Reviewing Thesis Topic on Evolutionary Theory

  • Thread starter imagemakker
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Review
In summary, this conversation discusses the impact of Copernicus and Darwin's theories on modern scientific thought, particularly in the realm of biology. It also delves into the social and political implications of the theory of evolution, including the ongoing debate over its inclusion in public school curriculums and the influence of special interest groups. The conversation also mentions the power of Texas in shaping textbook content and the potential consequences of teaching creationism in high school classrooms. The purpose of this study is to understand how high school biology instructors navigate the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory and creationism in their classrooms.
  • #1
imagemakker
2
0
Hello,

I am working on my Master's of Humanities at Tiffin University, and I have been asked by my instructor to seek feedback on my thesis topic. Please review the information below and get back with me about your thoughts.


The conceptions of Copernicus yielded the nucleus of modern scientific theory; yet, the quagmire of biological science would remain unresolved until Charles Darwin. During the time of Copernicus, scientific theorists believed divine intervention formed all species. However, Darwin introduced the world to the nature of science, impressing the advancement of all life through cellular progression. With the publication, “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, Darwin became the father of biological science through evolutionary theory. Socially, the theory of evolution disturbed many religious leaders as it enfeebled the position of God in the equation of life (Ayala, 840-41). This concern developed into an ardent American dialogue in the mid-1920s during the trial of the State of Tennessee versus John Scopes.

The Monkey Trail nourished public concerned that a secular, scientific theory would essentially eliminate God from the concept of creation. More importantly, many parents worried that the teachings of God would no longer be presented to their children in public classrooms. Today, this debate continues to rage on in states across America. In the United States, each state determines the public education of children through a Board of Education; this includes curriculum design and textbook content. Since the 1950s, special interest groups began eagerly attending public hearings regarding curriculum design and textbook content; because many members of the public wanted a say in matters concerning the public education of their children (Armenta and Lane, 76-78). Currently, the nature of science in primary and secondary education is defined, not by professional scientists or educators, but by the political influence of special-interest groups.

Texas is one of the most powerful states involved in this debate. With the second largest textbook buying power in America, the political impact of Texas affects the textbook content and therefore, the curriculums of many other states (Manzo, 11). In 2010, the Texas Board of Education voted to change its biological science curriculum content to reflect a more open interpretation of modern evolutionary synthesis to include creationism and intelligent design (Harris, pars. 2-5). This key political action marks a significant social change. How do these changes affect Texas educators? How will these changes be reflected in Texas high school biology curriculums? How do these changes effect student performance in college biology courses?

The purpose of this study seeks to answer questions surrounding evolutionary theory through instructors. Queries will seek to understand how instructors resolve personal bias, pedagogical knowledge, legal controversy, peer pressure, and state-mandated curriculum. Other areas of uncertainty include instructor perception of time given to evolutionary theory versus creationism, pedagogical interpretations of the fundamentals surrounding the nature of science, and instructor perception of the effectiveness of an alternative theory in the classroom.

Interviews will take place from a cross-section of high school biology instructors in Houston, Texas. The 24 school districts that define the city of Houston comprise the largest student population in the state. 35-45 current and retired public school biology instructors will be chosen in a quasi-experimental group from members of the National Association of Biology Teachers and the Texas Association of Biology Teachers. One-on-one interviews with these individuals will be audio recorded, in a location of their choosing, and the identity of the participants will remain anonymous. Recorded interviews will be transcribed and coded for values related to creationist theory versus evolutionary theory.

The goal of these interviews is to determine the fundamentals of faith-based issues conflicting with scientific theories. A copy of the proposed open-ended interview questions is enclosed; probative or leading questions may be asked based on responses. Instructors will be encouraged to share their experiences, ideas, beliefs and pedagogical designs. The participant’s perceptions will represent emic voices; each instructor must be allowed to explore their own journey about their beliefs regarding evolution. The final presentation will constitute a phenomological design, with a null hypothesis of; religious belief or faith does not affect the presentation of evolution in the classroom. All participants will receive a performance test, of ten questions in biology, to assert their personal understanding of evolution. A copy of the proposed performance test is enclosed for review. As the discussion in the one-on-one interviews is controversial and perhaps emotional, participants can discontinue their participation at any time.

