What Can K–12 Education Teach College Professors?

Abstract

Pretend that you have been a frequent patient at a hospital over 10 years, and during those many hours you watched carefully as the doctors perform their job. Then, one day after a short ceremony you are told that tomorrow you will be expected to be the doctor. I can imagine that this would cause significant stress and discomfort, but this is essentially what happens to many science PhDs on the academic track. One day after watching instructors teach for decades, you are suddenly cast into the role of professor and are expected to flourish without receiving instruction specific to this part of the job. This is a common issue in our higher education system. We do a great job preparing scientists to be creative academic or professional thinkers, but we spend little if any time teaching them how to convey their knowledge and skills to others (Bok 2013).

This has changed quite a bit since I was in graduate school and many universities are strategically leaning into preparing academic instructors for higher education, which I applaud heartily. But the reality remains that many people finishing a scientific doctorate receive little formal training on how to teach effectively, or what educational research tells us about how students learn. In other words, Academia seems to assume that new professors already know how to create a lesson plan, deliver content and teach effectively, simply from the observational experience of being taught themselves, although academic search committees often look for evidence of teaching when hiring tenure track teaching positions. Fortunately, there is a wealth of educational knowledge on these subjects, but unfortunately it is locked away in teacher training courses designed exclusively for those who pursuing a career as a K–12 teacher.

After being a tenured professor for 25 years, I recently decided to get my single subject teaching credential to teach high school biology when I retire from Academia. The field of education has developed significantly as a discipline and currently produces verifiable, large sample-sized, rigorous, and statistically monitored scientific evaluation of educational methodologies. This means that there are well-supported educational ideas and concepts with demonstrable positive outcomes that we as college educators can draw from.

It’s encouraging that the field of learning sciences has advanced so significantly in the past decades. Unfortunately, the first thing I learned in studying to become a high school teacher is that the K–12 education system in the United States is fundamentally broken. Over the past century, we as a nation have underfunded educational structures for poor and disadvantaged communities, and our collective actions have created a system of outcomes where poor students (often of color) do not have the same opportunities as students in affluent communities (Duncan-Andrade 2022). The system is inherently unfair, and these disparities are passed through into the college classrooms. The majority of students in your classes will be products of an education system in crisis.

The second thing I learned is that educational research and developmental psychology have made great strides in understanding how people learn effectively and there is a wealth of useful information that anyone entrusted with educating others—at any level—should have. I will only summarize a few strands to provide the flavor of some educational researchers and their contributions and then I will summarize a few take-home messages for college educators.

Many people reading this will be familiar with Abraham Maslow’s theories (1943) regarding a person’s pyramid of needs. His basic idea is that every human has a similar set of physical and metaphysical needs, which he arranged in a five-part pyramidal structure (Fig. 1). Maslow placed the most critical needs at the bottom of the pyramid and less critical at the top (Maslow 1943). The theory suggests that people must meet their lower-level needs (i.e., the physiological and safety needs) before they can address any of the higher-order needs and desires (i.e., love, belonging, esteem and self-actualization). If they are struggling to meet the lowest-level needs, they will not have time, energy or brain power to deal with needs and desires at any of the higher levels.

This has implications for education across all sectors, because if students are chronically hungry, sleep deprived, or unhoused it is going to be very challenging for them to care about or remember the Lotka–Volterra interspecific competition equations or the details behind anthropogenic climate change. I have had students in my college classes who were living unhoused, dealing with profound safety issues in their home, or were experiencing daily food insecurity. These college students cannot put 100% of their effort into learning ecological theories or caring about endangered fishes. Their motivation for earning a college degree might be incredibly high because their future lives and livelihoods depend on it, but at the same time they may be perpetually stressed and will not achieve at anywhere near their highest potential.

