gordon research conference abstract guidelines

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference: A Meeting Report

• Erin L. Dolan
• Michelle Borrero
• Kristine Callis-Duehl
• Miranda M. Chen Musgrove
• Joelyn de Lima
• Isi Ero-Tolliver
• Laci M. Gerhart
• Emma C. Goodwin
• Lindsey R. Hamilton
• Meredith A. Henry
• Jose Herrera
• Bethany Huot
• Stacey Kiser
• Melissa E. Ko
• Marcy E. Kravec
• Lisa B. Limeri
• Melanie E. Peffer
• Debra Pires
• Juan S. Ramirez Lugo
• Starlette M. Sharp
• Nicole A. Suarez

*Address correspondence to: Erin L. Dolan ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Search for more papers by this author

Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus, San Juan, PR 00931

Education Research and Outreach, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63123

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Department of Biological Sciences, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23666

Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616

Department of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201

Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217

Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322

Office of the Provost, Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

Biological Sciences Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Science Division, Lane Community College, Eugene, OR 97405

Thinking Matters Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199

Department of Biology, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA 30314

Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309

Department of Life Sciences Core Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095

Department of Curriculum and Instruction–Science Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California, San Diego, and San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120

The 2019 Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled “Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education,” brought together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. Graduate students and postdocs had the additional opportunity to present and discuss research during a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) that preceded the GRC. This report provides a broad overview of the UBER GRC and GRS and highlights major themes that cut across invited talks, poster presentations, and informal discussions. Such themes include the importance of working in teams at multiple levels to achieve instructional improvement, the potential to use big data and analytics to inform instructional change, the need to customize change initiatives, and the importance of psychosocial supports in improving undergraduate student well-being and academic success. The report also discusses the future of the UBER GRC as an established meeting and describes aspects of the conference that make it unique, both in terms of facilitating dissemination of research and providing a welcoming environment for conferees.

There is a preponderance of evidence regarding how to teach and mentor diverse groups of students in ways that promote their conceptual understanding, their development as scientists, and their success in college and beyond ( Hrabowski, 2011 ; Singer and Smith, 2013 ; Freeman et al. , 2014 ; Gentile et al ., 2017 ). Yet there remains only modest uptake of these evidence-based practices ( Stains et al. , 2018 ). This year’s Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled “Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education,” addressed this issue by bringing together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. For this conference, “improvement” meant a shift toward widespread use of effective and inclusive teaching, training, and mentoring in undergraduate biology education, also called “second-order change” ( Argyris and Schon, 1974 ; Kezar, 2014 ; Corbo et al ., 2016 ).

Although there are other national conferences focused on undergraduate biology education research (e.g., the annual meeting of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research [SABER]; Lo et al. , 2019 ), there are a few unique features and a different organizational structure that make the UBER GRC distinctive. The meeting offers a combination of presentations on big picture issues, themes, and directions for the field, as well as talks and posters on research and evaluation studies in biology education. For example, representatives of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and several professional societies have attended and presented at the meeting since its inception ( Tables 1 and 2 ). The meeting is longer in duration, following the 5-day, nine-session GRC structure in which the entire group gathers for every session, meals, and social events. The meeting program features diverse types of sessions, including a combination of plenary talks, research talks, and poster sessions highlighting unpublished work; discussions facilitated by leaders in undergraduate biology education; and networking among established and up-and-coming scholars. The meeting also includes sessions geared to discussion about the experiences of women and other historically marginalized groups in science (Power Hour, described later in this report) and to support early-career scholars (Gordon Research Seminar, described later in this report). GRC has a strict confidentiality policy that prohibits any recording of talks or other forms of documentation or dissemination of data shared during the meeting. This policy is part of what makes the GRC a unique conference, because it is meant to encourage participants to share unpublished results, works in progress, and negative results that might not otherwise be available to the community.

a NA, not applicable; n.d., no data available. Totals may not combine to 100% for counts with missing data.

a For the SABER 2019 meeting, information was available only for 2-year college affiliates.

The 195 conferees at the 2019 UBER GRC represented a range of disciplinary backgrounds beyond biology, biology teaching, and biology education research. 1 For instance, conferees identified as developmental psychologists, learning scientists, and members of other professions in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education not limited to biology. Conferees also represented a range of position types and career stages, including graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty in contingent and tenure-track positions, administrators of diverse ranks (department heads, deans, provosts, directors of centers for teaching and learning), and representatives of funding agencies and education-focused nonprofit agencies ( Tables 1 and 2 ). In general, conferees came to the meeting to achieve multiple goals, including building their awareness and understanding of current educational research and resources as well as to network and form collaborations with both established and up-and-coming researchers and practitioners.

While GRC rules strictly prohibit photographing or otherwise documenting presentations, many posters included brochures, QR codes, paper citations, contact information, and social media handles, allowing participants to learn more about these projects through publicly available information and to connect outside of the GRC for possible future collaborations. GRC gave permission to publish this report of the meeting topics, atmosphere, and participant numbers and demographics, with the stipulation that none of the data presented during the meeting be included in the report.

In this meeting report, we provide a brief overview of the meeting and its history. We also highlight multiple themes that emerged across the presentations and discussions as well as preliminary plans for the 2021 UBER GRC.

HISTORY OF THE MEETING

The UBER GRC was first offered in 2015 with leadership from Gordon Uno (University of Oklahoma) and Susan Elrod (Indiana University South Bend). To broadly appeal to potential speakers and conferees in the biology education space, the organizers specified no theme aside from the focus on undergraduate biology education. A wide range of topics were presented at the 2015 meeting, including curricular design, student success, teaching improvement, and measuring student outcomes. Driven by suggestions from the community, the 2017 UBER GRC focused on improving diversity, equity, and learning in undergraduate biology education. Presentations and discussions centered around describing the diversity landscape, including trends in student populations, teaching practices, and equity and diversity policies. Other topics discussed at the 2017 meeting included creating more inclusive environments; evaluating strategies and programs for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion; and understanding mechanisms of change in higher education. The 2019 UBER GRC theme emerged from this last topic, with the aim of promoting deeper discussion and sharing of data and ideas related to fostering widespread change in higher education toward effective and inclusive undergraduate biology education.