In addition, high school biology textbooks used in Texas will be presented for quantitative language analysis of the chapters covering evolutionary theory. Textbook content in Texas has been heavily debated since the 1960’s. Textbooks approved by the Texas Board of Education will be compared for the last 25 years. The language of these texts will be analyzed and coded. Results will seek determine when creationist language first appeared in biology texts and how the current references to evolutionary theory differs from previous references. The textbooks will be acquired from the Educational Research Analysts organization; their archives contain a collection of approved textbooks in Texas for the last 40 years. The political and social pressure of many organizations complicates the client relationship for national publishers. Ultimately, the language of the text suffers and therefore, the substance from which a student deduces critical thought is compromised (Ravitch, 157-70).

Studies conducted by Dr. Randy Moore in Minnesota since the 1980s indicate there is an increase of creationism being taught in Minnesota high-school classrooms; unfortunately, this extrapolates to poorly prepared students entering college science courses (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 95-100). Moore notes, that his research does not imply that a student’s experience with creationism is solely responsible for a student’s weak performance in college science, however the exposure to creationism often remains imbedded in student ideas after rigorous scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory has been presented (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 1-4). At its core, this pedagogical quandary remains the fundamental principle of the nature of science. If a high-school student fails to be presented with a fundamental premise of evolutionary theory, their understanding of the nature of science stands threatened. Finally, Moore’s analysis concludes that his investigations clearly indicate that, “student high school experiences in biology have a greater impact on a students acceptance of evolutionary theory then a single college-level introductory biology class” (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 99).

Clearly, high school biology instructors require a deeper understanding of the relationship of student experiences to biological pedagogical theory. Understanding the human motivation to avoid controversial situations remains key to resolving the circumstances surrounding the social, political, economic, and psychological factors for instructors. Scientists and educators need to work together to establish procedures and curriculum for high school biology teachers to ease the pressure on individual instructors who must decide how to teach evolutionary theory, intelligent design and creationism (Moore, 2007, 268-71). This report will provide information to the public, special interest group leaders, educators, politicians and scientists in an attempt to resolve these challenges for future generations. The education of children must remain sacrosanct; providing students with the tools of critical thinking and scientific theory provides a solid foundation of knowledge.

Completing this study is estimated to take 12 to 18 months. Potential challenges surround the acquisition of instructors to support both sides of the argument. If necessary, a snowball approach may be implemented to complete the interviewee data set. Concerns surrounding reliability and validity remained focused on my ability to accurately articulate the emic concerns of the subjects of the study. Obviously remaining vigilant to the concerns of the data, with integrity and honesty will limit these challenges.


Work Cited:

Armenta, Tony, and Kenneth E. Lane. “Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the Evolution Controversy in Public Education.” Clearing House 83 (2010): 76-79. Print.

Ayala, Francisco J. “Darwin’s Explanation of Design: From Natural Theology to Natural Selection.” Infection, Genetics and Evolution 10 (2010): 840-843. Print.

Harris, Sean Phillip. “The Evolution of Intelligent Design in Texas Schools (pt. 2).” Examiner.com. Austin Examiner, 14 July 2009. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-austin/the-evolution-of-intelligent-design-texas-schools-pt-2?render=print#print>.

Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. “History Repeats Itself in Texas for Textbook-Review Process.” Education Week 21.43 (2002): 11. Print.

Moore, Randy. “Creationism in the United States: (IV) The Aftermath of Epperson V. Arkansas.” American Biology Teacher 61.1 (1999): 10-16. Print.

- - -. “The Differing Perceptions of Teachers & Students Regarding Teachers’ Emphasis on Evolution in High School Biology Classrooms.” American Biology Teacher 69.5 (2007): 268-271. Print.

- - -. “How Well Do Biology Teachers Understand the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution?” BioScience 54.9 (2004): 860-865. Print.

Moore, Randy, and Sehoya Cotner. “Educational Malpractice: The Impact of including Creationism in High School Biology Courses.” Evolutionary Educational Outreach 2 (2009): 95-100. Print.

