gordon research conference abstract guidelines

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference: A Meeting Report

• Erin L. Dolan
• Michelle Borrero
• Kristine Callis-Duehl
• Miranda M. Chen Musgrove
• Joelyn de Lima
• Isi Ero-Tolliver
• Laci M. Gerhart
• Emma C. Goodwin
• Lindsey R. Hamilton
• Meredith A. Henry
• Jose Herrera
• Bethany Huot
• Stacey Kiser
• Melissa E. Ko
• Marcy E. Kravec
• Lisa B. Limeri
• Melanie E. Peffer
• Debra Pires
• Juan S. Ramirez Lugo
• Starlette M. Sharp
• Nicole A. Suarez

*Address correspondence to: Erin L. Dolan ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Search for more papers by this author

Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus, San Juan, PR 00931

Education Research and Outreach, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63123

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Department of Biological Sciences, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23666

Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616

Department of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201

Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217

Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322

Office of the Provost, Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

Biological Sciences Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Science Division, Lane Community College, Eugene, OR 97405

Thinking Matters Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199

Department of Biology, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA 30314

Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309

Department of Life Sciences Core Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095

Department of Curriculum and Instruction–Science Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California, San Diego, and San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120

The 2019 Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled “Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education,” brought together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. Graduate students and postdocs had the additional opportunity to present and discuss research during a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) that preceded the GRC. This report provides a broad overview of the UBER GRC and GRS and highlights major themes that cut across invited talks, poster presentations, and informal discussions. Such themes include the importance of working in teams at multiple levels to achieve instructional improvement, the potential to use big data and analytics to inform instructional change, the need to customize change initiatives, and the importance of psychosocial supports in improving undergraduate student well-being and academic success. The report also discusses the future of the UBER GRC as an established meeting and describes aspects of the conference that make it unique, both in terms of facilitating dissemination of research and providing a welcoming environment for conferees.

There is a preponderance of evidence regarding how to teach and mentor diverse groups of students in ways that promote their conceptual understanding, their development as scientists, and their success in college and beyond ( Hrabowski, 2011 ; Singer and Smith, 2013 ; Freeman et al. , 2014 ; Gentile et al ., 2017 ). Yet there remains only modest uptake of these evidence-based practices ( Stains et al. , 2018 ). This year’s Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled “Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education,” addressed this issue by bringing together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. For this conference, “improvement” meant a shift toward widespread use of effective and inclusive teaching, training, and mentoring in undergraduate biology education, also called “second-order change” ( Argyris and Schon, 1974 ; Kezar, 2014 ; Corbo et al ., 2016 ).

Although there are other national conferences focused on undergraduate biology education research (e.g., the annual meeting of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research [SABER]; Lo et al. , 2019 ), there are a few unique features and a different organizational structure that make the UBER GRC distinctive. The meeting offers a combination of presentations on big picture issues, themes, and directions for the field, as well as talks and posters on research and evaluation studies in biology education. For example, representatives of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and several professional societies have attended and presented at the meeting since its inception ( Tables 1 and 2 ). The meeting is longer in duration, following the 5-day, nine-session GRC structure in which the entire group gathers for every session, meals, and social events. The meeting program features diverse types of sessions, including a combination of plenary talks, research talks, and poster sessions highlighting unpublished work; discussions facilitated by leaders in undergraduate biology education; and networking among established and up-and-coming scholars. The meeting also includes sessions geared to discussion about the experiences of women and other historically marginalized groups in science (Power Hour, described later in this report) and to support early-career scholars (Gordon Research Seminar, described later in this report). GRC has a strict confidentiality policy that prohibits any recording of talks or other forms of documentation or dissemination of data shared during the meeting. This policy is part of what makes the GRC a unique conference, because it is meant to encourage participants to share unpublished results, works in progress, and negative results that might not otherwise be available to the community.

a NA, not applicable; n.d., no data available. Totals may not combine to 100% for counts with missing data.

a For the SABER 2019 meeting, information was available only for 2-year college affiliates.

The 195 conferees at the 2019 UBER GRC represented a range of disciplinary backgrounds beyond biology, biology teaching, and biology education research. 1 For instance, conferees identified as developmental psychologists, learning scientists, and members of other professions in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education not limited to biology. Conferees also represented a range of position types and career stages, including graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty in contingent and tenure-track positions, administrators of diverse ranks (department heads, deans, provosts, directors of centers for teaching and learning), and representatives of funding agencies and education-focused nonprofit agencies ( Tables 1 and 2 ). In general, conferees came to the meeting to achieve multiple goals, including building their awareness and understanding of current educational research and resources as well as to network and form collaborations with both established and up-and-coming researchers and practitioners.

