Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Article e02233 Undergraduate Education Xxxxx 2025 1
Diversifying Ecology Education for Everyone Through More Inclusive,
Interdisciplinary, and Accessible Teaching
Loren B. Byrne1, Emily S. J. Rauschert2, Vikki L. Rodgers3, Gillian Bowser4,
Aramati Casper5, Bryan Dewsbury6, Nia Morales7, Heather D. Vance- Chalcraft8, and
Louise Weber9
1Department of Biology, Marine Biology and Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, One
Old Ferry Road, Bristol, Rhode Island 02809, USA
2Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Cleveland State University, 2121
Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, USA
3Math, Analytics, Science and Technology Division, Babson College, 231 Forest Street, Wellesley,
Massachusetts 02481, USA
4Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, DEPT 1476, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado 80523, USA
5Department of Biology and Graduate Degree Program In Ecology, Colorado State University, Campus
Delivery 1878, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA
6Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami,
Florida 33157, USA
7Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, 110 Newins- Ziegler Hall,
Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA
8Department of Biology, East Carolina University, 101 E. 10th Street, Greenville, North Carolina
27858, USA
9Department of Biology and Environmental Science, University of Saint Francis, 2701 Spring Street,
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808, USA
UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION
© 2025 The Author(s). The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Ecological Society of America.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Byrne, L. B., E. S. J. Rauschert, V. L. Rodgers, G. Bowser, A. Casper, B. Dewsbury, N. Morales, H. D. Vance- Chalcraft and L. Weber 2025. Diversify-
ing Ecology Education for Everyone Through More Inclusive, Interdisciplinary, and Accessible Teaching. Bull Ecol Soc Am 0(0):e02233. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bes2.2233
Undergraduate Education
2 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Abstract
Educating more students about ecology and its benecial applications to societal issues is urgent
yet challenging. To address this challenge, diversifying ecology education is a key way to make
ecology more inclusive, accessible, and interdisciplinary for more people than ever. Advancing this
goal requires ecology educators to develop a more expansive view of (1) how to engage more
diverse undergraduate students in ecology courses, especially those from historically underrepre-
sented groups and non- majors, (2) the interdisciplinarity of content in those courses, and (3) the
learner- centered pedagogies used to engage students. We suggest ways that ecologists can advance
“ecology education for everyone” including focusing on connecting ecology to students’ everyday
lives and local (urbanized) places; applying ecology to solving problems in social–ecological sys-
tems; introducing students to the diversity of worldviews about science and nature; and adopting
authentic teaching practices such as course- based undergraduate research, service learning, and
reective practices. Through such eorts, ecology education can become more positivistic and
pluralistic and help students better appreciate the value of ecology for society and use their eco-
logical literacy to engage in improving local communities and ecosystems. Successful diversication
of ecology education should also benet the discipline of ecology as more diverse students decide
to take more ecology courses, potentially pursue ecology- related careers, and support ecologically
based decision- making for a more sustainable and environmentally just future for all people.
Key words: ecological literacy; ecology education; inclusive teaching; participatory science;
pluralistic ecology; urban ecology.
Introduction
In the current times of worsening climate change, more extreme environmental events, and
increasing biodiversity loss, among other ecological challenges, humanity needs as many people
as possible to understand and use ecological science, especially regarding its applications to
environmental management and policy development (Ripple et al. 2024). Ensuring that future societies
and workforces are better positioned to address social–ecological challenges, particularly those
related to environmental injustices and inequalities, should be a central goal for ecology education
(Johnson and Mappin 2005, Lewinsohn et al. 2015, Martusewicz et al. 2020, Kellogg 2023). In
short, educating more students about ecological concepts and practices, and their applications to
and benets for society is urgent. Yet, increasing people’s ecological knowledge and competencies,
and related pro- environmental behaviors (hereafter, ecological literacy, sensu Jordan et al. 2009,
Cardelús and Middendorf 2013, and McBride et al. 2013) is a challenge for educational institutions
and instructors because of many sociocultural, student- related, and institutional factors (see below
for further discussion and a review by Cooke et al. 2021). Ecologists must take leading roles in
confronting this challenge by diversifying ecology education in ways that make it more inclusive,
accessible, and interdisciplinary for more people than ever: in other words, by advancing “ecology
education for everyone” (Rodgers et al. 2024).
Our goal in this article is to motivate and guide ecologists to pursue more intentional and thoughtful
undergraduate ecology teaching that engages and inspires a wider diversity of students beyond
those already interested in and pursuing ecology- related coursework. We especially focus on what
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 3
Undergraduate Education
instructors can do at the course- and within- course (i.e., lesson) scales because these are often under
the direct control of faculty who can implement change more readily (while acknowledging that
larger systemic curriculum, institutional, and social concerns are also essential to address). In this
context, more inclusive means developing courses and lessons to engage diverse student populations,
including those historically underrepresented in science (Bowser and Cid. 2021, Chaudhury and
Colla 2021, Cronin et al. 2021, Emery et al. 2021); those with dierent physical and neurological
abilities (NCSES 2023, Da Silva and Hubbard 2024); and “non- majors” who are pursuing non-
ecology- focused curricula and careers (Rodgers et al. 2024). More accessible refers to making
ecology content relevant and understandable to all students by demonstrating its connections to their
daily lives, problem solving of personal and social issues, and non- environmental career interests
(Fig. 1). This directly points to making ecology education more interdisciplinary by emphasizing
ecology’s multidimensional and diverse human and societal connections, including with non- scientic
subjects and social–ecological problem solving. In this vein, the Ecological Society of America’s
Four- Dimensional Ecology Education (4DEE) framework is a useful starting point for diversifying
undergraduate ecology education because one of its dimensions is human–environment interactions.
Integrating more of these interactions into ecology education can broaden its scope and relevance for
students in ways that help them link the other three dimensions (core ecological concepts, ecological
practices, and cross- cutting themes) to human- centered topics (for details about this perspective, see
Rodgers et al. 2024; for more about the 4DEE framework, see Klemow et al. 2019, 2024, Prevost
et al. 2019, and Smith et al. 2019a,b).
We argue that reducing barriers (e.g., disinterest in science, feeling uncomfortable in nature;
Floyd et al. 2016, Cooke et al. 2021, Soga et al. 2023) to all students’ interest in, willingness to take,
and abilities to succeed in ecology- related courses should be a primary goal for all ecologists. Our
underlying premises are that ecology classrooms and the practices of ecological science will continue
to reect historical limitations that perpetuate ecological literacy gaps in all students’ education
unless we recognize, challenge, and change them (Reese 2020). This includes addressing the “leaky
science education pipeline” problem (which may be better described as a “hostile obstacle course”:
Berhe et al. 2022) caused by societal systemic inequities that cause historically underrepresented
populations (women, minorities, and others) to enroll in and complete science- and ecology- related
courses and majors at lower rates than white males (e.g., due to academic unpreparedness for
college science courses; cultural messages that they don’t belong in such courses; and lack of prior
environmental experiences; O’Brien et al. 2020, Costello et al. 2023, Sarraju et al. 2023). Individual
instructors can help “plug holes” in this pipeline by (1) expanding the teaching of ecology to non-
majors (rather than prioritizing “preaching to the choir”); (2) centering the teaching of ecology
content on human–environment interactions and problem solving; and (3) adopting more eective
learner- centered teaching methods that nurture the success of all students regardless of their identities
and physical abilities. In these ways, diversifying undergraduate ecology teaching, by focusing
on inclusion of all students (the who), interdisciplinary content and connections (the what), and
engaging, active pedagogy (the how), as reected in the next three sections, is crucial for responding
to historical limitations that have prevented many students from developing ecological literacy and
thus helping achieve diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) goals of the Ecological Society
of America (https:// www. esa. org/ about/ gover nance/ esa- strat egic- plan/ ) and the science community
more broadly (e.g., Graves Jr. et al. 2022, Handelsman et al. 2022). We hope our perspectives will
inspire fellow ecologists to reect on how they can contribute to the diversication of ecology
Undergraduate Education
4 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
education, in whatever individual and institutional capacities they are able to help ensure more
sustainable, healthy, and equitable ecological futures for everyone. Though our scope in this paper is
undergraduate ecology education, we suggest that the ideas are generally applicable to teaching and
outreach for younger students and adults, in both formal and informal settings.
Who: Inclusive ecology education for diverse students
The notion of “ecology education for everyone” emerges from two key starting points. The rst is
the belief that developing everyone’s ecological literacy is a global human right for all people (sensu
UN 2024; also see: https:// www. right - to- educa tion. org/ ) and should be a foundational part of the United
Fig. 1. Diversication of ecology education includes activities and topics that connect students to their local
communities and aspects of everyday and urban living. (A) Visiting a local composting facility allows discuss-
ing links between managing food and yard with decomposition and soil fertility. (B) Students mulching a trail
in a service- learning reciprocity exercise to foster reections about ecotherapy: healing self while healing Earth.
(C) Introducing students to local conservation projects like restoring wetland biodiversity and functions in a golf
course can inspire positive views about the role of ecology in improving local and urban environmental condi-
tions. (D) The ecology of sustainable food production can be examined with a focus on local, urban community
gardens. Photo credits Loren Byrne (A, C, D), Louise Weber (B).
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 5
Undergraduate Education
Nations’ sustainable development goal of high- quality education for all (Klemow et al. 2024; https://
www. globa lgoals. org/ goals/ 4- quali ty- educa tion/ ). This is critical because everyone aects and depends
on the environment for survival and well- being; therefore, everyone is an “ecological citizen” no matter
where they live, what their cultural identities may be, and what their livelihoods are. Regardless of the
details of what might constitute “ecology education for everyone,” focusing solely on traditional basic
and applied ecology topics, even while emphasizing the context of human–environment interactions,
is not enough. Ecology educators must help catalyze individuals’ senses of agency and stewardship for
working to ensure healthy social–ecological systems for themselves and their communities (Johnson and
Mappin 2005, Kellogg 2023). We believe that advancing “ecological education for everyone” emphasizes
helping people recognize the shared, collective responsibility of all people for addressing climate change,
biodiversity conservation, restoring degraded ecosystems, and more, all in service of ensuring long- term
equitable and just sustainabilities and health for all humans (Agyeman et al. 2003, Martusewicz et al. 2020).
A major goal for developing more inclusive ecology education (Cheng et al. 2021) is diversifying ecology
education content (see below) to help everyone embrace their rights to be ecologically literate and roles
as ecological citizens.
The second starting point is that “everyone” quite literally means all young adults (including those
who are not yet students) and, further, seeing and embracing all of them as unique individuals, which
in turn highlights the need to more eectively teach ecology to diverse students. This is the perspective
emphasized by the mindset of inclusive teaching which helps educators recognize and value the complex
and intersecting experiences and personal characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic
status, political aliation, geographical background) that give each student a unique worldview and
voice (Tanner 2013, Dewsbury and Brame 2019, Hogan and Sathy 2022, Addy et al. 2023), and aects
their interests in and motivation to learn ecology. Adopting inclusive teaching practices can improve
ecology teaching and learning by helping students (1) relate to the content in personal ways; (2) engage
in individual self- reection about its relevance and value to them and their communities; and (3) feel
comfortable sharing their own views through open, respectful dialogue (Tanner 2012). Instructors who
work toward these three goals can help “welcome in” all students to the study of ecology rather than
“weed them out” of classrooms and programs (sensu Johnson 2023; also see Hateld et al. 2022). As
such, pursuing more inclusive ecology education for everyone is a crucial task for all ecologists as part
of diversifying the students who pursue ecology courses, degrees, and careers, especially those from all
historically underrepresented and marginalized populations (NCSES 2023). We loudly echo the excellent,
in- depth arguments made by others about the need for and value of increasing inclusivity, equity, and
belongingness in ecology (and more generally, all science courses) education using diverse approaches
and interventions across scales from instructors, courses and departments/programs to broader systemic
eorts needed in institutions, funding agencies, governments and the public (Damschen et al. 2005,
McGuire et al. 2012, Beck et al. 2014, Cid and Bowser 2015, Garibay and Vincent 2018, Jimenez
et al. 2019, Kou- Giesbrecht 2020, O’Brien et al. 2020, Sealey et al. 2020, Tulloch 2020, Wood et al. 2020,
Bowser and Cid 2021, 2023, Chaudhury and Colla 2021, Cheng et al. 2021, Cronin et al. 2021, Duc
et al. 2021, Emery et al. 2021, McGill et al. 2021, Morrison and Steltzer 2021, Schusler et al. 2021,
Trisos et al. 2021, Hammarlund et al. 2022, Nguyen et al. 2022, Zemenick et al. 2022, Jimenez and
Kabachnik 2023, Miriti et al. 2023, Perrin- Stowe et al. 2023, Primack et al. 2023, Harris et al. 2024,
Laerty et al. 2024, Provete et al. 2024). For relevant discussions about diversity, equity, and inclusion
in science education more generally that also pertain to ecology, see, among others, Uriarte et al. (2007),
Dewsbury and Brame (2019), Johnson and Elliott (2020), McGee and Robinson (2020), Arif et al. (2021),
Undergraduate Education
6 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Gin et al. (2022), Graves Jr. et al. (2022), Bayer and Marks (2023), Palid et al. (2023), Cobian et al. (2024),
and Da Silva and Hubbard (2024).