MEETING OVERVIEW

Sylvia Hurtado (University of California, Los Angeles) and David Asai (Howard Hughes Medical Institute [HHMI]) kicked off the 2019 meeting by offering different perspectives on change in undergraduate biology education. Hurtado proposed a new model on instructional change that outlined how data can be used to change minds and ultimately change behavior. She further emphasized that, for educational data to change minds and behaviors, it needs to be coupled with external pressures and incentives, training and development, buy-in through collegial relationships, accountability, and leadership support. Asai moved the focus to boots on the ground by taking up the charge of developing a new introductory biology curriculum that moved away from content coverage and toward core concepts and science practice. This focus on rethinking introductory science course work is one of the themes of HHMI’s Inclusive Excellence 3 funding initiative, now underway. 2

Given the theme of the meeting, a major focus of the talks and posters was on individual- and institution-level supports for and constraints on greater use of evidence-based instruction. Speakers shared insights into how tangible institutional structures, such as annual review, promotion, and tenure, and intangible elements, such as teaching beliefs and trust between students and instructors, can influence the degree to which instructors effectively apply active learning and to which students reap the benefits. Collectively, the scientific content of the meeting indicated that the field of biology education research is beginning to move beyond the mechanics of active learning to the need to examine and account for the culture of higher education to achieve more effective and inclusive instruction.

Both practitioners and researchers emphasized the importance of action from all levels of the academic institution, from faculty and department heads to senior leadership, in order to achieve widespread improvement of undergraduate education. One strategy offered by speakers included meeting and communicating often with stakeholders to receive and offer guidance on elements that influence progress toward change, such as during faculty teaching evaluations, recruitment and hiring, and resource allocation. Speakers also emphasized the importance of maximizing the effectiveness of change initiatives by involving teams, rather than single change agents.

INNOVATIVE USES OF DATA

Several speakers presented work on large data sets, which they argued have largely untapped potential for maximizing student success within courses and degree programs. For instance, David Micklos (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) spoke about how existing scientific data sets can be used in courses to engage students in research. Tim McKay (University of Michigan) and Tim Renick (Georgia State University) both spoke about the ways their institutions use course-level or student-level data to identify anomalies in student performance and tailor interventions to reduce performance gaps and better support students in making progress toward degree completion.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Community colleges (CCs) represent a wide array of institutional environments with student profiles that closely reflect the ongoing shift in student demographics toward an older and more ethnically and socially diverse student population. More than half of the students who ultimately receive a STEM undergraduate degree spend part of their student experience at a CC. Yet, by most generous estimates, only 3% of research articles in undergraduate biology education include CC contexts ( Schinske et al. , 2017 ). Talks both within a CC-focused session and by CC faculty speakers during other sessions sought to address this gap by highlighting initiatives designed to support CC students in successfully pursuing their desired educational and career paths. James Hewlett (Finger Lakes Community College) spoke about the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI 3 ), which is a network of community colleges across the country that engage undergraduates in research experiences in the form of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), program-wide undergraduate research experiences, and summer undergraduate research experiences. CCURI institutions have experienced varying levels of success in creating sustainable undergraduate research programs. Research is currently underway to identify factors that promote or constrain CCs in shifting from a culture of “no research” to one in which research is an integral part of the CC student experience.

Jenny McFarland (Edmonds Community College) shared data on a STEM support program that assists CC college students in moving past early failure in gateway STEM courses, and Erin Shortlidge (Portland State University) presented data from a STEM support program aimed to reduce transfer shock for CC students moving from 2- to 4-year institutions. Elements that appeared to be important in these success programs include peer support, cocurricular activities, and participation in undergraduate research experiences, which improved student perceptions of inclusion in the scientific and academic community. Jeff Schinske (Foothill College) presented the Community College Biology Instructor Network to Support Inquiry into Teaching and Education Scholarship, which engages CC faculty in designing and carrying out education research in CC settings with CC students through a combination of professional development, mentorship, and networking. 4 The success of these and other initiatives was apparent in the many posters on display at the GRC that detailed the efforts of CCs to improve undergraduate biology education and to provide research experiences to their students.

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

Undergraduate research was a prevalent topic in talks and posters, with an emphasis on how undergraduate research experiences can maximize diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Many posters presented studies of the effectiveness of CUREs in increasing students’ computational proficiency as well as their confidence and identities as scientists. Other posters about CUREs focused on their potential to increase gender equity; decrease “plant blindness”; and enable hands-on, inquiry-based elements for online courses. There were several examples of the impact of CUREs on self-efficacy and in promoting equity for different student populations (majors, nonmajors, first years, underrepresented minorities, etc.). These were implemented in multiple scenarios using a wide range of research projects, some of which involved the use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology and microbe identification. Other poster presenters examined how students developed scientific skills such as scientific argumentation, reasoning, and critical thinking in formats other than undergraduate research. These approaches included guided-inquiry learning and online platforms such as Quizfolio.

CUSTOMIZING CHANGE INITIATIVES

Many of the speakers and poster presenters related their work to Vision and Change core concepts and competencies and took a community-centric approach in their design and development ( American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ). Yet multiple speakers and presenters also emphasized the need to customize change initiatives. For example, Mark Lee (Spelman College) spoke about his approach to inclusive hiring and retention, which draws from the self-determination theory of motivation ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). This theory posits that individuals are more motivated if they have some control over their situations (autonomy), they feel capable of being successful (competence), and they feel connected to the people around them (relatedness). He argued for keeping new faculty teaching loads light for the first semester while they gained teaching competence, which also functioned to give them autonomy in developing their research agenda before taking on additional teaching and service duties. Susan Elrod (Indiana University South Bend) provided her perspective on the challenges of institutional change, especially at a large institution. She argued that a university is a system and that faculty may not have a good understanding of what makes this system work. She posited that, when change leaders understand the inputs, workings, and outputs of the system, they can work within it or alter it to achieve desired changes. Elrod then spoke about “moves” that change leaders need to make and how these “moves” might differ by the level at which the change has to occur. Alix Fink (Longwood University) concluded the session by giving a practical example of customized change. She spoke about the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) Ambassadors program. 5 This program works with departments to identify the capacities of a department, envision outcomes of transformation, and develop strategies to use available capacities in order to achieve transformation. All three speakers commented on the need to first determine what individuals, departments, and institutions need to achieve change, and then figure out how to change the existing system to meet needs.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Elisabeth Schussler (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), Brian Sato (University of California, Irvine), Gili Marbach-Ad (University of Maryland, College Park), and Katerina Thompson (University of Maryland, College Park) spoke about effective professional development at all levels of undergraduate biology education, including graduate student teaching assistants, faculty, and administrators. Collectively, they emphasized that institutions can support professional development by establishing reward structures for participation and by making even modest gestures that indicate professional development is valued, such as providing food at professional development meetings. They also emphasized the importance of relating professional development to personal experience and of building a strong sense of community among the participants. They argued that the goals of professional development sessions should be to build awareness about students, to stimulate conversation and sharing of resources related to teaching and learning, and to foster connections between teaching centers and departments.