While GRC rules strictly prohibit photographing or otherwise documenting presentations, many posters included brochures, QR codes, paper citations, contact information, and social media handles, allowing participants to learn more about these projects through publicly available information and to connect outside of the GRC for possible future collaborations. GRC gave permission to publish this report of the meeting topics, atmosphere, and participant numbers and demographics, with the stipulation that none of the data presented during the meeting be included in the report.

In this meeting report, we provide a brief overview of the meeting and its history. We also highlight multiple themes that emerged across the presentations and discussions as well as preliminary plans for the 2021 UBER GRC.

HISTORY OF THE MEETING

The UBER GRC was first offered in 2015 with leadership from Gordon Uno (University of Oklahoma) and Susan Elrod (Indiana University South Bend). To broadly appeal to potential speakers and conferees in the biology education space, the organizers specified no theme aside from the focus on undergraduate biology education. A wide range of topics were presented at the 2015 meeting, including curricular design, student success, teaching improvement, and measuring student outcomes. Driven by suggestions from the community, the 2017 UBER GRC focused on improving diversity, equity, and learning in undergraduate biology education. Presentations and discussions centered around describing the diversity landscape, including trends in student populations, teaching practices, and equity and diversity policies. Other topics discussed at the 2017 meeting included creating more inclusive environments; evaluating strategies and programs for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion; and understanding mechanisms of change in higher education. The 2019 UBER GRC theme emerged from this last topic, with the aim of promoting deeper discussion and sharing of data and ideas related to fostering widespread change in higher education toward effective and inclusive undergraduate biology education.

MEETING OVERVIEW

Sylvia Hurtado (University of California, Los Angeles) and David Asai (Howard Hughes Medical Institute [HHMI]) kicked off the 2019 meeting by offering different perspectives on change in undergraduate biology education. Hurtado proposed a new model on instructional change that outlined how data can be used to change minds and ultimately change behavior. She further emphasized that, for educational data to change minds and behaviors, it needs to be coupled with external pressures and incentives, training and development, buy-in through collegial relationships, accountability, and leadership support. Asai moved the focus to boots on the ground by taking up the charge of developing a new introductory biology curriculum that moved away from content coverage and toward core concepts and science practice. This focus on rethinking introductory science course work is one of the themes of HHMI’s Inclusive Excellence 3 funding initiative, now underway. 2

Given the theme of the meeting, a major focus of the talks and posters was on individual- and institution-level supports for and constraints on greater use of evidence-based instruction. Speakers shared insights into how tangible institutional structures, such as annual review, promotion, and tenure, and intangible elements, such as teaching beliefs and trust between students and instructors, can influence the degree to which instructors effectively apply active learning and to which students reap the benefits. Collectively, the scientific content of the meeting indicated that the field of biology education research is beginning to move beyond the mechanics of active learning to the need to examine and account for the culture of higher education to achieve more effective and inclusive instruction.

Both practitioners and researchers emphasized the importance of action from all levels of the academic institution, from faculty and department heads to senior leadership, in order to achieve widespread improvement of undergraduate education. One strategy offered by speakers included meeting and communicating often with stakeholders to receive and offer guidance on elements that influence progress toward change, such as during faculty teaching evaluations, recruitment and hiring, and resource allocation. Speakers also emphasized the importance of maximizing the effectiveness of change initiatives by involving teams, rather than single change agents.

INNOVATIVE USES OF DATA

Several speakers presented work on large data sets, which they argued have largely untapped potential for maximizing student success within courses and degree programs. For instance, David Micklos (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) spoke about how existing scientific data sets can be used in courses to engage students in research. Tim McKay (University of Michigan) and Tim Renick (Georgia State University) both spoke about the ways their institutions use course-level or student-level data to identify anomalies in student performance and tailor interventions to reduce performance gaps and better support students in making progress toward degree completion.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Community colleges (CCs) represent a wide array of institutional environments with student profiles that closely reflect the ongoing shift in student demographics toward an older and more ethnically and socially diverse student population. More than half of the students who ultimately receive a STEM undergraduate degree spend part of their student experience at a CC. Yet, by most generous estimates, only 3% of research articles in undergraduate biology education include CC contexts ( Schinske et al. , 2017 ). Talks both within a CC-focused session and by CC faculty speakers during other sessions sought to address this gap by highlighting initiatives designed to support CC students in successfully pursuing their desired educational and career paths. James Hewlett (Finger Lakes Community College) spoke about the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI 3 ), which is a network of community colleges across the country that engage undergraduates in research experiences in the form of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), program-wide undergraduate research experiences, and summer undergraduate research experiences. CCURI institutions have experienced varying levels of success in creating sustainable undergraduate research programs. Research is currently underway to identify factors that promote or constrain CCs in shifting from a culture of “no research” to one in which research is an integral part of the CC student experience.

