Workshop Information

SABER West Workshops will be held on Saturday, January 16^th. 

Pre-conference workshops will not be held this year. Please join us for the Pre-Conference Happy Hour Welcome on Friday, January 15th. 

Workshops are lettered A-G. Please review the workshop options prior to registration. Each attendee will select one workshop to attend during the registration process.  If a particular workshop reaches capacity, it will be listed as full here and removed from the registration form. 

2027 Workshop Titles

Click on any workshop title to jump to its description. 

• Workshop A: Using Biology Core Concept Teaching Tools to Promote Knowledge Transfer
• Workshop B: Use Responsive Teaching for an Anti-deficit Approach
• Workshop C: From Traditional to De-Simplified: Transforming Pedigree Problems for Deeper Biological Thinking
• Workshop D: Are You Testing What You Teach? Using AI to Align Learning Objectives, Instruction, Activities, and Assessments
• Workshop E: From Theory to Enactment: Designing and Implementing Culturally-Informed Pedagogies in Biology
• Workshop F: Transforming Group Work with POGIL: A Hands-On Introduction
• Workshop G: Forging the Resistance Pt 2: Understanding Disability and Disrupting Ableism

2027 Workshop Descriptions 

Workshop A: Using Biology Core Concept Teaching Tools to Promote Knowledge Transfer

Presenters: Audrey Chen (University of California, Irvine), Janeva Anderson (Lane Community College), and Paul Le (University of Colorado, Denver)

The ability to generalize and apply or transfer knowledge across contexts is difficult for novice students. In the biological sciences, this challenge arises when students are asked to recognize patterns and relationships between complex biological phenomena across scales and subdisciplines. To address this gap, Biology Core Concept Teaching Tools (CCTTs) were designed to engage students in the cognitive processes involved in transfer: identify, recall and apply (Kaminske et al., 2020; Branchaw et al., 2026). The recently published CCTT learning activities scaffold knowledge transfer using the Conceptual Elements framework (Cary and Branchaw, 2017) and the BCCI learning assessment tool (Cary et al., 2019). The nationally reviewed and field-tested framework defines several Conceptual Elements for each of the Vision and Change Core Concepts (Pathways and Transformation of Energy and Matter, Information Flow and Storage, Structure and Function, Evolution and Systems) that apply across biological subdisciplines and scales. The Biology CCTTs were pilot tested with diverse populations of undergraduate students at a variety of institution types and are published in CourseSource. This workshop guides participants on how to find and use Biology CCTTs.

 In this workshop, participants will:

•  Recognize the steps of knowledge transfer within a Core Concept Teaching Tool learning activity.
•  Search the CourseSource database for a CCTT that is appropriate for their course context.
•  Develop context-specific implementation strategies for CCTTs by evaluating best practices and challenges shared by experienced pilot testers across diverse institutional contexts.
•  In small groups, simulate a key component of a selected CCTT to identify anticipated student responses and potential implementation adjustments.
•  Connect with a network of instructors who have pilot tested CCTTs or are interested in implementing CCTTs.

Click here to return to the list of workshop titles. 

Workshop B: Use Responsive Teaching for an Anti-deficit Approach

Presenters: Hannah Thompson (Michigan State University), Jennifer Doherty (Michigan State University), Mary Pat Wenderoth (University of Washington)

After a mini-lesson you ask students to solve a problem. You call on a group to present their reasoning and when you hear their answer, it was not what you were expecting. Some faculty might respond “not correct” and ask for another group’s answer. By simply labeling the answer as ”not correct” the instructor is using deficit framing for interpreting students ideas (Gray et al 2026). In fact, what the group has given the instructor is an opportunity to explore their reasoning process using the Response Teaching (RT) method (Robertson et al 2015). RT involves trying to understand what students are saying from the student’s perspective, taking an asset frame by recognizing the disciplinary connections within students' ideas and responding by providing feedback to explore and support student reasoning. RT has been shown to increase students’ academic performance (Bishop 2021). 