An important trend was the significant role of organizations and entities other than colleges and universities as catalysts for change. Among these were BioQUEST, CBE—Life Sciences Education , CourseSource , the National Association of Biology Teachers, and Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Education and Synthesis. 6 The general perception was that these entities are continually developing and improving their platforms to provide faculty with support to teach effectively and inclusively. The speakers explained that making effective use of resources from these organizations requires professional development at all levels. Highlighted initiatives to provide this professional development included: undergraduate peer-learning assistants and graduate teaching assistants, Science Teaching Experience for Postdoctoral scholars, faculty development on active learning, and support for departmental change through the PULSE network.

UNDERSTANDING AND MAXIMIZING DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

Presenters also addressed a range of issues regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. Speakers discussed the need for diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments at both the student and faculty levels, within research environments, and at all types of institutions. Several conferees presented on specific active-learning strategies that fostered students’ sense of belonging in the classroom and in the STEM disciplines. Many different departmental interventions and organizations were discussed that aimed to create diverse and well-resourced faculty, including Aspire Alliance 7 and Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities. 8

Speakers Sarah Eddy (Florida International University), Isi Ero-Tolliver (Hampton University), and Michael Feder (AAAS) challenged attendees to think beyond traditional and current approaches to diverse and equitable education. Eddy highlighted the need to consider values and aspirations of individual students, rather than just the context of their learning, in order to promote learning and success of all students. Ero-Tolliver focused on bringing CUREs to underserved institutions such as historically black colleges and universities. Feder presented on the work being done by the AAAS to promote inclusive teaching through reward and research structures, such as the STEM Equity Achieving Change (SEA-Change) program. 9 In framing this challenge, the speakers emphasized the importance of teaching-focused professional development and the role of change agents in conceptualizing and tackling departmental and institutional change. These same topics were echoed in many of the other talks over the course of the meeting.

Tracie Addy (Lafayette College), Ellen Carpenter (NSF), and Kimberly Tanner (San Francisco State University) concluded the meeting with a session on inclusion in undergraduate biology education. Addy described work she is leading to identify factors that predict whether instructors implement inclusive teaching approaches as well as their reasoning for doing so. Echoing elements of HHMI’s Inclusive Excellence 3 initiative, Addy urged the community to define a vision for an inclusive institution, noting that shared vision is critical for institutional transformation ( Henderson et al ., 2011 ). Carpenter spoke about the NSF’s investment in undergraduate biology education and commended the community’s exemplary use of resources. She said that the NSF sought to support inclusive, creative, novel, and transformative research. The types of research suitable for funding include identifying what “works” (or not) in biology education, generating new knowledge about biology teaching and learning, broadening participation and maximizing inclusion in STEM, understanding adaptation of education-based practices, and facilitating sustainability in projects. Tanner spoke at a personal level about inclusion as a first-­generation college student herself, and how this informs her research and her efforts to foster inclusion in biology education. She argued that great science requires diverse perspectives, but that these perspectives are often excluded by traditional approaches to teaching and education. She spoke about the potential for a novel, relatively simple methodology, the Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching, to reveal teaching patterns that faculty could use to reflect on their teaching and track changes over time ( Owens et al. , 2017 ).

address marginalizing behavior, because it will not “just go away”;

recognize power differentials in order to bring the conversation out of the hierarchy and onto the human level;

acknowledge that all are entitled to feel equal and there is a need to find ways to speak up and help change marginalizing cultures; and

assume responsibility regardless of connection to the transgression.

GORDON RESEARCH SEMINAR

The UBER GRC included a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) for the first time this year. This 2-day event, which immediately preceded the GRC, was designed to be a platform to increase participation of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars who represent the future of research in the discipline. The GRS featured four talk sessions and two poster sessions, all presented by early-career researchers.

The GRS began with a discussion of students’ social psychological experiences in the classroom fueled by talks from Katelyn Cooper (University of Central Florida) and Meredith Henry (Emory University). Cooper discussed students’ experiences with anxiety in the classroom and Henry discussed students’ experiences with failure. These talks highlighted the influence of factors other than cognitive skills in student well-being and success. They also highlighted the need to create environments that promote positive affect and social experiences in the classroom, especially with relation to failure experiences.

The second science session focused on graduate students’ teaching experiences and their teaching professional development. Miranda Chen Musgrove (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) began the session by characterizing how graduate students cope with both research and teaching anxiety. Joshua Reid (Middle Tennessee State University) then discussed how graduate students navigate their dual research and teaching identities. Collectively, these talks explored the unique challenges and experiences of educators who are also students themselves. Lorelei Patrick (University of Minnesota Twin Cities) and Rita Margarida Magalhaes (Rochester Institute of Technology) addressed factors that influence pedagogical decision making of both graduate students and faculty. These discussions emphasized the importance of professional development for early-career scholars as a lever for reforming undergraduate education.

The third science session focused on the development and application of instructional tools. This session was a unique blend of research and practice, relevant to the broad range of GRS participants’ interests and backgrounds. Alexa Clemmons (University of Washington, Seattle) presented BioSkills , 10 a guide to learning objectives aligned with Vision and Change core competencies. Megan Shiroda (Michigan State University) presented on Automated Assessment of Constructed Response, 11 a tool that summarizes the content of students’ responses to constructed-response questions. Both speakers discussed their research on the use of these tools as well as practical tips for implementation for practitioners.

The last science session focused on students’ psychosocial experiences in the classroom. Both talks emphasized the importance of considering students’ perspectives in the classroom and how they may differ from the perspectives of instructors or researchers. Staci Johnson (Clemson University) presented on her work on students’ learning approaches, highlighting how students may interpret the wording of a survey differently from the researchers who designed it and the instructors who implement it. Claire Meaders (Cornell University) presented her work on how students from different backgrounds may have different expectations when they enter their introductory college courses and the problems that may arise when their expectations are not met.

