical perspectives that challenge
inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate'' (social
justice) (Ladson-Billings, 1995). As instructors, our goal is to meet
students at their level of knowledge and facilitate their learning to
get them where we need them to be. To put a culturally responsive spin
on this same idea, instructors should also seek an understanding of
students' lived cultural experiences to get an idea of who they are and
use this knowledge to provide engaging and relevant curriculum.
Classrooms that embrace culturally responsive teaching offer a conduit
through which students can appreciate their own culture as well as the
cultures of others (Ladson-Billings, 2014). When diverse perspectives
are recognized and valued this promotes open communication, mutual
respect, and inclusion. An added focus on culturally responsive teaching
within active learning is critical to create a safe space for students
in which they can feel valued for the knowledge and lived experience
they bring into the classroom.

There is no one right way to create a culturally responsive curriculum.
A recent review of literature in the field of culturally responsive
teaching outlines some useful principles (Morrison et al, 2008). Many of
these principles aim to establish a safe, cooperative learning space for
relationship-building between instructors and students, as well as among
students. Rather than the traditional ``sage on the stage'' model,
instructors engaged in culturally responsive teaching share the stage
with their students, because students' strengths, lived experiences, and
knowledge are used as starting points for instruction. Successful
implementation also involves instructors who take the time to establish
meaningful relationships with students and take a personal stake in
their students' success.

The task of creating an environment conducive to culturally responsive
pedagogy may seem overwhelming at first, especially if one teaches
high-enrollment courses, but steps for how to build a cooperative
learning environment exist. First, instructors need to honestly assess
their biases (for
example,\emph{https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html}) and
determine how biases may affect their interactions with students. Such
biases may unintentionally alienate students in the classroom in ways
such as a lack of diverse curricular examples/models or presumptive
language (Tanner and Allen, 2007). Critical self-reflection on the part
of the instructor is needed. Howard (2003) provides some key questions
that instructors can use as a starting point for this
reflection:\emph{1.)} How frequently and what types of interactions did
I have with individuals from racial backgrounds different from my own
growing up?;\emph{2.)} Who were the primary persons that helped to shape
my perspectives of individuals from different racial groups? How were
their opinions formed?; \emph{3.)} Have I ever harbored prejudiced
thoughts towards people from different racial backgrounds?; \emph{4.)}
If I do harbor prejudiced thoughts, what effects do such thoughts have
on students who come from those backgrounds?; and \emph{5.)} Do I create
negative profiles of individuals who come from different racial
backgrounds? While these self-reflection questions focus only on race,
it is beneficial for instructors to think of other classifications such
as gender, religion, ability status, sexual orientation, or other axes
of minoritization that can be substituted here. Only after biases are
acknowledged can instructors begin to take on the work of creating a
more inclusive classroom.

Culturally responsive pedagogy has been a recent focus of the AAC\&U
through their Teaching to Increase Diversity and Equity in STEM (TIDES),
which sought to aid institutions in developing teaching strategies that
help STEM faculty adopt culturally sensitive pedagogy (Mack, 2019). Some
principles born from this effort that were implemented in face-to-face
courses (Hughes-Darden et al, 2019) can provide a more descriptive
framework to translate cultural competence to the realm of online
teaching. These principles are: \emph{1.)} Incorporate physical and
hands on activities in instructional practices; \emph{2.)} Incorporate
more student-led discussions and teaching opportunities in
class;\emph{3.)} Become aware of personal biases and judgements that
shape perceptions of students and being willing to change these
perceptions;\emph{4.)} Have student-led teaching and learning
apprenticeships that foster empowered learning communities; and
\emph{5.)} Use students' lived experiences as a context for course
content and activities. All five of these principles can apply to the
online learning environment with perhaps a slight modification to
principle one. These instructional practices now become student-led and
instructor-facilitated using one or more of the active learning tools
described in this article.

\emph{1.3.2.1 Cultural Competence in Ecology- An example}

A recently published case study (Miriti, 2019) reviewed literature on
the role of nature in ecology and environmental sciences with a focus on
delineating any cultural biases. This work provides a compelling
discussion on how the lack of diversity in these fields impacts
discipline priorities. Miriti posits that because there is a low
percentage of students and faculty from minoritized populations in
ecology and environmental sciences, commonly held views on nature have
been mostly dictated by those in majority groups (typically white,
middle- or upper- class males) which has led to exclusion of other
voices. This Anglo-Eurocentristic view has created biases in how
underrepresented groups are perceived to value nature. One common
misconception, for example, is that those from minority groups do not
value the environment. However, the real issue lies with the
Anglo-Eurocentristic view or definition of what valuing the environment
is or should look like (i.e. visiting a national park); those who have
diverse experiences that lie outside of this definition can be
mischaracterized. In essence, this further marginalizes those who are
already underrepresented in the ecology and environmental sciences and
can decrease retention. Miriti suggests that by incorporating cultural
competence and active learning techniques, educators and practitioners
in the field can increase inclusivity allowing diverse voices to be
heard.

1.3.3 Inclusive Teaching through Trauma-Informed Pedagogy

From the pandemic and social distancing to police brutality and ensuing
protests, the events of 2020 have exposed even the most sheltered
students to trauma. As with other social issues, the level of trauma is
higher for students of color and those living in poverty. As
instructors, we must acknowledge that each student's experience of
trauma will differ, and that students will bring their trauma to the
classroom (for more details, please see McInerney and McKlindon, 2014
and the National Child Traumatic Stress Network Learning
Center\emph{https://learn.nctsn.org/}). Thus, we should design our
courses with student trauma in mind. The idea behind
\textbf{trauma-informed teaching} is to enable student success by
interacting with students in such a way as to forge meaningful
connections, allowing the students to perceive that the instructor is
available and willing to assist in managing the traumatic emotions
(Newhouse, 2020). For example, many individuals experiencing trauma find
comfort in structure, and trauma-informed teaching suggests the
importance of maintaining a routine schedule for students exposed to
trauma (Pat-Horenczyk et al, 2006). However, other students may withdraw
or find difficulty completing routine tasks. Therefore, a clear schedule
with accommodations written out for late work is a way to meet both of
those needs. Fostering connection and a feeling of safety is also
important for trauma-informed pedagogy. A shared narrative between
students and the instructor can be useful in establishing this. For
example, an instructor acknowledging their children during a synchronous
class can show the students that their instructors are struggling to
cope as well and understand the burdens their students may be
experiencing. Instructors can also model naming emotions by sharing
their honest feelings with the class, for example by letting students
know this transition is challenging for all of us and that it is okay to
feel angry, sad, and frustrated. It can also be important to let
students see our authentic selves on screen, not every video has to be
perfect (Darby and Lang, 2019). It is also important to model resilience
and build community by telling students we can get through this together
(Teaching Tolerance Staff, 2020). Accomplishing this sense of community
can be challenging in an online environment where students can feel
isolated and alone. Thus, it is important to have some form of
personalized communication, either via instructor-created video, live
online sessions, personalized emails, discussion posts, or other class
activities, during the online course.

\textbf{1.3.4 \emph{Inclusive Teaching through Management of Attitudes
and Expectations}}

The growth mindset framework, namely the belief that intelligence can be
developed and improved and that is it not fixed (mindset theory), has
been linked to multiple outcomes, but most work has focused on
educational gains and performance. Pedagogical literature suggests
instructors should encourage a growth mindset in students (Dweck, 2015).
A recent meta-analysis examined if growth mindset was associated with
increased academic performance and if growth mindset interventions
improved performance (Sisk et al, 2018). The authors found weak but
significant associations: students with growth mindsets have higher
academic achievement and interventions to increase growth mindset can be
successful (Sisk et al, 2018). Interventions were beneficial for
students from low socioeconomic status households and for at-risk
students, but not for students from middle- and high-income households
(Sisk et al, 2018). Mode of intervention mattered. Successful
intervention involved out-of-class readings on growth mindset followed
by writing a reflection; however, results on intervention success should
be interpreted with caution as many suffered from methodological issues
(Sisk et al, 2018). Another study found student commitment to active
learning was influenced by growth mindset and trust in the instructor,
but only the latter was related to performance in the course (Cavanagh
et al, 2018). These results highlight the importance of the
student-instructor interaction and are particularly relevant for taking
active learning online. Instructors can increase student trust by being
transparent in purpose and goals (see Section 1.3.1), showing students
evidence-based benefits of active learning, being consistent and clear
in alignment between activities and assessments, and encouraging growth
mindset (Cavanagh et al, 2018).

Instructors can also help students maximize the benefits of active
learning by pushing students to think metacognitively about their
studying and learning (McGuire and McGuire, 2015) as metacognitive
thinking benefits performance. For example, students randomly assigned
to complete a self-guided online questionnaire asking them to strategize
about upcoming exams performed better than students assigned to the
control (no prompt to strategize) condition (Chen et al, 2017). In
addition to the focus on metacognition, instructors can help their
students practice emotional regulation and enhance personal connection
to the material. These practices are especially relevant for minoritized
or underserved students. Students with low success expectations, low
subject interest, or low self-efficacy tend to not perform as well in
academic courses and are more likely to drop out or change majors. But,
simple interventions can help increase interest and expectations. For
example, Hulleman and Harackiewicz (2009) conducted a randomized trial
and found that by simply asking students to write about the usefulness
and utility of the science material to their own life, vs writing a
summary of the science material (control group), increased self-reported
course interest and course performance (grade), and this effect was only
present for students with initial low success expectations. Hood and
colleagues (2020) found that the use of active learning in a community
college anatomy \& physiology course \emph{decreased} self-reported
self-efficacy but only among non-white, first-generation students. This
outcome may have been driven by anxiety, as first-generation students
rated multiple active learning techniques as more anxiety-provoking than
did continuing-generation students (Hood et al., 2020). Luckily, a quick
intervention may be able to prevent this outcome. In a recent study,
Rozek and colleagues show that a simple writing intervention aimed at
reappraising and dealing with pre-exam stress improved exam scores and
passing rates specifically for low-income students in a high school
biology course (Rozek et al, 2019). When moving to online teaching,
implementing self-paced interventions which ask students to consider the
types of questions they think they will see, the resources they will use
to prepare, and how they will use those resources (Zhao et al, 2014;
Chen et al, 2017), as well as asking them how material relates to their
own lives (Hulleman and Harackiewicz, 2009), and helping students manage
course-related emotions (Rozek et al, 2019) could increase academic
performance. These are simple course design elements that instructors
could incorporate into their online classes.

Instructor mindset, not just that of students, is important for student
success. For example, a large study (\textgreater{} 15,000 students, 150
faculty) found that students enrolled in STEM courses taught by
instructors with a fixed mindset earned lower grades than those taught
by instructors with a growth mindset (Canning et al, 2019). This effect
was especially pronounced for Black, Latinx, and Native American
students compared to white or Asian students (Canning et al, 2019), thus
supporting the ideas of stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is a
psychological phenomenon which occurs when negative stereotypes about a
minoritized individual's group are made salient and this realization
increases doubt and anxiety and decreases performance (Steele and
Aronson, 1995; Steele, 1997). Experimental research has shown that
inducing stereotype threat widens achievement gaps (Steele and Aronson,
1995; Steele, 1997). Instructors can communicate their fixed mindset or
other implicit biases about a group in many verbal and non-verbal ways,
thus providing students with unintentional micromessages about who
``belongs'' in STEM and who does not (Morrell and Parker, 2013).
Minoritized students are disproportionately impacted by instructor
mindset at the undergraduate level (Canning et al, 2019) and field-level
belief in raw or innate ability is associated with underrepresentation
of women and Black academics at the faculty level across STEM fields,
including evolutionary biology (Leslie et al, 2015). Thus, the way in
which instructors think about student learning abilities and the way in
which they communicate with students matters.

These behaviors and thoughts also drive the pygmalion effect (i.e.,
teacher expectations predict student performance) and likely have
far-reaching effects as engagement and grades in core STEM courses serve
as a gateway for who can succeed and persist in STEM. For example,
students from underrepresented groups (African American, Latinx, Native
American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander), those who have
low-income status, are women, or first-generation college students are
less likely to persist in STEM (chemistry) than are their comparable
peers (white, Asian, International; high-income; men;
continuing-generation) if they earn a C- or below, but \emph{more
likely} to persist if they earn a C or higher (Harris et al, 2020).
Thus, having an instructor that believes all students can succeed and
encourages all students to maximize their potential could be critical
for reducing the well-documented achievement and persistence gaps in
STEM. Actions individual instructors can take to increase inclusion
include: \emph{1.)} attending to gaps in privilege and
belonging;\emph{2.)} acknowledging and reducing implicit bias; and
\emph{3.)}actively mitigating stereotype threat (Killpack and Melon,
2016). For more details on how to achieve and actively do these steps,
please see Killpack and Melon (2016). Conveying support and
encouragement in an online course can be challenging as there is little
to no personal interaction between student and instructor. Thus, as with
trauma-informed pedagogy, it is important to have some form of
personalized communication built into the online course.

