1932

Abstract

The pervasive effects of the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are but one reason for educators to refocus their efforts on virology teaching. Additionally, it is critical to understand how viruses function and to elucidate the relationship between virus and host. An understanding of current virology education may improve pedagogical approaches for educating our students and trainees. Faculty who teach undergraduate microbiology indicate that approximately 10% of the course content features viruses; stand-alone virology courses are infrequently offered to undergraduates. Fortunately, virology taught to undergraduates includes foundational material; several approaches for delivery of lecture- and lab-based content exist. At the graduate education level, there is growing appreciation that an emphasis on logic, reasoning, inference, and statistics must be reintroduced into the curriculum to create a generation of scientists who have a greater capacity for creativity and innovation. Educators also need to remove barriers to student success, at all levels of education.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-virology-091919-080047
2021-09-29
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/virology/8/1/annurev-virology-091919-080047.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-virology-091919-080047&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Slesnick IL, Balzer L, McCormack AJ, Newton DE, Rasmussen FA 1985. Scott, Foresman Biology Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Simon UK, Enzinger SM, Fink A 2017. “The evil virus cell”: students’ knowledge and beliefs about viruses. PLOS ONE 12:3e0174402
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Hillis DM, Heller HC, Hacker SD, Hall DW, Laskowski MJ, Sadava D 2020. Life: The Science of Biology Sunderland, MA: Oxford Univ. Press, 12th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Am. Soc. Microbiol 1998. Curriculum guidelines for microbiology majors: recommendations. American Society for Microbiology http://www.asmusa.org/edusrc/recommendations.htm. Accessed on Dec. 7, 2001. Internet archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20011122023805/http://www.asmusa.org/edusrc/recommendations.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Brewer CA, Smith D 2010. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action Washington, DC: Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Merkel SASM Task Force Curric. Guidel. Undergrad. Microbiol 2012. The development of curricular guidelines for introductory microbiology that focus on understanding. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 13:32–38
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Norman-McKay LASM MINAH Undergrad. Curric. Guidel. Comm 2018. Microbiology in Nursing and Allied Health (MINAH) undergraduate curriculum guidelines: a call to retain microbiology lecture and laboratory courses in nursing and allied health programs. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 19:19.1.51
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Guo R, Lin W, Zhang J, Simon AE, Kushner DB. 2009. Structural plasticity and rapid evolution in a viral RNA revealed by in vivo genetic selection. J. Virol. 83:927–39
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Murawski AM, Nieves JL, Chattopadhyay M, Young MY, Szarko C et al. 2015. Rapid evolution of in vivo-selected sequences and structures replacing twenty percent of a subviral RNA. Virology 483:149–62
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Bayne CF, Widawski ME, Gao F, Masab MH, Chattopadhyay M et al. 2018. SELEX and SHAPE reveal that sequence motifs and an extended hairpin in the 5′ portion of Turnip crinkle virus satellite C RNA mediate fitness in plants. Virology 520:137–52
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Shortlidge EE, Brownell SE. 2016. How to assess your CURE: a practical guide for instructors of course-based undergraduate research experiences. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 17:399–408
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Fillmer K, Adkins S, Pongam P, D'Elia T 2018. Using tobamoviruses for phylogenetic instruction in undergraduate biology courses. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 19:19.2.65
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Thayer KM. 2016. Structure prediction and analysis of neuraminidase sequence variants. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 44:361–76
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Injaian L, Smith AC, Shipley JG, Marbach-Ad G, Fredericksen B. 2011. Antiviral drug research proposal activity. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 12:18–28
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Kuniyuki A, Sharp G. 2011. Designing cancer-killing artificial viruses to improve student understanding of microbiology. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 12:136–42
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Marintcheva B. 2016. Modeling influenza antigenic shift and drift with LEGO bricks. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 17:300–1
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Snow VE, Becker DM, Sharp JS. 2019. Modeling pollen-mediated virus spread in bee colonies as a classroom activity. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 20:20.1.25
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Hoskins SG, Stevens LM, Nehm RH. 2007. Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory. Genetics 176:1381–89
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Sulzinski MA. 2020. Novel primary literature-based alternative to comprehensive final examination for undergraduate virology course. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ 49:46–54
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Sulzinski MA, Wasilewski MA, Farrell JC, Glick DL. 2009. Undergraduate virology exercises demonstrate conventional real-time PCR using commercially available HIV primers and noninfectious target. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 37:232–35
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Albright CJ, Hall DJ. 2011. An exercise in molecular epidemiology: human rhinovirus prevalence and genetics. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 39:426–31
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Matza-Porges S, Nathan D. 2017. A biosafety level 2 virology lab for biotechnology undergraduates. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 45:537–43
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    ME Allen, Gyure RA. 2013. An undergraduate laboratory activity demonstrating bacteriophage specificity. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 14:84–92
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Khan LB, Read HM. 2018. A simple exercise for teaching bacteriophage concepts in the undergraduate laboratory using commercially available disinfectant. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 19:jmbe-19-84
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Grantham ML, McCown MF, Pekosz A. 2019. The influenza A virus M2 protein trans-complementation system offers a set of tools for the undergraduate virology laboratory. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 20:20.1.16
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Akashi M, Fukaya S, Uchiyama C, Aoki K, Takemura M. 2019. Visualization of giant virus particles and development of “VIRAMOS” for high school and university biology course. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 47:426–31