Jenny McFarland (Edmonds Community College) shared data on a STEM support program that assists CC college students in moving past early failure in gateway STEM courses, and Erin Shortlidge (Portland State University) presented data from a STEM support program aimed to reduce transfer shock for CC students moving from 2- to 4-year institutions. Elements that appeared to be important in these success programs include peer support, cocurricular activities, and participation in undergraduate research experiences, which improved student perceptions of inclusion in the scientific and academic community. Jeff Schinske (Foothill College) presented the Community College Biology Instructor Network to Support Inquiry into Teaching and Education Scholarship, which engages CC faculty in designing and carrying out education research in CC settings with CC students through a combination of professional development, mentorship, and networking. 4 The success of these and other initiatives was apparent in the many posters on display at the GRC that detailed the efforts of CCs to improve undergraduate biology education and to provide research experiences to their students.

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

Undergraduate research was a prevalent topic in talks and posters, with an emphasis on how undergraduate research experiences can maximize diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Many posters presented studies of the effectiveness of CUREs in increasing students’ computational proficiency as well as their confidence and identities as scientists. Other posters about CUREs focused on their potential to increase gender equity; decrease “plant blindness”; and enable hands-on, inquiry-based elements for online courses. There were several examples of the impact of CUREs on self-efficacy and in promoting equity for different student populations (majors, nonmajors, first years, underrepresented minorities, etc.). These were implemented in multiple scenarios using a wide range of research projects, some of which involved the use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology and microbe identification. Other poster presenters examined how students developed scientific skills such as scientific argumentation, reasoning, and critical thinking in formats other than undergraduate research. These approaches included guided-inquiry learning and online platforms such as Quizfolio.

CUSTOMIZING CHANGE INITIATIVES

Many of the speakers and poster presenters related their work to Vision and Change core concepts and competencies and took a community-centric approach in their design and development ( American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ). Yet multiple speakers and presenters also emphasized the need to customize change initiatives. For example, Mark Lee (Spelman College) spoke about his approach to inclusive hiring and retention, which draws from the self-determination theory of motivation ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). This theory posits that individuals are more motivated if they have some control over their situations (autonomy), they feel capable of being successful (competence), and they feel connected to the people around them (relatedness). He argued for keeping new faculty teaching loads light for the first semester while they gained teaching competence, which also functioned to give them autonomy in developing their research agenda before taking on additional teaching and service duties. Susan Elrod (Indiana University South Bend) provided her perspective on the challenges of institutional change, especially at a large institution. She argued that a university is a system and that faculty may not have a good understanding of what makes this system work. She posited that, when change leaders understand the inputs, workings, and outputs of the system, they can work within it or alter it to achieve desired changes. Elrod then spoke about “moves” that change leaders need to make and how these “moves” might differ by the level at which the change has to occur. Alix Fink (Longwood University) concluded the session by giving a practical example of customized change. She spoke about the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) Ambassadors program. 5 This program works with departments to identify the capacities of a department, envision outcomes of transformation, and develop strategies to use available capacities in order to achieve transformation. All three speakers commented on the need to first determine what individuals, departments, and institutions need to achieve change, and then figure out how to change the existing system to meet needs.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Elisabeth Schussler (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), Brian Sato (University of California, Irvine), Gili Marbach-Ad (University of Maryland, College Park), and Katerina Thompson (University of Maryland, College Park) spoke about effective professional development at all levels of undergraduate biology education, including graduate student teaching assistants, faculty, and administrators. Collectively, they emphasized that institutions can support professional development by establishing reward structures for participation and by making even modest gestures that indicate professional development is valued, such as providing food at professional development meetings. They also emphasized the importance of relating professional development to personal experience and of building a strong sense of community among the participants. They argued that the goals of professional development sessions should be to build awareness about students, to stimulate conversation and sharing of resources related to teaching and learning, and to foster connections between teaching centers and departments.