An exemplary eort to diversify the community of ecology students and scholars is ESA’s Strategies for
Ecology Education, Diversity, and Sustainability (SEEDS) program, described by Mourad et al. (2018;
also see https:// www. esa. org/ seeds/ ). Such eorts to recruit and retain a more diverse student population
in ecology will hopefully create a positive feedback loop whereby students from marginalized and
underrepresented backgrounds who see diverse ecologists who look like them will feel like they belong,
persist in their study of ecology, and further increase the diversity of the ecology community. Many
teaching topics and practices associated with inclusive teaching are important for contributing to this
outcome, as described in the following sections about diversifying ecology education content and
pedagogy.
The goal of making ecology education more inclusive highlights the need to further think about
barriers to belongingness: Why do some students feel that they don’t belong in ecology courses,
avoid them, and, after enrolling in one, not enjoy learning ecology? For instance, in a study of
college students in ecology and evolution courses, students’ sense of belonging was lower for
African American as compared to white students (O’Brien et al. 2020). hooks (2009) reminds us
that, to understand belonging, we must recognize how specic physical environments within which
people develop socially and build community inuence their personal identities. It is therefore not
surprising that certain student populations, especially those from disadvantaged and less “green”
communities, have lower connectedness to ecosystems and other species, and might therefore seem
less invested in learning about and protecting them (Floyd et al. 2016, O’Brien et al. 2020). For
instance, people who have grown up in urbanized areas often express fear and discomfort with, and
even revulsion by, nature (the “urbanization- disgust” hypothesis) and thus think of it as counter
to promoting human well- being (Bixler et al. 2004, Soga et al. 2023). Such disconnection from
ecology and environmental concerns often arises from a lack of access to nature due to the racially
and ethnically based prevention of access to certain parts of nature and related cultural messages
suggesting that certain areas of the outdoors are unsafe and not “for them” (e.g., Finney 2014, Floyd
et al. 2016, Schell et al. 2020, Tomasso et al. 2022). Undoing the internalization of those narratives
and dismantling other barriers are challenges that must be considered as part of the work to diversify
ecology education for everyone (including through design of inclusive eld experiences: Morales
et al. 2020). One way to foster more students’ sense of ecological belonging is by highlighting
the work of minoritized scientists, e.g., through counter- stereotypical examples of scientists and
scholars provided by Edmondson (2006) and Yale University’s Environmental Professionals of
Color database (https:// envir onmen tal- profe ssion als- of- color. yale. edu/ ), and assignments provided
by Scientist Spotlights (Schinske et al. 2016, Metzger et al. 2023; https:// scien tists potli ghts. org/ )
and “BiographI” – Biologists and Graph Interpretation (Yang and Pigg 2022: https:// qubes hub. org/
commu nity/ groups/ biogr aphi/ mater ials).
Though reducing barriers to and welcoming in diverse students are essential to advancing
inclusive ecology teaching, ecologists cannot be naive about the simple fact that the large majority
of undergraduate students may never think about (or, due to a major’s extensive curriculum
requirements, be discouraged from) taking any ecology courses while they pursue degrees in social
sciences, humanities, education, medicine, business, architecture, and other elds, including non-
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 7
Undergraduate Education
ecology natural sciences (Beck et al. 2012, Lewinsohn et al. 2015, NCES 2023). Such students may
not inherently see the need to learn or engage with ecology (or the natural sciences more generally)
nor reect much, if at all, about why they should become more ecologically literate (Gormally and
Heil 2022). Such students constitute the population of “non- majors,” an underappreciated group
to target for ecology education (Rodgers et al. 2024). This large and heterogeneous audience has
current and future roles as consumers, voters, community members, and working professionals,
and their behaviors and decisions inuence ecological systems locally and globally (Cardelús and
Middendorf 2013, Lewinsohn et al. 2015). Therefore, cultivating non- majors’ ecological literacy is
as essential to addressing social–ecological challenges as is training more ecologists, if not more
so. As such, we agree with Rodgers et al. (2024) that more ecologists should pursue and embrace
opportunities to teach non- majors, especially by emphasizing the human–environment interactions
(HEI) and specic parts of the ecological practices (EP) and cross- cutting themes (CCT) dimensions
of the 4DEE framework, as reected in the following sections.
What: Diversifying ecology content and connections
As introduced above, the paradigm of “ecology education for everyone” suggests the need for
instructors to rethink norms about what ecologically related content is emphasized in their courses.
For instance, it may be better to focus on big- picture learning objectives of ecological literacy
desirable for all students, rather than, by default, starting with core ecological concepts (CECs) and
trying to “cover all the basics.” Eectively teaching diverse audiences may require more diverse
contexts to help students connect ecology content to other disciplines, societal issues, and personal
interests (Box 1, Fig. 1, Jackson et al. 2016, Jong et al. 2020, Bowser and Cid 2021). To make such
a shift, instructors should think creatively and holistically to expand the content of their syllabi and
lessons beyond that from the table of contents and classic, ubiquitous examples in traditional ecology
textbooks. Students, especially those from underrepresented groups, can often be more engaged by
culturally relevant, actionable science contexts and examples, and their relation to local communities
and solving social–ecological problems (e.g., the HEI content of 4DEE) than theoretical foundations
and CECs for their own sake (Kember et al. 2008, Jackson et al. 2016, Garibay and Vincent 2018,
Jong et al. 2020, Arif et al. 2021, Bowser and Cid 2021, Handelsman et al. 2022, Rodgers et al. 2024).
Such interdisciplinary teaching can result in personal integration and synthesis of ecological topics
in ways that enable more students, especially non- majors, to apply the topics to other situations
and problem solving (Ivanitskaya et al. 2002). This approach is fundamental to increasing students’
motivation for learning and understanding about how ecological literacy pertains to their current
and future lives, and the well- being of societies, economies, human health, and more (Hartwell and
Kaplan 2018, Johansen et al. 2023, Rodgers et al. 2024).
This rethinking of ecology education content to make it more accessible and relevant to more
students may be particularly pertinent to redesigning introductory or general education courses (which
for many students, including biology majors, may be the only required ecology- related course they
take). Rather than think of these as general gateway, survey courses, it might be more eective to oer
entry- level applied, topical courses (which are usually positioned in curricula as upper- level electives
with one or more introductory prerequisite courses) to introduce students to the study of ecology
and inspire them to take additional ones. Similarly, providing students with choices about the topics
they study in a course could motivate them to learn more deeply and embrace the value of ecological
Undergraduate Education
8 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Box 1. Examples to help diversify the content of ecology education by making it more
relevant, local, and personal for students.
The list below presents examples of topics that can help advance ecology education for every-
one by helping students connect ecological content to their daily lives, human well- being, the
study of urbanized environments, and ecosystem services. These oer diverse ways to help
students reect about the value of ecology in communities, economies, and local ecosystems
and for advancing human health and secure, sustainable, thriving societies. Categorization of
topics is for organizational purposes only; some topics connect across the four themes and
placement may be arbitrary. See Appendix S1 for references, including teaching activities, that
provide context and details relevant to introducing these topics to students.
Everyday life
• Ecology of ornamental plants around campus and neighborhoods
• Eects of residential redlining on environmental (in)justice outcomes
• Ecology of producing cotton for clothing
• Eects of soil pollution caused by metals and plastic eroded from car tires
• Habitat conditions needed for common houseplants
• Ecological concerns caused by domesticated pet dogs and cats
• Eects of pharmaceuticals and personal care products on local aquatic ecosystems
• Carbon footprint and climate change eects of electricity generation
• Microbial and invertebrate diversity in homes
• Flow of nitrogen and phosphorous through households and campuses
• Eects of road deicing salts on soil and aquatic biodiversity
Food, health, and well- being
• Ecological webs in food- producing gardens
• Inuence of urban wildlife and habitat fragmentation on Lyme disease risk
• The role of gut microbiota diversity in promoting health
• Vaccines and their roles in host–pathogen dynamics
• Eects of walks through urban greenspaces on reducing stress
• Positive and negative outcomes of bird feeding for humans and birds
• Ecological connections of foods like chocolate and coee
• Conservation of urban pollinators
• Urban heat island and environmental justice
• Ecology of making compost from food scraps and using it in gardens (Fig. 1B)
Biodiversity and ecosystem properties of urbanized places
• Discuss whether downtown cities and other urbanized places are “natural” or “articial”
• Ecology of organisms that colonize pavement, roofs, and walls (e.g., weedy plants, lichens,
ants)
• Eects of urbanization and landscape management on soil biodiversity
• Population ecology of locally common species like squirrels and Canada geese
• Control and removal of invasive plants from local places
• Changes in biodiversity across urban–rural gradients and among diverse neighborhoods
• Habitat restoration in urban areas (Fig. 1A and D)
• Nitrogen cycling in lawns
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 9
Undergraduate Education
literacy (Hurney 2012). Such course- design strategies for diversifying ecology education content
could help reduce the recruitment and persistence problem long observed in science and ecology
programs, especially for underrepresented minorities (Armstrong et al. 2007, O’Brien et al. 2020,
Cronin et al. 2021, Costello et al. 2023, Johnson 2023, Sarraju et al. 2023, Laerty et al. 2024). Many
instructors are probably oering such focused, topical courses to fulll general education requirements
for non- majors, but these could easily be reframed as starting points for advanced ecological study
rather than as “one and done.” In such introductory courses for majors and non- majors alike, avoiding
technical scientic details (e.g., abstract theory, non- essential jargon, complex statistics, computer
programming) that can negatively aect some students’ motivation and excitement for learning
ecology may be necessary to increase the chances that students enjoy learning about ecology and
nature; take more ecology courses; and perhaps even decide to pursue an ecology- related minor or
major (Hateld et al. 2022). The trade- o of making tough decisions about what ecology content and
practices to set aside is ensuring that ecology courses and curricula really are inclusive and accessible
for everyone and not just those interested in ecological science for its own sake.
In the rest of this section, we further discuss ways to think about diversifying the content of
4DEE- inspired teaching. Though there are many ways to do this, we highlight three focal areas: (1)
interdisciplinary stretching, (2) the ecology of everyday life and human well- being, and (3) diverse
perspectives about science and nature. Hopefully, integrating these themes will help make nature and
ecology more accessible to and inclusive of students who are not excited by environmental issues nor
science per se but can still be engaged and inspired to think and care about ecological content and its
relevance through broader connections and framing.
Interdisciplinary stretching
Interdisciplinary thinking involves bringing dierent disciplines together to meaningfully
synthesize perhaps- disparate information into a comprehensive understanding of subjects and
• Evolutionary ecology of urban- dwelling species
• Sociocultural drivers of urban plant diversity
• Installation and management of tiny forests with the Miyawaki Method
• Life history strategies and other autecology of plants visible through windows
• Selection of street tree species in urban greening programs and their relationships with other
ecological variables and human health
Local ecosystem services
• Food production in personal and community gardens (Fig. 1C)
• Value of trees and greenspaces for reducing air pollutants
• Decomposition of plant- based gifts and seasonal decorations like owers and pumpkins
• Examining, designing, and managing local places for ecosystem services (Fig. 1D)
• Blue, green, and turquoise infrastructure for managing water ow and ltration
• Inuencing food webs and trophic cascades for pest and disease control
• Cultural value of nearby parks, wetlands, and water bodies
• Hunting and shing as ecosystem services and their ecological connections.
Undergraduate Education
10 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
complex problems (Newell 2007, de Greef et al. 2017). Interdisciplinarity is not simply additive; it
is integrative in ways that should result in holistic perspectives that yield new insights and solutions
(Klein 1990, de Greef et al. 2017). Teaching in ways that help students make interdisciplinary
connections can be accomplished in many ways (e.g., assignments that foster cross- disciplinary
synthesis; classes that are co- taught by instructors with dierent disciplinary expertise; inviting guest
speakers with dierent backgrounds; engaging in community- based projects). For many instructors,
interdisciplinary teaching requires that they push themselves beyond the typical bounds of their
disciplinary expertise which may be uncomfortable and require extra time and eort; therefore, we
refer to the pursuit of integrative, holistic teaching and learning as “interdisciplinary stretching.”