 

As an anti-deficit teaching approach, RT asks the instructor to see student’s ideas not as misconceptions to stamp out and replace with correct answers but rather as productive starting points to build conceptual understanding. For instance, when explaining the mechanism of inhalation a student may say the body sucks air into the lungs–like sucking milkshake through a straw. When asked to explain their reasoning, the student might say “It just works that way–the harder you suck, the more you get”. An instructor with a deficit frame might note the student did not include a pressure gradient in their explanation and say the answer is incorrect. However, an instructor taking an anti-deficit RT approach notices the student has the productive idea that to drink more milkshake, the body needs to work harder (diSessa 1993). The instructor can scaffold instruction around this idea by showing a person drinking a thick milkshake and asking students to observe and describe how the person’s chest changes shape. This scaffold can cue students to notice changes in chest volume. The instructor can then prompt students to build the gas pressure-volume relationship, connect it to pressure gradient generation, and ultimately bulk flow of milkshake.

 

In this workshop, you will learn the principles of RT and how to recognize instructor deficit framing. You will work in a team to analyze classroom discourse to identify examples of deficit framing and responsive teaching. You will also practice identifying productive ideas and disciplinary connections in students' answers and brainstorm how you would respond to students in your classroom.

Click here to return to the list of workshop titles. 

Workshop C: From Traditional to De-Simplified: Transforming Pedigree Problems for Deeper Biological Thinking

Registration Form Short Title: Transforming Pedigree Problems for Deeper Biological Thinking

Presenters: Ahmad Mohammed Kamal (The University of British Columbia), Si-ah Choi (The University of British Columbia), Pamela Kalas (The University of British Columbia)

Pedigree analysis problems are commonly used in introductory biology and genetics curricula. They are generally well-received by students, and can be excellent tools for them to practice their analytical and problem-solving skills. However, typical human pedigrees used in classrooms generally represent phenotypic variation dichotomously (“affected” or “unaffected”) and tend to be quintessentially Mendelian, with individuals’ phenotypes determined solely by their genotypes. This paints a picture that it is inconsistent with our current knowledge of human hereditary phenotypes, most of which display varying levels of severity and are influenced by a multitude of genetic and non-genetic factors. Moreover, the over-emphasis on Mendelian principles and discrete phenotypic categories can unintentionally reinforce deterministic or essentialist perceptions of genetics. In our experience, pedigree typical problems can also inadvertently promote reasoning processes that although logical and systematic, are algorithmic in nature and remain disconnected from the biology underlying the pedigree and the phenotype in question.

The use of pedigree scenarios that emphasize the nuances and multifactorial aspects of real-life genetics (which we refer to as ‘de-simplified pedigrees’) can counteract essentialist perceptions and dichotomous view of phenotypic variation, stimulate deeper thinking, and nurture an appreciation for the complexity of both genetics and biology in general. In our experience, de-simplified pedigree activities also increase engagement in the classroom, elicit participation from a broader range of students, and make lessons more memorable.

Unfortunately, while an increasing number of lessons, case studies, and other materials featuring ‘de-simplified’ pedigrees are becoming available, many instructors do not have the time and space in their courses for such involved activities, and/or they do not want to forego traditional pedigree problems that have been working so well for their students. But what if one could just ‘de-simplify’ an effective, traditional pedigree problem that is already part of their course curriculum? In this workshop, participants will engage in the step-by-step process that we have been using to develop our many de-simplified pedigrees. They will leave the workshop with a de-simplified pedigree of their own making and the practical tools to de-simplify many more – both of which we hope they will disseminate within and beyond their institution for everyone’s benefit!

Click here to return to the list of workshop titles. 

