How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?

Ryan D.P. Dunk, Sarah J. Malmquist, Kristina K. Prescott, Sharday N. Ewell, Jeremiah A. Henning, Cissy J. Ballen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberar24
JournalCBE life sciences education
Volume23
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 R. D. P. Dunk et al.

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this