An important trend was the significant role of organizations and entities other than colleges and universities as catalysts for change. Among these were BioQUEST, CBE—Life Sciences Education , CourseSource , the National Association of Biology Teachers, and Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Education and Synthesis. 6 The general perception was that these entities are continually developing and improving their platforms to provide faculty with support to teach effectively and inclusively. The speakers explained that making effective use of resources from these organizations requires professional development at all levels. Highlighted initiatives to provide this professional development included: undergraduate peer-learning assistants and graduate teaching assistants, Science Teaching Experience for Postdoctoral scholars, faculty development on active learning, and support for departmental change through the PULSE network.

UNDERSTANDING AND MAXIMIZING DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

Presenters also addressed a range of issues regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. Speakers discussed the need for diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments at both the student and faculty levels, within research environments, and at all types of institutions. Several conferees presented on specific active-learning strategies that fostered students’ sense of belonging in the classroom and in the STEM disciplines. Many different departmental interventions and organizations were discussed that aimed to create diverse and well-resourced faculty, including Aspire Alliance 7 and Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities. 8

Speakers Sarah Eddy (Florida International University), Isi Ero-Tolliver (Hampton University), and Michael Feder (AAAS) challenged attendees to think beyond traditional and current approaches to diverse and equitable education. Eddy highlighted the need to consider values and aspirations of individual students, rather than just the context of their learning, in order to promote learning and success of all students. Ero-Tolliver focused on bringing CUREs to underserved institutions such as historically black colleges and universities. Feder presented on the work being done by the AAAS to promote inclusive teaching through reward and research structures, such as the STEM Equity Achieving Change (SEA-Change) program. 9 In framing this challenge, the speakers emphasized the importance of teaching-focused professional development and the role of change agents in conceptualizing and tackling departmental and institutional change. These same topics were echoed in many of the other talks over the course of the meeting.

Tracie Addy (Lafayette College), Ellen Carpenter (NSF), and Kimberly Tanner (San Francisco State University) concluded the meeting with a session on inclusion in undergraduate biology education. Addy described work she is leading to identify factors that predict whether instructors implement inclusive teaching approaches as well as their reasoning for doing so. Echoing elements of HHMI’s Inclusive Excellence 3 initiative, Addy urged the community to define a vision for an inclusive institution, noting that shared vision is critical for institutional transformation ( Henderson et al ., 2011 ). Carpenter spoke about the NSF’s investment in undergraduate biology education and commended the community’s exemplary use of resources. She said that the NSF sought to support inclusive, creative, novel, and transformative research. The types of research suitable for funding include identifying what “works” (or not) in biology education, generating new knowledge about biology teaching and learning, broadening participation and maximizing inclusion in STEM, understanding adaptation of education-based practices, and facilitating sustainability in projects. Tanner spoke at a personal level about inclusion as a first-­generation college student herself, and how this informs her research and her efforts to foster inclusion in biology education. She argued that great science requires diverse perspectives, but that these perspectives are often excluded by traditional approaches to teaching and education. She spoke about the potential for a novel, relatively simple methodology, the Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching, to reveal teaching patterns that faculty could use to reflect on their teaching and track changes over time ( Owens et al. , 2017 ).

address marginalizing behavior, because it will not “just go away”;

recognize power differentials in order to bring the conversation out of the hierarchy and onto the human level;

acknowledge that all are entitled to feel equal and there is a need to find ways to speak up and help change marginalizing cultures; and

assume responsibility regardless of connection to the transgression.

GORDON RESEARCH SEMINAR

The UBER GRC included a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) for the first time this year. This 2-day event, which immediately preceded the GRC, was designed to be a platform to increase participation of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars who represent the future of research in the discipline. The GRS featured four talk sessions and two poster sessions, all presented by early-career researchers.

The GRS began with a discussion of students’ social psychological experiences in the classroom fueled by talks from Katelyn Cooper (University of Central Florida) and Meredith Henry (Emory University). Cooper discussed students’ experiences with anxiety in the classroom and Henry discussed students’ experiences with failure. These talks highlighted the influence of factors other than cognitive skills in student well-being and success. They also highlighted the need to create environments that promote positive affect and social experiences in the classroom, especially with relation to failure experiences.