- - -. “Rejecting Darwin: The Occurrence & Impact of Creationism in High School Biology Classrooms.” American Biology Teacher 71.2 (2009): 1-4. Print.

Moore, Randy, and Karen Kraemer. “The Teaching of Evolution & Creationism in Minnesota.” American Biology Teacher 67.8 (2005): 457-466. Print.

Ravitch, Diane. The Langauge Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. New York: Knopf, 2003. Print.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
I have no idea what your asking for feedback on or what a thesis is.

but, are the anticipated results, that as a result of public influence on the curriculum design and textbook content, HS education is not congruent with post secondary education, specificaly in the subject of biology?

I'm not sure how the subject of "creationism / God" plays a role. (outside of the fact that say in a 1hr class, 1/2 is biology and the other half is "someother subject" and in turn spend less time learning about biology, and are "poorly" prepared for post secondary)

Public school is just that. Post secondary imho is something totaly different. In fact in the role I see public schools play, I'd argue that this is an example of it working well.

That being said, if your study of the textbooks ( or research in general) reveals ideals of creationism "mixed in" with the science of biology with intent to distort the science of biology that would be profound. Much more then "in public school, the public preffers the subject creationsim be taught instead of biology and this "poorly" prepares students for post secondary".

A comparison of "evolutionary theory" as presented in textbooks in each state correlated with post secondary performance in biology (very hard to determine I am sure) would be cool.

Public school is sometimes more social education then scientific education, that balance is in the hands of said public.

"Clearly, high school biology instructors require a deeper understanding of the relationship of student experiences to biological pedagogical theory." To what purpose, being as prepared as possible for post secondary education?

I like the question it raised for me. Why are the curriculum of science subjects determined in part by public opinion. Why not form public committees of field experts for that?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Thank-you for your thoughts. I have answered some of your questions below, please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns.


"I like the question it raised for me. Why are the curriculum of science subjects determined in part by public opinion. Why not form public committees of field experts for that?"

There are public committees that are "elected" to school boards of every state. If you have not seen "Waiting for Superman", I recommend the film. What these committees and academic administrators decide on a state level ultimately effects the general educational level of all individuals who attend public schools. The politics involved in education are tremendous.


"To what purpose, being as prepared as possible for post secondary education?"

Not exactly. If someone is unclear on the nature of science because their instructor chooses to not teach it in biology class, isn't that publicly funded institution doing a disservice to that child? There is clear documented evidence from scholars over the last 15 years that indicates 2 out of every 10 children in the US does not have a basic understanding of evolution, genetics, or the structure of a cell. Some of these individuals can ultimately have careers in dangerous industrial environments, be on juries, or continue to have children when they or their spouse is carrying genetic predisposition to a fatal disease.


"That being said, if your study of the textbooks ( or research in general) reveals ideals of creationism "mixed in" with the science of biology with intent to distort the science of biology that would be profound. Much more then "in public school, the public preffers the subject creationsim be taught instead of biology and this "poorly" prepares students for post secondary."

That has already been proven. Dr. Gerald Skoog reviewed texts in Texas for the Texas Board of Education, Dr. Randy Moore reviewed texts in Minnesota, and there are others who have dedicated their careers to the debate over evolution. Both of these studies levied warnings to the Boards of Education that the language of science was getting lost in the desire to be fair to religion. Dr. Ken Miller has written 2 books on the matter, "Finding Darwin's God" and "The Langauge of God." Miller is an interesting academic on this matter as he is a devout Christian who is determined to undermine the Creationist / Intelligent Design movement with the facts of science.

Another scholar who may interest you, if you are curious about how other academics perceive this problem is Dr. Richard Dawkins. Here is a link to a couple of the series he did for the BBC on this issue:
The Root of All Evil - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316#
The Enemies of Reason - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017#
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Thanks for the reply,

We may have to agree to disagree on the role of a public education institution. I do still feel it is a balance of time spent on social/scientific studies, and is the dission of the public for as long as they fund it. They could decide to have students fingure paint all day, and it still "can't be wrong".