Another esteemed educational researcher is Dr. Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist credited with developing the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory and the idea of a “zone of proximal development.” Vygotsky’s writings were banned in the Soviet Union and only made available to the wider world in 1956 (summarized in Vygotsky 2012). One of his most lasting contributions deals with the zone of proximal development, or ZPD. This idea suggests that at any given place in their lifetime, each individual student has a cognitive level of difficulty at which they can learn on their own (Fig. 2), but when aided by a knowledgeable teacher, they can expand their learning zone and are able to master more difficult content. Vygotsky defined this level as the zone of proximal development or the area of learning a student can achieve when assisted by a teacher. The ZPD is a sweet spot for learning and therefore should be the target for a teacher’s pedagogy. But this is not as simple as it sounds because the ZPD is different for each student and changes with time and experience. Every student arrives in a classroom with a unique background and experiences. As a result, teachers cannot teach all students uniformly but instead should differentiate their instruction based on the level (i.e., ZPD) appropriate for a particular student or groups of students.

Another set of critical educational ideas are contained in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Dr. Benjamin Bloom published a classification framework for educational learning objectives in 1956 (Bloom et al. 1956). His original taxonomy divided learning objectives into three broad areas: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, with the cognitive domain the most widely recognized and remembered. Bloom suggests a six-level pyramid of consecutive learning levels (Fig. 3), which are often applied both to varieties of knowledge as well as question types for student assessment. His theory suggests the easiest cognitive task for a student is to remember a concept or idea. Instructors assess this ability by using words such as define, state, or list in their questions. A more challenging task involves the understanding and assessment of knowledge. Assessments at this more advanvced level, would include words like describe, discuss, explain, etc. At higher levels of mastery, students might apply new information or later analyze and find connections among ideas, each with their own assessment terminology. And at the highest level of understanding, the student can take a stand on an issue or eventually produce new and original thought. As instructors, it is important to initially teach our students at the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy because foundational mastery there promotes greater understanding and achievement later as the students encounter higher levels of content knowledge. In other words, introductory classes should fundamentally be taught differently than advanced and graduate level courses.

Vygotsky and Bloom’s ideas led to the development of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), proposed by Dr. David Rose in the 1990’s (summarized in Rose and Meyer 2002). UDL is a framework for education, based on cognitive neuroscience research, learning theory, and phenomenological evidence which suggests that a flexible learning environment will better meet the needs of a diverse community of learners. In its simplest form, UDL says you create effective learning environments for all students (regardless of their innate skill levels) by embracing their inherent diversity and abilities. Educational research shows that when UDL principles are followed, a larger range of students understand concepts and achieve higher outcomes (Boothe et al. 2018, Dewi and Dalimunthe 2019, Rusconi and Squillaci 2023). College classrooms are increasingly populated with a wide diversity of learners including nontraditional students, first generation college students, students with disabilities, military students, and English language learners. Applying UDL concepts will help all the students in a classroom learn.

Also important is the idea of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy put forth by Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings in the 1990s. She demonstrated that it is important for a student’s educational potential, if the teacher appreciates the individual student’s cultural heritages (Ladson-Billings 2022). Ladson-Billings’ theories are grounded in the observable achievement gaps among racial and socio-cultural groups of students in the United States. By expressly addressing students’ cultural background, teachers and students both recognize that cultural identity is important and impacts a student’s ability to learn new content and integrate it into their existing body of knowledge. An instructor failing to account for these influences when designing a curriculum can result in highly talented and capable students missing core concepts simply because lessons were delivered in a way that culturally passed the student by.

Finally, with direct respect to teaching science, the National Research Council (2012) published an amazing resource with their 3-Dimensional Framework for K–12 Scientific Education. In it, they suggested that science education (of any sort) should be broken into three integral components (or dimensions), scientific practices, crosscutting concepts and discipline core areas, each of which would be integrated into teaching standards, instruction, curriculum and assessments. Within the Biology core area, the suggested topics and competencies read like a current high school biology text that aligns with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the final draft of which were released in 2013. The NGSS have currently been adopted by 20 US States and the District of Columbia and are influencing and directing K–12 scientific education across the United States. In terms of specific suggestions for teaching Ecology, researchers like Diane Ebert-May and Janet Hodder have collaborated with the Ecological Society of America (ESA) to produce “Pathways to Scientific Teaching” (2008). This text is based on a series of published ecological articles from Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment that outline six ecological units instructors can cover using active learning strategies and pedagogical principles reported to help students improve higher-level thinking. In addition, in 2018 the ESA endorsed the Four-Dimensional Ecology Education framework (4DEE) which is an offshoot of the NRC’s 3D Framework designed specifically to address ecological literacy. In this framework, they suggest the inclusion of a fourth pedagogical dimension, namely Human–Environment Interactions when specifically teaching Ecology. These resources and others are available for all college science professors to use and interpret within their own classrooms.