The second science session focused on graduate students’ teaching experiences and their teaching professional development. Miranda Chen Musgrove (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) began the session by characterizing how graduate students cope with both research and teaching anxiety. Joshua Reid (Middle Tennessee State University) then discussed how graduate students navigate their dual research and teaching identities. Collectively, these talks explored the unique challenges and experiences of educators who are also students themselves. Lorelei Patrick (University of Minnesota Twin Cities) and Rita Margarida Magalhaes (Rochester Institute of Technology) addressed factors that influence pedagogical decision making of both graduate students and faculty. These discussions emphasized the importance of professional development for early-career scholars as a lever for reforming undergraduate education.

The third science session focused on the development and application of instructional tools. This session was a unique blend of research and practice, relevant to the broad range of GRS participants’ interests and backgrounds. Alexa Clemmons (University of Washington, Seattle) presented BioSkills , 10 a guide to learning objectives aligned with Vision and Change core competencies. Megan Shiroda (Michigan State University) presented on Automated Assessment of Constructed Response, 11 a tool that summarizes the content of students’ responses to constructed-response questions. Both speakers discussed their research on the use of these tools as well as practical tips for implementation for practitioners.

The last science session focused on students’ psychosocial experiences in the classroom. Both talks emphasized the importance of considering students’ perspectives in the classroom and how they may differ from the perspectives of instructors or researchers. Staci Johnson (Clemson University) presented on her work on students’ learning approaches, highlighting how students may interpret the wording of a survey differently from the researchers who designed it and the instructors who implement it. Claire Meaders (Cornell University) presented her work on how students from different backgrounds may have different expectations when they enter their introductory college courses and the problems that may arise when their expectations are not met.

The GRS poster presentations showcased an array of research topics, including research on faculty promotion, incorporating quantitative and interdisciplinary pedagogical practices into CUREs, strategies for teaching professional development, and STEM career development. The range of topics highlighted the diversity in scholarship among the GRS community, including discipline-based education researchers tackling fundamental questions and primarily bench scientists engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

GRS MENTORING SESSION

Professional development for early-career scientists was both a goal and a research theme for the GRS. To this end, the second day of the GRS began with a mentoring session, in which four field leaders led discussions and guided activities designed to advance the professional development of GRS participants. David Asai (HHMI) led a discussion about mentoring that focused on how to mentor students and how to manage relationships with one’s own mentors. Stacey Kiser (Lane Community College) led a discussion about conference networking, which focused on setting specific networking and professional development goals for a meeting. Rebecca Price (University of Washington Bothell) and Sarah Eddy (Florida International University) co-led a session about crafting job application materials to leverage one’s different professional identities (e.g., educator, researcher, biologist).

In each session, participants engaged in reflective activities about the topic to advance their professional development. For example, in the conference networking session, participants reflected on their career goals over the next 5 years, generated two to three concrete and measurable goals for the meeting, and discussed these in small groups. Participants’ feedback indicated that engaging in this reflective exercise before a conference helped them maintain focus and progress toward their networking and professional development goals.

MEETING VALUE

Although this meeting report is not intended as an evaluation of the meeting per se, it is informative to draw attention to what the UBER GRC participants saw as the unique value of the meeting. Statements about the value of the GRS and GRC reflect the perspectives of the authors of this meeting report and their informal conversations with other conferees rather than any systematic measurement of meeting value. Our intention in sharing these perspectives is to equip readers with information to make a more informed decision about whether to attend a future UBER GRC meeting.

Graduate students and postdoctoral scholars who had an interest in education research but little to no experience with it commented on how the meeting provided an opportunity to learn about the nature of this research and make connections with the researchers. Faculty who were transitioning from the natural sciences into discipline-based education research also found that the meeting provided a supportive introduction to the field and an environment that afforded opportunities to make connections.

The GRS offered newcomers to the field of undergraduate biology education research an opportunity to quickly build a network and become incorporated into a community of peers. The GRS consisted of a smaller group of attendees (∼50 compared with ∼200 at the GRC). Most of these individuals also attended the GRC, which allowed conferees several days (1.5-day GRS + 5-day GRC) to build networks and reinforce their sense of community during the larger GRC.

More experienced scholars appreciated that individuals working in UBER were using theories from psychology and other social science disciplines to frame their work. This progress was viewed as increasing the potential contributions that individuals outside biology could make in the undergraduate biology education space. The diversity of institutional types represented at the GRC was also perceived to be a rich source of knowledge for what works in education as well as how and why it works. The fact that the meeting included instructors and was not limited to scholars allowed for awareness building about the current and urgent matters educators are facing and the array of tools and resources that have been developed to address these matters. Ideas could be exchanged between researchers and practitioners about strategies for promoting student learning and development. Conferees found themselves on both sides of this conversation—sharing ideas and adapting strategies to different courses, institutions, or goals. Conferees felt these conversations were far more detailed and personalized than the recommendations that can be gleaned from a website or publication, and they frequently ended with an invite to reconnect via email after the conference. Prior UBER GRC participants commented on the strong sense of community that developed at the meeting and continued beyond it.