The GRS poster presentations showcased an array of research topics, including research on faculty promotion, incorporating quantitative and interdisciplinary pedagogical practices into CUREs, strategies for teaching professional development, and STEM career development. The range of topics highlighted the diversity in scholarship among the GRS community, including discipline-based education researchers tackling fundamental questions and primarily bench scientists engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

GRS MENTORING SESSION

Professional development for early-career scientists was both a goal and a research theme for the GRS. To this end, the second day of the GRS began with a mentoring session, in which four field leaders led discussions and guided activities designed to advance the professional development of GRS participants. David Asai (HHMI) led a discussion about mentoring that focused on how to mentor students and how to manage relationships with one’s own mentors. Stacey Kiser (Lane Community College) led a discussion about conference networking, which focused on setting specific networking and professional development goals for a meeting. Rebecca Price (University of Washington Bothell) and Sarah Eddy (Florida International University) co-led a session about crafting job application materials to leverage one’s different professional identities (e.g., educator, researcher, biologist).

In each session, participants engaged in reflective activities about the topic to advance their professional development. For example, in the conference networking session, participants reflected on their career goals over the next 5 years, generated two to three concrete and measurable goals for the meeting, and discussed these in small groups. Participants’ feedback indicated that engaging in this reflective exercise before a conference helped them maintain focus and progress toward their networking and professional development goals.

MEETING VALUE

Although this meeting report is not intended as an evaluation of the meeting per se, it is informative to draw attention to what the UBER GRC participants saw as the unique value of the meeting. Statements about the value of the GRS and GRC reflect the perspectives of the authors of this meeting report and their informal conversations with other conferees rather than any systematic measurement of meeting value. Our intention in sharing these perspectives is to equip readers with information to make a more informed decision about whether to attend a future UBER GRC meeting.

Graduate students and postdoctoral scholars who had an interest in education research but little to no experience with it commented on how the meeting provided an opportunity to learn about the nature of this research and make connections with the researchers. Faculty who were transitioning from the natural sciences into discipline-based education research also found that the meeting provided a supportive introduction to the field and an environment that afforded opportunities to make connections.

The GRS offered newcomers to the field of undergraduate biology education research an opportunity to quickly build a network and become incorporated into a community of peers. The GRS consisted of a smaller group of attendees (∼50 compared with ∼200 at the GRC). Most of these individuals also attended the GRC, which allowed conferees several days (1.5-day GRS + 5-day GRC) to build networks and reinforce their sense of community during the larger GRC.

More experienced scholars appreciated that individuals working in UBER were using theories from psychology and other social science disciplines to frame their work. This progress was viewed as increasing the potential contributions that individuals outside biology could make in the undergraduate biology education space. The diversity of institutional types represented at the GRC was also perceived to be a rich source of knowledge for what works in education as well as how and why it works. The fact that the meeting included instructors and was not limited to scholars allowed for awareness building about the current and urgent matters educators are facing and the array of tools and resources that have been developed to address these matters. Ideas could be exchanged between researchers and practitioners about strategies for promoting student learning and development. Conferees found themselves on both sides of this conversation—sharing ideas and adapting strategies to different courses, institutions, or goals. Conferees felt these conversations were far more detailed and personalized than the recommendations that can be gleaned from a website or publication, and they frequently ended with an invite to reconnect via email after the conference. Prior UBER GRC participants commented on the strong sense of community that developed at the meeting and continued beyond it.

Regardless of disciplinary perspective, conferees noted several aspects of the UBER GRC that made it a unique conference environment. First, they appreciated that the conference focused on the use of data to make decisions in undergraduate biology education. Conferees found themselves surrounded by like-minded science educators who valued the power of evidence-based teaching practices and who could learn from one another. Conferees also found the meeting a friendly place to share preliminary work, and they appreciated the developmental nature of the discussions. Early-career scholars and individuals new to UBER noted that their participation and contributions felt valued. They also noted that the conference was useful for becoming familiar with current trends in the discipline and with establishing a foothold in the community.

All GRC meetings are designed to be immersive experiences that promote deep discussion about research and foster networking and collaboration. This is accomplished by holding meetings in secluded areas with on-site housing, communal meals, and ample time for discussion and by ensuring both early-career and established scholars are among the conferees. The meeting is small enough to deeply engage with others around the research, yet large enough to offer some diversity in terms of research interests. All participants attend the same sessions, so there is a strong shared experience. Communal meals allow for the ideas that are presented in the oral sessions and posters to be discussed in detail among the participants and with the presenters more informally. The poster sessions are more active and engaged than the majority of other conferences and frequently inspire discussion beyond the projects presented. Moreover, the length of the meeting affords the luxury of time to think about, explore, and cultivate ideas.

Finally, the leadership of GRCs is expected to fundraise in order to cover as many of the conference costs as possible. This includes writing proposals to federal and philanthropic agencies and seeking donations from industry and individuals to support costs not allowed by certain granting agencies. Depending on the success of these efforts, the funds enable participation of individuals who do not have dedicated grant or department funds for conference travel, which promotes the inclusivity of the meeting.

The UBER GRC was just promoted from “probationary” to “continuing” status, which means that it will now recur every 2 years, as long as attendance remains strong and evaluations positive. All GRCs are probationary for at least two offerings, and the decision to shift to a recurring meeting must be made after the third offering (i.e., 2019). This decision was based on multiple factors, including the number of applications, the number of participants, and the evaluation results, including feedback from conferees and on-site staff. The next UBER GRC is scheduled for June 27–July 2, 2021 at Bates College (Lewiston, ME); Erin Dolan (University of Georgia) and Stacey Kiser (Lane Community College) were elected to be cochairs, and Stanley Lo (University of California, San Diego) and Carrie Diaz Eaton (Bates College) were elected to be co–vice chairs. The associated GRS will be held June 25–26; Starlette M. Sharp (Pennsylvania State University) and Miranda Chen Musgrove (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) were elected as chair and vice chair of the 2021 GRS.