Workshop D: Are You Testing What You Teach? Using AI to Align Learning Objectives, Instruction, Activities, and Assessments

Registration Form Short Title: Are You Testing What You Teach? Using AI to Align

Presenters: Alex Paine (Baylor University), Jessica Fulcher (Baylor University)

Learning objectives (LOs) can provide students with explicit statements of what they are expected to know and do while simultaneously guiding instructors' decisions about content, learning activities, and assessment. DBER research supports the use of clear, measurable LOs and alignment among objectives, instruction, and assessment to increase transparency and support student learning. However, the presence of LOs does not guarantee alignment. Instructors may teach material not represented in their objectives, provide insufficient opportunities for students to practice particular objectives, or assess knowledge and skills that are not adequately represented in instruction. Such misalignment can undermine the transparency and usefulness of LOs for students. Effective alignment should therefore extend across the entire instructional pathway: learning objectives → instructional content → learning activities → formative assessment → summative assessment.

This interactive pre-conference workshop will introduce participants to a practical workflow for using generative artificial intelligence as an alignment-audit and course-refinement tool. Rather than asking AI to design a course, participants will use AI to systematically interrogate relationships among their existing course materials while retaining responsibility for disciplinary and pedagogical decisions. The approach builds from a workflow in which AI identifies LOs that are missing or underrepresented in instructional materials, content that does not correspond to an existing LO, assessment questions that cannot be mapped to an LO, and LOs that may be disproportionately represented on assessments.  AI is used as a mechanism for making a traditionally time-consuming alignment audit feasible; evidence-based alignment and transparency, rather than AI itself, are the pedagogical interventions at the center of the workshop.

Participants will bring materials from one instructional unit, including learning objectives, lecture/content materials, activities or worksheets, quizzes, and an exam or other summative assessment. Through a series of facilitated AI audits, participants will progressively examine LO-content, LO-activity, LO-quiz, and LO-exam alignment. Importantly, participants will move beyond identifying alignment problems to actively resolving them by revising LOs, modifying instructional materials, creating missing opportunities for practice, and revising assessment items. The workshop will also examine cognitive alignment and assessment weighting, allowing participants to determine whether the type and frequency of assessment appropriately reflect stated objectives and instructional emphasis.

Finally, participants will explore strategies for making alignment visible to students, including explicitly labeling activities, quiz questions, and exam questions with corresponding LO numbers. Participants will leave with a completed alignment portfolio for one instructional unit, revised course materials, an LO-based assessment blueprint, an alignment action plan, and reusable AI prompts for conducting alignment audits throughout their courses.

Click here to return to the list of workshop titles. 

Workshop E: From Theory to Enactment: Designing and Implementing Culturally-Informed Pedagogies in Biology

Presenter: Angelita Rivera (Stanford University)

Culturally-informed pedagogies (CiP), including culturally sustaining, responsive, and relevant approaches, aim to center students’ cultural assets in learning environments and have been associated with increased engagement, belonging, and disciplinary identity development. Yet in undergraduate and STEM contexts, CiP remains under-implemented. Discipline-based education research (DBER) documents persistent barriers, including uncertainty translating theory into disciplinary practice, concerns about student pushback, and limited institutional infrastructure to support sustained pedagogical change. Instructors often endorse CiP conceptually but report challenges in designing actionable, rigorous activities that meaningfully integrate students’ lived experiences while maintaining disciplinary expectations and learning goals.

This 90-minute interactive workshop supports biology educators and researchers in moving from theory toward enactment. Grounded in DBER research on equity-oriented teaching, communities of practice, and instructor empowerment, the workshop centers three components: reviewing CiP theoretical principles, collectively ideating concrete teaching practices, and collaboratively exploring and navigating implementation challenges. Participants will: (1) review CiP principles and associated evidence-based practices, drawing on DBER research and reflecting on their own instructional contexts, (2) contribute to small-group discussions to brainstorm how these principles could inform a sample undergraduate Biology lesson, generating adaptable ideas that connect students’ cultural assets with disciplinary learning goals, and (3) engage in peer-driven, implementation scenario role-play, exploring concerns such as student pushback, and collaboratively practicing possible responses. These activities are meant to create space for instructors to share their existing pedagogical knowledge and strategy expertise, learn from peers’ experiences, and collectively develop approaches to navigating implementation challenges. 