I agree in entirty with you on the injustice that is done if/when science is clouded with social studies. Science is language (ie all have to agree on the content of the subject. like english or french).

Dawkins: I read his book the selfish gene, funny the idea can manifest into the "power struggle" of ideals, memes ect. So i have faith the ideal/meme with comparable advantage will survive here lol :), go back a hundred (or even 25) years and Id bet the trend is evident.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
You have already invested a lot of time in your work. It is unfortunate that you did this with a bias.

I am familiar with the debate. What I found the most disturbing was the drift in rhetoric of the evolutionary biology camp from open inquiry to we have figured everything out and we are right.

As an example see Science, Evolution, & Creationism - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

More welcoming would be - we have made progress but there is still much that is not understood.

I find the current dogmatic approach of evolutionary biology to be troubling.

A study of this drift would have been a more rewarding use of your time.

Thanks,
Q
 
  • #6
Quickless said:
You have already invested a lot of time in your work. It is unfortunate that you did this with a bias.

I am familiar with the debate. What I found the most disturbing was the drift in rhetoric of the evolutionary biology camp from open inquiry to we have figured everything out and we are right.

As an example see Science, Evolution, & Creationism - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

More welcoming would be - we have made progress but there is still much that is not understood.

I find the current dogmatic approach of evolutionary biology to be troubling.

A study of this drift would have been a more rewarding use of your time.

Thanks,
Q

:rolleyes:
 
  • #7
bobze said:
:rolleyes:

Bobze: Your response is truly inscrutable. I have no idea what that means. Quickless:

I completely agree that science cannot be turned into dogma. It's the very nature of science to be tentative and particularly in evolutionary biology (EB). But that is a completely different issue from substituting "received knowledge" for evidence. Science disappears if it must compete with the authority of "received knowledge", religious or otherwise. This is really only an issue in the USA among developed nations.

The fact is that EB has little to be dogmatic about in terms of the origin of the species. The evidence is that prokaryotic unicellular life existed for some 2.5 billion years with very little progressive evolution toward greater complexity until the appearance of eurkaryotic cells and no one knows how that happened. After about another 700 million years (the time periods are not in any sense precise) multicellular life appeared, but the fossil record is very incomplete until the Cambrian period beginning after about 600 million years ago when the so called Cambrian "explosion" took place. All of a sudden (geologically speaking) nearly all the animal phyla appeared in a very short period of time including mollusks, arthropods and even the first chordates. There is no explanation for this.

http://zoology.muohio.edu/crist/Zoo312/Metazoans.html

How the early metazoa developed and suddenly diversified is both surprising and puzzling. It remains to be sorted out based on evidence. It is not a reason to substitute some supernatural agency.

There are many issues for EB to sort out: how does natural variation occur? It seems it may be more than just random mutations. What is the role of "junk" DNA and genetic expression? What are the role of newly discovered epigenetic factors?

Even if the origin of the species remains very active area of research with a lot of answered questions, this doesn't caste doubt on the fact of evolution. It's been observed in rapidly replicating species and many of the molecular mechanisms concerning diversification are known. The fossil record is incomplete, but it is clear the Earth is very old (best current estimates are about 4.6 billion years), and the record of life on Earth with its many extinct species is there for all to see.

Science is tentative and evidence based, not dogmatic. It should not be challenged or replaced by dogma in public education.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
SW VandeCarr said:
Bobze: Your response is truly inscrutable. I have no idea what that means.

That is the eyeroll emoticon and was directed at:

I am familiar with the debate. What I found the most disturbing was the drift in rhetoric of the evolutionary biology camp from open inquiry to we have figured everything out and we are right.

and,

I find the current dogmatic approach of evolutionary biology to be troubling.

I know a lot of evolutionary biologists and I don't find anything about their approach or the science of evolutionary biology dogmatic. What I do find, is the those guys having to constantly defend what is known about evolutionary biology and refute the same old tireless creationist propaganda clap-traps over, and over, and over. "Why are there still monkeys", "who was the first of X species", "Eyes are too complex to evolve by random chance", etc etc ad infinitum.It would be like when you were in the ER, having to answer the same question over and over again from your patients--Who in the end would go all glassy-eyes on you to only rehash the question again 20 minutes into the conversation. What would be even more infuriating would be that your patient's "information" was constantly being bombarded on them by a multi-million dollar anti-intellectual movement which openly and proudly admits to using disinformation and subterfuge to misinform your patients (hello http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy" )--Come to think of it, that does sound frustratingly familiar to those in medicine no? Autism, Wakefield and vaccines?