Regardless of disciplinary perspective, conferees noted several aspects of the UBER GRC that made it a unique conference environment. First, they appreciated that the conference focused on the use of data to make decisions in undergraduate biology education. Conferees found themselves surrounded by like-minded science educators who valued the power of evidence-based teaching practices and who could learn from one another. Conferees also found the meeting a friendly place to share preliminary work, and they appreciated the developmental nature of the discussions. Early-career scholars and individuals new to UBER noted that their participation and contributions felt valued. They also noted that the conference was useful for becoming familiar with current trends in the discipline and with establishing a foothold in the community.

All GRC meetings are designed to be immersive experiences that promote deep discussion about research and foster networking and collaboration. This is accomplished by holding meetings in secluded areas with on-site housing, communal meals, and ample time for discussion and by ensuring both early-career and established scholars are among the conferees. The meeting is small enough to deeply engage with others around the research, yet large enough to offer some diversity in terms of research interests. All participants attend the same sessions, so there is a strong shared experience. Communal meals allow for the ideas that are presented in the oral sessions and posters to be discussed in detail among the participants and with the presenters more informally. The poster sessions are more active and engaged than the majority of other conferences and frequently inspire discussion beyond the projects presented. Moreover, the length of the meeting affords the luxury of time to think about, explore, and cultivate ideas.

Finally, the leadership of GRCs is expected to fundraise in order to cover as many of the conference costs as possible. This includes writing proposals to federal and philanthropic agencies and seeking donations from industry and individuals to support costs not allowed by certain granting agencies. Depending on the success of these efforts, the funds enable participation of individuals who do not have dedicated grant or department funds for conference travel, which promotes the inclusivity of the meeting.

The UBER GRC was just promoted from “probationary” to “continuing” status, which means that it will now recur every 2 years, as long as attendance remains strong and evaluations positive. All GRCs are probationary for at least two offerings, and the decision to shift to a recurring meeting must be made after the third offering (i.e., 2019). This decision was based on multiple factors, including the number of applications, the number of participants, and the evaluation results, including feedback from conferees and on-site staff. The next UBER GRC is scheduled for June 27–July 2, 2021 at Bates College (Lewiston, ME); Erin Dolan (University of Georgia) and Stacey Kiser (Lane Community College) were elected to be cochairs, and Stanley Lo (University of California, San Diego) and Carrie Diaz Eaton (Bates College) were elected to be co–vice chairs. The associated GRS will be held June 25–26; Starlette M. Sharp (Pennsylvania State University) and Miranda Chen Musgrove (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) were elected as chair and vice chair of the 2021 GRS.

As in previous offerings of the UBER GRC, the 2021 meeting will focus on a topic that emerged from the community: navigating transitions in undergraduate biology education. This theme is grounded in research in undergraduate biology education that indicates that students, educators, and researchers must transition across learning environments, institutions, programming, and types of work to be successful. For instance, students transition from precollege to college education, from 2-year to 4-year colleges, from learning about discoveries in classrooms to producing discoveries in the lab and the field, and from being students to becoming professionals in their desired careers. Educators transition from doctoral and postdoctoral training that emphasizes development of biological expertise to careers that require expertise in curricula, instruction, and student development. Furthermore, biology education researchers transition from training in education or in biological research to studying teaching and learning in biology per se. Finally, students, educators, and researchers in undergraduate biology education can experience transitions that may align with or develop their identities or clash with or undermine their identities. The 2021 UBER GRC will feature cutting-edge, unpublished research from high-profile and emerging scholars studying these and other transition points in the undergraduate biology education space.

1 We have named speakers but not poster presenters in this report. The full program, including speaker names, organizations, and talk titles, can be found here: www.grc.org/undergraduate-biology-education-research-conference/2019 . Speakers can be contacted directly about the content of their presentations.

2 www.hhmi.org/science-education/programs/inclusive-excellence-new-competition-announcement .

3 www.ccuri.org .

4 https://qubeshub.org/community/groups/ccbioinsites .

5 www.pulsecommunity.org/page/ambassador-program-1 .

6 https://qubeshub.org .

7 http://aspirealliance.org .