One activity that can increase engagement and foster a sense of
community online is use of discussion boards. Students can create
content and can comment on content created by others. The discussion
board is also a great place to foster instructor-student interaction.
The following questions are not specific to ecology and evolution
content and could be used in a variety of courses. These types of
questions can increase sense of safety, connectedness, and can encourage
metacognitive thinking and can be used in combination with many other
strategies provided in this paper. Possible discussion board
prompts:\emph{1.)} Please list one strategy or tool you are using to
help yourself transition to this new format of learning; \emph{2.)}
Please look over the course syllabus. Then, email me something you are
hoping to learn in this course and a fact or misconception that you know
about one of the topics listed on our syllabus schedule; \emph{3.)}
Please list one thing that you've done for your physical or mental
health this week. It can be something small or something big; \emph{4.)}
The current situation is stressful and challenging for all of us in a
variety of ways. There are lots of things we cannot control. One thing
we can control is our behavior and we can spread kindness. Please list
one kind thing that you have done for someone else in the last week.
This can be a small or a big thing. It can be for a friend, a family
member, a neighbor, a stranger, a group, and organization, etc.;
\emph{5.)} Please look through the learning goals pertaining to this
week's material. Then, create one original (do not copy it from
somewhere else - use your critical thinking) multiple choice question
that could appear on the exam for that unit. This will give you all a
chance to practice metacognitive thinking about the course and will give
me some possible questions for the exam; \emph{6.)} Use some form of
creative expression to illustrate a concept from class.~Creative
expression~is broadly defined and can be art work (any medium; submit a
pic or video of item), photography, a meme, a poem, an infographic, a
short skit/performance (film it), or really anything else that you want
that is creative. Please keep these tasteful (e.g., nothing offensive,
derogatory, etc.) and please create an original submission; \emph{7.)}
Please look back through all the material we covered this semester,
remember to look over lecture notes, the readings, the class activities,
and the supplemental material. Then, describe the most interesting thing
you learned;\emph{8.)} In your opinion, what did you learn in this
course that you feel really matters for you/for life? This can be
subject/material based, learning-in-general based, or ``life-lesson''
based. The term ``really matters'' can be defined as narrowly or as
broadly as you'd like. For your answer, please list what you learned and
describe why you feel it really matters (e.g. why you chose it/how it
will benefit you later, etc.).

\textbf{2.0 Designing better online courses: Integrating active
learning}

2.1 Online course design, structure, and format considerations

Designing better online courses is a challenge that needs to be met
first by understanding the classroom in which the instructor will be
operating. Some universities have guidelines about whether or not a
course must be \textbf{synchronous} , in which the class and the
instructor are expected to meet at designated times to do lecture or
other activities, or if the course may be \textbf{asynchronous,}allowing
for students to view lectures or notes and complete activities on a
flexible schedule. Courses that are asynchronous may need to emphasize
self-guided activities (\textbf{Table 1} ), such as minute papers or
self-assessment. Other courses may be what are termed~\textbf{hybrid
courses,} in which some part of the learning experience is online.
Commonly, this takes the form of lectures being viewed before class, and
class time being spent on an activity (also called a~\textbf{flipped
classroom} ). As the pandemic continues, \textbf{hyflex learning} , in
which the instructor delivers a live class to students who may be online
\emph{or} present in the room, may play an important role for students
with health vulnerabilities who cannot safely return to campus.

When creating online course content, instructors should be deliberate in
their selection of materials and assignments. Using the UDL framework to
create original content or to select existing content is critical. This
framework is also important for creation of an online space or page as
instructors should think carefully about how students will interact with
the interface. Additionally, using backwards design and scientific
teaching practices to develop online modules and content will aid in
making the course cohesive and easy to follow. When creating online
assignments, making sure to use transparent communication about what
students are asked to do, why they are asked to do it, and how they will
be assessed can aid in student success and in building a trusting online
classroom. Not all online teaching styles allow for interaction between
faculty and students. Finding meaningful ways to authentically
communicate with students is important, especially for culturally
competent teaching and trauma-informed teaching. Being able to convey
growth mindset and metacognitive learning techniques to online learners
will require instructors to carefully choose their communication mode
(e.g., written, audio, video, etc.) and their conveyed message. Lastly,
many aspects of inclusive teaching focus on student motivation,
engagement, and belonging, and this should be considered when developing
online courses. For some tips on how to engage and connect with students
in an online environment, see recommendations by Darby (2020).

Creating an engaging online environment can be done with any of the
above delivery modes, but how this is done will likely differ. For
example, asynchronous delivery of online lecture video can be effective
and engaging for students, but the method of presentation impacts
student engagement and satisfaction (Choe et al, 2019). Choe and
colleagues tested 6 methods of online lecture video creation in an upper
division physiology course and found that although scores on summative
assessments did not differ following the 6 styles, student satisfaction
and rating of effectiveness of styles did (Choe et al, 2019).
Instructors may want to focus on video design that highlights personal
connection and engagement as these factors were rated most highly by
students (see Choe et al, 2019 for more details and examples); these are
also important aspects of inclusive classrooms. Additionally, courses
that combine synchronous and asynchronous approaches align with the UDL
framework and give students the opportunity to select the modality that
best fits their situation (Zydney et al, 2020) and can increase
engagement and motivation. Lastly, while online lab courses may lose the
actual hands-on component, through the application of active learning
principles (\textbf{Table 1} ), students can still apply, analyze and
evaluate, and instructors may even be able to incorporate activities
that allow students to reach the pinnacle of Bloom's taxonomy, and
create new knowledge (see Section 3.2).

\textbf{2.2 \emph{Equity concerns in online learning}}

Online instruction has the potential to increase access to education
(Chou and Liu 2005) and encourage class participation by
underrepresented students. However, we must acknowledge that the rapid
transition to online learning in spring 2020 left many students behind.
The technology itself, such as internet and computing requirements, can
be limiting for students without adequate financial resources. Even once
technology is made available, at-home-learning requires space, familial
support, and freedom from distractions (both external and internal). The
pandemic has highlighted the broad systemic inequalities that make
virtual education challenging for many. For example, a recent National
Bureau of Economic Research working paper showed that low-income
students were more likely to delay graduation and to decrease time spent
studying when compared to high-income students (Aucejo et al, 2020).
These issues will persist in the fall and instructors should consider
limitations and equity when developing their online courses.

2.2.1 Equity issues: student access to computers, Internet, and software
programs

One concern for inclusive remote teaching is student access to computers
and software tools. Many low-income students may not have a personal
computer or may be sharing a personal computer with others trying to
work from home. Many universities provide site licenses for common
software tools for enrolled students. However, these may be limited to
computers that have accessed the campus wireless network - i.e., a
desktop computer in the student's home or place of business may not be
covered. In this case, the instructor may consider use of cloud-based
tools or platforms. \textbf{Cloud-based platforms} refers to a situation
in which software is hosted on a server and not the student's computer.
Google Sheets is an example of a cloud-based equivalent to Microsoft
Excel or Apple Pages. If the student has access to their Google account,
they can access the software to do their activities no matter what
computer they are using. Similar services exist for other data
analytical applications, such as RStudio Server for courses using R or
JupyterHubs for courses using R or Python for data analyses. If the
university has a Microsoft 365 affiliation, this is another option for
cloud-based programs.

Instructors must also consider that, while open-source or cloud-based
tools are free, access to a stable internet connection is necessary to
use these tools (Sarvary and Gifford, 2016). If the only way a student
can access the internet is through a mobile device, are the tools
mobile-compatible? Internet availability can be a challenge to some
students who reside in rural areas or in large communal living
situations with limited bandwidth. Additionally, from a socioeconomic
standpoint, students may not have access to reliable internet due to the
inability of their families to afford it. The COVID-19 pandemic is
likely to amplify this disparity due to the economic downturn. Some
students may have the ability to make a phone a ``hot spot'' for
internet. Others may need to use public spaces (e.g., coffee shops,
public library) which may prove difficult if pandemic-related social
distancing protocol are still in place. Some internet providers gave
COVID-19 breaks to students and families during spring, 2020, but it is
unclear if those affordances will carry into fall. At the institutional
level, there needs to be a concerted effort to assess the needs of
students and make sure every student has computer and internet access.
At the course level, clear and explicit technology expectations of the
course should be shared with the students prior to enrollment, and
should be included in the syllabus and in the course description, if
possible. Lastly, it will likely be advantageous for instructors to poll
students prior to the start of the course to assess individual
technology access and limitations, this information can be used to make
adjustments or find alternatives.

2.2.2 Equity issues: mode of delivery

Flexibility in online course structure may help alleviate some equity
concerns. Synchronous teaching has been demonstrated to benefit students
with disabilities (Dahlstrom-Hakki et al 2020) and the regular schedule
may help students recover from emotional trauma (Pat-Horenczyk et al,
2006). However, synchronous learning demands that students be present on
a predetermined schedule, which may be unrealistic for students caring
for family, those who are sick (either with COVID-19 or other illness),
those who share a computer, or those who need to work during class times
due to pandemic-induced financial instability. Internet connectivity and
bandwidth limitations can also be challenging for students in group
living arrangements (apartments, dorms) or with housemates who are also
working/learning online during business hours. Unfortunately, many
universities are requiring faculty and students to attend synchronous
classes during fall 2020, which raises serious equity issues. How will
universities manage the justifiably high absentee rate for ``required''
synchronous classes? How will institutions address the likelihood that
these absentees are more likely to be students from marginalized groups?
How will institutions address issues with on- or off-campus internet
access or stability?

2.2.3 Equity issues: accessibility of online material

Another aspect of inclusive teaching that can pose a challenge for
online learning is accessibility of materials. If instructors use the
UDL framework to design their course many of the access issues will have
been addressed. When including posted materials such as PowerPoint
slides, pdfs, or word documents, these files should be accessible by a
screen reader and need to be formatted for this purpose. For example,
images that are included should have text descriptions and should use
templates that are compatible for screen readers. Microsoft and Google
Slides have tutorials available for designing screen-reader friendly
files and PowerPoint has an Accessibility Checker function under the
Review tab. Additionally, some learning management systems can help
instructors comply with accessibility. For example, Blackboard now
offers an accessibility feature icon which provides a quick rating of
file accessibility. If one would like to provide video lectures or
tutorials for online viewing, that material must be accessible for all
learners. For American Disabilities Act compliance, this accessibility
includes closed captioning of material or providing a downloadable
transcript of the presentation. There are several options for recording
online content, some of which provide transcription services (voice to
text) either for a fee or free of charge, others provide the option for
instructors to type out text or to upload a transcript of the
presentation for closed captioning. A list of some online presentation
programs are listed here, but instructors should check with their
institution on software preferences and licenses: Adobe Presenter;
Animoto; Blackboard Collaborate/Collaborate Ultra; Camtasia; Capture;
Conceptual Academy; Final Cut; Google Slides; iMovie; Loom; OBS;
Panopto; Powerpoint narration capture; Sapling; Screencast-O-Matic;
Screencastify; ScreenRecorder; Snagit; Vidgrid; Voicethread; YouTube;
Zoom; Zubtitle. For some practical tips and examples on how to make both
lab and lecture content more accessible see (Hackl and Ermolina, 2019).

2.3 Integrating active learning online: challenges and solutions

With the mounting evidence of the effectiveness of active learning
techniques, they are now used widely. This ubiquitous adoption has
generated numerous success stories of implementation of active learning
modalities, as well as information on potential challenges and how to
overcome them. Below we list some common challenges when incorporating
active learning and then provide some solutions for how to make
implementation of these activities easier, more effective, and more
inclusive in an online context. The content we provide is not an
all-encompassing list (see Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Petersen et al,
2020), but along with the quick-reference active learning activities
(\textbf{Table 1} ) and web resources (\textbf{Appendix A} ) provided,
should help instructors incorporate active learning into their online
ecology and evolution classrooms.

\emph{Challenge 1: Depth vs Breadth.} Active Learning often necessitates
cutting course content in order to make space for active learning
techniques (Roach, 2014). Even though there is strong evidence that
exposing students to more topics on a shallower level does not increase
learning; cutting material remains difficult (Petersen et al, 2020).
Reasons for this difficulty include textbook design, discipline-specific
norms, standardized exams, accreditation of programs, departmental
norms, instructor priorities, and a host of other factors (Petersen et
al, 2020).