How does all this relate to teaching in a college classroom? I can distill these and other ideas into five main points elaborated below, all of which I was never explicitly taught in graduate school, but that I will incorporate into my own teaching now and in the future.

First, it is important to get to know your students as individual human beings. Know who they are, where they come from, what motivates them, and hopefully what their academic strengths and weaknesses are. This should also include understanding what they have been exposed to in their K–12 education, or more concretely what tools and competencies do they have when they arrive at your door. The educational literature demonstrates that students who are seen and individualized by the instructor feel more supported, which improves their learning (Pintrich 2002, Barajas et al. 2014, Fritz-Mauer and Mausner 2015). If they are comfortable and feel welcomed, they will have improved learning outcomes. There are many ways to accomplish this, and below are some suggestions that may help getting to know the students.

Learn the student’s names and use them when you interact. Some people (e.g., myself) struggle with this and resort to mnemonics and tricks, but the effort goes a long way. By using their names, they become a person in your eyes, and they feel known. Another idea is using a whole class icebreaker (or a get-to-know-you conversation) to start the semester. Alternatively, you can give them a cultural history/background sheet (Appendix S1) where they answer a series of questions about themselves, their families and their communities (i.e., How do you identify ethnically? Were you the first in your family to attend college? How does your culture feel about education? Do you currently have any demands on your time other than school? etc.). Some people also use a background sheet to acquire a quick inventory assessment of the scientific topics are they familiar with. Also, speaking with students outside of class lets them know you think about them as an individual and more than just the score they earned on your last examination. Getting to know them as people with a variety of wants, needs and foibles will likely improve their learning more than many new technological tools or teaching fads.

Secondly, we know that individualized student instruction helps most people learn (McDonald Connor et al. 2009, Switzer 2013, Bahçeci and Gürol 2016) especially when paired with social and collaborative learning. As an instructor of a class of 200+ students this is impractical, but recognizing that individual instruction is effective, can go a long way to helping students learn. While not possible for everyone in the class, you can make a significant difference one-on-one in office hours or with students who are struggling. Taking the time to try to help a struggling student can mean the difference between their success and failure. One of the perennial topics in higher education is grade inflation, sometimes resulting from lowered expectations to accommodate a wider range of student accomplishment. That is not what I am suggesting here, as I believe it is possible to maintain high academic standards while providing individual targeted assistance for some students. Not all of them are going to need your help, not all of them are going to succeed, and that is ok and expected. Additionally, in terms of the 200+ student class, research has clearly demonstrated the impact and effectiveness of collaborative and collective learning strategies (Slavin 2004, Jensen and Lawson 2011, Stump et al. 2011). This suggests that instead of trying to individually assist each of the 200+ students, a professor can sometimes break the class up into collaborative learning groups and still positively impact their learning.

A third suggestion involves recognizing that students learn more easily, are more engaged and perform better when content material is relevant to their lives (Aronson and Laughter 2016, Knoster and Goodboy 2021, Johansen et al. 2023). How do you determine relevancy to a younger generation? One way is, again, to talk with them and to listen to what they are—and are not—saying. Is it still relevant to discuss Three-Mile Island as an example of a nuclear disaster? How about discussing the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980, or the air quality and health fallout from the 9/11 World Trade Center’s collapse? All of these could be relevant, but making information stick with students involves work, thought and frequent revision. If you are using examples from 10 or even 20 years ago, the same material you found engaging might not land with the current cohort of students. As an instructor you can only do so much of this, and classic examples from the past shouldn’t be thrown out. But when designing a curriculum, relevancy to your particular student population is an important factor to consider. For example, if you are teaching an introductory majors biology class to a population that is largely focused on the medical field, it seems reasonable to include medicine-related examples when possible. The better you know your students, the better you will be able to guide the curriculum and their learning toward their collective interests.