Though interdisciplinary stretching can be challenging for instructors and students alike, it has
many benets for helping students develop skills to think across disciplinary boundaries, such as
the capacity to recognize and reconcile dierent and sometimes conicting perspectives; cope with
complexity; and synthesize knowledge through dierent disciplinary lenses (Spelt et al. 2009, de
Greef et al. 2017). These skills are highly relevant to 4DEE’s ecological practices dimension. For
this and many other reasons, we argue that interdisciplinary stretching should become an encouraged
and commonplace approach to broadening the content and connections in ecology education for
everyone.
Teaching and learning about ecology are well- suited to interdisciplinary stretching. This is
reected in the 4DEE framework which includes systems thinking as a cross- cutting theme that
relates well to integrating diverse ideas and seeing complex social–ecological patterns and processes
holistically using many disciplinary concepts and theories as emphasized by the HEI dimension
(Klemow et al. 2024, Rodgers et al. 2024). Interdisciplinary connections with ecology can be made
by considering how scholars in other elds of study have often co- opted “ecology,” “eco- ” and
“ecosystem” to coin new words/phrases (e.g., business ecosystems) and discuss aspects of their
subjects (e.g., Cobben et al. 2022, Lamont 2024). Bringing in dierent disciplines to ecology
education allows students to see humans (and more specically themselves) as connected to and
benetting from ecosystems, instead of apart from and controlling nature (see Box 2); this mindset
is an important conceptual framing for ecological literacy, yet is one that can be challenging for
students (Casper et al. 2016, 2021, Casper and Balgopal 2018). For example, an ecology education
that cultivates student awareness of interdependence among individuals and species in complex
systems can be leveraged to foster reection about the ways in which individuals’ worldviews and
actions have both positive and negative social–ecological consequences today and into the future. To
increase positive and reduce negative outcomes, it is important to consider the complex relationships
among social, technological, and ecological dimensions (e.g., feedback loops, tipping points) to
more eectively manage natural resources, biodiversity, and ecosystems (Redman et al. 2004,
Chester et al. 2023). Eectively making such connections depends on ecology educators integrating
non- traditional ecology topics (e.g., ethics, anthropology, economics, interpersonal communication)
into courses, to help students develop more holistic understanding of how to identify and implement
solutions to social–ecological challenges (e.g., Rozzi et al. 2013, Hendry 2020, Brand- Correa
et al. 2022).
Instructors often assume (or at least hope) that students integrate information from across their
dierent courses, but students often struggle to do this, even when connections are made evident to
them (Kilty et al. 2021). Thus, in ecology courses, if ecology educators want students to engage in
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 11
Undergraduate Education
Box 2. Linking ecology, psychology, and mental health as an example of
interdisciplinary stretching.
An interdisciplinary synthesis of ecology, psychology, and mental health can be found in the
study of ecopsychology and ecotherapy. Introducing the principles of these elds in psychology,
ecology, and interdisciplinary courses like environmental psychology can be highly transformative
for student engagement and appeal to diverse students for more inclusive ecology classrooms.
For instance, Weber (2020) transformed student attitudes in her ecology course by introducing
the ideas of reciprocity and healing self by healing Earth, which are keystone concepts of ecopsy-
chology and ecotherapy (Fig. 1A; Nabhan et al. 2020). These two elds seek no less of a goal
than to facilitate a profound change in the human heart and mind, and even a revolution in
human consciousness (IES 2024). They do so by oering students the opportunity for increased
mental well- being through eld experiences in nature (which should be designed with accessibility
and inclusivity in mind: Morales et al. 2020), and working to protect biodiversity and ecosystems
from human- caused challenges. Ever since Louv’s (2005) argument about the negative conse-
quences of “nature decit disorder” for children, ecopsychologists and ecotherapists have argued
that all humans would benet from more direct exposure to nature. A basic assumption of these
elds is that humans are deeply stressed by living in modern societies associated with capitalistic-
industrial- technological- dominated systems (Buzzell and Chalquist 2009). Furthermore, many hu-
mans’ disconnection from nature has been a major contributor to the growth of health challenges
associated with mental illness, addictions, loneliness, and others (Brown 2019). Despite the vastness
of these ills, ecopsychology proposes that each of us has a readily available potential for healing
that can be accessed by going outside and engaging with nature (Yu et al. 2024). The moment
we experience “environmental awe,” our physiology and psychology can reset to a healthier state
(Ballew and Omoto 2018).
How do we add these psychological perspectives to the conventional teaching of ecology?
Parrill (2024), a psychologist, describes the principles for such education, and Weber (2023), an
ecologist, included these principles in an ecology textbook. The keys, according to Parrill (2024),
are looking and listening without always reducing observations to quantities or explanations and
embracing perception rather than hypothesizing. Additionally, it means allowing a kind of inti-
macy to develop while downplaying the tendency of science to de- personalize and try to control
nature. A healthier attitude toward the Earth requires gratitude, humility, charity, persistence,
patience, and love. To cultivate such awareness and emotional reections in ecology classrooms,
students can be introduced to the practices of inner deep listening, which is comparable to
contemplation or meditation, and storytelling, both embraced by some Indigenous cultures as
legitimate forms of teaching and learning that help people to better understand nature and their
relationships with it. It is mainly love as a way of knowing, related to sacredness, that may
be the most powerful factor to ght systematic social–ecological problems. In short, biophilia,
Indigenous ways of knowing, and embodied cognition oer guideposts for integrating psychology
and mental health into ecology education for everyone (Parrill 2024).
Guidance for this integration is provided by the rst chapter of Weber’s (2023) textbook which
suggests ecopsychology principles, followed by a section on traditional ecological knowledge
as contrasted with scientic ecological knowledge. Each chapter of this book starts with eld-
based activities that embody the principles and ends with questions to guide self- reection.
Undergraduate Education
12 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
interdisciplinary stretching to promote deeper ecological literacy, they should intentionally bring in
content and context from the social sciences, arts, humanities, other natural sciences, and technical
elds like engineering and (landscape) architecture to help students link ecology content with that
from other disciplines (e.g., Johnson and Hill 2001, Redman et al. 2004, Mitsch 2012). For example,
explicit examination of environmental justice and ethics (both of which are included in the HEI
dimension in the 4DEE framework) in ecology- focused courses allows for integration of sociology,
political science, and history to help explain patterns of environmental inequities and injustices;
such broadening has been observed to foster positive responses from students and help them connect
content to solutions (Reese 2020, Morales et al. 2024). For even broader stretching, connecting
ecology to the visual, performing, and literary arts is powerful for changing how students think
and see the world and to show how dierent people visualize and communicate information about
ecological topics (i.e., STEAM Education; e.g., Inwood and Taylor 2012, Rodgers and Krcmar 2018,
Belbase et al. 2022, Renowden et al. 2022). Using the arts and other disciplines can also help students
think about how creativity and imagination are needed to come up with novel solutions to social–
ecological issues. By stretching their teaching in diverse interdisciplinary ways, ecology educators
can prioritize HEI topics and systems thinking and choose only the most relevant core ecological
concepts (CEC’s) to include in lessons rather than simply “covering” as many CEC’s as possible
in an unintegrated, linear manner and then hope that students apply their CEC knowledge to other
topics. In this way, ecology education can provide students with the foundational knowledge and
competencies they need to be more ecologically literate which includes understanding that solving
problems in their careers, communities, and social–ecological systems across scales requires them
to engage in interdisciplinary stretching and partner with diverse stakeholders who have expertise in
non- ecology disciplines.
The ecology of daily life and human well- being
Two themes that lend themselves well to interdisciplinary stretching are ecological connections
to people’s everyday lives (Wyner 2012, Wyner and DeSalle 2020, Gormally and Heil 2022) and
general human well- being (including diverse aspects of health and security), both of which can
be examined in context of all aspects of the 4DEE framework (Klemow et al. 2024, Rodgers
et al. 2024). Indeed, students learn better when they make personal connections with content (e.g.,
Kember et al. 2008, Canning et al. 2018). Thus, deliberately linking ecology course content to
common aspects of people’s local environments, day- to- day experiences, health, and well- being
(i.e., personalized ecologies, sensu Gaston et al. (2023)) can make it more interesting, relevant, and
memorable for diverse students (Jackson et al. 2016, Jong et al. 2020, Alexiades et al. 2021, Bowser
and Cid 2021, Schusler et al. 2021). For example, the concept of mutualism can be connected
to the human microbiome to help students consider the autecology of human health (Dethlefsen
Throughout the book, all conventional ecology subjects are covered but are reframed in context
of ecopsychology connections. Additional chapters make ecology more personally applicable
and geared toward problem solving, including natural history, wildlife management, ecological
restoration, and more.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 13
Undergraduate Education
et al. 2007). For mental well- being, considerable evidence indicates that people benefit from
spending time in nature, highlighting the importance of visiting urban greenspaces to find calm and
relaxation (e.g., Remme et al. 2021, Yu et al. 2024; see Box 1 and Fig. 1). To be sure, instructors
need to carefully consider their specific teaching contexts and students when selecting relevant
examples; some examples that feel familiar to the instructor may not be relatable to some students.
Providing necessary background and being explicit about the intended ecological connections can
be essential for ensuring that the content is inclusive and that no students are unintentionally made
to feel confused, unwelcome, or marginalized. Nonetheless, the range and variety of examples
relating to ubiquitous and well- known topics that ecology educators can use to diversify their
course content and connect it to students’ lives, local environments, health, and application to solve
problems are endless (Box 1).
One aspect of daily lives that can be useful in making ecology more accessible to everyone is the
urbanized ecosystems in which most people live (including cities, suburbs, and exurbs). Similar to the
trend of an urbanizing global population, a large majority of college students come from urbanized
places, and in the U.S. almost 90% of college graduates live in (sub)urban counties with 60% in large
metropolitan areas with over 1 million people (Florida and King 2019). Such urban- located students
are less likely to connect personally with many traditional textbook ecology examples that focus on
wildlands and species not found in urbanized landscapes, nor see them as relevant to the common
urban species they see around them. This is especially true for historically underrepresented students
who live in urban places and typically have had fewer, if any, opportunities to engage in outdoor
activities and are less likely to have visited non- urban parks (Larson et al. 2011, Krymkowski et al.
2014). The enormous growth of urban ecology as a sub- discipline and associated eorts to increase
urban ecological education courses, lessons, and teaching frameworks (e.g., Schmitt- Harsh and Harsh
2017, Byrne 2022a and references therein) oer many opportunities to include relevant ecology
connections for students who grew up in and are attending schools in urbanized places (Hansen and
Macedo 2021, Gagné 2023, Nilon and Aronson 2024).
Focusing on urban ecology provides opportunities to help many students understand ecology in more
personal ways through teaching about species and places they are familiar with, while also addressing
inclusive topics such as urban environmental justice that can resonate with diverse students (e.g., Schell
et al. 2020, Kellogg 2023). Specic topics that are ideal for linking the 4DEE framework’s CEC and HEI
dimensions include urban agriculture, managing urban green and blue spaces, and ecosystem services of
urban biodiversity (Fig. 1; see more in Box 1). Advancing an urban ecology education for everyone is
especially important because urban residents tend to have lower connectedness to and experiences in nature
(i.e., the “extinction of experience”) and may thus have lower support for environmental conservation
(e.g., Cox et al. 2017, Gaston and Soga 2020, Bashan et al. 2021). To counter this trend, teaching about the
ecology of urban systems can engage students in examining their campus and neighborhoods through new
lenses (e.g., Barnett et al. 2006, Byrne 2022a). Going further, students can propose and even enact research
and solutions that can make positive community impacts through course- based research, community/
citizen science, and service- learning projects (e.g., Helicke 2014, Valliere 2022), pedagogies that have
been referred to as part of an “ecology with cities” approach (Byrne 2022a,b; see more in the next section).
For such projects, partnering with local park managers, campus groundskeepers, wastewater treatment
facilities, and town governments can help students make valuable connections between ecological content
Undergraduate Education
14 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
and actionable science while also engaging in interdisciplinary stretching (e.g., Toomey et al. 2023,
Ribbons and Toro 2024).
Diverse cultural perspectives about science and nature
Predominant paradigms about science (i.e., Western views about the value- neutral, objective pursuit of
knowledge), nature, and human–environment relationships are often unquestioned and taken for granted.