As in previous offerings of the UBER GRC, the 2021 meeting will focus on a topic that emerged from the community: navigating transitions in undergraduate biology education. This theme is grounded in research in undergraduate biology education that indicates that students, educators, and researchers must transition across learning environments, institutions, programming, and types of work to be successful. For instance, students transition from precollege to college education, from 2-year to 4-year colleges, from learning about discoveries in classrooms to producing discoveries in the lab and the field, and from being students to becoming professionals in their desired careers. Educators transition from doctoral and postdoctoral training that emphasizes development of biological expertise to careers that require expertise in curricula, instruction, and student development. Furthermore, biology education researchers transition from training in education or in biological research to studying teaching and learning in biology per se. Finally, students, educators, and researchers in undergraduate biology education can experience transitions that may align with or develop their identities or clash with or undermine their identities. The 2021 UBER GRC will feature cutting-edge, unpublished research from high-profile and emerging scholars studying these and other transition points in the undergraduate biology education space.

1 We have named speakers but not poster presenters in this report. The full program, including speaker names, organizations, and talk titles, can be found here: www.grc.org/undergraduate-biology-education-research-conference/2019 . Speakers can be contacted directly about the content of their presentations.

2 www.hhmi.org/science-education/programs/inclusive-excellence-new-competition-announcement .

3 www.ccuri.org .

4 https://qubeshub.org/community/groups/ccbioinsites .

5 www.pulsecommunity.org/page/ambassador-program-1 .

6 https://qubeshub.org .

7 http://aspirealliance.org .

8 http://sencer.net .

9 https://seachange.aaas.org .

10 https://qubeshub.org/qubesresources/publications/1305/3 .

11 https://beyondmultiplechoice.org .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The UBER GRS and GRC were supported in part by funding from the HHMI, the National Institute of General Medicine Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number 1R13GM134534-01, and the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education Award 1922648. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the HHMI, NSF, or NIH. Thanks also to Mary Pat Wenderoth for providing participant information for the 2019 SABER meeting.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science . ( 2011 ). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. ( 1974 ). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness . Oxford, UK: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Corbo, J. C., Reinholz, D. L., Dancy, M. H., Deetz, S., & Finkelstein, N. ( 2016 ). Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 12 (1), 010113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010113 Google Scholar
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. ( 2014 ). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 111 (23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Gentile, J., Brenner, K., & Stephens, A. ( 2017 ). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from www.nap.edu/catalog/24622/undergraduate-research-experiences-for-stem-students-successes-challenges-and-opportunities Google Scholar
• Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. ( 2011 ). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 (8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439 Google Scholar
• Hrabowski, F. A. ( 2011 ). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroad . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved December 18, 2016, from www.nap.edu/catalog/12984/expanding-underrepresented-minority-participation-americas-science-and-technology-talent-at Google Scholar
• Kezar, A. ( 2014 ). Higher education change and social networks: A review of research . Journal of Higher Education , 85 (1), 91–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777320 Google Scholar
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., & Sato, B. K. ( 2019 ). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (1), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Owens, M. T., Seidel, S. B., Wong, M., Bejines, T. E., Lietz, S., Perez, J. R. , …& Tanner, K. D. ( 2017 ). Classroom sound can be used to classify teaching practices in college science courses . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 114 (12), 3085–3090. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618693114 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. ( 2000 ). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Schinske, J. N., Balke, V. L., Bangera, M. G., Bonney, K. M., Brownell, S. E., Carter, R. S. , … & Corwin, L. A. ( 2017 ). Broadening participation in biology education research: Engaging community college students and faculty . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (2), mr1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0289 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. ( 2013 ). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Journal of Engineering Education , 102 (4), 468–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20030 Google Scholar
• Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E. , … & Young, A. M. ( 2018 ). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities . Science , 359 (6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892 Medline ,  Google Scholar

Submitted: 30 September 2019 Revised: 31 January 2020 Accepted: 27 February 2020

© 2020 E. L. Dolan et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2020 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Meeting Report
• Open access
• Published: 09 August 2017

The Gordon Research Seminar & Conference on Parkinson’s disease: state of the Science 200 years after James Parkinson’s essay on the Shaking Palsy

• J. T. Greenamyre   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3468-7878 1 ,
• B. R. De Miranda 1 ,
• M. L. Bucher 1 ,
• A. B. Singleton 2 &
• M. G. Tansey 3  

npj Parkinson's Disease volume  3 , Article number:  26 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

1528 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Conferences and meetings
• Parkinson's disease

The first-ever Gordon Research Seminar on Parkinson’s disease was held in conjunction with the second-ever Gordon Research Conference on Parkinson’s disease at the Grand Summit Hotel at Sunday River in Newry, Maine, from June 24–30. The Gordon Research Seminar brought together graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to network, learn first-hand about life with Parkinson’s disease, listen to and present Parkinson’s disease science, and hear about a variety of relevant career options. The Gordon Research Conference began as the Gordon Research Seminar concluded and was attended by a broad, international mix of junior and senior scientists from academia and industry. It was organized into eight outstanding scientific sessions in which cutting edge science, much of it unpublished, was presented. Among attendees, there was universal praise for the content and organization of the meeting, and for its open and welcoming ambiance.

In this, the 200th anniversary of James Parkinson’s Essay on the Shaking Palsy, the first-ever Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) on Parkinson’s disease (PD) was held at the Grand Summit Hotel at Sunday River in Newry, Maine, on June 24th and 25th. The GRS, organized by and for postdoctoral researchers and graduate students, was chaired by Briana De Miranda and co-chaired by Meghan Bucher. The GRS was followed immediately by the second-ever Gordon Research Conference (GRC) on PD (June 25–30), which was organized by Andy Singleton (chair) and Tim Greenamyre (vice-chair). Both meetings were over-subscribed, and a total of 200 participants from at least 15 different countries (representing four continents) made the long trek to Sunday River (Fig. 1 ). The relative isolation of this excellent venue enhanced the chances for interactions and the planning of new collaborations. There was a nice mix of trainees, and junior and senior scientists, and there was broad participation by academic and industry scientists, program staff from the National Institutes of Health (NINDS and NIEHS) and representatives of foundations (the Michael J Fox Foundation and the Parkinson’s Foundation). Also in attendance for the entire GRS/GRC was an emeritus professor of chemistry and former GRC board member who was recently diagnosed with PD. His active participation and interactions with PD researchers gave important context to the scientific presentations.