A fourth idea is that it is important for students to learn something about who you are. I am not suggesting that you give out your cell number, home address, or start following them on Instagram or Snapchat, but rather that you let them know your avocations and what you find interesting. Instructor enthusiasm can go a long way to generating student interest, and the evidence shows that excited students are more motivated and therefore learn better than bored, unmotivated students (Patrick et al. 2000, Keller et al. 2016, Dewaele and Li 2021). I may not be the best professor in the world, but I am an enthusiastic professor. No student leaves my class without knowing that I am wildly interested in fishes, salamanders, frogs, fungi, and insects along with why these particular topics excite me. Very few of them are as keen as I am about these subjects, but passion breeds excitement, and that helps with subject matter mastery and retention.

Finally, one of the hardest and most challenging tasks for every professor is student assessment. It is a fundamental aspect of our jobs and one that we and the students take very seriously as it literally can alter a person’s life path. Educational research demonstrates that assessments are often biased (Baker 2005, Lindahl 2016, Baker and Hawn 2022, Hauer et al. 2023). This means that no matter how hard you try to be fair and balanced, your assessment tool will somewhat miss the mark. This refers to the kinds of questions you ask, to the language and words you use, to the examples and situations you discuss in the class, and all the rest. All of your material is going to be biased in some way.

We have seen the disastrous long-lasting effects on entire communities when the SATs were demonstrated to be biased against people of color. Even the wording of seemingly innocuous questions introduces biases. For example, suppose a third-grade math class were asked the following question: “A farmer sees 5 starlings on his fence and shoots one, how many birds are left?” The correct answer is four starlings. But what if you asked a student who grew up on a farm actually shooting starlings? A very reasonable correct answer is zero birds are left of the wire, because after you shot one, the others would scatter. Even in simple questions, there are potential biases.

Creating assessment tools and evaluating student learning is very difficult and it will never be bias free, but this should not stop us from trying to reduce biases. Providing students with concrete, well-crafted learning goals utilizing ideas from Bloom’s taxonomy and discipline vetted tools like the 3-Dimensional Framework for K–12 Scientific Education, the NGSS and ESA’s 4DEE and others is a first step. In a similar manner, teachers should provide practice problems that use the language, level of detail and technical mastery we want to see in their work. Rubrics for assignments and example versions of the products you expect can go a long way to help the students hit your academic target. Student achievement will increase if you clearly demonstrate and demarcate your expectations for them. The clearer you are, the more likely they will be to demonstrate their learning back to you.

It is also important to recognize that the education landscape is wildly changing as we speak. The advent of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) programs have altered the very ground upon which we both teach and learn. The ubiquity and open access to a variety of LLM’s means that at all levels of education, the idea of a term paper or research report where a student reads widely and synthesizes their thoughts has essentially been quashed. AI programs like ChatGPT will dominate this type of writing in the future because it is easy and simple.

Unfortunately, relying on AI technology to do this kind of writing comes at a significant cost to our students and their learning. Research shows that writing is an act of discovery, thinking, and understanding for the writer (Warner 2025). When this process is handed to a computer model that arranges words based on algorithms, we all lose—the writers, the readers, and society as a whole. Learning is a deeply human endeavor, and as recent research by Kosmyna et al. (2025) demonstrates, outsourcing learning produces a type of cognitive debt where critical thinking is mimicked by algorithms.

Of course, this is not the first time that a new technology has made sweeping changes to teaching and learning (think about homework before the internet, Wikipedia, and Google). As has been the case with every emerging technology as it is applied to education, AI will alter how and what we teach and learn in the future. The good news is that significant efforts are already underway in the educational research community to design classroom tools that leverage the affordances of AI, not to do away with teachers or challenging work for students, but to enable the kinds of effective teaching methods discussed above.

In the face of our rapidly changing world, however—and for the sake of students who are in K–12 and college classrooms today—we cannot wait. We as instructors must continue to engage and challenge our students as individual human beings with a variety of needs and wants. Teaching a subject well is a difficult human endeavor that takes much time, effort, and practice, but one that has tangible rewards for the student and the teachers.