8 http://sencer.net .

9 https://seachange.aaas.org .

10 https://qubeshub.org/qubesresources/publications/1305/3 .

11 https://beyondmultiplechoice.org .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The UBER GRS and GRC were supported in part by funding from the HHMI, the National Institute of General Medicine Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number 1R13GM134534-01, and the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education Award 1922648. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the HHMI, NSF, or NIH. Thanks also to Mary Pat Wenderoth for providing participant information for the 2019 SABER meeting.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science . ( 2011 ). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. ( 1974 ). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness . Oxford, UK: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Corbo, J. C., Reinholz, D. L., Dancy, M. H., Deetz, S., & Finkelstein, N. ( 2016 ). Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 12 (1), 010113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010113 Google Scholar
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. ( 2014 ). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 111 (23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Gentile, J., Brenner, K., & Stephens, A. ( 2017 ). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from www.nap.edu/catalog/24622/undergraduate-research-experiences-for-stem-students-successes-challenges-and-opportunities Google Scholar
• Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. ( 2011 ). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 (8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439 Google Scholar
• Hrabowski, F. A. ( 2011 ). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroad . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved December 18, 2016, from www.nap.edu/catalog/12984/expanding-underrepresented-minority-participation-americas-science-and-technology-talent-at Google Scholar
• Kezar, A. ( 2014 ). Higher education change and social networks: A review of research . Journal of Higher Education , 85 (1), 91–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777320 Google Scholar
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., & Sato, B. K. ( 2019 ). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (1), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Owens, M. T., Seidel, S. B., Wong, M., Bejines, T. E., Lietz, S., Perez, J. R. , …& Tanner, K. D. ( 2017 ). Classroom sound can be used to classify teaching practices in college science courses . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 114 (12), 3085–3090. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618693114 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. ( 2000 ). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Schinske, J. N., Balke, V. L., Bangera, M. G., Bonney, K. M., Brownell, S. E., Carter, R. S. , … & Corwin, L. A. ( 2017 ). Broadening participation in biology education research: Engaging community college students and faculty . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (2), mr1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0289 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. ( 2013 ). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Journal of Engineering Education , 102 (4), 468–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20030 Google Scholar
• Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E. , … & Young, A. M. ( 2018 ). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities . Science , 359 (6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892 Medline ,  Google Scholar

Submitted: 30 September 2019 Revised: 31 January 2020 Accepted: 27 February 2020

© 2020 E. L. Dolan et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2020 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to search
• Skip to content
• Press Release Archive
• AAPT Committees
• Area Committees
• Annual Report
• Job Opportunities
• Code of Conduct
• Mission Statement
• Organization
• Marketing Opportunities
• Privacy Statement
• Strategic Plan
• AAPT's DEI Strategy
• COMMUNITIES
• 2025 AAPT Winter Meeting
• 2024 AAPT Summer Meeting
• National Meetings
• Highlights of Past Meetings
• Meeting Abstract Archive
• TYC Tandem Meeting
• Physics Department Chairs Conference
• Awards & Medals
• Collaborative Projects
• U.S. Physics Team
• Grants & Scholarships
• Contests & Competitions
• New Faculty Programs
• K-12 Portal
• Virtual Coffee Hour
• Publications Information
• AJP Website
• AAPT Book Archive
• Browse AJP Online
• Advertising Media Kit
• Browse TPT Online
• Video Abstracts
• The Physics Teacher TOC
• TOC Archive
• eNNOUNCER Archive
• AAPT Annual Report
• Physical Review Physics Education Research
• Physics Today
• AAPT Section News Archive
• News Archive
• AAPT ComPADRE Digital Library
• Joining AAPT - Levels & Dues
• Member Benefits
• Renew your membership
• View or update your profile
• Member Directory
• How to Get Involved with AAPT
• Testimonials
• Member Spotlight Archive
• In Memoriam
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Physics
• Article Collections
• Sustainability in Physics
• Colleges and Universities
• AAPT ComPADRE Digital library
• Speakers Bureau
• AAPT Career Center
• Program Review
• Media Relations
• Policy & Legislation
• Guidelines and Recommendations
• AAPT Sections
• Affiliated Organizations
• PERTG & PERLOC
• Supporters of AAPT
• Planned Giving
• Volunteering
• Conferences ›
• Gordon Research Conferences

Conferences Section Navigation Show navigation

• Suggest Plenary Speakers
• International Conference Proceedings

Gordon Research Conference 

The complex intersection of biology and physics      , june 8 – 13, 2014   .