The Gordon Research Seminar & Conference on Parkinson’s disease was attended by 200 scientists from 15 nations representing four continents. There were almost 50 invited speakers, and more than 100 posters were presented. Three Carl Storm Underrepresented Minority Fellowships were awarded by the GRC

The week of Parkinson’s science began with the GRS—and an outstanding keynote presentation by Lorenz Studer on “Modeling and Treating Parkinson’s Disease Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells”. Then, in addition to poster sessions and a series of 20-min talks by selected trainees, there was a moving and articulate first-hand discussion of what it’s like to have PD by Nicole L, a young-onset PD patient, who was diagnosed at the age of 28 after giving birth to her first daughter. For some of those in attendance, this was their first opportunity to interact directly with someone with the disease. There was also a discussion of issues related to publishing in a high-impact journal by Orla Smith ( Science Translational Medicine ). The meeting ended with a career development panel in which representatives from industry, a PD foundation, the NIH, professional publishing, and academics discussed their career trajectories and perspectives on job opportunities in their respective fields. There was unanimous praise for the organization and content of the GRS, and participants spoke highly of every aspect of the meeting, especially the opportunity to network with new colleagues, juniors, and seniors alike. Importantly, the GRS served as an ‘ice-breaker’ for the trainees, after which they no longer felt intimidated or reluctant to ask questions at the GRC or to approach senior scientists. At its conclusion, Soumitra Ghosh and Collin Bantle were elected chair and vice-chair of the 2019 GRS.

Where the GRS left off, the GRC began (a few hours later). As discussion leader for the keynote session (“Informing Etiology Through the Clinic”), Warren Olanow brought home the practical difficulties inherent in designing, implementing, and interpreting a trial of an agent designed to be “disease-modifying” or “neuroprotective” in PD. In this time of optimism for a breakthrough in the treatment of PD, many in the audience commented that this was a sobering dose of reality. After this introduction, Bill Langston then delivered the keynote address: “What Is Parkinson’s Disease and Why Is It Important for Understanding Biology”. The content was informative, provocative, controversial, and highly entertaining as it laid out the difficulties of defining “Parkinson’s disease” based on clinical, pathological, or genetic grounds. Echoes of his presentation spontaneously reverberated in subsequent talks and audience questions for the remainder of the meeting.

As with the first GRC in 2015, the 2017 meeting was not comprehensive; it was only able to address a limited (but different) set of topics of importance in PD. Like all GRCs, there were eight scientific sessions: (1) Parkinson’s Disease Genetics and Systems Biology; (2) Gene-Environment Interaction; (3) LRRK2: From Protein, Through Cell Biology to Therapeutic Intervention; (4) The Biology of Aging and Parkinson’s Disease; (5) Protein Handling and Trafficking; (6) Parkinson’s Disease Models: Improving Predictive Value; (7) SNCA: From Protein, Through Cell Biology to Therapeutic Intervention; and (8) Inflammation and Immunity in Parkinson’s Disease. A couple of the topics, those on LRRK2 and α-synuclein (SNCA), are sufficiently mature that they were each organized into ‘vertical’ sessions spanning from basic biology to ongoing therapeutic development programs by Pharma. Comparisons by industry scientists of the PD therapeutic development programs (for LRRK2 and α-synuclein) to those in Alzheimer’s disease (for beta-amyloid), which are farther along, provided important context—and they suggest that the PD community needs to be prepared for the long game, while simultaneously working to accelerate progress. This also highlighted the need of GRS/GRC meetings to stimulate conversation, potentiate collaboration, and grow the next leaders in the field.

One aspect of the program that was enjoyable for both speakers and audience members alike was the inclusion of experts from outside the PD field, and those whose research findings have led them into PD. Thus, Michel Desjardins described the novel phenomenon of mitochondrial antigen presentation, which potentially ties together mitochondria (including parkin and PINK1), immunology, vesicle cycling, LRRK2, and α-synuclein (among others!). Dario Alessi, an expert in protein phosphorylation and signaling, discussed his groundbreaking work on LRRK2 and its physiology. Roberta Brinton led a session on aging in relation to PD, and Andrew Yoo discussed microRNA-based reprogramming of cells into neurons in that context. Similarly, Rick Morimoto discussed proteostatic mechanisms and defects in aging. In addition, Victoria Bolotina, an expert in calcium signaling and ion channels, described how she got into the PD field via her studies of PLA2G6 (PARK14) and its role in calcium homeostasis.

At the GRS and GRC, there was a great deal of participation—both formal and informal—by scientists from industry. Given that we are likely on the cusp of therapeutic breakthroughs in PD, this was essential. It is important to note that industry participation not only did not detract from the GRC policy of presenting unpublished data, it actually enhanced it. Many of the attendees commented that the combined GRS/GRC was one of the most open and welcoming conferences they had ever attended; all looked forward to the next GRS/GRC planned for 2019.

Not all the valuable activities at the GRC were strictly related to science. Roberta Brinton and Marie-Francoise Chesselet led the Power Hour, “designed to help address the challenges women face in science and support the professional growth of women in our communities by providing an open forum for discussion and mentoring.” Representatives from federal (NINDS & NIEHS) and foundation (Michael J Fox Foundation & Parkinson’s Foundation) granting agencies generously volunteered for a breakout session on funding opportunities for students and postdocs. Similarly, a breakout session was organized for trainees by industry attendees to provide information and answer questions about careers in the pharma/biotechnology sector. All these sessions were timely and well-received.

Toward the end of the GRC, at the business meeting, Malú Tansey was elected as vice-chair of the 2019 GRC to assist Tim Greenamyre in organization of the meeting; she will chair the 2021 conference. It is important to note, however, that a GRS/GRC on Parkinson’s disease in 2019 and beyond has not yet been granted by the Gordon Research Conferences. Nevertheless, given the popularity of the current meeting (the organizers had to turn away applicants when the GRS and GRC limits were reached), it is hard to imagine otherwise. The time is ripe; we are on the verge of amazing progress in PD, and we are growing the talent to make this happen. As James Parkinson said in 1817, “… there appears to be sufficient reason for hoping that some remedial process may ere long be discovered, by which, at least, the progress of the disease may be stopped.”