Participants will leave with a greater familiarity with culturally-informed teaching in STEM, practice ideating and adapting CiP principles to biology teaching, and opportunities to explore, navigate, and work through potential implementation challenges with colleagues. Additional resources will be provided to participants, including a sample curriculum design log, an adapted implementation assessment protocol, and an opportunity to join an online Padlet community forum to support continued learning, cross-institutional connections, and peer-driven curriculum innovation. 

By centering both disciplinary integrity and cultural responsiveness, this workshop contributes to ongoing DBER conversations about equitable STEM teaching. It offers a collaborative, evidence-based starting point for instructors seeking to learn more about how to translate CiP into rigorous, context-responsive teaching practices while drawing on the collective expertise of the biology education research community.

Workshop context: This session introduces selected activities from a larger dissertation research project developing scaffolded professional development for culturally-informed teaching in undergraduate biology. The full curriculum offers additional opportunities for personalized lesson redesign, contextual reflection, and implementation practice. More information about this opportunity will be provided at the end of the workshop or by contacting facilitator Angelita Rivera (a1rivera@stanford.edu).

Click here to return to the list of workshop titles. 

Workshop F: Transforming Group Work with POGIL: A Hands-On Introduction

Presenters: Laura Catano (University of California, Riverside), Stanley Lo (University of California, San Diego)

Workshop participants will experience and explore the fundamentals of Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), an active-learning, student-centered pedagogy. Participants will experience POGIL as learners, examine it as instructors, and begin planning how to use it in their own teaching. This workshop is designed for instructors interested in expanding their evidence-based teaching toolkit, no prior POGIL experience is needed!

Participants will: 

1. Identify the essential elements of POGIL.
2. Complete POGIL activities & observe classroom facilitation strategies.
3. Incorporate the development of key process skills (21st century) into POGIL
4. lessons.
5. Explore the Learning Cycle and the structure of POGIL activities.
6. Develop strategies for implementing POGIL in your own teaching context

Click here to return to the list of workshop titles. 

Workshop G: Forging the Resistance Pt 2: Understanding Disability and Disrupting Ableism

Presenter: Sam Ridgway (Illinois State University)

While recent government policy changes have unfortunately stalled progress in diversity, equity, inclusion, and access within higher education, students continue to encounter significant challenges, with disabled students remaining among the most marginalized and often unseen populations. A substantial majority of disabilities, between 80% and 90%, are invisible, and many students, particularly those who are non-white and non-male, frequently experience under- or undiagnosed conditions. Current data reveal that over 40% of students in a classroom self-identify as disabled; however, fewer than 15% of these students have official accommodation letters. Furthermore, in a study that asked students about their interactions with faculty members, 97% of student participants had one or more formal disability diagnoses; however, only 50% of those with formal diagnoses had formal accommodations in place at their universities. When asked about their experiences with instructors regarding their disability and accommodations, over half of the students reported experiencing one or more negative interactions with faculty. Narratives among students ranged from a lack of implementation of accommodations by faculty to hurtful and vicious comments about students’ disabilities.

 This workshop aims to address these issues by exploring implicit biases regarding disability, including those influenced by misconceptions, stereotypes, and myths, and by highlighting the privileges often taken for granted. The workshop features a series of interactive activities designed to foster introspection and empathy.

 Participants will first complete an anonymous survey to identify common disability myths and then quantify their own privileges through a reflective exercise. Following a brief lecture on disability types and executive function, a “Choose Your Own Adventure” simulation will immerse participants in the daily experiences of a neurodivergent college student, requiring problem-solving and fostering a deeper understanding of potential challenges.

 The workshop will conclude with a case study review, during which participants will analyze scenarios depicting student experiences with ableism in higher education and reflect on key questions. To promote actionable change, each participant will commit to one or two concrete steps, both personally and to the group, outlining how they will apply their newfound knowledge and activated empathy to create more accessible spaces for students and actively challenge their own implicit biases and internalized ableism.

Click here to return to the list of workshop titles.