The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in an unprecedented period of both crisis and innovation in higher education. The shift to an online learning environment was particularly problematic for courses in which students learn disciplinary practices. Scientific practice requires hands-on training and collaborative engagement with instructors and peers, dimensions of the learning environment that were challenging to recreate online. Here, we describe the resulting instructional innovations and challenges experienced in shifting multiple undergraduate- and graduate-level molecular bioscience labs, including Genetics, Cell Biology, Bioinformatics, and Advanced Microscopy, to an online learning environment. Instructors pursued novel approaches, techniques, and at-home lab tools with varying success. Many innovations were retained after the transition back to an in-person learning environment because they uniquely supported previously overlooked aspects of student learning. Consistent with other reports, we found that marginalized students pursuing science were disproportionately burdened by COVID-19 and the shift to an online learning environment. A description of what worked for online learning, what didn’t, and what is worth holding onto in the future is valuable for constructing learning environments that effectively support learners in their disciplinary practice.

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are a ubiquitous feature of higher education. However, scholars have presented numerous challenges to the accuracy, validity, reliability and objectivity of SETs as a measure of teaching effectiveness. Given the potential for bias, the use of SETs in professional review may constitute a form of institutional discrimination. Therefore, institutions of higher learning need to develop, adopt and refine better methods for collecting and using student feedback. This paper describes the steps taken by a mid-sized comprehensive university in the USA over a three-year period to do that. We describe the work of our committee dealing with this issue, how we collaborated with the rest of the university to enact change, and the Learning Environment Survey (LENS) system that the university eventually selected and modified. We also report findings from a pilot study of the new instrument, which was favorably received by both students and faculty, and make recommendations for other institutions of higher education.

Long-term shift work is widely believed to increase the risk of certain cancers, but conflicting findings between studies render this association unclear. Evidence of interplay between the circadian clock, cell cycle regulation, and DNA damage detection machinery suggests the possibility that circadian rhythm disruption consequent to shift work could alter the DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathway usage to favor mutagenic non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair. To test this hypothesis, we compared relative usage of NHEJ and single-strand annealing (SSA) repair of a complementary ended chromosomal double-stranded break using the Repair Reporter 3 (Rr3) system in Drosophila between flies reared on 12:12 and 8:8 (simulated shift work) light:dark schedules. Actimetric analysis showed that the 8:8 light:dark schedule effectively disrupted the rhythms in locomotor output. Inaccurate NHEJ repair was not a frequent outcome in this system overall, and no significant difference was seen in the usage of NHEJ or SSA repair between the control and simulated shift work schedules. We conclude that this circadian disruption regimen does not alter the usage of mutagenic NHEJ DSB repair in the Drosophila male pre-meiotic germline, in the context of the Rr3 system.