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pittsburgh Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

J. T. Greenamyre, B. R. De Miranda & M. L. Bucher

Laboratory of Neurogenetics, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD, USA

A. B. Singleton

Department of Physiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

M. G. Tansey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.T.G. wrote the manuscript and B.R.D., M.L.B., A.B.S. and M.G.T. edited it.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. T. Greenamyre .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Greenamyre, J., De Miranda, B., Bucher, M. et al. The Gordon Research Seminar & Conference on Parkinson’s disease: state of the Science 200 years after James Parkinson’s essay on the Shaking Palsy. npj Parkinson's Disease 3 , 26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-017-0028-y

Download citation

Received : 06 July 2017

Accepted : 18 July 2017

Published : 09 August 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-017-0028-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

Search life-sciences literature (44,012,387 articles, preprints and more)

• Available from publisher site using DOI. A subscription may be required. Full text
• Similar Articles

Gordon Research Conferences.

Science , 24 Feb 2022 , 375(6583): 900-927 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ada1396   PMID: 35201872 

Abstract 

Full text links .

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ada1396

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

The GRS/GRC from the perspective of a graduate student and first time attendee.

Microb Ecol , 65(4):922-923, 25 Jan 2013

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 23354178

Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference: A Meeting Report.

Dolan EL , Borrero M , Callis-Duehl K , Musgrove MMC , de Lima J , Ero-Tolliver I , Gerhart LM , Goodwin EC , Hamilton LR , Henry MA , Herrera J , Huot B , Kiser S , Ko ME , Kravec ME , Lee M , Limeri LB , Peffer ME , Pires D , [...] Suarez NA

CBE Life Sci Educ , 19(2):mr1, 01 Jun 2020

Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 32357093 | PMCID: PMC8697667

Gordon research conference on photosynthesis: from evolution of fundamental mechanisms to radical re-engineering.

Rappaport F , Malnoë A , Govindjee

Photosynth Res , 123(2):213-223, 26 Nov 2014

Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 25425217

Cutting-edge science and coffee: Auditory System Gordon Research Conference and Seminar 2012 report.

Slee SJ , Coffin AB

J Assoc Res Otolaryngol , 14(1):1-2, 13 Dec 2012

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 23239163 | PMCID: PMC3540279

Free full text in Europe PMC

Young research investigators honored at the 2008 and 2009 Gordon Research Conferences on photosynthesis: ambiance and a personal perspective.

Photosynth Res , 102(1):1-6, 07 Aug 2009

Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 19662510

Europe PMC is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Why Publish With Us?
• Open Access
• About Glycobiology
• About the Society for Glycobiology
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Meeting and course announcements, glyco-forum.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Glyco-Forum, Glycobiology , Volume 33, Issue 1, January 2023, Page 1, https://doi.org/10.1093/glycob/cwac084

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Hands-on training courses in Glycoscience at the complex carbohydrate research Center

Course 1: Techniques for Characterization of Carbohydrate Structure of Plant and Microbial Polysaccharides – Polysaccharide Course (August 8–12, 2022).

Course 2: Separation and Characterization of Glycoprotein and Glycolipid Oligosaccharides - Glycoprotein Course (August 15–19, 2022).

Course 3: Analytical Techniques for Structural Analysis of Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs). (August 22–24, 2022).

Course 4: Glycomics, Glycoproteomics and Bioinformatics Tools for Data Interpretation of Mass Spectrometry of Glycoproteins (October 17–19, 2022).

Further information about training opportunities at the CCRC can be obtained by following the link   https://ast.uga.edu/training/   or email Dr. Parastoo Azadi at   [email protected] ; phone: 706–583-0629.

The 2023 Glycobiology Gordon Research Conference and Seminar From structure to function: Biological roles of glycans as major building blocks of life

March 11 - 17, 2023. Four Points Sheraton Ventura, CA, United States

GRC Chairs: Vlad Panin (Texas A&M University, USA) and Kiyoko Aoki-Kinoshita (Soka University, Japan). Vice-Chairs: Daniel Kolarich (Griffith University, Australia) and Anne Imberty (CNRS, France).

GRS Chairs: Simon Wisnovsky (University of British Columbia, Canada) and Kathir Alagesan (Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens, Germany)

The Glycobiology GRC is a premier, international scientific conference focused on the presentation of cutting-edge, unpublished research, prioritizing time for discussion after each talk and fostering informal interactions among scientists outstanding scientists of all career stages. The meeting topics concentrate on glycoconjugate structures and functions in a wide spectrum of biological contexts and pathobiology of human disorders. The Glycobiology GRC/GRS will showcase interdisciplinary research in a wide spectrum of scientific areas. The conference continues to emphasize diversity, bringing together a diverse group of scientists to ensure well-rounded interactions.

The unique format of the 5-day conferences is designed to maximize productive interaction and discussion between scientists, and the conferences are held at small and relatively isolated locations to minimize distractions and transportation issues. Gordon Research Conferences are officially “off-the-record”, with no abstracts or proceedings published before, during, or after the conference, and ample time is provided between sessions for socializing/encouraging informal discussions with fellow attendees. New results will be presented in approximately 50 talks, including plenary lectures and short talks selected from poster abstracts, and will be discussed during interactive poster sessions. Following a recent tradition, a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) on Glycobiology will be organized in conjunction with the GRC to promote the research and leadership skills of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, and to foster their mentorship by established researchers.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2423
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

About GRC 

The gordon research conferences provide an international forum for the presentation and discussion of frontier research in the biological, chemical, physical and engineering sciences and their interfaces..

GRC is a nonprofit organization dedicated to building communities that advance the frontiers of science.  Our conferences bring a global network of scientists together to discuss the latest pre-publication research in their field.  GRC's unique format focuses on discussion and provides conferees with the opportunity to network informally during free afternoon times.

GRC organizes over 395 Gordon Research Conferences (GRCs) and Gordon Research Seminars (GRSs) per year, each highlighting the latest, cutting-edge research in fields ranging from physics to neurobiology, material science and engineering, to medicine.

Whether you attend a GRC or a GRS, Gordon Research Conferences is well known for the discussions that take place after each scientific talk, where conference attendees debate the ideas presented to foster a dynamic scientific exchange. Each conference is limited to 200 attendees; scientists must apply to the  conference and be selected by the conference chair to attend the meeting.  All conferees are active participants in their community and contribute to moving the frontiers of the field forward.

Registration Form

MyGRC Account Check your application status, complete your registration, update your poster, change your rooming preference, make a bus reservation, print an invitation letter, print a receipt (which includes verification that you are presenting a poster) or print an invoice by logging into your account.

GRC Venues Everything you need to know, to plan your trip.

FAQs Instant answers to common questions.