\emph{Solution:} Instead of just covering a list of topics and specific
facts, Petersen and colleagues (Petersen et al, 2020) recommend focusing
on core concepts and competencies and building the course content around
mastery of those concepts; this practice aligns \emph{Vision and
Change}(AAAS 2011; 2015; 2018)\emph{.} Excellent tools exist to help
biology faculty implement this framework in their courses, for example
the BioCore Guide (Brownell et al, 2014; Cary and Branchaw, 2017) and
the BioSkills Guide (Clemmons et al, 2020). Both Guides provide
excellent recommendations to assist in course design focused on critical
concepts and competencies. Reframing course structure from a set number
of chapters to a more holistic understanding of biology and critical
skills provides multiple opportunities to incorporate active and
inclusive practices.

In addition to making changes within individual courses, implementation
of curriculum-wide changes at the department level are also possible,
discussed in depth by Branchaw et al (2020). However, of particular
relevance to this discussion are two specific Measuring Achievement and
Progression in Science (Bio-MAPS tools. First, the general biology
(GenBio-MAPS) tool can be used at the introductory level (Couch et al,
2019). Second, the specifically targeted towards Ecology and Evolution
EcoEvo-MAPS tool can be used at an upper division level (Summers et al,
2018).

\emph{Challenge 2: Where to get activities?} Finding or creating active
learning content can be overwhelming and/or intimidating for
instructors.

\emph{Solution} : We recommend that instructors examine the numerous
resources that already exist before creating activities from scratch. We
have compiled some of those resources in \textbf{Appendix A} . For
example, the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science contains
over 850 active learning assignments ready for free download. With a
small membership fee, instructors also get access to answer keys and
teaching notes for how to integrate that material into the classroom.
Instructors are also encouraged to see previously published lists: ten
tools for group case studies (Prud'homme-G\selectlanguage{ngerman}énéreux, 2016a) and twenty-one
teaching strategies that can be implemented to increase equity and
inclusion in the biology classroom (Tanner, 2013). If instructors want
to create their own active learning content, it is okay to start small
and to use published literature as a guide (Handelsman et al., 2007;
Bean, 2011; Herreid et al, 2016; Burrow, 2018). One quick inclusivity
technique that instructors can implement when choosing or creating their
own content is to include diverse names and voices in story lines and
characters used in assignments, and to avoid the use of specific
cultural references or analogies as these can alienate students.

\emph{Challenge 3: Overwhelming Students.} The bounty of active learning
techniques and wide array of technological options creates the potential
to overwhelm students and compromise the learning experience.
Additionally, online tools require acceptance, familiarity and a
capacity of instructors to guide students in the use of these tools
(Sarvary and Gifford, 2016).

\emph{Solution:} By intentionally choosing active learning activities
and tools that support the learning outcomes of the course instructors
can promote deep engagement and maximize effectiveness (Prince, 2004;
Olimpo and Esparza, 2020). This approach uses the technology to enhance
teaching instead of teaching to the technology and is further
facilitated by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. For example, if a
tool will only be used a few times during the course, is it worth
investing the time, energy, and money to apply it?

Previous work on effective online instruction indicates the importance
of course structure, clarity of course expectations and flexibility
(Crews and Butterfield, 2014). Make the most of the LMS (Learning
Management Software) tools that are already available and develop course
pages that organize content by week and contain checklists and links for
assignments, quizzes and other tasks. If multiple media are used (e.g.,
a publisher's software site, a remote response system {[}e.g. Top Hat{]}
and a collaboration platform {[}e.g., google docs){]}, integrate those
into the course site and weekly pages as much as possible even if that
simply means using an icon to depict the platform where work will take
place. Additionally, as discussed above, investing class time for
technology training and/or low stakes practice sessions to create
familiarity pays off significantly.

\emph{Challenge 4: Whose voice is heard.} The use of active-learning
modalities does not guarantee equal participation by all students.
Status in various groups can impact student willingness to speak up in
class (see Table 1 in Kim and Sax, 2009), and active learning practices
that ask students to volunteer answers may promote bias. For example, in
discussions following group activities, men volunteer answers and are
asked to respond to questions more often than women, and men report
higher science self-efficacy than women (Aguillon et al, 2020).
Moreover, students with non-binary gender identities may fear
misgendering by instructors and peers and consequently limit their
participation.

\emph{Solution:} Instructors should clearly articulate norms and
expectations for group discussions, or even ask students to co-create
these expectations as a class. Instructors for synchronous classes can
use ``Random call'' techniques where students know that they will be
responsible for answering questions or presenting their group's work.
Consistent use of random call decreases student anxiety in class
discussions (Dallimore et al, 2012), increases participation by women
students (Eddy et al, 2014) and may improve the quality of overall
student participation (Knight et al, 2016). Implementation of tools that
allow students to ask questions without knowledge of their peers (e.g.,
chat boxes, \emph{www.incognea.to}) or to present responses anonymously
(e.g., Poll Everywhere, Kahoot, Socrative) can help increase diversity
of participation and reduce student anxiety. To help increase use of
correct gender pronouns, when using online systems that are not
anonymous (e.g., Zoom), instructors can set the norm for adding pronouns
after their display name. Instructors can also use gender-neutral
pronouns throughout the course (e.g., they instead of he or she; humans
or people instead of mankind; folks or folx instead of ``guys'') as this
practice can help reduce bias (Tavits and Perez, 2019). Finally,
instructors should acknowledge their own (implicit) biases when calling
on and responding to students, as these interactions are ways in which
instructors can communicate (unintentional) messages about who belongs
in STEM.

\emph{Challenge 5: Unbalanced preparation.} Students enter our
classrooms with diverse levels of preparation and with various
misconceptions about the materials. These differences can pose
challenges for group or collaborative projects if there is insufficient
course support or infrastructure (Matsushita, 2018). When students enter
a task without background knowledge, they focus on ``externalization'',
that is simply completing the task. However, solving problems, talking
with others and writing are not evidence of deep learning unless they
are coupled with ``internalization'' or absorption of knowledge
independently and outside of class. The two must go together
(Matsushita. 2018).

\emph{Solution} : Using a flipped classroom model potentially addresses
these concerns and is well-suited to (synchronous) online class meetings
focused on problem solving and interaction (Nahar and Chowdhury, 2019).
In the flipped classroom setting, students perform tasks independently
outside of class and then engage in active learning and collaborative
activities during class. Independent preparatory activities can include
worksheets, instructor lectures via video, other supplemental videos, or
readings designed to help students come to class able to expand their
knowledge in deeper ways by engaging with peers (DeLozier and Rhodes,
2017). In-class assignments and activities should address common
misconceptions students may bring to the class from their previous
experiences or independent preparation (Prud'homme-Généreux, 2017). When
coupled with instructor feedback and/or discussion of correct answers
during the session, these activities can deepen learning and correct
misconceptions (Kalinowski et al, 2010; Michaels, 2006). Flipped
classroom approaches vary greatly; however, across numerous disciplines,
the flipped approach has significant benefits (van Alten, 2019).
Prud'homme-Genereux and colleagues provide helpful tips for instructors
on how to choose or create videos for flipped classrooms
(Prud'homme-Généreux et al, 2017) and how to have students produce video
content (Prud'homme-Généreux, 2016b). Having students create short,
video content for online learning can increase STEM self-efficacy
(Campbell et al, 2020), and thus making student content part of the
course can be beneficial.

\emph{Challenge 6: Group work} . Active learning techniques often
require group work or student collaborations, yet students tend to
dislike working in groups (Taylor, 2011). In addition to student
dissatisfaction, potential problems arise when not all students
participate, or when groups do not know how to handle disagreement
(Smith et al, 2009).

\emph{Solution:} Communication and collaboration are critical
competencies identified by \emph{Vision and Change} (Clemmons et al,
2020). Additionally, diverse groups tend to produce more creative and
better answers (see Freeman and Huang, 2015; Jang, 2017; Dutcher and
Rodet, 2018). Transparent teaching strategies (see Section 1.3.1) that
present data on the effectiveness of group collaboration can increase
student buy-in to group work (and active learning in general). Group
work facilitates learning (Michael, 2006; Taylor, 2011) and enables
students to practice the collaborative, problem-solving skills needed in
potential future careers. For example, many biology students are pre-med
or pre-health and teamwork and collaborative skills are critical for
these fields. Showing students data or articles related to collaboration
in medicine (Lerner et al, 2009; Ranjan et al, 2015) will help them
understand the importance of group work.

Giving students strategies for group management and leadership and tools
for how to professionally discuss material can aid in group performance
and make group work more enjoyable for participants. Students should
also have a clear understanding of their role and responsibilities in
the group. Group Work and Roles Guide and/or a Group Contract can
facilitate this process (Woodley et al, 2017; link to
document:\emph{http://bit.ly/CGWO2017}). To help prevent groups just
rushing to get the points, the focus should be on application of
material and the process of learning; however, the use of points for
correctness of answers can be beneficial for high-risk students (Freeman
et al., 2007). Regardless of how points associated with active learning
are used, instructors should also provide students with detailed
information on grading criteria and assessments of group performance
(Livingstone and Lynch, 2002; Moog et al, 2006; Smith et al, 2009).

Groups can be student chosen, instructor chosen, or randomly selected,
and can be short- or long-term arrangements. Several studies suggest
that group formation practices impact the learning experience (Adams et
al, 2002; Chapman et al, 2006; Smith et al, 2009; Matta et al, 2010;
Micari et al, 2016; Freeman et al, 2017; Lacey et al., 2020). If
instructors are concerned about group composition, it can be helpful to
assign groups. Ensuring that less-prepared and more-prepared students
are working together, say, by asking all students to initially self-sort
in order of past experience with the topic and then counting off, all
students benefit and the less-prepared students benefit the most (Micari
et al, 2016). However, it is important not to shame students for lack of
prior knowledge; if the in-person sorting cannot be arranged in such a
way that the question on which they are sorted is non-threatening, it
may be best to use a confidential survey and use that information to
create groups.

Many applications and digital tools are available to help coordinate
online group work. Options such as Google Hangouts, Blackboard Groups,
Google Docs, Slack and Zoom breakout rooms provide options for online
group interaction. Before using a method, though, instructors should
check with their university on approved electronic and information
resources for their campus (for example, at one author institution
certain tools, e.g., Piazza, are not permitted).

\emph{Challenge 7: Student buy-in} . At first, students may be hesitant
or critical of the new learning techniques. Since the active classroom
shifts responsibility from the professor to the students (hooks, 1994;
Silverthorn, 2006), students have to do more work. Students cannot
passively sit and take notes or just listen; they must engage and
interact with the material. This may be scary for students since this
shift can push them out of their comfort zone and make them feel
vulnerable in the classroom (hooks, 1994).

\emph{Solution:} Instructors can help students feel more confident and
comfortable by making the classroom experience inclusive (see Section
1.3) and by being clear and explicit in their rationale and expectations
for in-class activities (Silverthorn, 2006; Tharayil et al, 2018). They
can also increase student buy-in by using various techniques (Cavanagh
et al, 2016). Here we provide an activity (\textbf{Supplemental File 1}
) to introduce students to group work and increase buy-in to active
learning. This activity was used in class by one of the authors. We
encourage instructors to use and modify this activity as needed for use
in their classroom.

\emph{Challenge 8: Impact on course evaluations} . In addition to
push-back in the classroom, instructors may see more negative feedback
on their course evaluations. When students were randomly assigned to an
active or passive learning environment, those in the active environment
learned more (determined by assessment) but reported lower perception of
learning and had less overall rating of the course (Deslauriers et al,
2019).

\emph{Solution} : Student evaluations of teaching (SET) should be
interpreted with caution because they reflect student perception of
learning and not necessarily actual learning (Deslauriers et al, 2019).
These findings are important for any faculty member whose reappointment,
merit, or promotion is based on SETs, but are particularly relevant for
women faculty and faculty from minoritized groups. SETs are already
biased against both groups, with students rating women (MacNell et al,
2015; Mitchell and Martin, 2018) and minoritized faculty (Wallace et al,
2019; Chavez and Mitchell, 2020) lower than (white) men. Instructors who
use active learning, especially women faculty or faculty of color,
should be proactive and explicitly mention these points in their yearly
performance reviews. Department heads responsible for preparing annual
evaluations of effectiveness should also take this information, and
information about other aspects of racial and gender bias relevant to
impacts of COVID-19 (Malisch et al, 2020), into account.

\textbf{3.0 Taking the plunge}

3.1 It is okay to start small

It is hard to change the way we teach (Silverthorn et al, 2006).
Instructors often want to alter their teaching practices, but face
barriers to making changes (Brownell and Tanner, 2012; McMurtrie, 2019;
Petersen et al, 2020). Barriers range from fear of student push-back,
lack of administrative buy-in or support, lack of incentives, impacts on
merit and promotion materials (e.g., student evaluations of teaching),
lack of time, lack of resources, lack of training, too many resources
and feeling overwhelmed, integrating and grading active learning
assignments, depth vs. breadth, and others (Section 2.3).