However, these are not the only ones relevant to understanding diverse, complex human–environment
relationships and environmental management (Barrett 2013, Coscieme et al. 2020, Trisos et al. 2021, Pascual
et al. 2023). Thus, the pursuit of diversifying ecology education can include examples that introduce students
to holistic “knowledge systems” (sensu Cornell et al. 2013) and the variety of people’s worldviews among
communities, countries, and cultures about how humans learn about, perceive, and make decisions about
other species and ecosystems (Tanner 2013, Gould et al. 2018, Arif et al. 2021, Morrison and Steltzer 2021,
Held 2023, Perrin- Stowe et al. 2023). Engaging students in thinking about ecology and nature as social
constructs and that the objective and quantitative approaches of contemporary science are not the one
and only “correct” way to understand and appreciate nature can lead to more inclusive, accessible, and
interdisciplinary ecology that welcomes in students with diverse views (Bowser and Cid 2023). Embracing
such cross- cultural examinations of science and nature can provide instructors with opportunities to
highlight the work of more diverse scientists and scholars, especially those from Indigenous cultures and
the Global South, which can help increase the inclusivity of science teaching (Arif et al. 2021, Massey et al.
2021, Trisos et al. 2021, Held 2023). Introducing non- dominant perspectives about how people understand
and relate to nature may inspire student reections about their own values and worldviews and to better
appreciate alternative ones. Further, helping students reect about people’s varied worldviews can prepare
them for more successful and respectful engagement with others that have dierent beliefs and values (for
an example introductory lesson about worldviews, see Byrne 2016c).
In this context, it is important to interrogate what “knowledge” is and whose ways of producing it
are valid. Ecology, like all human endeavors, has been strongly inuenced by the people in the eld,
through the questions and methods they chose, and the ways they interpret data and communicate
(or don’t) with non- academic scientists. Thus, the historical context of ecology (its founders and
their particular worldviews) has impacted, and continues to impact, the discipline and ecological
paradigms, especially with regard to how communities interact with and manage natural resources
(Cronin et al. 2021, Miriti et al. 2023). For example, the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation, a highly inuential philosophical model that guides much of wildlife management
decisions in the U.S. and Canada, has been widely criticized for being derived from the limited
perspectives of wealthy, white sportsmen in the 19th century, many of whom had racist, classist, and
misogynistic views, and narrow perspectives about human–nature relationships and natural resource
management (i.e., primarily consumptive and utilitarian outlooks for hunting and shing; Serfass
et al. 2018, Morales et al. 2022). Understanding where dominant philosophies came from can shed
light on their impacts and also create space for diverse perspectives on how wildlife management
and conservation should change, while acknowledging that aspects of dominant paradigms may be
acceptable, eective, and seen positively by some students who derive enjoyment in nature through
diverse outdoor recreational activities. Teaching students about the positive and negative aspects of
the history and diversity of ecology and environmental thought, and science more generally, can help
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 15
Undergraduate Education
them understand historical cultural inequities and think about how to ethically engage with more
diverse communities (Gould et al. 2018, Trisos et al. 2021, Moreau et al. 2022, Held 2023).
By expanding dialogues beyond the paradigm that science is value- neutral and without sociocultural
and ethical contexts, instructors can create space for considering the roles of individual scientists’
perspectives and the ways each person’s background and experiences inuence how they engage with
the practicesf of science. This can help make ecology feel more welcoming to diverse students and
encourage them to pursue advanced ecology study and careers even if they are not excited by or don’t
agree with the traditional norms of science and dominant views of human–nature relationships. For
instance, Indigenous Knowledge (IK), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), and Local Ecological
Knowledge (LEK) should be presented to students as valid, useful, and yet complementary pathways to
understand and relate to nature (e.g., Huntington 2000, Kimmerer 2013, Lam 2014, Jessen et al. 2022,
Weber 2023, Evangelista et al. 2024). Situating ecology within these perspectives can still allow for
appreciation of scientic knowledge produced through formal scientic methods, but it diversies
the conversation about whose practices can be equally valued and integrated into social–ecological
knowledge generation and decision- making (Barrett 2013). Many IK, TEK, and LEK perspectives
emphasize concepts such as human- nature reciprocity, other species as kin, and that the environment is
not a commodity to be exploited but is an entity to be borrowed temporarily so that future generations
can also benet from it (e.g., Nelson and Shilling 2018). This brings forth important topics that can
engage students in thinking about questions that go beyond “objective” science to consider human–
nature relationships more holistically, such as what do we need to know about the environment so that
we can successfully take care of it for our descendants? Questions like this highlight a variety of ways
to contextualize the roles of scientists’ for inuencing more sustainable decisions and outcomes, rather
than presuming that scientists should remain detached from societal problems and the well- being of
communities. Such points of emphasis can be used to diversify conversations in ecology classrooms
and inspire students to think broadly about the purposes, relevance, and value of ecological science and
literacy for humanity.
How: Diversifying pedagogy
Increasing the inclusivity, accessibility, and interdisciplinarity of ecology education will be more
successful by using pedagogies that actively involve students; give them more responsibility for their
own learning; help them synthesize ideas; and develop foundational scientic thinking competencies
(Dewsbury and Brame 2019, Handelsman et al. 2022, Hogan and Sathy 2022, Nardo et al. 2022). Such
learner/student- centered approaches include diverse types of in- class activities (e.g., case studies,
problem sets, concept mapping, jigsaws), low- risk, formative assessment methods rather than few
high- stakes exams (e.g., think- pair- share, clicker questions), and projects that are have not been
traditionally used in science classrooms like making art and videos (e.g., Weimer 2002, Tanner 2013,
Byrne 2016a,b, Lang 2021, Angelo and Zakrajsek 2024; also see the Universal Design for Learning
framework: https:// udlgu ideli nes. cast. org/ ). Such pedagogies can help instructors lower learning
barriers for students who may be intimidated by, uninterested in, or even hostile to learning science.
These learner- centered approaches have been observed to especially help students from historically
marginalized populations succeed in science courses (Theobald et al. 2020, Arif et al. 2021, Dewsbury
et al. 2022). Further, diversifying pedagogical approaches is central to providing students with more
opportunities to participate in authentic practices, including critical thinking, data collection and
Undergraduate Education
16 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
analyses, group work, and eective communication, all of which are relevant to scientic careers
and community engagement. Here we highlight four pedagogies that can be used more often to
actively engage all students in ecology education: undergraduate research, participatory science,
service learning, and reective practice.
Undergraduate research for everyone
A high impact practice that can enrich multiple dimensions of students’ ecological literacy is
involvement in undergraduate research. Giving students rst- hand experiences in the process of
ecological discovery can enhance their disciplinary knowledge and abilities in the full scope of science
activities (literature review, asking questions, designing experiments, etc.). Further, undergraduate
research has been found to increase motivation and persistence in science majors and can increase
graduation rates (e.g., Kim et al. 2003, Lopatto 2007, Sorensen et al. 2018). After participating in
research, learning gains and positive attitude changes were found to be similar between science and
non- science majors, indicating that this approach is eective for diverse student populations (e.g.,
Stanford et al. 2017).
Although oering intensive, one- on- one faculty- mentored research may be limited to students
majoring in science, course- based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) allow more
students, including non- majors, to participate in authentic ecology research. CUREs, by denition,
are embedded in courses so that all enrolled students can conduct research while earning credits
toward degree requirements while using diverse scientic practices to make novel discoveries;
gaining group work experiences; and having opportunities for integrated and iterative learning (i.e.,
making and responding to mistakes; Auchincloss et al. 2014, Hensel 2018, Messager et al. 2022).
Involvement in CUREs has been shown to increase students’ self- ecacy and motivation; promote
project ownership by students; improve analytical skills; and inspire students to talk about the research
with friends and family members (Hanauer et al. 2012, 2017, Olimpo et al. 2016, Corwin et al. 2018,
Sorensen et al. 2018, Marley et al. 2022). CUREs have been promoted as an inclusive practice that
is especially engaging for historically underrepresented students (Handelsman et al. 2022, Ruhl
et al. 2022, Funkhouser et al. 2024). Given their many educational benets, including providing more
equitable research opportunities to diverse students, the creation and dissemination of CUREs has
increased rapidly in the past decade. In their literature review, Buchanan and Fisher (2022) identied
242 CURE projects described in 220 publications, mostly in biology. Because CUREs hold great
promise for advancing ecology education for everyone, including students not pursuing ecology-
related careers, we advocate their widespread adoption in diverse ecology courses. In addition to the
references cited above, more information about designing. implementing and assessing CUREs are
provided by Bakshi et al. (2016), Govindan et al. (2020), and Shortlidge and Brownell (2016), and
numerous examples are provided in online databases including CUREnet (https:// serc. carle ton. edu/
curenet) and the Ecological Research as Education Network website (https:// erenw eb. org/ all- proje
cts/ ).
Participatory science and service learning
Participatory science (also referred to in various forms as citizen science, community science, and
community- engaged research) involves the public in the scientic process by helping scientists collect
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 17
Undergraduate Education
data over larger spatial and temporal scales than would otherwise be possible (Haywood and Besley 2014,
Lepczyk et al. 2020, Cooper et al. 2021, Davis and Ramírez- Andreotta 2021; also see https:// parti cipat
orysc iences. org/ ). As an alternative to CUREs, the use of participatory science research in undergraduate
ecology education can give students an opportunity to engage in authentic and meaningful science
experiences by contributing data to existing projects (Vance- Chalcraft et al. 2024a,b). Even though
students do not engage in the full spectrum of project development, involvement in participatory science
has still been shown to increase students’ motivation, engagement, scientic skills, and project- specic
disciplinary content knowledge (Vitone et al. 2016, Mitchell et al. 2017, Phillips et al. 2018, Vance-
Chalcraft et al. 2021, 2022). Diverse participatory science projects useful for undergraduate ecology
classrooms can be found in several online databases: https:// scist arter. org/ , https:// www. citiz ensci
ence. gov/ , and https:// www. socie tyfor scien ce. org/ resea rch- at- home/ citiz en- scien ce/ (also see Vance-
Chalcraft et al. 2024b for additional resources).
One avor of participatory science that is especially suited for helping students think critically
about the relevance of science to society and human well- being is that done in concert with service
learning projects (also known as community- engaged learning; Vance- Chalcraft and Jelks 2023).
In this model, students blend academic study with partnering with community members to help
meet their needs for information and evidence- based decisions (Reynolds and Lowman 2013, Bernot
et al. 2017, Collins and Donahue 2019, Vance- Chalcraft and Goodwillie 2022). More broadly, service
learning experiences that don’t involve research per se can also help students develop ecological
literacy while gaining awareness of how ecological knowledge and values can be applied to address
community concerns (e.g., removing invasive species: Vance- Chalcraft and Goodwillie 2022;
urban forestry and agriculture: Helicke 2014). When students interact with communities, they learn
the value of locally derived, non- academic knowledge while communities benet from access
to resources from academic partners, including the students’ time and diverse perspectives for
problem solving. Students can also benet from developing new connections to nature and specic
places in their communities, and improved 4DEE ecological practices related to civic engagement
such as communication with diverse stakeholders, teamwork, problem solving, and applied and
interdisciplinary thinking.
Both service learning and participatory science can be used to help students think about ethical
and applied dimensions of science and environmental issues, especially in context of sustainability
and environmental justice (Fig. 1A; Álvarez- Vanegas et al. 2024, Vance- Chalcraft et al. 2024a). As an
example of such learning and ecacy gains, a study of the long- term impacts of service learning in an
environmental studies seminar course found that students remained committed to civic engagement
and environmental stewardship up to eight years after graduation (MacFall 2012). Even brief exposure
to service learning (e.g., ve hours per semester) can produce positive outcomes for students (Vance-
Chalcraft and Goodwillie 2022). Instructors planning to use service- learning projects should provide
training and reective opportunities to prepare students for working with community partners, including
the use of culturally sensitive language and approaches to communication that emphasize the equal and
mutual benet of the partnership, especially so as to not cause harm or further injustice in vulnerable
communities (Ward and Wolf- Wendel 2000). Additional considerations of implementing service- learning
projects are presented by Tijsma et al. (2020) and Cress et al. (2023). For example, projects relevant
to ecology and environmental themes, see those in Ward (2023) and the syllabi library from Campus
Undergraduate Education
18 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Compact, a non- prot organization devoted to civic and community engagement in higher education:
https:// compa ct. org/ resou rces/ sylla bi- library.
