Late Breaking Poster Abstracts

Deadline: May 31, 2020, 11:59 p.m. PT

Posters focus on education research outcomes associated with any of the subdisciplines in the biological sciences. This opportunity provides an excellent venue for faculty to showcase their educational research.
The abstract should describe innovative teaching approaches or the specific activities conducted by students and indicates with assessment data how those changes affected student learning. Work described in the abstract must have been tested on students and assessment of the activity’s outcomes must be described. Analyzed data and conclusions must be included.
Submit Your Abstract Deadline: May 31, 2020, 11:59 p.m. PT 

Key Abstract Components

The subject of all posters at ASMCUE is the scholarship of teaching and learning or biology education research; ASMCUE does NOT accept submissions that discuss scientific (i.e. bench, laboratory, field, modelling) research. To submit an abstract with scientific content, please consider ASM Microbe or other ASM conferences.

Abstracts must be based on results that have not been published in any journal before July 9, 2020.
New this year: We are allowing submission of posters that are based on results presented at other conferences.

Poster abstracts accepted to ASMCUE 2020 will be available to view on the Guidebook mobile app.

Please note that all presenters are responsible for conference registration fees, travel, and hotel expenses.
Key Components: 
  • Background
  • Hypothesis statement, study design, and methods
  • Data supporting effectiveness of strategy and conclusion


  • Posters abstracts may include 3 additional authors. The order in which you list the authors will be the order they appear in the online program.
  • ‚Äč“Attendee” refers to the ASMCUE session attendee, and “student” refers to individuals that attendees teach at their home institutions/organizations. “Strategy” refers to the concept, skill, task, approach, or method of learning or instruction that is being described.
  • Applicants can save progress on their application and return to complete at a later time.


Review Criteria and Guidelines

Abstracts that fail to include all required components will automatically be rejected (either for further editing/clarification/modification or outright). No re-submissions will be allowed. All submissions are reviewed by the 2020 ASMCUE Poster Review Committee according to the following criteria (see rubric):

  • Overall quality, relevance, innovation, and originality
  • Abstract includes all of the necessary components (background, hypothesis statement, study design, methods, results, and conclusion(s))
  • Abstract addresses whether the “lessons learned” of the project can be easily adopted by other educators
  • Specific and succinct abstract
Review the Poster Review Criteria

Commercial products/services 
A proposal must discuss any commercial product or service, name the product, and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Proposals that promote a specific commercial product or service for purchase will be recommended for the ASMCUE Exhibit and Sponsorship Program. 

The primary contact will receive a disposition by mid-March 2020.

Poster Examples

Examples of previously accepted abstracts may be found in the Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education’s 2018 Spotlight Issue.

Enduring use of Learner-Generated Drawing to Learn Biology: Brief Intervention vs. Extended Practice
Paul Heideman, Department of Biology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Learner-generated drawings are useful for comprehension and model-based reasoning (MBR), but students struggle to represent biological structures, concepts, or hypotheses by drawing and sketching (D/S). We hypothesized that applying Mayer’s principles of multimedia learning to teach D/S might lead to enduring use of learner-generated D/S. In a prior study, we reported that a short D/S intervention with first-semester biology students improved recall and problem solving and, 5 months after the intervention, increased use of D/S for studying (effect size = 0.67). Here, we ask (A) whether gains of D/S for studying were maintained and (B) whether semester-long courses that taught, modeled, and encouraged D/S for comprehension and MBR might have similar or greater effects. The results showed (A) that gains from the short intervention were not maintained: in follow-up surveys conducted 2.5 and 3.5 years after intervention, participants matched the comparison group in D/S. (B) However, students who had taken one or two subsequent courses incorporating extensive instruction and applications of D/S for MBR reported higher use of D/S for studying than the comparison group (23% vs. 6% of study time; effect size > 1). We conclude that a short intervention may be insufficient for enduring changes in use of D/S for studying, while engagement of students with D/S for MBR in semester-long courses may produce lasting changes in study behavior.

Exploring undergraduate transfer student pathways and success in microbiology

Alexandria Ardissone, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Sebastian Galindo, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Eric Triplett, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Jennifer Drew, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Transfer students from 2-yr colleges are more likely to be women, underrepresented minorities (URM), low income, older, and financially independent. These and other challenges translate to reduced access and retention in STEM. The Microbiology & Cell Science (MCS) program implemented an intervention of a hybrid online 2+2 track to test the hypothesis that distance education could increase accessibility, retention, and diversity of transfer students. A mixed methods approach was used to identify factors, explore pathways, and study outcomes for the 3 MCS tracks: FTIC, on-campus and online transfers. Prior to the intervention, there were 58 MCS transfers who were 32% URM. Since the intervention, there are currently 224 transfers. The online transfer cohort has more URM students (45%) than on-campus cohorts (25% FTIC, 32% transfer). Online and on-campus transfers have lower 6-yr graduation rates, 52% and 59%, respectively, than FTIC peers (87%). Only 24% of online transfers enroll full-time compared to 80% of on-campus transfer students, affecting eligibility for additional interventions such as need-based scholarships that could improve time-to-degree rates. We conclude that while these interventions broadened participation and increased diversity, transfer students still face different challenges than FTIC peers. Understanding unique pathways and challenges of transfer students can enhance strategies for student success and serve as a model in other STEM disciplines.

Mark Your Calendars!

Deadline: Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. PT

Submissions to Late-Breaker Posters will be allowed for data collected in the classroom during Spring 2020 only. No re-submissions of unaccepted abstracts will be allowed.