These concerns are valid but going into fall 2020 and beyond we have an
opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic has upended all aspects of higher
education including the heart of universities - the classrooms. This
situation provides us with the unique opportunity to reinvent the way we
teach. We are already grappling with the switch to more online
instruction - why not use this opportunity to alter the way in which we
present material and engage with students as well?

We can make small changes and do not have to incorporate everything at
once (Auster and Wylie, 2006; Tanner, 2013; Lang, 2016; Darby and Lang,
2019). For those who are ready to make bigger changes, below we provide
some examples of techniques for use in ecology and evolutionary biology
courses. These techniques in section 3.2, combined with discussion
prompts above, items in \textbf{Table 1} , \textbf{Appendix A} ,
and/or~\textbf{Supplemental File 1} should give instructors a range of
options.

\textbf{3.2 Three explicit examples of online, active, and inclusive
learning for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Courses.}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`Harris_etal_Supplemental_File_1.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/343274/articles/469900-from-panic-to-pedagogy-using-online-active-learning-to-promote-inclusive-instruction-in-ecology-and-evolutionary-biology-courses}

3.2.1 Wikipedia assignments

We have all probably told students some variation of the following, ``Do
not use Wikipedia as a credible source, it can be edited by anyone on
the internet!''. The open collaboration framework of Wikipedia means
that contributions are not vetted or monitored by an official entity and
adherence to community guidelines coupled with reliance on multiple
contributors, creates wariness as to its validity. However, it is
exactly this open nature of Wikipedia that has allowed instructors to
harness the power of Wikipedia to provide rich educational experiences.
In 2013, the Wiki Education Foundation (Wiki Ed) was created with the
mission to ``engage students and academics to improve Wikipedia, enrich
student learning and build a more informed public.''
(\emph{https://wikiedu.org/mission-and-vision/}). This organization
provides free resources and serves as a bridge for instructors wanting
to incorporate writing or editing of Wikipedia content into their
classrooms.

A major draw to Wikipedia assignments is the ease with which they can
target higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) and the specific
core competencies detailed in the BioCore (Brownell et al, 2014) and
BioSkills Guide (Clemmons et al, 2020). Assignments that involve the
assessment, editing and contribution of content to the Wikipedia
platform also tackle a host of the core concepts and competencies
detailed in \emph{Vision and Change} (AAAS, 2011; 2015; 2018). Wikipedia
assignments can be as large and broad as the instructor chooses. For
example, students can be asked to create new Wikipedia articles from
scratch, to edit existing articles, or to translate existing content
into another language. As per guidance from the Wiki Ed team, these
assignments could span a few weeks to a full term
(\emph{https://wikiedu.org/teach-with-wikipedia/}). Additionally, these
assignments are highly compatible with courses in Ecology and Evolution
because of the broad availability of article types that instructors and
students can choose to edit.

For Wikipedia assignments, all work is completed through a Wiki
Education Dashboard. The Wiki Education branch of Wikipedia builds
course dashboards, offers assignment design guidance, provides staff
support for students, and offers online trainings, all free of charge.
The staff also supports instructors and students throughout the duration
of the course. In-line with scientific teaching and backwards design,
instructors should target Wikipedia content based on course learning
objectives and the BioCore guide (i.e. Figure 3 in Brownell et al, 2014)
and the BioSkill guide (Clemmons et al, 2020). The Wiki Ed staff work
with instructors to facilitate the creation and structure of a course
dashboard and to make assignments directly compatible with the BioSkills
Guide and Bloom's taxonomy, thus facilitating implementation and
execution of Wikipedia assignments
(\emph{https://wikiedu.org/teach-with-wikipedia/}). A sample dashboard
from H. Schutz's spring 2019 course can be found
here:\emph{https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Pacific\_Lutheran\_University/Comparative\_Anatomy\_(Spring\_2019)}.
Additionally, all course and campaign dashboards can be viewed at Wiki
Ed (\emph{https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/explore}). It may be
particularly helpful to search for ecology or evolution course
dashboards for instructors to see examples of course design and for
students to see working examples of their assignment outcomes
(Kilpatrick et al, 2020). To create a dashboard, instructors should
contact Wiki Education staff, using the form on the webpage, at least
one month prior to the start of their course.

Students engaged in Wikipedia assignments via the Wiki Education
Foundation program begin with comprehensive training and small tasks.
Students are encouraged to draft all of their work in their account
sandboxes, pages that are publicly accessible but designated as drafting
spaces. Their first assignments involve evaluation as they review
existing articles for readability, grammar and accuracy and assess the
quality of sources based on their training via the dashboard and
instructor guidance. Learning to discriminate between sources based on
their reliability and quality and identifying and correcting plagiarism
via a hands-on evaluative and iterative process is part of the Wikipedia
training and assignments. Before ever beginning to edit content,
students engage with anyone editing or monitoring the article to discuss
proposed changes. Students review, comment on, and suggest changes to
existing Wikipedia article entries in the article talk pages (a
component of every Wikipedia article where editors discuss changes and
updates to a page). Students then begin to draft content and continue in
evaluation mode throughout the semester. They also peer review the work
of other students. Students formulate revisions and plans based on peer,
instructor, and Wiki Education staff feedback (this all happens in their
sandboxes before going live). After engaging with students and other
Wikipedia editors at large (anyone, anywhere can edit Wikipedia at any
time and can engage with students) in the talk pages, students often
find support for their proposed changes and execute them on the actual
article page. As they begin to create content, students must break down
complex ideas, often from the primary literature, and then integrate,
organize, and convey this content to a broad audience. All of these
elements are deeply compatible with the Communication and Collaboration
elements in BioSkills. Additionally, educating students about plagiarism
improves their capacity to identify it (Holt, 2012). Because students
actively search for and correct plagiarism (as is done in the Wikipedia
assignment described above), their efficacy and competence in avoiding
plagiarism is much greater than if they simply read about it or
participated in an online training about plagiarism (Holt et al, 2014).

Writing is one of the primary media used in Wikipedia assignments and is
consistently associated with increased student engagement (Camfield and
Land, 2017). In particular, the use of iterative assignments that begin
early, start simply, build on one another and focus on the synthesis and
summary of ideas and include peer review can create deep learning of
content via communication of diverse and complex ideas (Balgopal et al,
2018), Building on low-stakes activities stimulates student engagement
and builds self-efficacy (Sawyer et al, 2017; Camfield et al, 2020).
Additionally, the knowledge that their work potentially reaches large
and diverse audiences drives student's engagement and motivation
(Konieczny, 2016).

Working with students on Wikipedia not only allows instructors to target
concepts and competencies, but it can also be a way for increasing
inclusivity in a course because many of the inclusive teaching
strategies discussed above are compatible with Wikipedia assignments and
the dashboards accompanying a course. The assignments are hands-on and
active, as students are authors to all changes. Instructors can guide
students to articles for editing or development, but often students
propose their own articles to edit and they do so as part of small
teams, consequently the effort is primarily student-led. Allowing
students to choose their own entry to the content and assignment is
in-line with UDL principles. The dashboards are designed to provide
significant structure for students and are completely customizable,
therefore making incorporation of TILT and UDL principles easier. The
Wikipedia guides for best practices also invite students to produce a
reflective piece at the end of their contributions which asks them to
reflect on what they learned about how Wikipedia works, how peer review
worked for them, how they reacted to feedback, and how they were treated
by the broader Wikipedia community. Most importantly, it asks students
to reflect on the impact of their contributions. This portion is one of
the most powerful pieces of the reflection because course dashboards
track the number of edits made, number of references added, number of
media uploads and the number of article views for the duration of the
course. Students are often pleasantly shocked at the amount of traffic
their articles receive and therefore the significant readership they
have the capacity to reach.

Working with students on Wikipedia does have some pitfalls that should
be considered and addressed. Wikipedia is a community-built Encyclopedia
and thus anyone can contribute via adding, editing, or deleting content
at any time. Most editors, the people doing the bulk of contributing,
editing, and gatekeeping of posted information, are white cis-gendered
males and content often has significant ingroup bias (Oeberst et al,
2019). Content also contains both race and gender gaps (see Xing and
Vetter, 2020 for a full review) as well as gender bias (see Wagner et
al, 2015 for a review). These issues not only affect content quality,
but also generate very real concerns about online safety and comfort
that has resulted in some Wikipedia editors who identify as women to
leave the space (Menking et al, 2019). In the context of a course,
instructors can mitigate some of these effects by suggesting that
students use gender neutral account names that are not tied to their
identities. Additionally, articles linked to a Wikipedia course
dashboard are flagged as such and Wikipedia editors are encouraged to
behave generously with new student editors.

In the last decade, the Wiki Education Program's partnerships with
instructors across disciplines to facilitate teaching with Wikipedia has
resulted in a significant surge of student editors that diversify the
editorial population by their very presence. Of the general Wikipedia
editor population only 20\% identify as women, whereas 68\% of student
editors do (Wiki Education,
2020\emph{https://wikiedu.org/changing/wikipedia/}). Students diversify
content either as part of their assignments or participation in various
editing projects or a combination of both (Montez, 2017; Xing and
Vetter, 2020). Students can engage in the Science and Society
competencies as Wikipedia assignments can include elements from the
Women in Red project which aims to address the gender gap in Wikipedia
entries or the recent \#HackforBlackLives event aimed to improve
Wikipedia content on Black academics and issues of social justice.
Additionally, much like with group work, diverse Wikipedia teams often
produce higher quality content than more homogenous ones (Sydow et al,
2017; Lerner and Lomi, 2018).

3.2.2 Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs)

In 2008, the AAC\&U identified 10 high-impact practices that increase
undergraduate student performance for all, but especially for students
from underserved groups (Kuh, 2008). Undergraduate research is one of
these practices and the goal of the 2008 report was to make excellence
inclusive, that is to empower educational goals for all students, not
just for some (Kuh, 2008). Course-based undergraduate research
experiences (CUREs) provide an excellent way to make this high-impact
practice available to whole classrooms of students, instead of to just a
few. CUREs reduce barriers to student research (e.g., lack of positions,
limited access) and help alleviate impact of the ``hidden curriculum''
(e.g., networking, applying to a lab, having a CV) often present in
academia (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Thus, CUREs provide research
opportunities for students from various backgrounds and can make the
opportunity to do research more equitable. CUREs also address numerous
core concepts and competencies detailed in \emph{Vision and
Change}(AAAS, 2011; 2015; 2018) and in the BioSkills Guide (Clemmons et
al, 2020). Lastly, CUREs can be done in both introductory and upper
level courses by adjusting learning outcomes and scope of the project
(Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Shortlidge et al, 2016; 2017), making them
a good option for multiple different courses, including those in
non-majors biology (Ballen et al,. 2017b).

CUREs are designed to engage students through active learning by
applying material learned in lecture to research questions that could
impact the broader scientific community (Auchincloss et al, 2014;
Shortlidge et al, 2016). According to a collective report, CUREs
should\emph{1} .) engage students in multiple scientific practices
(e.g., asking questions, building models, proposing hypotheses,
collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, etc.), \emph{2.} ) contain
elements of discovery, that is students should address novel scientific
questions and outcomes should not be predetermined, \emph{3.} ) make
students part of the broad scientific community, either via authorship,
dissemination of findings to relevant stakeholders, or other activities,
\emph{4.} ) involve collaboration and cooperation among students, and
\emph{5.} ) embrace the iterative nature of science (Auchincloss et al,
2014). More details on the above points and on what makes a CURE
different from a traditional lab, an inquiry-based lab, or an internship
can be found in the literature (see Auchincloss et al., 2014) and
online. CUREnet (\emph{https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/}) was
established in 2012 to support networking among faculty developing,
teaching, and assessing CUREs and provides a wealth of information for
instructors wanting to incorporate CUREs into their courses. Instructors
should also see work by Shortlidge and colleagues (Shortlidge et al,
2016; 2017) for helpful information on challenges and solutions to
creating and implementing a CURE. CUREs are typically based on an
instructor's own research program and thus the type and scope of
questions changes from semester to semester, so there is no single way
to develop a CURE. However, CUREnet has a database of CUREs available
for searching, it may be helpful to view other ecology and evolution
course CUREs for inspiration
(\emph{https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/collection.html}).

Due to the hands-on nature of scientific research, it may initially seem
difficult to successfully implement a biology-based CURE online;
however, with a strong focus on key learning outcomes and careful course
design, it can be done. By using scientific teaching and backwards
design, instructors can distill the critical aspects of their CURE
framework and make sure online activities emphasize those points (Cooper
et al, 2017). They can then define the research questions and the scope
of work appropriate for their course name and student level. For a
helpful flowchart on how to organize and structure a CURE, see work by
Cooper and colleagues (especially see Figure 1 in Cooper et al, 2017).