Tell us how we can help

Call us and leave a detailed message at: 401-783-4011

*This voicemail is only checked once daily. Due to high volume of requests during the conference season, responses may be delayed.

Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference: A Meeting Report

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
• 2 Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus, San Juan, PR 00931.
• 3 Education Research and Outreach, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63123.
• 4 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
• 5 Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
• 6 Department of Biological Sciences, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23666.
• 7 Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
• 8 Department of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201.
• 9 Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217.
• 10 Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322.
• 11 Office of the Provost, Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522.
• 12 Biological Sciences Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
• 13 Science Division, Lane Community College, Eugene, OR 97405.
• 14 Thinking Matters Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
• 15 Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199.
• 16 Department of Biology, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA 30314.
• 17 Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309.
• 18 Department of Life Sciences Core Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095.
• 19 Department of Curriculum and Instruction-Science Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
• 20 Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California, San Diego, and San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120.
• PMID: 32357093
• PMCID: PMC8697667
• DOI: 10.1187/cbe.19-09-0188

The 2019 Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled "Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education," brought together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. Graduate students and postdocs had the additional opportunity to present and discuss research during a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) that preceded the GRC. This report provides a broad overview of the UBER GRC and GRS and highlights major themes that cut across invited talks, poster presentations, and informal discussions. Such themes include the importance of working in teams at multiple levels to achieve instructional improvement, the potential to use big data and analytics to inform instructional change, the need to customize change initiatives, and the importance of psychosocial supports in improving undergraduate student well-being and academic success. The report also discusses the future of the UBER GRC as an established meeting and describes aspects of the conference that make it unique, both in terms of facilitating dissemination of research and providing a welcoming environment for conferees.

Publication types

• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
• Biomedical Research
• Congresses as Topic

Grants and funding

• R13 GM134534/GM/NIGMS NIH HHS/United States
• HHMI/Howard Hughes Medical Institute/United States

• Values, Vision, and Mission
• ARCUS Staff
• Board of Directors
• ARCUS Committees
• Board Member Job Description
• ARCUS Annual Reports
• Employment Opportunities
• Privacy Policy
• Member Information
• ARCUS Members
• ARCUS Community Member Profiles
• Organizational Member Application
• ARCUS Membership Donation
• Annual Meetings
• Research Seminar Series
• Community and Citizen Science
• Indigenous Scholars
• Early Career Conference Award
• Education Programs
• Sea Ice Prediction Network
• Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook
• The Arctic in the Classroom
• Navigating the New Arctic
• AGU Community Meetings
• Arctic Research Seminar Series
• ARCUS at AMSS 2024
• CCS in the Far North 2024
• Tundra Talks
• ARCUS Annual Meetings
• Beringia Days 2023
• ARCUS at ASSW 2023
• Arctic Research Virtual Speed Networking
• Community and Citizen Science in the Far North
• Arctic Research Collaboration Workshop
• Engaging Rural and Alaska Native Youth in Arctic STEM
• Sea Ice Prediction Network Meetings
• ARCUS at APECS 2020
• 2020 Polar Technology Conference
• NNA Investigators Meeting
• SEARCH Meetings
• Alaska Marine Science Symposium 2018
• Women's Perspectives Luncheon at Polar2018
• ARCUS at POLAR2018
• Arctic Research Day 2017
• Arctic Science Summit Week 2017
• ARCUS at Week of the Arctic 2017
• Alaska Marine Science Symposium 2016
• Arctic Science Summit Week 2016
• ARCUS at Arctic Circle 2016
• NPS Symposium 2016
• Arctic Science Ministerial Side-Event 2016
• USArray Sustainability Workshop 2016
• Arctic Observing Open Science Meeting 2015
• 2013 Logistics Workshop
• State of the Arctic 2010
• Northern Oil and Gas Forum 2010
• NPS Park Science in the Arctic 2008
• View Calendar
• Upcoming Events
• Search Events
• Submit Event
• Past Announcement Search
• Witness the Arctic
• Witness Community Highlights
• ARCUS Mailing Lists
• Arctic Links
• Directory of Arctic Researchers
• Publications Directory
• News Archive
• Conducting Research with Northern Communities
• Polar Education List
• Purchase Items
• Virtual Backgrounds
• ARCUS Archive Site
• Giving to ARCUS
• Donor Levels

Call for Abstracts and Registration: 2023 Gordon Research Conference and Seminar on Polar Marine Science

Call for Abstracts and Registration 2023 Gordon Research Conference and Seminar on Polar Marine Science 5-10 March 2023 Ventura, California

Abstract submission deadline: 5 February 2023

For more information, go to: https://www.grc.org/polar-marine-science-conference/2023/

Organizers invite abstracts and registration for the 2023 Gordon Research Conference (GRC) and Seminar on Polar Marine Science. This conference, with the theme of Integrating Ocean Physics and Biogeochemistry to Assess Polar Ecosystem Sensitivity to Rapid Change , will take place 5-10 March 2023 in Ventura, California.

This GRC on Polar Marine Science will highlight recent advances in the understanding of physical-chemical-biological linkages and feedback processes across coupled ocean-cryosphere-atmosphere-ecosystems of the Arctic and Southern oceans. Special emphasis will be given to understand impacts on polar marine species, food webs, and habitats. Sessions will highlight recent advance in polar climate change detection and attribution, impacts of multiple stressors on biota, changes in habitat distribution, integrated approaches to collect multi-disciplinary observations, and novel methods to analyze and link long-term time-series data with conceptual and numerical models.

The conference will consist of both talks and posters. One-minute oral summaries of posters will allow presenters to address the entire group, promoting enhanced interactions, in-depth discussions, and brainstorming. A GRC "Power Hour" will be held to help address the challenges women face in polar science and support the professional growth of women in our communities by providing an open forum for discussion and mentoring.

A Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) will be held on the weekend prior to the GRC. The GRS will provide a forum for graduate students and postdoctoral scientists to present their work in a peer-to-peer setting. The participants will discuss cutting-edge aspects of their research, and have the opportunity to build collaborative relationships with other early career researchers as well as with established scientists and mentors.

The seminar will focus on the spatial and temporal variability of processes (and specific methodology applied) occurring in the polar oceans, with a particular emphasis on interfaces. The seminar will feature approximately 10 talks and two poster sessions. All attendees are expected to actively participate in the GRS, either by giving an oral presentation or presenting a poster. Therefore, all applications must include an abstract.