Reective practices
Student learning gains from research, participatory science, and service- learning projects, alongside
other pedagogical strategies, are enhanced by explicit opportunities for students to reect on their
experiences (Tijsma et al. 2020). More generally, the use of reective and metacognitive practices like
journaling (Tsevreni 2021) and exam wrappers (Hodges et al. 2020) can be valuable in all teaching
contexts, including science courses for majors and non- majors alike (Tanner 2012, Rodgers and
Krcmar 2018, Smith et al. 2019b, Stanton et al. 2021, Kaplan et al. 2023). Activities that ask students
to reect on what they learned, their personal connections to content, their own values and goals, and
study habits have been found to positively impact cognitive development, learning outcomes, scientic
self- ecacy, and persistence in science majors (e.g., Sabel et al. 2017, Canning et al. 2018, Turetsky
et al. 2020, Guo 2022, Moreau et al. 2022, Angell et al. 2024, Ratnayake et al. 2024). Providing
moments for reection can particularly benet lower performing students (Angell et al. 2024), those
from historically underrepresented populations (Tibbetts et al. 2016, Cronin et al. 2021), and non-
majors (Smith et al. 2019b, Thomas et al. 2023). As such, reective practices are fundamental for more
inclusive teaching, as discussed specically for ecology and environmental science courses by Spellman
et al. (2016), Super et al. (2021), and Engle et al. (2024).
A simple pedagogy for inclusive reective practice is to ask students to briey (i.e., for a couple minutes)
free- write in class about what they already know about a topic; what they learned over the past week and
what is still confusing; why the focal topic is important to science and/or society; what connections it has
to students’ personal lives and other courses; and/or their personal feelings and opinions about the topic
and their learning experiences (see additional metacognitive questions in Tanner (2012)). Providing
subsequent time for discussions about their reections can allow students to learn from and connect
with their peers and provide a more welcoming environment that can help increase belongingness. To
this end, student responses need not be formally evaluated but can be awarded “participation credit” to
communicate to students that reective practice is a valued part of the course and their learning journey.
Recommendations and additional ideas for reective practices are provided by Hartwell et al. (2017) and
other references cited above.
Reective practices can also advance a more inclusive and interdisciplinary ecology education by
creating moments of individual and collective examination of diversity, equity, and justice issues in
regard to the discipline of ecology and broader social–ecological issues, as introduced above. Through
guided reection, students can become more aware of their own and others’ places in, orientations
to, and connections with science and nature (i.e., variation in individuals’ senses of belongingness,
comfort, and motivation). To contextualize and expand that examination, students can discuss power
structures in society and how underlying social constructs and biases have aected the history and
current state of underrepresented populations in ecology and conservation, among other issues (i.e.,
teaching for diversity and anti- racism: Rodriguez 1998, Moreau et al. 2022, Reese 2020, Cronin
et al. 2021, Morales et al. 2024). Purposefully asking students to reect on the relevance of diversity,
equity, and justice to ecology and nature can position students to think critically about how they can
be more inclusive and empathetic while engaging with diverse groups and become more eective
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 19
Undergraduate Education
agents of positive social–ecological changes in their careers and communities (Reese 2020, Engle
et al. 2024, Morales et al. 2024).
Conclusion
Advancing ecology education for everyone depends on simultaneously pursuing the three
interconnected goals of diversifying the students who study ecology; diversifying courses’
ecology content and its connections to other topics; and diversifying the pedagogies used to teach
ecology. Pursuing these goals will lead to ecology education that is more inclusive, accessible,
and interdisciplinary and thus more likely to help motivate students to improve their ecological
literacy. We encourage all our ecology colleagues, even those who have limited or no teaching
responsibilities in their day- to- day jobs, to consider how they can contribute to advancing these
goals, rather than focus on teaching traditional ecology concepts and practices to students already
interested in ecology. To this end, we suggest that all ecologists think of themselves as “extension
specialists” who pursue formal and informal teaching that actively reaches out to diverse students
and provides opportunities for all of them to study and better appreciate ecology, especially those
historically marginalized or excluded from pursuing ecology majors and careers, and students who
are pursuing non- ecology- focused degrees. Indeed, we enthusiastically envision a future in which
all undergraduate students, regardless of major, personal attributes or background, take at least one
ecology- related course (including those from environmental science, natural resource management,
and other relevant programs) in their undergraduate years, perhaps as part of requirements for all
majors. Institutions such as Arizona State University and Babson College are leading the way toward
this goal, with recently implemented requirements for all undergraduate students to complete a course
focused on socio- ecological systems and sustainability (https:// catal og. asu. edu/ ug_ gsr and https://
www. babson. edu/ under gradu ate/ acade mics/ curri culum/ socio - ecolo gical - syste ms/ ).
In these “perilous times on planet Earth” (Ripple et al. 2024), ecologists have critical
responsibilities to consider how to teach ecology more eectively to a larger number of and more
diverse students. Taking cues from ecopsychology and ecotherapy (Box 2), the entire community
of ecologists must explicitly and critically think about what content and pedagogies are most likely
to help undergraduate students and people of all ages increase their appreciation, curiosity, wonder,
hope, and excitement about nature, and their personal agency for contributing to its protection and
sustainable management (e.g., Ojala 2017, Beavington 2021, Buijs and Jacobs 2021, Betro 2024,
Ough Dealy et al. 2024), regardless of where they live, their backgrounds, worldviews, and identities.
Rather than emphasizing ecological “doom and gloom” (which is, admittedly, increasingly hard to
avoid), we advocate for a positivistic and pluralistic ecology education for everyone that focuses
on (1) the benets of ecological science and ecological literacy for individual peoples’ and societal
well- being, and promoting sustainable relationships with nature, including in urbanized places and
environmental justice for everyone everywhere, and (2) embraces the diversity of worldviews
and knowledge systems about science and human- nature relationships from diverse communities and
cultures (e.g., Tallis and Lubchenco 2014, Schmidt 2018, Buijs and Jacobs 2021, Cumming et al.
2023). A more optimistic and expansive approach to ecology education is more likely to inspire
more people to engage in eorts to improve social–ecological systems from local to global scales
for both current and future generations (e.g., McAfee et al. 2019, Schneider et al. 2021). Ultimately,
addressing the many environmental challenges that humanity currently faces depends on ecology
Undergraduate Education
20 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
educators taking the lead to choose topics and pedagogies that make ecology relevant to students’
personal lives, non- ecology scholarly interests, local communities, and personal and societal problem
solving. Further, successful diversication of ecology education will benet ecologists and ecological
science as it diversies the backgrounds, worldviews, and experiences of the people who contribute
new observations, ideas, and methods to advancing ecological knowledge and its applications. We
hope our suggestions and guidance motivate and guide more ecologists to increase the inclusivity,
accessibility, and interdisciplinarity of ecology education for everyone. Such work is foundational
for improving people’s well- being and developing a more sustainable and ourishing ecological
future for all of humanity, other species, and the biosphere.
Acknowledgments
We thank Ken Klemow for his comments which helped improve the manuscript, and the Ecological
Society of America for supporting our Inspire session at its 2023 annual meeting, which catalyzed this
article: http:// bit. ly/ 4iIdL2U.
Open research statement
No data were collected for this study.
Literature Cited
Addy, T. M., D. Dube, K. A. Mitchell, and M. SoRelle. 2023. What inclusive instructors do: principles
and practices for excellence in college teaching. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
Agyeman, J., R. Bullard, and B. Evans, editors. 2003. Just sustainabilities: development in an unequal
world. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Álvarez- Vanegas, A., S. V. Ramani, and L. Volante. 2024. Service- learning as a niche innovation in
higher education for sustainability. Frontiers in Education 9:1291669.
Alexiades, A. V., M. A. Haener, D. Reano, M. Janis, J. Black, K. Sonoda, M. Howard, C. Fiander, and M.
Buck. 2021. Traditional ecological knowledge and inclusive pedagogy increase retention and success
outcomes of STEM students. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 102(4):e01924.
Angell, D. K., S. Lane- Getaz, T. Okonek, and S. Smith. 2024. Metacognitive exam preparation
assignments in an introductory biology course improve exam scores for lower ACT students compared
with assignments that focus on terms. CBE Life Sciences Education 23:ar6.
Angelo, T. A., and T. D. Zakrajsek. 2024. Classroom assessment techniques: formative feedback tools
for college and university teachers. 3rd edition. John Wiley and Son, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Arif, S., M. D. B. Massey, N. Klinard, J. Charbonneau, L. Jabre, A. B. Martins, D. Gaitor, R. Kirton, C.
Albury, and K. Nanglu. 2021. Ten simple rules for supporting historically underrepresented students
in science. PLoS Computational Biology 17:e1009313.
Armstrong, M. J., A. R. Berkowitz, L. A. Dyer, and J. Taylor. 2007. Understanding why underrepresented
students pursue ecology careers: a preliminary case study. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
5(8):415–420.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 21
Undergraduate Education
Auchincloss, L. C., et al. 2014. Assessment of course- based undergraduate research experiences: a
meeting report. CBE Life Sciences Education 13:29–40.
Bakshi, A., L. E. Patrick, and E. W. Wischusen. 2016. A framework for implementing course- based
undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in freshman biology labs. The American Biology
Teacher 78:448–455.
Ballew, M. T., and A. M. Omoto. 2018. Absorption: how nature experiences promote awe and other
positive emotions. Ecopsychology 10:26–35.
Barnett, M., C. Lord, E. Strauss, C. Rosca, H. Langford, D. Chavez, and L. Deni. 2006. Using the urban
environment to engage youth in urban ecology eld studies. Journal of Environmental Education
37:3–11.
Barrett, M. J. 2013. Enabling hybrid space: epistemological diversity in socio- ecological problem-
solving. Policy Sciences 46:179–197.
Bashan, D., A. Colléony, and A. Shwartz. 2021. Urban versus rural? The eects of residential status on
species identication skills and connection to nature. People and Nature 3:347–358.
Bayer, S., and G. S. Marks. 2023. Uncharted: how scientists navigate their own health, research, and
experiences of bias. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.
Beavington, L. 2021. Hard- rooted to nature: rediscovering the forgotten forest in science education.
Cultural Studies of Science Education 16:745–762.
Beck, C., et al. 2012. Add ecology to the pre- medical curriculum. Science 335:1301.
Beck, C., K. Boersma, C. S. Tysor, and G. Middendorf. 2014. Diversity at 100: women and underrepresented
minorities in the ESA. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:434–436.
Belbase, S., B. R. Mainali, W. Kasemsukpipat, H. Tairab, M. Gochoo, and A. Jarrah. 2022. At the dawn
of science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education: prospects, priorities,
processes, and problems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology
53:2919–2955.
Berhe, A. A., R. T. Barnes, M. G. Hastings, A. Mattheis, B. Schneider, B. M. Williams, and E. Marín-
Spiotta. 2022. Scientists from historically excluded groups face a hostile obstacle course. Nature
Geoscience 15:2–4.
Bernot, K. M., A. E. Kulesza, and J. S. Ridgway. 2017. Service learning as inquiry in an undergraduate
science course. The American Biology Teacher 79:393–400.
Betro’, S. 2024. From eco- anxiety to eco- hope: surviving the climate change threat. Frontiers in
Psychiatry 15:1429571.
Bixler, R. D., C. L. Carlisle, W. E. Hammitt, and M. F. Floyd. 2004. Observed fears and discomforts
among urban students on eld trips to wildland areas. Journal of Environmental Education 26:24–33.
Bowser, G., and C. R. Cid. 2021. Developing the ecological scientist mindset among underrepresented
students in ecology elds. Ecological Applications 31:e02348.
Bowser, G., and C. R. Cid. 2023. Knowing your eld community: elevating the human dimension in
ecological research and teaching. Integrative and Comparative Biology 63:128–135.
Brand- Correa, L., A. Brook, M. Büchs, P. Meier, Y. Naik, and D. W. O’Neill. 2022. Economics
for people and planet—moving beyond the neoclassical paradigm. The Lancet Planetary Health
6:e371–e379.
Brown, T. 2019. Does technology make us more alone? https:// www. itchr onicl es. com/ techn ology/ does-
techn ology - make- us- more- alone/
Buchanan, A. J., and G. R. Fisher. 2022. Current status and implementation of science practices in
course- based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs): a systematic literature review. CBE Life
Sciences Education 21:ar83.
Undergraduate Education
22 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Buijs, A., and M. Jacobs. 2021. Avoiding negativity bias: towards a positive psychology of human–
wildlife relationships. Ambio 50:281–288.
Buzzell, L., and C. Chalquist. 2009. Ecotherapy: healing with nature in mind. Counterpoint, Berkely,
California, USA.
Byrne, L. B. 2016a. Learner- centered teaching activities for environmental and sustainability studies.
Springer, New York, New York, USA.
Byrne, L. B. 2016b. Learner- centered teaching for environmental and sustainability studies. Pages 1–28
in L. B. Byrne (Ed). Learner- centered teaching activities for environmental and sustainability studies.
Springer, New York, New York, USA.
Byrne, L. B. 2016c. An introductory examination of worldviews and why they matter for environmental
and sustainability studies. Pages 43–53 in L. B. Byrne (Ed). Learner- centered teaching activities for
environmental and sustainability studies. Springer, New York, New York, USA.