The hardest part I think for most evolutionary biologists, is when they have to explain--to even the 'biologically minded' and fellow scientist incorrect nuances they are repeating.
SW VandeCarr said:
The fact is that EB has little to be dogmatic about in terms of the origin of the species.

*Ahem* :wink:

The "origin of species" was solved when Mendel's work was rediscovered, a war was fought in biology and the likes of the Fishers, Dobzhanskys, Simpsons and Mayrs steam rolled the modern synthetic theory of evolution.

**(Darwin never actually explained the origins of species, his greatest work would have more aptly been called "On the origin of adaptations"--Nor could he have, as poor Charlie never understand the world of inheritance or a much less individualocentric view of evolutionary competition. In an seemingly great twist of cosmic irony then, "Darwinism" or the evolutionary mechanism of adaptation is actually what most of these creationists accept about evolution--Though are too thick to realize it. What they "mean to reject" is the later works and unification of population genetics and speciation--Ie; the fruitful flowers of Mayr et al.'s works)**

If you mean to say the origin of specific species, then I'd agree. But, in the grand scheme of things--I don't think that it is so important. Individual lineages, paleontologically speaking, are fickle things. Their "definitive" origins are simply fact finding trips for science--No doubt interesting, but hardly important considering what science really sets out to do. We have the natural phenomena or fact of branching lineages in the tree of life--"Speciation" if you will. And we have scientific theory which explains that phenomena→the modern synthesis. Something in my opinion, far more valuable than cataloging individual lineages origins in evolutionary history--Some of which we know a great deal about (like ungulates or whales) while others we are relatively in the dark about--And will probably always be so because of the strenuous requirements of fossilization.
Cambrian period beginning after about 600 million years ago when the so called Cambrian "explosion" took place. All of a sudden (geologically speaking) nearly all the animal phyla appeared in a very short period of time including mollusks, arthropods and even the first chordates. There is no explanation for this.

See I know you are 'biologically minded' SW but you've even fallen for the CE rhetoric. The CE was, depending on which camp of paleo's you talk to over a period of 50-80 million years. Hardly the blink of an eye except when viewed in the context of how long ago it occurred. And that is the real take away--How long ago it occurred.

For a lineages of soft-bodied animals which didn't fossilize well (leading up to the CE) to their radiations and later extant evolutionary success, there had to be an "origin" of phyletic taxa because of the nature of nested hierarchies. Why no new phyla afterwards? Because those cladogenic points in the tree of life, had come and gone. The ancestors of those taxonomic rankings--Extinct (witha capital E :wink:).

I think the most remarkable novel feature the CE offers is the evolution of hard parts (ie; chitin), but the radiations in and of themselves aren't really impressive if you think about it--At least, certainly not to the degree that creationists and a bunch of bad high school biology teachers would have you believe.

Consider a similar radiation then; that of the mammals. Who over the last 60 or so million years really diversified into the all the mammalian groups we have today. And who's diversity would parallel that of the metazoans if you traveled back 490 million years to stand at the end of the CE. Suppose then, in some distant future 600 million years from now, 'animal' diversity if replaced by mammalian diversity and two fairly intelligent beings play out this exact same conversation--Only this time around its not about the CE, rather the "Neogene explosion". :wink:

60 million years, is 60 million years, is 60 million years--The difference, as far as radiations are concerned, depends on if you are in a 'winning' lineage and those radiations are being viewed 600 million years later :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
bobze said:
That is the eyeroll emoticon

Yeah. But that emoticon looks almost like approval to me. It's not a very good one for suggesting disbelief IMO.

The "origin of species" was solved when Mendel's work was rediscovered

I know. I posted his original presentation few threads ago.

If you mean to say the origin of specific species, then I'd agree.