One of the major learning outcomes for CUREs is to have students
participate in iterative work, and in the process gain problem solving
and critical thinking skills (Cooper et al, 2017). CUREs also aim to
increase scientific literacy, encourage pro-science attitudes, and build
evidence-based, decision-making skills (Cooper et al, 2017). The online
format does not allow for students to participate in direct lab
experimentation; however, they can still engage in many aspects of a
research project that do not require use of equipment or access to
research sites. Most CUREs take place during a course lab session, which
is usually a period separate from the lecture. With the transition
online, the entire time slot allotted for the lab may not be feasible.
Therefore, one of the first adjustments to move CUREs to an online
format is to tailor the scope of research questions addressed as the
course's main goal to fit in the possibly shortened class session time
frame of the online format.

The research questions presented to students should be scaled down to be
achievable in the time frame of a semester and with the switch from
bench or field work to more computational or data analysis techniques
(see Section 3.2.3). In a traditional CURE the research questions
presented to students are individualized and involve numerous lab
techniques, the questions in an online format must be adjusted due to
inability to physically access the lab. The research question(s) should
be small in scope and engage students, but also be achievable in the
realm of a semester (Auchincloss et al 2014). It is not necessary for
students to tackle a large research project and it is incredibly
difficult due to the semester time limit (Cooper et al, 2017). It is
appropriate in CUREs for students to work in small groups and address
specific aspects of the same research question. The small project size
does not affect student's ability to achieve the course learning
objectives. Use of an online video conferencing tool and synchronous
meetings are necessary to aid the collaborative nature of research. As
to not overwhelm students, each class or CURE lab session should only
focus on only a few of the course's learning objectives at a time while
simultaneously meeting the broader CURE learning objectives mentioned
above. Therefore, meetings can be categorized into three types:\emph{1.}
) student-led primary literature readings (also known as ``journal
clubs'') to increase scientific literacy, \emph{2.} ) videos or live
demonstrations of experimental techniques/field work and \emph{3.} )
analysis of primary data collected by the instructor or other
researchers in the field to build evidence-based decision making skills.
All three of these class session types provide an opportunity to
encourage pro-science attitudes.

The first type of class session, primary literature readings, requires
students to choose research articles that provide background information
for their individual research question. Project options should be
provided at the start of the semester to give students ample time to
decide on their direction. Faculty members should provide students with
a small list of research question options and act as guides as they
progress. This way students are entering the course interested in the
project, but able to have a sense of supervision. Students present
important findings from research papers that directly relate to their
research question. This will provide background and significance for
their specific project. Allowing students agency over articles and
research avenues is in-line with UDL and can help increase motivation.
It is recommended that the instructor organize the first class session
to provide an example of organization and scope of each presentation.

The second type of meeting, live demonstrations of experimental
techniques /field work, requires the use of external devices such as
document camera, video camera, or handheld microscope. The use of
technology in a CURE is even greater than a traditional lab as CUREs
emphasize the experience, use, and application of laboratory techniques
(Auchincloss et al, 2014; Shortlidge et al, 2016). Use of the technology
is even more accentuated in an online format. Incorporating external
technology provides the opportunity to bring students closer to the
experimental details. It is recommended if you are videoing a
complicated fieldwork protocol to employ a second person for filming.
The advantage of creating content live or during a synchronous session
is it can be recorded and most, but not all, video conferencing programs
will provide a transcript of recorded sessions keeping the course
accessible and inclusive. This will aid if any students can not attend
the live session or have hearing difficulties. Also it allows students
to ask the instructor questions during the demonstration and provides
instructors the opportunity to engage in discussion with students and
make adjustments of technique explanations if needed, thereby keeping
the session more collaborative. The instructor can incorporate
techniques incrementally through the semester starting simple and
building on the techniques making it an iterative process. If it is not
possible to create content de novo, using other researchers' videos is
perfectly acceptable and continues to fulfill the objectives of the
course. If utilizing videos made by other researchers try to choose
videos that are concise, shorter in length, only cover the techniques
directly related to the project and provide captions or a transcript
(for helpful tips for using videos in classes, see Prud'homme-Genereux
et al, 2019).

The third type of class session, data analysis, allows students to gain
critical thinking skills and apply their knowledge from previous
meetings. Students can gain practical knowledge of how data is compiled,
interpreted, and evaluated by professional researchers. Giving students
the time to explain results and create figures contributes to their
overall understanding of research and improves their skills as
scientists. Continued formative assessment throughout the CURE is
recommended to gauge student comprehension of specific learning
objectives. With application of the aforementioned techniques students
can remain a powerful tool to expose students to research and address
core competencies in evolution and ecology. Once students have analyzed
data and drawn conclusions about their dataset and research question,
they can prepare that material for broader dissemination. Instructors
may encourage students to prepare manuscripts for submission to
traditional peer-reviewed journals, or to places like Science Matters
Journal, BMC Research Notes, Micropublication.org, or the Journal for
Young Investigators. However, dissemination can be accomplished in a
variety of different ways and will depend on the course, scope, and
project

Non-laboratory-based student research can also be used to increase
inclusion in the current classroom and the future curriculum. For
example, Favero and Van Hoomissen created a new course in which anatomy
\& physiology students were tasked with the creation of culturally
relevant examples in human biology (Favero and Van Hoomissen, 2019). To
do this, students had to locate, organize, read, and synthesize
literature. They also had to apply that knowledge to create new content.
The ultimate goal was to create diverse and inclusive teaching material
for future courses, but the experience provided much more than the
original goal, for students and instructors. This application of
student-led research engaged and motivated students and met several of
the core competencies listed in \emph{Vision and Change} and in the
BioSkills Guide. Instructors can use assignments like these to
continually interrogate racist, sexist, heteronormative, Eurocentric
information presented in many textbooks and to diversify their
curriculum and syllabus. This type of course-based research could easily
be incorporated into an online ecology or evolution course and
diversification of the curriculum in these fields is urgently needed.

3.2.3 Data analytic activities

Another active learning concept that can be implemented remotely is data
analysis. Data analysis targets the Analysis level of Bloom's taxonomy
most naturally, but also Evaluation (synthesis of new knowledge from
data) and Creation (suggestion of further research). Data analysis can
range from performing calculations in a spreadsheet program, such as
Excel, to performing complex modeling in advanced software packages.

As with other active learning components discussed above, the most
important consideration for data analytics is to decide how best to
support the course learning objectives. Much as in CUREs, another
consideration is how to support skills development. This will inform
what precise software platforms will be used for student activities. For
example, in many ecology and evolution studies, use of Excel is
perfectly adequate. However, in DNA sequence analysis, Excel is not a
useful platform. Wright et al. (2020) lay out a number of considerations
for choosing software, including consistency with what other instructors
are using, instructor comfort with the tool, and the current status of
research tools in the field. For example, if analyses in the discipline
are commonly performed in R, and other courses in the curriculum are
taught using Excel, the instructor might go with either methods
depending on their comfort with the two tools. See Section 2.2.1 above
for more on access issues to data analysis tools and software.

One further consideration in adopting data analytic activities for
online classes is providing data. In the case of a CURE, students may
generate the data to analyze. However, in courses where this is not the
case, data analytical activities can still be used. NSF-supported
resources, such as QUBES, archive datasets and activities that have
successfully been used in courses. Additionally, resources exist for
specific data types, such as iDigBio for museum collection data, and the
National Ecological Observatory Network for large ecology data sets
(also see \textbf{Appendix A} ).

\textbf{4.0 Conclusions}

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic brought a sudden transition to online
teaching, upending many educational practices and causing considerable
stress for both instructors and learners. However, in this manuscript,
we reframe this transition from a loss of in-person instruction to an
opportunity to build inclusive digital spaces from the ground up. We
have highlighted a number of considerations for faculty, such as
culturally-competent pedagogy, universal design for learning, and
trauma-informed pedagogy, that can help learners and instructors
establish a positive classroom community, even from a distance. We have
also highlighted a number of active learning interventions that can be
adopted with varying levels of effort.

Although instructors may be unable to address societal inequities in the
course of a year, we believe that we can intentionally design our online
classroom to draw in students who are often excluded from traditional
in-person classroom participation. This is especially important for
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) as these fields have
traditionally been dominated by white individuals and have lower
diversity than other STEM fields (Leslie et al, 2015). From 2008-2018,
individuals identifying as white, non-Hispanic/non-Latino earned 81.5\%
and 86.5\% of PhDs in evolution and ecology, respectively (NSF survey
data;\emph{https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19301/data}). Given these data,
it is not surprising that Black, Latinx, Indigenous and other non-white
individuals are also underrepresented at the faculty level in EEB
(Graves, 2019; O'Brien et al, 2020). Various reasons for these
disparities in EEB, and across STEM fields, have been proposed, but
racism, sexism, and lack of inclusion are driving factors (Kent et al,
2020; Miriti, 2020; North, 2020; O'Brien et al, 2020; Tseng et al. 2020;
Wanelik et al, 2020). The history and narratives of EEB have been
primarily shaped by white men as they were the ones who had access to
resources and held positions of power, and this holds true across STEM
fields (Zuberi \& Bonilla-Silva, 2008; Carter et al, 2019; Lee, 2020).

The first step to inclusive teaching echoes bell hooks' ideas of
self-actualization (hooks, 1994) and is to develop self-awareness around
one's implicit biases and relationship to established power structures
(Asplund and Welle, 2018; Dewsbury and Brame, 2019;). Instructors must
be willing to devote mental energy to introspection and acknowledge
their role in perpetuating oppression in the classroom. This work is
uncomfortable and time-intensive, which may be impediments to widespread
implementation of inclusive teaching across institutions (DiAngelo and
Sensoy 2010; Lombardi et al, 2011). Additionally, many science
instructors hold the assumption that STEM fields are somehow
``unbiased'' and immune to societal injustices (Smith and Scharmann,
1999, Wheeler et al, 2019), making inclusive teaching challenging.
Lastly, traditional STEM curricula tend to promote racist, sexist, and
Eurocentric ideas (Smedley and Smedley, 2005; Peters, 2015; Hayssen and
Orr, 2017; Vakil and Ayers, 2019; Black Lives Matter in Ecology and
Evolution, 2020; Hayssen, 2020). Disparities start early, as a recent
study found introductory biology textbooks were more likely to highlight
men scientists, and none of the books analyzed highlighted a Black woman
scientist (Wood et al, 2020). These biases impact students' first view
of the field and can shape the ideas of who belongs in science; these
disparities are something instructors can actively address in their
individual syllabi and curriculum.

We acknowledge that our recommendations alone will not create an
equitable, inclusive, and socially just learning experience for our
students. The pandemic has highlighted the broad systemic inequities in
higher education, and it will take much more than active learning
strategies or mindful attention to course design to address the ongoing
issues of who we center and who we exclude from education. But we
believe that this paper can serve as an entry point and we hope it will
inspire instructors to start the long journey of personal and
pedagogical transformation. We encourage readers to think critically
about their own courses and syllabi, and to make a pledge to change at
least one thing to increase inclusion in their classroom. We challenge
readers to truly reflect on their own views and behaviors as well as
those of their department and institution. We also challenge readers to
critically examine what is meant by inclusive teaching, in their own
mind, and in their institution and classrooms. Lastly, we hope readers
will determine actionable steps to increase inclusion going forward.