Byrne, L. B. 2022a. Using the prepositional framework for urban environmental education: teaching and
learning about ecology in, of, for, and with cities. Pages 233–244 in D. Mutnick (Ed). The city is an
ecosystem. Routledge Press, New York, New York, USA.
Byrne, L. B. 2022b. Ecology with cities. Urban Ecosystems 25:835–837.
Canning, E. A., J. M. Harackiewicz, S. J. Priniski, C. A. Hecht, Y. Tibbetts, and J. S. Hyde. 2018.
Improving performance and retention in introductory biology with a utility- value intervention.
Journal of Educational Psychology 110:834–849.
Cardelús, C., and G. Middendorf. 2013. Ecological literacy: the educational foundation necessary for
informed public decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:330–331.
Casper, A. M. A., and M. M. Balgopal. 2018. Conceptual change in natural resource management
students’ ecological literacy. Environmental Education Research 24:1159–1176.
Casper, A. M. A., M. M. Balgopal, and M. E. Fernandez- Gimenez. 2016. Natural resource management
students’ perceptions of conceptual change in a capstone course. Natural Sciences Education 45:24.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 4195/ nse20 15. 0024
Casper, A. M. A., M. E. Fernández- Giménez, and M. M. Balgopal. 2021. A tool for measuring ecological
literacy: coupled human- ecosystem interactions. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
27:21–34.
Chaudhury, A., and S. Colla. 2021. Next steps in dismantling discrimination: lessons from ecology and
conservation science. Conservation Letters 14:e12774.
Cheng, S. J., T. Mourad, D. E. Goldberg, G. Middendorf, L. B. Prevost, and T. A. McKay. 2021.
Harnessing data for inclusive ecology education. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America
102:1–9.
Chester, M. V., T. R. Miller, T. A. Muñoz- Erickson, A. M. Helmrich, D. M. Iwaniec, T. McPhearson, E.
M. Cook, N. B. Grimm, and S. A. Markolf. 2023. Sensemaking for entangled urban social, ecological,
and technological systems in the Anthropocene. Npj Urban Sustainability 3:39.
Cid, C. R., and G. Bowser. 2015. Breaking down the barriers to diversity in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment 13:179.
Cobben, D., W. Ooms, N. Roijakkers, and A. Radziwon. 2022. Ecosystem types: A systematic review on
boundaries and goals. Journal of Business Research 142:138–164.
Cobian, K. P., S. Hurtado, A. L. Romero, and J. A. Gutzwa. 2024. Enacting inclusive science: culturally
responsive higher education practices in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine
(STEMM). PLoS One 19:e0293953.
Collins, C. R., and L. Donahue. 2019. Improving eco- literacy through service learning: A natural history
service project case study. The American Biology Teacher 81:222–227.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 23
Undergraduate Education
Cooke, J., et al. 2021. Teaching and learning in ecology: A horizon scan of emerging challenges and
solutions. Oikos 130:15–28.
Cooper, C. B., et al. 2021. Inclusion in citizen science: the conundrum of rebranding. Science 372:1386–1388.
Cornell, S., et al. 2013. Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental
change. Environmental Science and Policy 28:60–70.
Corwin, L. A., C. R. Runyon, E. Ghanem, M. Sandy, G. Clark, G. C. Palmer, S. Reichler, S. E.
Rodenbusch, and E. L. Dolan. 2018. Eects of discovery, iteration, and collaboration in laboratory
courses on undergraduates’ research career intentions fully mediated by student ownership. CBE Life
Sciences Education 17:ar20.
Coscieme, L., et al. 2020. Multiple conceptualizations of nature are key to inclusivity and legitimacy in
global environmental governance. Environmental Science and Policy 104:36–42.
Costello, R. A., S. Salehi, C. J. Ballen, and E. Burkholder. 2023. Pathways of opportunity in STEM:
comparative investigation of degree attainment across dierent demographic groups at a large
research institution. International Journal of STEM Education 10:46.
Cox, D. T., H. L. Hudson, D. F. Shanahan, R. A. Fuller, and K. J. Gaston. 2017. The rarity of direct
experiences of nature in an urban population. Landscape and Urban Planning 160:79–84.
Cress, C. M., C. Nayve, S. T. Stokamer, T. J. Van Cleave, and J. P. Kaufman. 2023. Faculty service-
learning guidebook: enacting equity- centered teaching, partnerships, and scholarship. Stylus
Publishing, Sterling, Virginia, USA.
Cronin, M. R., et al. 2021. Anti- racist interventions to transform ecology, evolution and conservation
biology departments. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5:1213–1223.
Cumming, G. S., Z. G. Davies, J. Fischer, and R. Hajjar. 2023. Toward a pluralistic conservation science.
Conservation Letters 16:e12952.
Da Silva, S. M., and K. Hubbard. 2024. Confronting the legacy of eugenics and ableism: towards anti-
ableist bioscience education. CBE Life Sciences Education 23:es7.
Damschen, E. I., K. M. Rosenfeld, M. Wyer, D. Murphy- Medley, T. R. Wentworth, and N. M. Haddad.
2005. Visibility matters: increasing knowledge of women’s contributions to ecology. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 3:212–219.
Davis, L. F., and M. D. Ramírez- Andreotta. 2021. Participatory research for environmental justice: a
critical interpretive synthesis. Environmental Health Perspectives 129:26001.
Dethlefsen, L., M. McFall- Ngai, and D. A. Relman. 2007. An ecological and evolutionary perspective
on human–microbe mutualism and disease. Nature 449:811–818.
Dewsbury, B., and C. J. Brame. 2019. Inclusive teaching. CBE Life Sciences Education 18:fe2.
Dewsbury, B. M., H. J. Swanson, S. Moseman- Valtierra, and J. Caulkins. 2022. Inclusive and active
pedagogies reduce academic outcome gaps and improve long- term performance. PLoS One 17:e0268620.
Duc Bo Massey, M., S. Arif, C. Albury, and V. A. Cluney. 2021. Ecology and evolutionary biology must
elevate BIPOC scholars. Ecology Letters 24(5):913–919.
Edmondson, D. 2006. The black and Brown faces in America’s wild places: african Americans making
nature and the environment a part of their everyday lives. Adventure Publications, Cambridge,
Minnesota, USA.
Emery, N. C., E. K. Bledsoe, A. O. Hasley, and C. D. Eaton. 2021. Cultivating inclusive instructional
and research environments in ecology and evolutionary science. Ecology and Evolution 11:1480–
1491.
Engle, E. W., M. Larkins, E. Bratman, and A. K. Higgins. 2024. Centering diversity, equity, inclusion,
and justice in environmental studies and sciences by practicing compassionate pedagogies. Journal
of Environmental Studies and Sciences 14(3):469–483.
Undergraduate Education
24 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Evangelista, V., A. Scariot, H. M. Teixeira, and I. M. L. Júnior. 2024. Local ecological knowledge
and perception as a strategy in the management of ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental
Management 368:122095.
Finney, C. 2014. Black faces, white spaces: reimagining the relationship of African Americans to the
great outdoors. UNC Press Books, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Florida, R., and K. King. 2019. America’s urban- rural divide: myths and realities. University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Floyd, M., D. Ross- Winslow, E. Thompson, N. Sexton, A. Dietsch, and K. Conlon. 2016. Barriers and
strategies to connecting urban audiences to wildlife and nature: results from a multi- method research
project. North Carolina State University Extension Publications, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Funkhouser, J. A., M. Gregory, and C. Sanz. 2024. Promoting inclusivity in ecology, evolution, and
behavioral biology education through course- based undergraduate research experiences. Bioscience
74:567–576.
Gagné, S. 2023. Nature at your door: connecting with the wild and green in the urban and suburban
landscape. Stackpole Books, Lanham, Maryland, USA.
Garibay, J. C., and S. Vincent. 2018. Racially inclusive climates within degree programs and increasing
student of color enrollment: an examination of environmental/sustainability programs. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education 11:201–220.
Gaston, K. J., and M. Soga. 2020. Extinction of experience: the need to be more specic. People and
Nature 2:575–581.
Gaston, K. J., B. B. Phillips, and M. Soga. 2023. Personalised ecology and the future of biodiversity.
Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 1:e18.
Gin, L. E., D. Pais, K. M. Cooper, and S. E. Brownell. 2022. Students with disabilities in life science
undergraduate research experiences: challenges and opportunities. CBE Life Sciences Education
21:ar32.
Gormally, C., and A. Heil. 2022. A vision for university biology education for non- science majors. CBE
Life Sciences Education 21:es5.
Gould, R. K., I. Phukan, M. E. Mendoza, N. M. Ardoin, and B. Panikkar. 2018. Seizing opportunities to
diversify conservation. Conservation Letters 11:e12431.
Govindan, B., S. Pickett, and B. Riggs. 2020. Fear of the cure: a beginner’s guide to overcoming barriers
in creating a course- based undergraduate research experience. Journal of Microbiology & Biology
Education 21:50.
Graves Jr., J. L., M. Kearney, G. Barabino, and S. Malcom. 2022. Inequality in science and the case for
a new agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119:e2117831119.
de Greef, L., G. Post, C. Vink, and L. Wenting. 2017. Designing interdisciplinary education: a
practical handbook for university teachers. Amsterdam University Press B.V, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Guo, L. 2022. How should reection be supported in higher education? A meta- analysis of reection
interventions. Reective Practice 23:118–146.
Hammarlund, S. P., C. Scott, K. R. Binning, and S. Cotner. 2022. Context matters: how an ecological-
belonging intervention can reduce inequities in STEM. Bioscience 72:387–396.
Hanauer, D. I., J. Frederick, B. Fotinakes, and S. A. Strobel. 2012. Linguistic analysis of project
ownership for undergraduate research experiences. CBE Life Sciences Education 11:378–385.
Hanauer, D. I., et al. 2017. An inclusive research education community (iREC): impact of the SEA-
PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences USA 114:13531–13536.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 25
Undergraduate Education
Handelsman, J., S. Elgin, M. Estrada, S. Hays, T. Johnson, S. Miller, V. Mingo, C. Shaer, and J.
Williams. 2022. Achieving STEM diversity: x the classrooms. Science 376:1057–1059.
Hansen, G., and J. Macedo. 2021. Urban ecology for citizens and planners. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Harris, B. N., A. K. Lewis, S. L. Sharpe, T. J. Orr, C. T. Martine, and C. Josefson. 2024. Incorporating
sex- diverse and gender- inclusive perspectives in higher education biology courses. Integrative and
Comparative Biology 64:icae054.
Hartwell, M., and A. Kaplan. 2018. Students’ personal connection with science: investigating the
multidimensional phenomenological structure of self- relevance. The Journal of Experimental
Education 86:86–104.
Hartwell, E. E., K. Cole, S. K. Donovan, R. L. Greene, S. L. B. Storms, and T. Williams. 2017. Breaking
down silos: teaching for equity, diversity, and inclusion across disciplines. Humboldt Journal of
Social Relations 39:143–162.
Hateld, N., N. Brown, and C. M. Topaz. 2022. Do introductory courses disproportionately drive
minoritized students out of STEM pathways? PNAS Nexus 1:pgac167.
Haywood, B. K., and J. C. Besley. 2014. Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: towards
integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Understanding
of Science 23:92–106.
Held, M. B. 2023. Decolonizing science: undoing the colonial and racist hegemony of Western science.
Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation 19:88–101.
Helicke, N. A. 2014. Learning and promoting urban sustainability: environmental service learning in
an undergraduate environmental studies curriculum. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences
4:294–300.
Hendry, J. 2020. Communication and the natural world. 2nd edition. Strata Publishing, State College,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Hensel, N. H. 2018. Course- based undergraduate research: educational equity and high- impact practice.
Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
Hodges, L. C., L. C. Beall, E. C. Anderson, T. S. Carpenter, L. Cui, E. Feeser, T. Gierasch, K. M. Nanes,
H. M. Perks, and C. Wagner. 2020. Eect of exam wrappers on student achievement in multiple, large
STEM courses. Journal of College Science Teaching 50:69–79.
Hogan, K. A., and V. Sathy. 2022. Inclusive teaching: strategies for promoting equity in the college
classroom. West Virginia University Press, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
hooks, b. 2009. Belonging: a culture of place. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
Huntington, H. P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications.
Ecological Applications 10:1270–1274.
Hurney, C. A. 2012. Learner- centered teaching in nonmajors introductory biology: the impact of giving
students choices. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 13:133–141.