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Hatfull GF, Racaniello V. 2014. PHIRE and TWiV: experiences in bringing virology to new audiences. Annu. Rev. Virol. 1:37–53
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Hatfull GF. 2015. Innovations in undergraduate science education: going viral. J. Virol. 89:8111–13
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Hatfull GF, Pedulla ML, Jacobs-Sera D, Cichon PM, Foley A et al. 2006. Exploring the mycobacteriophage metaproteome: phage genomics as an educational platform. PLOS Genet 2:e92
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Hatfull GF. 2012. Complete genome sequences of 138 mycobacteriophages. J. Virol. 86:2382–84
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Jordan TC, Burnett SH, Carson S, Caruso SM, Clase K et al. 2014. A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students. mBio 5:e01051-13
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Staub NL, Poxleitner M, Braley A, Smith-Flores H, Pribbenow CM et al. 2016. Scaling up: adapting a phage-hunting course to increase participation of first-year students in research. CBELife Sci. Educ 15:ar13
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Caruso SM, Sandoz J, Kelsey J. 2009. Non-STEM undergraduates become enthusiastic phage-hunters. CBELife Sci. Educ 8:278–82
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Williamson RP, Barker BT, Drammeh H, Scott J, Lin J. 2014. Isolation and genetic analysis of an environmental bacteriophage: a 10-session laboratory series in molecular virology. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 42:480–85
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Rands ML, Gansemer-Topf AM. 2017. The room itself is active: how classroom design impacts student engagement. J. Learn. Spaces 6:26–33
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Hacisalihoglu G, Stephens D, Johnson L, Edington M 2018. The use of an active learning approach in a SCALE-UP learning space improves academic performance in undergraduate General Biology. PLOS ONE 13:e0197916
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Stoltzfus JR, Libarkin J. 2016. Does the room matter? Active learning in traditional and enhanced lecture spaces. CBELife Sci. Educ 15:ar68
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Soneral PAG, Wyse SA. 2017. A SCALE-UP mock-up: comparison of student learning gains in high- and low-tech active-learning environments. CBELife Sci. Educ 16:ar12
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Hood S, Barrickman N, Djerdjian N, Farr M, Magner S et al. 2021. “I like and prefer to work alone”: social anxiety, academic self-efficacy, and students' perceptions of active learning. CBELife Sci. Educ 20:ar12
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Gin LE, Guerrero FA, Cooper KM, Brownell SE. 2020. Is active learning accessible? Exploring the process of providing accommodations to students with disabilities. CBELife Sci. Educ 19:es12
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Bloom BS. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals New York: Longmans, Green
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Bosch G, Casadevall A. 2017. Graduate biomedical science education needs a new philosophy. mBio 8:e01539-17Describes the basic principles driving the R3 efforts to reform and improve graduate education.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2016. Rigorous science: a how-to guide. mBio 7:e01902-16
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Stefan MI, Gutlerner JL, Born RT, Springer M. 2015. The quantitative methods boot camp: teaching quantitative thinking and computing skills to graduate students in the life sciences. PLOS Comput. Biol. 11:e1004208
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Grüne-Yanoff T. 2014. Teaching philosophy of science to scientists: why, what and how. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 4:115–34
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Roper RL. 2019. Does gender bias still affect women in science?. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 83:e00018-19
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Makarova E, Aeschlimann B, Herzog W. 2019. The gender gap in STEM fields: the impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students’ career aspirations. Front. Educ. 4:60
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Ganley CM, George CE, Cimpian JR, Makowski MB. 2018. Gender equity in college majors: looking beyond the STEM/non-STEM dichotomy for answers regarding female participation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 55:453–87
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Moss-Racusin CA, Sanzari S, Caluori N, Rabasco H. 2018. Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles 79:651–70
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Fisher CR, Thompson CD, Brookes RH. 2020. ‘95% of the time things have been okay’: the experience of undergraduate students in science disciplines with higher female representation. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42:1430–46
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Grunspan DZ, Eddy SL, Brownell SE, Wiggins BL, Crowe AJ, Goodreau SM. 2016. Males under-estimate performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLOS ONE 11:e0148405
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Bloodheart B, Balgopal MM, Casper AMA, Sample McMeeking LB, Fischer EV. 2020. Outperforming yet undervalued: undergraduate women in STEM. PLOS ONE 15:e0234685
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Lauer S, Momsen J, Offerdahl E, Kryjevskaia M, Christensen W, Montplaisir L. 2013. Stereotyped: investigating gender in introductory science courses. CBELife Sci. Educ 12:30–38
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109:16474–79
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Barber PH, Hayes TB, Johnson TL, Márquez-Magaña L10,234 signatories 2020. Systemic racism in higher education. Science 369:1440–41
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Cell Editor. Team 2020. Science has a racism problem. Cell 181:1443–44
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Wu KJ. 2020. Black microbiologists push for visibility amid a pandemic. New York Times Sept. 28, p. D1
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J 2015. Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Sci. Educ. 99:199–237
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Riegel-Crumb C, King B, Irizarry Y 2019. Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educ. Res. 48:133–44
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    McGee EO, Bentley L. 2017. The troubled success of Black women in STEM. Cogn. Instr. 35:265–89
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Killpack TL, Melón LC. 2016. Toward inclusive STEM classrooms: What personal role do faculty play?. CBELife Sci. Educ 15:es3
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Kalejta RF, Palmenberg AC. 2017. Gender parity trends for invited speakers at four prominent virology conference series. J. Virol. 91:e00739-17
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, SEA-PHAGES, Betancur L, Bobrownicki A et al. 2017. An inclusive Research Education Community (iREC): impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. PNAS 114:13531–36
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Oreskes N. 2020. Sexism and racism persist in science. Sci. Am. 323:81
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-virology-091919-080047
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-virology-091919-080047
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error