\textbf{Glossary}

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  Active Learning : Active learning refers to educational processes in
  which students are not passive participants in learning. On one end of
  the spectrum, this might mean simple activities such as minute papers,
  where students write a short reflection. On the opposite end, this
  might include course-based research, where students spend most of
  their time researching.
\item
  Scientific teaching : Scientific teaching refers to using the
  scientific process to understand pedagogy. An instructor using
  scientific teaching incorporates methods, such as active learning,
  that have been shown effective for communicating material and
  including more students.
\item
  Backwards design : Backwards design refers to writing learning
  outcomes before starting to design activities, lectures, and
  assessments. This technique can help the instructor design a cohesive
  course.
\item
  Inclusive Teaching: Inclusive teaching refers to teaching in which
  instructors understand and respond to dynamics both inside and outside
  the classroom that shape learners' classroom experience and ability to
  learn. The next three terms in this glossary are all components of
  inclusive teaching.
\item
  Culturally Competent Teaching : Culturally competent teaching refers
  to teaching the ability to successfully teach students from
  backgrounds other than the instructor's own. Culturally competent
  instructors will be able to understand factors in the learners'
  cultural background that may impact their ability to learn.
\item
  Universal Design for Learning (UDL) : This is adapted from universal
  design, a technological concept that includes closed captioning and
  accessibility features. Universal design for learning is the idea of
  taking these same concepts to apply in the classroom. Examples of this
  could include closed captioning video lectures and providing learning
  objectives so that students can self-assess their learning.
\item
  Trauma-informed pedagogy : Trauma informed pedagogy refers to the
  practice of understanding the influence of external, traumatic events
  on student learning. For example, in the 2020 school year, US college
  students learned during a pandemic and, depending on when the school
  year ended, civil unrest following widespread racist violence. Trauma
  informed pedagogy means understanding how these events have disrupted
  the lives of learners and finding ways to accommodate students.
\item
  Face-to-face learning : Face-to-face classes are those in which the
  learners and instructor meet together to deliver course materials in
  person.
\item
  Synchronous online learning : Synchronous teaching, broadly, refers to
  a situation in which the instructor and the learners are logged into a
  platform to conduct lecture or activities together at an appointed
  time.
\item
  Asynchronous online learning : Asynchronous learning refers to a
  situation where students and faculty do not log on to a platform at
  the same time. This could mean students view lectures and complete
  activities on their own schedule, or could have a more structured
  system of check-ins.
\item
  Hybrid online learning : Hybrid online learning has some online
  component to the class, but is not wholly online. An example could be
  viewing lecture digitally, but meeting for a problem-solving activity.
\item
  Hyflex online learning : Hyflex typically involves having some
  attendees in the classroom, and some participants online. In hyflex
  learning, the online attendees could be determined beforehand, or who
  is online and who is in-person could change throughout the semester.
\item
  Flipped course : Flipped classrooms refer to classrooms in which
  students use classroom materials outside class time. This may refer to
  watching a video lecture prior to class, or performing a reading.
  Class time is then typically used to do activities or assessments.
  Hybrid learning classrooms are often implemented as flipped
  classrooms.
\item
  \emph{Cloud-based platform}\textbf{:} These are applications,
  services, or resources that are stored on a remote server and are
  available to users via an Internet connection. Users can thus access
  tools freely from a remote location as long as they have Internet
  access.
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Acknowledgements}

We thank Dr. Ximena Bernal for helpful discussions about this
manuscript. We are incredibly grateful to Leigh Prassel for designing
Figure 1. J.L.M was supported by a fellowship from the American
Association of University Women. AMW was supported by an Institutional
Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical
Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant number
P2O~GM103424-18.

\textbf{Conflicts of Interest}

None

\textbf{Author Contribution}

BNH conceptualized the project, served as project coordinator, and wrote
a substantial amount of the first draft. All authors contributed to
writing and revising the manuscript, participated in online group
meetings, and made valuable contributions to various sections of the
manuscript. This was a collective effort and leveraged the different
expertise of all authors. All authors approve of the information
contained in the manuscript.

\textbf{Data Accessibly Statement}

This manuscript was prepared for the special issue for taking learning
online. The authors did not generate or analyze and data for preparation
of this manuscript.

\textbf{References}

Adams, J. P., Brissenden, G., Lindell, R. S., Slater, T. F., \& Wallace,
J. (2002). Observations of student behavior in collaborative learning
groups. \emph{Astronomy Education Review} , \emph{1} (1).

Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G.-F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner,
S., \& Ballen, C. J. (2020). Gender Differences in Student Participation
in an Active-Learning Classroom. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education}
,\emph{19} (2), ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., \& Dyson, A. (2006). \emph{Improving schools,
developing inclusion} . Routledge.

Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., \& Kalinowski, S. T.
(2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random
sample of college biology courses. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education}
,\emph{10} (4), 394--405.

Asplund, M., \& Welle, C. G. (2018). Advancing science: How bias holds
us back. \emph{Neuron} , \emph{99} (4), 635--639.

Aucejo, E. M., French, J. F., Araya, M. P. U., \& Zafar, B.
(2020).\emph{The Impact of COVID-19 on Student Experiences and
Expectations: Evidence from a Survey} . National Bureau of Economic
Research.

Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham,
M., Hanauer, D. I., Lawrie, G., McLinn, C. M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S.,
Towns, M., Trautmann, N. M., Varma-Nelson, P., Weston, T. J., \& Dolan,
E. L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research
experiences: Ameeting report. \emph{CBE Life Sciences Education}
,\emph{13} (1), 29--40.

Auster, E. R., \& Wylie, K. K. (2006). Creating active learning in the
classroom: A systematic approach. \emph{Journal of Management Education}
, \emph{30} (2), 333--353.

Balgopal, M. M., Casper, A. M. A., Wallace, A. M., Laybourn, P. J., \&
Brisch, E. (2018). Writing matters: writing-to-learn activities increase
undergraduate performance in cell biology. \emph{BioScience} ,\emph{68}
(6), 445--454.

Ballen, C. J., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., Searle, J. B., \& Zamudio, K. R.
(2017a). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy
drives performance gains with active learning. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences
Education} , \emph{16} (4), ar56.

Ballen, C. J., Blum, J. E., Brownell, S., Hebert, S., Hewlett, J.,
Klein, J. R., McDonald, E. A., Monti, D. L., Nold, S. C., Slemmons, K.
E., Soneral, P. A. G., \& Cotner, S. (2017b). A call to develop
course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) for Nonmajors
courses. \emph{CBE Life Sciences Education} , \emph{16} (2).

Bangera, G., \& Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate
research experiences can make scientific research more
inclusive.~\emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} ,~\emph{13} (4),
602-606.

Bean, J. C. (2011). \emph{Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to
integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the
classroom} . John Wiley \& Sons.

Black Lives Matter in ecology and evolution.~\emph{Nat Ecol Evol}
~4,\textbf{~} 893--894 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1250-2

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1:
Cognitive domain. \emph{New York: McKay} , \emph{20} , 24.

Branchaw, J. L., Pape-Lindstrom, P. A., Tanner, K. D., Bissonnette, S.
A., Cary, T. L., Couch, B. A., Crowe, A. J., Knight, J. K., Semsar, K.,
\& Smith, J. I. (2020). Resources for Teaching and Assessing the Vision
and Change Biology Core Concepts. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education}
,\emph{19} (2), es1.

Brownell, S. E., Freeman, S., Wenderoth, M. P., \& Crowe, A. J. (2014).
BioCore Guide: A Tool for Interpreting the Core Concepts of Vision and
Change for Biology Majors. \emph{CBE-Life Sciences Education} ,\emph{13}
(2), 200--211.

Brownell, S. E., \& Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty
pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and\ldots{}
tensions with professional identity? \emph{CBE---Life Sciences
Education} , \emph{11} (4), 339--346.

Burrow, A. K. (2018). Teaching Introductory Ecology with Problem\selectlanguage{english}-Based
Learning. \emph{The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America}
,\emph{99} (1), 137--150.

Campbell, L. O., Heller, S., \& Pulse, L. (2020). Student-created video:
an active learning approach in online environments.~\emph{Interactive
Learning Environments} , 1-10.

Camfield, E. K., Beaster-Jones, L., Miller, A. D., \& Land, K. M.
(2020). Using Writing in Science Class to Understand and Activate
Student Engagement and Self-Efficacy. In \emph{Active Learning in
College Science} (pp. 89--105). Springer.

Camfield, E. K., \& Land, K. M. (2017). The Evolution of Student
Engagement: Writing Improves Teaching in Introductory Biology
Courses.\emph{Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching} , \emph{43}
(1), 20--26.

Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., \& Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM
faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps
and inspire less student motivation in their classes. \emph{Science
Advances} , \emph{5} (2), eaau4734.

Carter, D. F., Duenas, J. E. R., \& Mendoza, R. (2019). Critical
examination of the role of STEM in propagating and maintaining race and
gender disparities. In \emph{Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and
Research} (pp. 39--97). Springer.

Cary, T., \& Branchaw, J. (2017). Conceptual elements: A detailed
framework to support and assess student learning of biology core
concepts. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{16} (2), ar24.

Cavanagh, A. J., Aragon, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, B. A., Durham, M. F.,
Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer, D. I., \& Graham, M. J. (2016). Student buy-in
to active learning in a college science course. \emph{CBE---Life
Sciences Education} , \emph{15} (4), ar76.

Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I.,
\& Graham, M. J. (2018). Trust, growth mindset, and student commitment
to active learning in a college science course. \emph{CBE---Life
Sciences Education} , \emph{17} (1), ar10.

Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., \& Wright, L. (2006). Can't we pick
our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group
dynamics and outcomes. \emph{Journal of Management Education} ,\emph{30}
(4), 557--569.

Chavez, K., \& Mitchell, K. M. W. (2020). Exploring Bias in Student
Evaluations: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity. \emph{PS: Political Science \&
Politics} , \emph{53} (2), 270--274.

Chen, P., Chavez, O., Ong, D. C., \& Gunderson, B. (2017). Strategic
resource use for learning: A self-administered intervention that guides
self-reflection on effective resource use enhances academic
performance.\emph{Psychological Science} , \emph{28} (6), 774--785.

Choe, R. C., Scuric, Z., Eshkol, E., Cruser, S., Arndt, A., Cox, R.,
Toma, S. P., Shapiro, C., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., \& Barnes, G. (2019).
Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Asynchronous Online
Lecture Videos. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{18} (4),
ar55.

Chou, S., \& Liu, C. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a Web\selectlanguage{english}-based
virtual learning environment: a learner control
perspective.\emph{Journal of Computer Assisted Learning} , \emph{21}
(1), 65--76.

Clemmons, A., Timbrook, J., Herron, J., \& Crowe, A. (2020). BioSkills
Guide: Development and National Validation of a Tool for Interpreting
the Vision and Change Core Competencies. \emph{BioRxiv} ,
2020.01.11.902882. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.11.902882

Cooper, K. M., Soneral, P. A. G., \& Brownell, S. E. (2017). Define Your
Goals Before You Design a CURE: A Call to Use Backward Design in
Planning Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences. \emph{Journal
of Microbiology \& Biology Education} , \emph{18} (2).

Couch, B. A., Wright, C. D., Freeman, S., Knight, J. K., Semsar, K.,
Smith, M. K., Summers, M. M., Zheng, Y., Crowe, A. J., \& Brownell, S.
E. (2019). GenBio-MAPS: a programmatic assessment to measure student
understanding of Vision and change core concepts across general biology
programs. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{18} (1), ar1.

Crews, T., \& Butterfield, J. (2014). Data for Flipped Classroom Design:
Using Student Feedback to Identify the Best Components from Online and
Face-to-Face Classes. \emph{Higher Education Studies} , \emph{4} (3),
38--47.

Crowe, A., Dirks, C., \& Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom:
implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in
biology.\emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{7} (4), 368--381.

Dahlstrom-Hakki, I., Alstad, Z., \& Banerjee, M. (2020). Comparing
synchronous and asynchronous online discussions for students with
disabilities: the impact of social presence. \emph{Computers \&
Education} , \emph{150} , 103842.

Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., \& Platt, M. B. (2013). Impact of
cold-calling on student voluntary participation. \emph{Journal of
Management Education} , \emph{37} (3), 305--341.

Darby, F. (2020). 5 Ways to Connect With Online Students. \emph{The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from}https://www.chronicle.com/article/5-Ways-to-Connect-With-Online/249077

Darby, F., \& Lang, J. M. (2019). \emph{Small teaching online: Applying
learning science in online classes} . John Wiley \& Sons.

Dell, C. A., Dell, T. F., \& Blackwell, T. L. (2015). Applying universal
design for learning in online courses: Pedagogical and practical
considerations. \emph{Journal of Educators Online} , \emph{12} (2),
166--192.

DeLozier, S. J., \& Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: a review
of key ideas and recommendations for practice. \emph{Educational
Psychology Review} , \emph{29} (1), 141--151.

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., \& Kestin,
G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in
response to being actively engaged in the classroom. \emph{Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences} , \emph{116} (39), 19251--19257.

Dewsbury, B. M. (2017). On faculty development of STEM inclusive
teaching practices. \emph{FEMS Microbiology Letters} , \emph{364} (18).

Dewsbury, B., \& Brame, C. J. (2019). Inclusive
teaching.\emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{18} (2), fe2.

Dewsbury, B. M. (2020). Deep teaching in a college STEM
classroom.\emph{Cultural Studies of Science Education} , \emph{15} (1),
169--191.

DiAngelo, R., \& Sensoy, O. (2010). ``OK, I get it! Now tell me how to
do it!'': Why we can't just tell you how to do critical multicultural
education. \emph{Multicultural Perspectives} , \emph{12} (2), 97--102.

Dutcher, E. G., \& Rodet, C. S. (2018). Which Two Heads Are Better Than
One?: Uncovering the Positive Effects of Diversity in Creative
Teams.\emph{Uncovering the Positive Effects of Diversity in Creative
Teams (November 12, 2018)} .

Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth
mindset.\emph{Education Week} , \emph{35} (5), 20--24.

Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., \& Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Gender Gaps in
Achievement and Participation in Multiple Introductory Biology
Classrooms. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{13} (3),
478--492.

Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw,
W. F., Gutierrez, C. G., Hurtado, S., John, G. H., Matsui, J., \& McGee,
R. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in
STEM. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{15} (3), es5.

Favero, T. G., \& Van Hoomissen, J. D. (2019). Leveraging undergraduate
research to identify culturally relevant examples in the anatomy and
physiology curriculum. \emph{Advances in Physiology Education}
,\emph{43} (4), 561--566.

Forlin, C., \& Loreman, T. (2014). \emph{Measuring inclusive education}
. Emerald Group Publishing.

Frasier, T. R., \& Roderick, C. (2011). Improving how evolution is
taught: facilitating a shift from memorization to evolutionary
thinking.\emph{Evolution: Education and Outreach} , \emph{4} (2),
298--307.

Freeman, R. B., \& Huang, W. (2015). Collaborating with people like me:
Ethnic coauthorship within the United States. \emph{Journal of Labor
Economics} , \emph{33} (S1), S289--S318.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N.,
Jordt, H., \& Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student
performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. \emph{Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences} , \emph{111} (23), 8410--8415.

Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D.,
Haak, D., Dirks, C., \& Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active
learning increases performance in introductory biology. \emph{CBE---Life
Sciences Education} , \emph{6} (2), 132--139.

Freeman, S., Theobald, R., Crowe, A. J., \& Wenderoth, M. P. (2017).
Likes attract: Students self-sort in a classroom by gender, demography,
and academic characteristics. \emph{Active Learning in Higher Education}
, \emph{18} (2), 115--126.

Friedrich, K. A., Sellers, S. L., \& Burstyn, J. N. (2008). 9: Thawing
the Chilly Climate: Inclusive Teaching Resources for Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math. In D. Roberston \& L. Nilson
(Eds.),\emph{To Improve the Academy: Resources for faculty,
instructional, and organizational development (} pp. 133--141).
Jossey-Bass.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., \& Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in
a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher
education.\emph{The Internet and Higher Education} , \emph{2} (2--3),
87--105.

Graves, J. L. (2019). African Americans in evolutionary science: where
we have been, and what's next. \emph{Evolution: Education and Outreach}
,\emph{12} (1), 18.

Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., \& Freeman, S. (2011).
Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in
introductory biology. \emph{Science} , \emph{332} (6034), 1213--1216.

Hackl, E., \& Ermolina, I. (2019). Inclusion by design: Embedding
inclusive teaching practice into design and preparation of laboratory
classes. \emph{Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning} ,\emph{11}
(12), 1323--1334.

Handelsman, J., Miller, S., \& Pfund, C. (2007). \emph{Scientific
teaching} . Macmillan.

Hayssen, V. (2020). Misconceptions about Conception and Other Fallacies:
Historical Bias in Reproductive Biology. \emph{Integrative and
Comparative Biology} . https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icaa035

Hayssen, Virginia, \& Orr, T. J. (2017). \emph{Reproduction in mammals:
the female perspective} . JHU Press.

Herreid, C. F., Prud'homme-Genereux, A., Schiller, N. A., Herreid, K.
F., \& Wright, C. (2016). What makes a good case, revisited: the survey
monkey tells all. \emph{Journal of College Science Teaching} ,\emph{46}
(1), 60.

Holt, E. A. (2012). Education Improves Plagiarism Detection by Biology
Undergraduates. \emph{BioScience} , \emph{62} (6), 585--592.

Holt, E. A., Fagerheim, B., \& Durham, S. (2014). Online Plagiarism
Training Falls Short in Biology Classrooms. \emph{CBE-Life Sciences
Education} , \emph{13} (1), 83--89.

Hood, S., Barrickman, N., Djerdjian, N., Farr, M., Gerrits, R. J.,
Lawford, H., Magner, S., Ott, B., Ross, K., \& Roychowdury, H. (2020).
Some Believe, Not All Achieve: The Role of Active Learning Practices in
Anxiety and Academic Self-Efficacy in First-Generation College
Students.\emph{Journal of Microbiology \& Biology Education} , \emph{21}
(1). 21.1.19.

hooks, b. (1994). \emph{Teaching to transgress. Education as a freedom
of practice} . New York, NY: Routledge.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for
critical teacher reflection. \emph{Theory into Practice} , \emph{42}
(3), 195--202.

Hughes-Darden, C., Ellington, R. M., Zaveri, J., Bapna, S., Akli, L.,
Hargett, S., Bhattacharya, P., Emdad, A., \& Nkwanta, A. (2019).
Interventions Addressing Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented
Minority Groups in Undergraduate STEM Disciplines'. In K.M. Mack, K.
Winter, \& M. Soto (Eds.)\emph{, Culturally Responsive Strategies for
Reforming STEM Higher Education. Emerald Publishing Limited} (pp.
229--247). Emerald Group Publishing.

Hulleman, C. S., \& Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and
performance in high school science classes. \emph{Science} ,\emph{326}
(5958), 1410--1412.

Jang, S. (2017). Cultural brokerage and creative performance in
multicultural teams. \emph{Organization Science} , \emph{28} (6),
993--1009.

Kalinowski, S. T., Leonard, M. J., \& Andrews, T. M. (2010). Nothing in
evolution makes sense except in the light of DNA. \emph{CBE---Life
Sciences Education} , \emph{9} (2), 87--97.

Kent, S. R., John, J. E., \& Robnett, R. D. (2020). ``Maybe These Fields
Just Don't Interest Them:'' Gender and Ethnic Differences in
Attributions about STEM Inequities. \emph{International Journal of
Gender, Science and Technology} , \emph{12} (1), 97--121.

Killpack, T. L., \& Melon, L. C. (2016). Toward inclusive STEM
classrooms: what personal role do faculty play? \emph{CBE---Life
Sciences Education} , \emph{15} (3), es3.

Kilpatrick, A. M., Anjum, A., \& Welch, L. (2020). Ten simple rules for
designing learning experiences that involve enhancing computational
biology Wikipedia articles. \emph{PLOS Computational Biology} ,\emph{16}
(5), e1007868.

Kim, Y. K., \& Sax, L. J. (2009). Student--faculty interaction in
research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social
class, and first-generation status. \emph{Research in Higher Education}
,\emph{50} (5), 437--459.

Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., \& Sieke, S. (2016). Group Random Call Can
Positively Affect Student In-Class Clicker Discussions. \emph{CBE---Life
Sciences Education} , \emph{15} (4), ar56.

Kolb, A. Y., \& Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces:
Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. \emph{Academy of
Management Learning \& Education} , \emph{4} (2), 193--212.

Konieczny, P. (2016). Teaching with Wikipedia in a 21st\selectlanguage{english}-century
classroom: Perceptions of Wikipedia and its educational
benefits.~\emph{Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology} ,~\emph{67} (7), 1523-1534.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). \emph{High-impact educational practices: What they
are, who has access to them, and why they matter} . Association of
American Colleges and Universities Press.

Lacey, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Shaw, H., \& Smith, D. P. (2020).
Self-selecting peer groups formed within the laboratory environment have
a lasting effect on individual student attainment and working
practices.\emph{FEBS Open Bio} , \emph{10} (7), 1194--1209.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant
pedagogy. \emph{American Educational Research Journal} , \emph{32} (3),
465--491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the
remix. \emph{Harvard Educational Review} , \emph{84} (1), 74--84.

Ladson\selectlanguage{english}-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the
pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. \emph{Theory
into Practice} , \emph{31} (4), 312--320.

Lang, J. M. (2016). \emph{Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the
science of learning} . John Wiley \& Sons.

Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qiu, M., Nomikoudis,
M., Roelofs, F., \& Van Dam, L. (2017). Moving towards inclusive
learning and teaching: A synthesis of recent literature. \emph{Teaching
\& Learning Inquiry} , \emph{5} (1), 1--13.

Lee, D. N. (2020). Diversity and inclusion activisms in animal behaviour
and the ABS: a historical view from the USA. \emph{Animal Behaviour}
,\emph{164} , 273-280.

Lerner, J., \& Lomi, A. (2018). Diverse teams tend to do good work in
wikipedia (but jacks of all trades don't). \emph{2018 IEEE/ACM
International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and
Mining (ASONAM)} , 214--221.

Lerner, S., Magrane, D., \& Friedman, E. (2009). Teaching teamwork in
medical education. \emph{Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of
Translational and Personalized Medicine: A Journal of Translational and
Personalized Medicine} , \emph{76} (4), 318--329.

Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., \& Freeland, E. (2015).
Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic
disciplines. \emph{Science} , \emph{347} (6219), 262--265.

Livingstone, D., \& Lynch, K. (2002). Group project work and
student-centred active learning: Two different experiences.\emph{Journal
of Geography in Higher Education} , \emph{26} (2), 217--237.

Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., \& Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and
inclusive instruction: Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to
Universal Design. \emph{Journal of Diversity in Higher Education}
,\emph{4} (4), 250.

Mack, K. (2019). At High Tide: Teaching to Increase Diversity and Equity
in STEM. \emph{AAC\&U
News.}https://www.aacu.org/aacu-news/newsletter/high-tide-teaching-increase-diversity-and-equity-stem

MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., \& Hunt, A. N. (2015). What's in a name:
Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. \emph{Innovative
Higher Education} , \emph{40} (4), 291--303.

Malisch, J. L., Harris, B. N., Sherrer, S. M., Lewis, K. A., Shepherd,
S. L., McCarthy, P. C., Spott, J.L, Karam, E.P., Moustaid-Moussa, N.,
Calarco, J.M., Ramalingam, L., Talley, E.T., Canas-Carrell, J.E.,
Ardon-Dryer, K., Weiser, D.A., Bernal, X.E., Deitloff, J. (2020).
Opinion: In the wake of COVID-19, academia needs new solutions to ensure
gender equity.~\emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}
,~\emph{117} (27), 15378-15381.

Matsushita, K. (2018). An invitation to deep active learning.
In\emph{Deep active learning} (pp. 15--33). Springer.

Matta, V., Luce, T., \& Ciavarro, G. (2010). Exploring impact of
self-selected student teams and academic potential on
satisfaction.\emph{Information Systems Educators Conference} , \emph{27}
, 1--10.

McGuire, S. Y. \& McGuire, S. (2015).~\emph{Teach students how to learn:
Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student
metacognition, study skills, and motivation} . Stylus Publishing, LLC.

McInerney, M. \& McKlindon, A. (2014). Unlocking the door to learning:
Trauma-informed classrooms \& transformational schools. \emph{Education
Law Center} , pp.1-24.

McMurtrie, B. (2019). Many professors want to change their teaching but
don't. One university found out why. \emph{The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved
from}https://www.chronicle.com/article/Many-Professors-Want-to-Change/245945.

Menking, A., Erickson, I., \& Pratt, W. (2019). People who can take it:
How women Wikipedians negotiate and navigate safety. \emph{Proceedings
of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems} ,
1--14.

Micari, M., Van Winkle, Z., \& Pazos, P. (2016). Among friends: the role
of academic-preparedness diversity in individual performance within a
small-group STEM learning environment. \emph{International Journal of
Science Education} , \emph{38} (12), 1904--1922.

Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning
works?\emph{Advances in Physiology Education} , \emph{30} , 159-167.

Miles, S., \& Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive
education debate: conflict, contradiction or
opportunity?\emph{International Journal of Inclusive Education} ,
\emph{14} (1), 1--15.

Miriti, M. N. (2019). Nature in the Eye of the Beholder: A Case Study
for Cultural Humility as a Strategy to Broaden Participation in
STEM.\emph{Education Sciences} , \emph{9} (4), 291.

Miriti, M. N. (2020). The elephant in the room: Race and STEM
diversity.\emph{BioScience} , \emph{70} (3), 237--242.

Mitchell, K. M. W., \& Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student
evaluations. \emph{PS: Political Science \& Politics} , \emph{51} (3),
648--652.

Montez, N. (2017). Decolonizing Wikipedia through Advocacy and Activism:
The Latina/o Theatre Wikiturgy Project. \emph{Theatre Topics} ,\emph{27}
(1), E-1-E-9.

Moog, R. S., Spencer, J. N., \& Straumanis, A. R. (2006).
Process-oriented guided inquiry learning: POGIL and the POGIL
project.\emph{Metropolitan Universities} , \emph{17} (4), 41--52.

Moore, J. A. (1984). Science as a way of knowing---Evolutionary
biology.\emph{American Zoologist} , \emph{24} (2), 467--534.

Morrell, C., \& Parker, C. (2013). Adjusting micromessages to improve
equity in STEM. \emph{Diversity \& Democracy} , \emph{16} (2).

Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., \& Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing
culturally relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based
research.\emph{Equity \& Excellence in Education} , \emph{41} (4),
433--452.