IES (International Ecopsychology Society). 2024. Ecopsychology. https:// ies. bio/ ecops ychol ogy/
Inwood, H. J., and R. W. Taylor. 2012. Creative approaches to environmental learning: two perspectives
on teaching environmental art education. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education
2:66–75.
Ivanitskaya, L., D. Clark, G. Montgomery, and R. Primeau. 2002. Interdisciplinary learning: process and
outcomes. Innovative Higher Education 27:95–111.
Jackson, M. C., G. Galvez, I. Landa, P. Buonora, and D. B. Thoman. 2016. Science that matters: the
importance of a cultural connection in underrepresented students’ science pursuit. CBE Life Sciences
Education 15:ar42.
Undergraduate Education
26 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Jessen, T. D., N. C. Ban, N. X. Claxton, and C. T. Darimont. 2022. Contributions of indigenous
knowledge to ecological and evolutionary understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
20:93–101.
Jimenez, J., and P. Kabachnik. 2023. Indigenizing environmental sustainability curriculum and pedagogy:
confronting our global ecological crisis via indigenous sustainabilities. Teaching in Higher Education
28:1095–1107.
Jimenez, M. F., T. M. Laverty, S. P. Bombaci, K. Wilkins, D. E. Bennett, and L. Pejchar. 2019.
Underrepresented faculty play a disproportionate role in advancing diversity and inclusion. Nature
Ecology & Evolution 3:1030–1033.
Johansen, M. O., S. Eliassen, and L. M. Jeno. 2023. “Why is this relevant for me?”: increasing content
relevance enhances student motivation and vitality. Frontiers in Psychology 14:1184804.
Johnson, P. A. 2023. To diversify STEM elds, colleges should replace ‘weeding out’ with ‘welcoming
in’. https:// www. statn ews. com/ 2023/ 02/ 10/ diver sify- stem- colle ges- repla ce- weedi ng- out- with- welco
ming- in/
Johnson, A., and S. Elliott. 2020. Culturally relevant pedagogy: A model to guide cultural transformation
in STEM departments. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 21:2097. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1128/ jmbe. v21i1. 2097
Johnson, B., and K. Hill. 2001. Ecology and design: frameworks for learning. Island Press, Washington,
DC, USA.
Johnson, E. A., and M. J. Mappin, editors. 2005. Environmental education and advocacy: changing
perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.
Jong, C., C. Priddie, T. Roberts, and S. D. Museus. 2020. Race- related factors in STEM: A review of
research on educational experiences and outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities. Pages 278–288
in C. Johnson (Ed). Handbook of research on STEM education. Taylor and Francis, New York, New
York, USA.
Jordan, R., F. Singer, J. Vaughan, and A. Berkowitz. 2009. What should every citizen know about
ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:495–500.
Kaplan, M., N. Silver, D. LaVaque- Manty, and D. Meizlish, editors. 2023. Using reection and
metacognition to improve student learning: across the disciplines, across the academy. Taylor and
Francis, New York, New York, USA.
Kellogg, S. 2023. Urban ecosystem justice: strategies for equitable sustainability and ecological literacy
in the city. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
Kember, D., A. Ho, and C. Hong. 2008. The importance of establishing relevance in motivating student
learning. Active Learning in Higher Education 9:249–263.
Kilty, T., A. Burrows, K. Welsh, K. Kilty, S. McBride, and P. Bergmaier. 2021. Transcending disciplines:
engaging college students in interdisciplinary research, integrated STEM, and partnerships. Journal
of Technology and Science Education 11:146–166.
Kim, M. M., G. Rhoades, and D. B. Woodard. 2003. Sponsored research versus graduating students?
intervening variables and unanticipated ndings in public research universities. Research in Higher
Education 44:51–81.
Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: indigenous wisdom, scientic knowledge, and the teachings
of plants. Milkweed editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Klein, J. T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit,
Michigan, USA.
Klemow, K., A. Berkowitz, C. Cid, and G. Middendorf. 2019. Improving ecological education through
a four- dimensional framework. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17:71.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 27
Undergraduate Education
Klemow, K. M., C. R. Cid, L. M. Jablonski, and D. Hass. 2024. How a multidimensional ecology
education approach can enhance college curricula to implement the United Nations sustainable
development goals. Sustainability Earth Reviews 7:12.
Kou- Giesbrecht, S. 2020. Asian Americans: the forgotten minority in ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological
Society of America 101:1–5.
Krymkowski, D. H., R. E. Manning, and W. A. Valliere. 2014. Race, ethnicity, and visitation to national
parks in the United States: Tests of the marginality, discrimination, and subculture hypotheses with
national- level survey data. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7:35–43.
Laerty, D. J., E. A. McKenney, T. Hubbard, S. Trujillo, and D. E. Beasley. 2024. A path forward:
creating an academic culture of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. The Bulletin of the Ecological
Society of America 105:e2117.
Lam, M. E. 2014. Building ecoliteracy with traditional ecological knowledge: do, listen, and learn.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:250–251.
Lamont, B. B. 2024. Scientic, rhetorical, and lifestyle use of the terms ‘ecology’ and ‘environment’ in
reference to the ‘ecosystem crisis’. Cogent Arts and Humanities 11:2307650.
Lang, J. M. 2021. Small teaching: everyday lessons from the science of learning. 2nd edition. Josey-
Bass, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Larson, L. R., J. W. Whiting, and G. T. Green. 2011. Exploring the inuence of outdoor recreation
participation on pro- environmental behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local
Environment 16(1):67–86.
Lepczyk, C. A., O. D. Boyle, and T. L. V. Vargo. 2020. Handbook of citizen science in ecology and
conservation. University of California Press, Oakland, California, USA.
Lewinsohn, T. M., et al. 2015. Ecological literacy and beyond: problem- based learning for future
professionals. Ambio 44:154–162.
Lopatto, D. 2007. Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active
learning. CBE Life Sciences Education 6:297–306.
Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature- decit disorder. Algonquin
Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
MacFall, J. 2012. Long- term impact of service learning in environmental studies. Journal of College
Science Teaching 41:26–31.
Marley, S. A., A. Siani, and S. Sims. 2022. Real- life research projects improve student engagement and
provide reliable data for academics. Ecology and Evolution 12:e9593.
Martusewicz, R. A., J. Edmundson, and J. Lupinacci. 2020. Ecojustice education: toward diverse,
democratic, and sustainable communities. 3rd edition. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
McAfee, D., Z. A. Doubleday, N. Geiger, and S. D. Connell. 2019. Everyone loves a success story:
optimism inspires conservation engagement. Bioscience 69:274–281.
McBride, B. B., C. A. Brewer, A. R. Berkowitz, and W. T. Borrie. 2013. Environmental literacy, ecological
literacy, ecoliteracy: what do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere 4:1–20.
McGee, E. O., and W. H. Robinson, editors. 2020. Diversifying STEM: multidisciplinary perspectives
on race and gender. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
McGill, B. M., et al. 2021. You are welcome here: A practical guide to diversity, equity, and inclusion for
undergraduates embarking on an ecological research experience. Ecology and Evolution 11:3636–
3645.
McGuire, K. L., R. B. Primack, and E. C. Losos. 2012. Dramatic improvements and persistent challenges
for women ecologists. Bioscience 62:189–196.
Undergraduate Education
28 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Messager, M. L., L. Comte, T. B. Couto, E. D. Koontz, L. M. Kuehne, J. S. Rogosch, R. R. Stiling, and J.
D. Olden. 2022. Course- based undergraduate research to advance environmental education, science,
and resource management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20:431–440.
Metzger, K. J., M. Dingel, and E. Brown. 2023. “No matter what your story is, there is a place for
you in science”: students’ ability to relate to scientists positively shifts after scientist spotlight
assignments, especially for rst- generation students and women. CBE Life Sciences Education
22:ar12.
Miriti, M. N., A. J. Rawson, and B. Manseld. 2023. The history of natural history and race: decolonizing
human dimensions of ecology. Ecological Applications 33:e2748.
Mitchell, N., M. Triska, A. Liberatore, L. Ashcroft, R. Weatherill, and N. Longnecker. 2017. Benets
and challenges of incorporating citizen science into university education. PLoS One 12:e0186285.
Mitsch, W. J. 2012. What is ecological engineering? Ecological Engineering 45:5–12.
Morales, N., K. Bisbee O’Connell, S. McNulty, A. Berkowitz, G. Bowser, M. Giamellaro, and M.
N. Miriti. 2020. Promoting inclusion in ecological eld experiences: examining and overcoming
barriers to a professional rite of passage. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America
101:e01742.
Morales, N., J. Lee, M. Newberry, and K. Bailey. 2022. Redening American conservation for equitable
and inclusive social- environmental management. Ecological Applications 33:e2749.
Morales, N., B. Lowe, and K. Clancy. 2024. Student perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion in
conservation: assessing an undergraduate course. NACTA Journal 68:194–202.
Moreau, C. S., A. M. Darby, A. J. C. Demery, L. M. Arcila Hernández, and C. L. Meaders. 2022. A
framework for educating and empowering students by teaching about history and consequences of
bias in STEM. Pathogens and Disease 80:ftac006.
Morrison, D. L., and H. Steltzer. 2021. Diverse values, philosophies and ideas beget innovation and
resilience in ecology and for our world. Ecological Applications 31:e02351.
Mourad, T. M., A. F. McNulty, D. Liwosz, K. Tice, F. Abbott, G. C. Williams, and J. A. Reynolds.
2018. The role of a professional society in broadening participation in science: A national model for
increasing persistence. Bioscience 68:715–721.
Nabhan, G. P., L. Orlando, L. Smith Monti, and J. Aronson. 2020. Hands- on ecological restoration as a
nature- based health intervention: reciprocal restoration for people and ecosystems. Ecopsychology
12:195–202.
Nardo, J. E., N. C. Chapman, E. Y. Shi, C. Wieman, and S. Saleh. 2022. Perspectives on active learning:
challenges for equitable active learning implementation. Journal of Chemical Education 99:1691–1699.
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2023. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), completions component, fall 2012 through fall 2021 (nal data) and fall 2022 (provisional
data). https:// nces. ed. gov/ ipeds/
NCSES (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics). 2023. Diversity and STEM: women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities 2023. National Science Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Nelson, M. K., and D. Shilling. 2018. Traditional ecological knowledge: learning from indigenous
practices for environmental sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Newell, W. H. 2007. Decision making in interdisciplinary studies in G. Morçöl (Ed). Handbook of
decision making. CRC, New York, New York, USA.
Nguyen, K. H., et al. 2022. Who are we?: highlighting nuances in Asian American experiences in ecology
and evolutionary biology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 103:1–8.
Nilon, C. H., and M. F. J. Aronson. 2024. Routledge handbook of urban biodiversity. Routledge, New
York, New York, USA.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 29
Undergraduate Education
O’Brien, L. T., H. L. Bart, and D. M. Garcia. 2020. Why are there so few ethnic minorities in ecology and
evolutionary biology? challenges to inclusion and the role of sense of belonging. Social Psychology
of Education 23:449–477.
Ojala, M. 2017. Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. Futures 94:76–84.
Olimpo, J. T., G. R. Fisher, and S. E. DeChenne- Peters. 2016. Development and evaluation of the Tigriopus
course- based undergraduate research experience: impacts on students’ content knowledge, attitudes, and
motivation in a majors introductory biology course. CBE Life Sciences Education 15:ar72.
Ough Dealy, H. R., R. M. Jarvis, T. Young, K. Maharaj, and M. Petterson. 2024. The role of hope and
conservation attitudes in current conservation actions and future conservation intentions. Discover
Sustainability 5:8.
Palid, O., S. Cashdollar, S. Deangelo, C. Chu, and M. Bates. 2023. Inclusion in practice: a systematic
review of diversity- focused STEM programming in the United States. International Journal of STEM
Education 10:2.
Parrill, F. 2024. Revisioning cognitive science through holistic science, biophilia, and Indigenous ways
of knowing. Ecopsychology 16:1–10.
Pascual, U., et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620:813–823.
Perrin- Stowe, T. I., et al. 2023. “Where do i even start?” recommendations for faculty diversifying
syllabi in ecology, evolution, and the life sciences. Ecology and Evolution 13:e9719.
Phillips, T., N. Porticella, M. Constas, and R. Bonney. 2018. A framework for articulating and measuring
individual learning outcomes from participation in citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and
Practice 3:126.
Prevost, L., A. Sorensen, J. Doherty, D. Ebert- May, and B. Pohlad. 2019. 4DEE—what’s next? designing
instruction and assessing student learning. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 100:1–6.
Primack, R. B., et al. 2023. Historically excluded groups in ecology are undervalued and poorly treated.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 21:363–369.