Yes. The ID crowd is always pointing out where they think EB is deficient.

See I know you are 'biologically minded' SW but you've even fallen for the CE rhetoric.

Not really. I prefer to give them all the slack I can on the details, and then nail them on the absurdity of their fundamental position. We don't want to appear dogmatic or look like we have all the answers (because we really don't). I once saw a TV debate between a PhD biologist and a well informed creationist (who happened to a lawyer). There's no doubt the lawyer won because he kept on bringing up details and issues which the biologist was not prepared to answer. The biologist fell back on ill tempered assertions of science's superior position of authority. It was ugly. The guy completely lost his cool.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
SW VandeCarr said:
Yeah. But that emoticon looks almost like approval to me. It's not a very good one for suggesting disbelief IMO.

:biggrin: Fair enough, I'll consider that next time I roll it out :wink:
SW VandeCarr said:
I know. I posted his original presentation few threads ago.
Yes. The ID crowd is always pointing out where they think EB is deficient.



Not really. I prefer to give them all the slack I can on the details, and then nail them on the absurdity of their fundamental position. We don't want to appear dogmatic or look like we have all the answers (because we really don't). I once saw a TV debate between a PhD biologist and a well informed creationist (who happened to a lawyer). There's no doubt the lawyer won because he kept on bringing up details and issues which the biologist was not prepared to answer. The biologist fell back on ill tempered assertions of science's superior position of authority. It was ugly. The guy completely lost his cool.
Yeah, that is why these 'debates' are often never productive in the slightest. For starters they're normally on "creationist" terms--With a creationist friendly audience. That audience, when its the American public, seems especially ill-equipped to understand the difference between arguing science and arguing law--The two chains of "argumentation" are fundamentally at odds. Which is why law is such an important piece of the puzzle for the creationist and neo-creationist camp. They lost the science battle long ago, law is their only hope.

Also the fields within the science are too vast for anyone to be an expert in everyone. Which as your story describes, leads to one not having every detail available for recall off the top of their head. It is an inevitable outcome of the giant pyramid of knowledge science has accumulated, yet something creationist twist to their advantage (much like they twist the "but see science changes it mind from time to time" to their advantage). Its almost like fighting an insidious lineage of rapidly dividing, undifferentiated cells--If you catch my drift, lol :smile:
 
  • #11
bobze said:
Its almost like fighting an insidious lineage of rapidly dividing, undifferentiated cells--If you catch my drift, lol :smile:

A good analogy indeed.
 
Last edited:

Related to Reviewing Thesis Topic on Evolutionary Theory

1. What is the purpose of a thesis topic on evolutionary theory?

A thesis topic on evolutionary theory serves to explore and analyze a specific aspect of evolution, such as the mechanisms of genetic variation or the impact of natural selection. It allows students to deepen their understanding of this fundamental biological concept and contribute new insights to the scientific community.

2. How do researchers choose a thesis topic on evolutionary theory?

Researchers often choose a thesis topic on evolutionary theory based on their personal interests and expertise, as well as current gaps in the existing research. They may also seek guidance from their advisor or collaborate with other researchers to develop a topic that is both relevant and feasible.

3. What are some common methods used in studying evolutionary theory for a thesis?

Some common methods used in studying evolutionary theory for a thesis include field observations, laboratory experiments, computer simulations, and data analysis. These methods allow researchers to collect and analyze data to support their hypotheses and draw conclusions about evolution.

4. How does a thesis on evolutionary theory contribute to the field of biology?

A thesis on evolutionary theory contributes to the field of biology by expanding our understanding of how species adapt and change over time. It may also provide new insights into the mechanisms of evolution and potential applications in fields such as medicine and conservation.

5. Are there any ethical considerations when researching and writing a thesis on evolutionary theory?

Yes, there may be ethical considerations when researching and writing a thesis on evolutionary theory. For example, researchers should ensure that their experiments and data collection methods are conducted ethically and with minimal harm to living organisms. They should also accurately represent the findings and avoid making biased or misleading conclusions.

Similar threads

  • STEM Educators and Teaching
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
628
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
984
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
870
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
903
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
Back
Top