Nahar, K., \& Chowdhury, R. (2019). Effectiveness of flipped classroom
model in distance learning. \emph{Proceedings of the 30th Annual
Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education
(AAEE 2019)} .

Newhouse, K. (2020). Four Core Priorities for Trauma-Informed Distance
Learning. KQED Mindshift.
https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/55679/four-core-priorities-for-trauma-informed-distance-learning

North, S. (2020). An open letter to the EEB community. Medium.com.
https://medium.com/@solonorthrowan/an-open-letter-to-the-eeb-community-7bd89330e554

O'Brien, L. T., Bart, H. L., \& Garcia, D. M. (2020). Why are there so
few ethnic minorities in ecology and evolutionary biology? Challenges to
inclusion and the role of sense of belonging. \emph{Social Psychology of
Education} , 1--29.

Oeberst, A., von der Beck, I., Matschke, C., Ihme, T. A., \& Cress, U.
(2019). Collectively biased representations of the past: Ingroup Bias in
Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts. \emph{British Journal of
Social Psychology} .

Olimpo, J. T., \& Esparza, D. (2020). Active Learning and Conceptual
Understanding in Biology. In \emph{Active Learning in College
Science}(pp. 43--57). Springer.

Orr, A. C., \& Hammig, S. B. (2009). Inclusive postsecondary strategies
for teaching students with learning disabilities: A review of the
literature. \emph{Learning Disability Quarterly} , \emph{32} (3),
181--196.

Pat-Horenczyk, R., Schiff, M., \& Doppelt, O. (2006). Maintaining
routine despite ongoing exposure to terrorism: A healthy strategy for
adolescents? \emph{Journal of Adolescent Health} , \emph{39} (2),
199--205.

Penner, M. R. (2018). Building an inclusive classroom. \emph{Journal of
Undergraduate Neuroscience Education} , \emph{16} (3), A268.

Peters, M. A. (2015). \emph{Why is my curriculum white?} Taylor \&
Francis.

Petersen, C. I., Baepler, P., Beitz, A., Ching, P., Gorman, K. S.,
Neudauer, C. L., Rozaitis, W., Walker, J. D., \& Wingert, D. (2020). The
Tyranny of Content: ``Content Coverage'' as a Barrier to Evidence-Based
Teaching Approaches and Ways to Overcome It. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences
Education} , \emph{19} (2), ar17.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the
research.\emph{Journal of Engineering Education} , \emph{93} (3),
223--231.

Prud'homme-Genereux, A. (2016a). Assembling a case study tool kit: 10
tools for teaching with cases. \emph{Education} , \emph{20} .

Prud'homme-Genereux, A. (2016b). Student-produced videos for the flipped
classroom. \emph{Journal of College Science Teaching} , \emph{45} (3),
58.

Prud'homme-Genereux, A. (2017). Formulating questions that address
student misconceptions in a case study. \emph{Journal of College Science
Teaching} , \emph{46} (4), 54.

Prud'homme-Genereux, A., Schiller, N. A., Wild, J. H., \& Herreid, C. F.
(2017). Guidelines for producing videos to accompany flipped
cases.\emph{Journal of College Science Teaching} , \emph{46} (5), 40.

Prud'homme-Genereux, A., Gibson, J. P., \& Csikari, M. (2019). Creating
a Video Case Study. \emph{Journal of College Science Teaching}
,\emph{48} (4), 46--53.

Ranjan, P., Kumari, A., \& Chakrawarty, A. (2015). How can doctors
improve their communication skills? \emph{Journal of Clinical and
Diagnostic Research: JCDR} , \emph{9} (3), JE01.

Roach, T. (2014). Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New
methods to increase interaction and active learning in
economics.\emph{International Review of Economics Education} , \emph{17}
, 74--84.

Rozek, C. S., Ramirez, G., Fine, R. D., \& Beilock, S. L. (2019).
Reducing socioeconomic disparities in the STEM pipeline through student
emotion regulation. \emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences} , \emph{116} (5), 1553--1558.

Sarvary, M. A., \& Gifford, K. M. (2016). Engaging students in large
classrooms: turning classical lectures into dialogues using digital
pedagogy. Examples, Benefits and Pitfalls. \emph{Proceedings of the 8th
Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning
Technologies (EduLearn16)} , 7089--7097.

Sawyer, J. E., Obeid, R., Bublitz, D., Schwartz, A. M., Brooks, P. J.,
\& Richmond, A. S. (2017). Which forms of active learning are most
effective: Cooperative learning, writing-to-learn, multimedia
instruction, or some combination? \emph{Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning in Psychology} , \emph{3} (4), 257.

Shortlidge, E. E., Bangera, G., \& Brownell, S. E. (2016). Faculty
Perspectives on Developing and Teaching Course-Based Undergraduate
Research Experiences. \emph{BioScience} , \emph{66} (1), 54--62.

Shortlidge, E. E., Bangera, G., \& Brownell, S. E. (2017). Each to Their
Own CURE: Faculty Who Teach Course-Based Undergraduate Research
Experiences Report Why You Too Should Teach a CURE \selectlanguage{english}+. \emph{Journal of
Microbiology \& Biology Education} , \emph{18} (2).

Silverthorn, D. U. (2006). Teaching and learning in the interactive
classroom. \emph{Advances in Physiology Education} , \emph{30} (4),
135--140.

Silverthorn, D. U., Thorn, P. M., \& Svinicki, M. D. (2006). It's
difficult to change the way we teach: lessons from the Integrative
Themes in Physiology curriculum module project. \emph{Advances in
Physiology Education} , \emph{30} (4), 204--214.

Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., \& Macnamara, B.
N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth
mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two
meta-analyses.\emph{Psychological Science} , \emph{29} (4), 549--571.

Smedley, A., \& Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction,
racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical
perspectives on the social construction of race. \emph{American
Psychologist} , \emph{60} (1), 16.

Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., \& Cox, M. F. (2009). Supportive teaching
and learning strategies in STEM education. \emph{New Directions for
Teaching and Learning} , \emph{2009} (117), 19--32.

Smith, M. U., \& Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the
nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and
science educators. \emph{Science Education} , \emph{83} (4), 493--509.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape
intellectual identity and performance. \emph{American Psychologist}
,\emph{52} (6), 613.

Steele, C. M., \& Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the
intellectual test performance of African Americans. \emph{Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology} , \emph{69} (5), 797.

Summers, M. M., Couch, B. A., Knight, J. K., Brownell, S. E., Crowe, A.
J., Semsar, K., Wright, C. D., \& Smith, M. K. (2018). EcoEvo-MAPS: An
ecology and evolution assessment for introductory through advanced
undergraduates. \emph{CBE Life Sciences Education} , \emph{17} (2),
ar18.

Sydow, M., Baraniak, K., \& Teisseyre, P. (2017). Diversity of editors
and teams versus quality of cooperative work: experiments on
wikipedia.\emph{Journal of Intelligent Information Systems} , \emph{48}
(3), 601--632.

Tanner, K., \& Allen, D. (2007). Cultural competence in the college
biology classroom. \emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{6} (4),
251--258.

Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies
to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom
equity.\emph{CBE---Life Sciences Education} , \emph{12} (3), 322--331.

Tavits, M., \& Perez, E. O. (2019). Language influences mass opinion
toward gender and LGBT equality. \emph{Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences} , \emph{116} (34), 16781--16786.

Taylor, A. (2011). Top 10 Reasons Students Dislike Working in Small
Groups\ldots{} and Why I Do It Anyway. \emph{Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology Education} , \emph{39} (3), 219--220.

Teaching Tolerance Staff. (2020). A Trauma-Informed Approach to Teaching
Through Coronavirus.
https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/a-trauma-informed-approach-to-teaching-through-coronavirus

Tharayil, S., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Nguyen, K. A., Shekhar, P.,
Finelli, C. J., \& Waters, C. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student
resistance to active learning. \emph{International Journal of STEM
Education} , \emph{5} (1), 7.

Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N.,
Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintron, D. L., Cooper, J. D., \& Dunster, G.
(2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented
students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and
math.\emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences} , \emph{117}
(12), 6476--6483.

Tobin, T. J., \& Behling, K. T. (2018). \emph{Reach everyone, teach
everyone: Universal design for learning in higher education} . West
Virginia University Press.

Tseng, M., El-Sabaawi, R. W., Kantar, M. B., Pantel, J. H., Srivastava,
D. S., \& Ware, J. L. (2020). Strategies and support for Black,
Indigenous, and people of colour in ecology and evolutionary
biology.\emph{Nature Ecology \& Evolution} , 1--3.

Vakil, S., \& Ayers, R. (2019). \emph{The racial politics of STEM
education in the USA: Interrogations and explorations} . Taylor \&
Francis.

van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., \& Kester, L. (2019).
Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction:
A meta-analysis. \emph{Educational Research Review} , \emph{28} ,
100281.

Wagner, C., Garcia, D., Jadidi, M., \& Strohmaier, M. (2015). It's a
Man's Wikipedia? Assessing Gender Inequality in an Online
Encyclopedia.\emph{ICWSM} , 454--463.

Wallace, S. L., Lewis, A. K., \& Allen, M. D. (2019). The state of the
literature on student evaluations of teaching and an exploratory
analysis of written comments: Who benefits most? \emph{College Teaching}
, \emph{67} (1), 1--14.

Wanelik, K. M., Griffin, J. S., Head, M. L., Ingleby, F. C., \& Lewis,
Z. Breaking barriers? Ethnicity and socioeconomic background impact on
early career progression in the fields of ecology and
evolution.\emph{Ecology and Evolution} .
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6423

Wheeler, L. B., Mulvey, B. K., Maeng, J. L., Librea-Carden, M. R., \&
Bell, R. L. (2019). Teaching the teacher: exploring STEM graduate
students' nature of science conceptions in a teaching methods
course.\emph{International Journal of Science Education} , \emph{41}
(14), 1905--1925.

White, P. J. T., Heidemann, M., Loh, M., \& Smith, J. J. (2013).
Integrative cases for teaching evolution. \emph{Evolution: Education and
Outreach} , \emph{6} (1), 17.

Winberg, C., Adendorff, H., Bozalek, V., Conana, H., Pallitt, N., Wolff,
K., Olsson, T., \& Roxa, T. (2019). Learning to teach STEM disciplines
in higher education: a critical review of the literature. \emph{Teaching
in Higher Education} , \emph{24} (8), 930--947.

Winkelmes, M.-A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J.,
\& Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases
underserved college students' success. \emph{Peer Review} ,\emph{18}
(1/2), 31--36.

Wood, S., Henning, J. A., Chen, L., McKibben, T., Smith, M. L., Weber,
M., Zemenick, A., \& Ballen, C. J. (2020). A scientist like me:
demographic analysis of biology textbooks reveals both progress and
long-term lags. \emph{Proceedings of the Royal Society B} ,\emph{287}
(1929), 20200877.

Woodley, X., Hernandez, C., Parra, J., \& Negash, B. (2017). Celebrating
difference: Best practices in culturally responsive teaching
online.\emph{TechTrends} , \emph{61} (5), 470--478.

Wright, A. M., Schwartz, R. S., Oaks, J. R., Newman, C. E., \& Flanagan,
S. P. (2019). The why, when, and how of computing in biology
classrooms.~\emph{F1000Research} ,~\emph{8} .

Xing, J., \& Vetter, M. (2020). Editing for equity: Understanding
instructor motivations for integrating cross-disciplinary Wikipedia
assignments. \emph{First Monday} , \emph{25} (6).

Zhao, N., Wardeska, J. G., McGuire, S. Y., \& Cook, E. (2014).
Metacognition: An effective tool to promote success in college science
learning. \emph{Journal of College Science Teaching} , \emph{43} (4),
48--54.

Zuberi, T., \& Bonilla-Silva, E. (2008). \emph{White logic, white
methods: Racism and methodology} . Rowman \& Littlefield Publishers.

Zydney, J. M., Warner, Z., \& Angelone, L. (2020). Learning through
experience: Using design based research to redesign protocols for
blended synchronous learning environments. \emph{Computers \& Education}
, \emph{143} , 103678.

\textbf{Figure and Table Legends}

\textbf{Figure 1.} Active learning and inclusive teaching are both
important pedagogical practices, however, they are not interchangeable
terms. We propose instructors should aim for the area of center overlap
when developing their courses.

\textbf{Table 1.} Some common active learning strategies and how those
strategies can be adopted for inclusive online teaching. Please note
this is not a comprehensive list of active learning techniques but is
meant to provide a quick-reference framework.

\textbf{Appendix A.} List of some databases and/or resources for ecology
and evolution active learning content, and inclusive teaching practices.

\textbf{Supplemental File 1} . Active learning intro and buy-in activity
created by authors. Provided for download, tailoring, and use by other
instructors.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Figure1-Bubbles/Figure1-Bubbles}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