Provete, D. B., S. Moreno, E. D’Bastiani, L. Y. Santiago- Rosario, and S. J. Tumber- Dávila. 2024. We
are stronger together: building community to face barriers for Latin American and underrepresented
ecologists. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 105:e2180.
Ratnayake, A., et al. 2024. All “wrapped” up in reection: supporting metacognitive awareness
to promote students’ self- regulated learning. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
25:e00103- 23.
Redman, C. L., J. M. Grove, and L. H. Kuby. 2004. Integrating social science into the long- term ecological
research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of
social change. Ecosystems 7:161–171.
Reese, A. J. 2020. An undergraduate elective course that introduces topics of diversity, equity, and
inclusion into discussions of science. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 21:15.
Remme, R. P., et al. 2021. An ecosystem service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and
health. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118:e2018472118.
Renowden, C., T. Beer, and L. Mata. 2022. Exploring integrated ArtScience experiences to foster nature
connectedness through head, heart and hand. People and Nature 4:519–533.
Reynolds, J. A., and M. D. Lowman. 2013. Promoting ecoliteracy through research service- learning and
citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:565–566.
Ribbons, R., and I. D. Toro. 2024. No mow May: generating buzz and community science action to
manage yards for bees and other pollinators. Urban Ecosystems 27:2213–2221.
Ripple, W. J., et al. 2024. The 2024 state of the climate report: perilous times on planet earth. Bioscience
74:biae087.
Undergraduate Education
30 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Rodgers, V., and D. Krcmar. 2018. Bridging the boundaries of science and art for business students:
integrating botany and artistic perspectives to teach environmental literacy. Journal of Sustainability
Education 16:1–16.
Rodgers, V. L., et al. 2024. Four- dimensional ecology education (4DEE) for everyone: teaching ecology
to non- majors. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 22:e2749.
Rodriguez, A. J. 1998. Strategies for counterresistance: toward sociotransformative constructivism and
learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
35:589–622.
Rozzi, R. S. T. A., C. Pickett, J. Palmer, J. J. Armesto, and J. B. Callicott. 2013. Linking ecology and
ethics for a changing world. Springer, New York, New York, USA.
Ruhl, N., P. Crumrine, J. Oberle, C. Richmond, S. Thomas, and S. Wright. 2022. Harnessing the four-
dimensional ecology education framework to redesign an introductory ecology course in a changing
higher education landscape. Ecosphere 13:e03857.
Sabel, J. L., J. T. Dauer, and C. T. Forbes. 2017. Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer
keys and reection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding. CBE Life
Sciences Education 16:ar40.
Sarraju, A., S. Ngo, and F. Rodriguez. 2023. The leaky pipeline of diverse race and ethnicity
representation in academic science and technology training in the United States, 2003–2019.
PLoS One 18:e0284945.
Schell, C. J., K. Dyson, T. L. Fuentes, S. Des Roches, N. C. Harris, D. S. Miller, C. A. Woele- Erskine,
and M. R. Lambert. 2020. The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban
environments. Science 369:eaay4497.
Schinske, J. N., H. Perkins, A. Snyder, and M. Wyer. 2016. Scientist spotlight homework assignments
shift students’ stereotypes of scientists and enhance science identity in a diverse introductory science
class. CBE Life Sciences Education 15:ar47.
Schmidt, G. 2018. Positive ecology: sustainability and the ‘good life’. Routledge, New York, New York,
USA.
Schmitt- Harsh, M., and J. A. Harsh. 2017. Engaging nonscience majors in urban ecology:
Recommendations for course design. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 7:550–561
Schneider, C. R., L. Zaval, and E. M. Markowitz. 2021. Positive emotions and climate change. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42:114–120.
Schusler, T. M., C. B. Espedido, B. K. Rivera, M. Hernández, A. M. Howerton, K. Sepp, M. D. Engel,
J. Marcos, and V. B. Chaudhary. 2021. Students of colour views on racial equity in environmental
sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4:975–982.
Sealey, B. A., D. E. Beasley, S. J. Halsey, C. J. Schell, Z. H. Leggett, S. Yitbarek, and N. C. Harris. 2020.
Human dimensions: raising black excellence by elevating black ecologists through collaboration,
celebration, and promotion. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 101:1–6.
Serfass, T. L., R. P. Brooks, and J. T. Bruskotter. 2018. North American model of wildlife conservation:
empowerment and exclusivity hinder advances in wildlife conservation. Canadian Wildlife Biology
and Management 7:101–118.
Shortlidge, E. E., and S. E. Brownell. 2016. How to assess your CURE: a practical guide for instructors
of course- based undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
17:399–408.
Smith, M. K., C. Walsh, N. G. Holmes, and M. M. Summers. 2019a. Using the ecology and evolution-
measuring achievement and progression in science assessment to measure student thinking across the
four- dimensional ecology education framework. Ecosphere 10:e02873.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 31
Undergraduate Education
Smith, B. A., K. Metzger, and P. Soneral. 2019b. Investigating introductory nonmajor biology students’
self- regulated learning strategies through the implementation of a reective- routine. Journal of
College Science Teaching 48:66–76.
Soga, M., K. J. Gaston, Y. Fukano, and M. J. Evans. 2023. The vicious cycle of biophobia. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 38:512–520.
Sorensen, A. E., L. Corral, J. M. Dauer, and J. J. Fontaine. 2018. Integrating authentic scientic research
in a conservation course–based undergraduate research experience. Natural Sciences Education
47:1–10.
Spellman, K. V., A. Deutsch, C. P. Mulder, and L. D. Carsten- Conner. 2016. Metacognitive learning in
the ecology classroom: a tool for preparing problem solvers in a time of rapid change? Ecosphere
7:e01411.
Spelt, E. J., H. J. Biemans, H. Tobi, P. A. Luning, and M. Mulder. 2009. Teaching and learning in
interdisciplinary higher education: a systematic review. Educational Psychology Review 21:365–
378.
Stanford, J. S., S. E. Rocheleau, K. P. Smith, and J. Mohan. 2017. Early undergraduate research
experiences lead to similar learning gains for STEM and non- STEM undergraduates. Studies in
Higher Education 42:115–129.
Stanton, J. D., A. J. Sebesta, and J. Dunlosky. 2021. Fostering metacognition to support student learning
and performance. CBE Life Sciences Education 20:fe3.
Super, L., A. Hofmann, C. Leung, M. Ho, E. Harrower, N. Adreak, and Z. R. Manesh. 2021. Fostering
equity, diversity, and inclusion in large, rst- year classes: using reective practice questions to
promote universal design for learning in ecology and evolution lessons. Ecology and Evolution
11:3464–3472.
Tallis, H., and J. Lubchenco. 2014. Working together: A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515:27–
28.
Tanner, K. D. 2012. Promoting student metacognition. CBE Life Sciences Education 11:113–120.
Tanner, K. D. 2013. Structure matters: twenty- one teaching strategies to promote student engagement
and cultivate classroom equity. CBE Life Sciences Education 12:322–331.
Theobald, E. J., et al. 2020. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in
undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 117:6476–6483.
Thomas, N. J., T. Vo, and J. Sabel. 2023. Nonmajor Students’ use of reection to enhance biology
understanding and relevance. Journal of College Science Teaching 52:46–51.
Tibbetts, Y., J. M. Harackiewicz, S. J. Priniski, and E. A. Canning. 2016. Broadening participation in the
life sciences with social–psychological interventions. CBE Life Sciences Education 15:es4.
Tijsma, G., F. Hilverda, A. Scheelaar, S. Alders, L. Schoonmade, N. Blignaut, and M. Zweekhorst. 2020.
Becoming productive 21st century citizens: a systematic review uncovering design principles for
integrating community service learning into higher education courses. Educational Research 62:390–413.
Tomasso, L. P., J. G. Cedeño Laurent, J. T. Chen, and J. D. Spengler. 2022. Implications of disparities in
social and built environment antecedents to adult nature engagement. PLoS One 17:e0274948.
Toomey, A., J. Smith, C. Becker, and M. Palta. 2023. Towards a pedagogy of social–ecological collaborations:
engaging students and urban nonprots for an ecology with cities. Urban Ecosystems 26:425–432.
Trisos, C. H., J. Auerbach, and M. Katti. 2021. Decoloniality and anti- oppressive practices for a more
ethical ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5:1205–1212.
Tsevreni, I. 2021. Nature journaling as a holistic pedagogical experience with the more- than- human
world. The Journal of Environmental Education 52:14–24.
Undergraduate Education
32 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 0(0) Article e02233
Tulloch, A. I. 2020. Improving sex and gender identity equity and inclusion at conservation and ecology
conferences. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4:1311–1320.
Turetsky, K. M., V. Purdie- Greenaway, J. E. Cook, J. P. Curley, and G. L. Cohen. 2020. A psychological
intervention strengthens students’ peer social networks and promotes persistence in STEM. Science
Advances 6:eaba9221.
UN (United Nations). 2024. What you need to know about the right to education. https:// www. unesco.
org/ en/ right - educa tion/ need- know
Uriarte, M., H. A. Ewing, V. T. Eviner, and K. C. Weathers. 2007. Constructing a broader and more
inclusive value system in science. Bioscience 57:71–78.
Valliere, J. M. 2022. Cultivating scientic literacy and a sense of place through course- based urban
ecology research. Ecology and Evolution 12:e8985.
Vance- Chalcraft, H. D., and C. Goodwillie. 2022. Ecological service- learning positively impacts
classroom climate and empowers undergraduates for environmental action. Ecosphere 13:e4039.
Vance- Chalcraft, H. D., and N. T. O. Jelks. 2023. Community- engaged learning to broaden the impact
of applied ecology: a case study. Ecological Applications 33:e2768.
Vance- Chalcraft, H. D., T. A. Gates, K. A. Hogan, M. Evans, A. Bunnell, and A. H. Hurlbert. 2021. Using
citizen science to incorporate research into introductory biology courses at multiple universities.
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 66:424.
Vance- Chalcraft, H. D., A. H. Hurlbert, J. N. Styrsky, T. A. Gates, G. Bowser, C. B. Hitchcock, M. A.
Reyes, and C. B. Cooper. 2022. Citizen science in postsecondary education: current practices and
knowledge gaps. Bioscience 72:276–288.
Vance- Chalcraft, H. D., et al. 2024a. Social justice, community engagement, and undergraduate STEM
education: participatory science as a teaching tool. CBE Life Sciences Education 23:es3.
Vance- Chalcraft, H. D., T. A. Gates, and A. H. Hurlbert. 2024b. Bringing global ecological research
to undergraduate students through citizen science. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America
105:e02169.
Vitone, T., K. Stofer, M. S. Steininger, J. Hulcr, R. Dunn, and A. Lucky. 2016. School of ants goes to
college: integrating citizen science into the general education classroom increases engagement with
science. Journal of Science Communication 15:A03.
Ward, H., editor. 2023. Acting locally: concepts and models for service- learning in environmental
studies. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
Ward, K., and L. Wolf- Wendel. 2000. Community- centered service learning: moving from doing for to
doing with. American Behavioral Scientist 43:767–780.
Weber, L. 2020. An ecologist’s guide to nature activity for healing. Ecopsychology 12:231–235.
Weber, L. 2023. Understanding nature: ecology for a new generation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida,
USA.
Weimer, M. 2002. Learner- centered teaching: ve key changes to practice. Jossey- Bass, San Francisco,
California, USA.
Wood, S., J. A. Henning, L. Chen, T. McKibben, M. L. Smith, M. Weber, A. Zemenick, and C. J. Ballen.
2020. A scientist like me: demographic analysis of biology textbooks reveals both progress and long-
term lags. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 287:20200877.
Wyner, Y. 2012. What’s missing? nding the hidden environmental science story in everyday news. The
Science Teacher 79:59–63.
Wyner, Y., and R. DeSalle. 2020. An investigation of how environmental science textbooks link human
environmental impact to ecology and daily life. CBE Life Sciences Education 19:ar54.
Article e02233 Xxxxx 2025 33
Undergraduate Education
Yang, S., and R. Pigg. 2022. An overview of the biologists and graph interpretation project. QUBES
Educational Resources, Eschborn, Germany.
Yu, Z., G. Yang, T. Lin, B. Zhao, Y. Xu, X. Yao, W. Ma, H. Vejre, and B. Jiang. 2024. Exposure ecology
drives a unied understanding of the nexus of (urban) natural ecosystem, ecological exposure, and
health. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 10:165.
Zemenick, A. T., S. Turney, A. J. Webster, S. C. Jones, and M. G. Weber. 2022. Six principles for
embracing gender and sexual diversity in postsecondary biology classrooms. Bioscience 72:481–492.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bes2.2233/suppinfo
Appendix S1.