Chairs: Mel Sabella & Matthew J. Lang

Vice Chairs: Duncan Brown & Dean A. Zollman

Location: Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA

Application Deadline: Applications for this meeting must be submitted by May 11, 2014 .    2014 Conference Flyer

The fields of biological physics and the physics education of biology and other health-science students have experienced tremendous growth in recent years. New findings, applications, and technologies in biological and medical physics are having far reaching consequences that affect and influence the science community, the education of future scientists and health-care workers, and the general population. As a result, leaders in Physics Education Research have begun to focus their attention on the specific needs of students in the biological sciences, the different ways physicists and biologists view the nature of science and the interactions of scientists in these disciplines.

This conference is an opportunity for:

• Biophysicists and medical physicists to discuss discoveries, technologies, and experiments that excite students and emphasize the physics content in ways that help physicists use them in their teaching at all levels;
• Teachers of physics to discuss the development of new laboratories and curricula by infusing them with biologically- and medically-related topics;
• Physics education researchers and teachers of physics to reflect on: the type of content that is appropriate and motivational for biology and health-science majors, the types of skills that are important for this population and how these skills differ from engineers and physicists, and the types of resources that exist for teaching at the interface of physics and biology (e.g. textbooks, labs, assessment tools, etc.).

Confirmed speakers include: Edward Redish, Catherine Crouch, Todd Cooke, Ross Nehm, Jose Helim Aranda-Espinoza, Phil Nelson, David Weitz, Steven A. Wasserman, Ashley R. Carter, Barbara Hughey, Jane Kondev, Wonmuk Hwang, Edit Yerushalmi, and Wolfgang Losert.

Link to Gordon Research Conferences website

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Palliat Med

Writing Abstracts and Developing Posters for National Meetings

Gordon j. wood.

1 Department of Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

R. Sean Morrison

2 Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, and the James J. Peters VA, Bronx, New York.

Presenting posters at national meetings can help fellows and junior faculty members develop a national reputation. They often lead to interesting and fruitful networking and collaboration opportunities. They also help with promotion in academic medicine and can reveal new job opportunities. Practically, presenting posters can help justify funding to attend a meeting. Finally, this process can be invaluable in assisting with manuscript preparation. This article provides suggestions and words of wisdom for palliative care fellows and junior faculty members wanting to present a poster at a national meeting describing a case study or original research. It outlines how to pick a topic, decide on collaborators, and choose a meeting for the submission. It also describes how to write the abstract using examples that present a general format as well as writing tips for each section. It then describes how to prepare the poster and do the presentation. Sample poster formats are provided as are talking points to help the reader productively interact with those that visit the poster. Finally, tips are given regarding what to do after the meeting. The article seeks to not only describe the basic steps of this entire process, but also to highlight the hidden curriculum behind the successful abstracts and posters. These tricks of the trade can help the submission stand out and will make sure the reader gets the most out of the hard work that goes into a poster presentation at a national meeting.

Introduction

A track record of successful presentations at national meetings is important for the junior academic palliative medicine clinician. Unfortunately, palliative care fellows report minimal training in how to even start the process by writing the abstract. 1 What follows is a practical, step-by-step guide aimed at the palliative care fellow or junior palliative care faculty member who is hoping to present original research or a case study at a national meeting. We will discuss the rationale for presenting at national meetings, development of the abstract, creation and conduct of the presentation, as well as what to do after the meeting. We will draw on the literature where available 2 – 7 and on our experience where data are lacking. We will focus on the development of posters rather than oral presentations or workshops as these are typically the first and more common experiences for junior faculty and fellows. Finally, in addition to discussing the nuts and bolts of the process, we will also focus on the “hidden curriculum” behind the successful submissions and poster presentations (see Table 1 ).

The Hidden Curriculum: Tips To Get the Most Out of Your Submission

Why Present at National Meetings?

Given that it takes a fair amount of work to put together an abstract and presentation, it is fair to ask what is to be gained from the effort. The standard answer is that presentations at national meetings aid in the dissemination of your findings and help further the field. Although this is certainly true, there are also several practical and personal reasons that should hold at least equal importance to fellows or junior faculty members (see Table 2 ). Perhaps most importantly, presenting at a national meeting helps develop your national reputation. People will begin to know your name and associate it with the topic you are presenting. Additionally, it provides an opportunity to network and collaborate, which can then lead to other projects. Many of us have begun life-long collaborative relationships after connecting with someone at a national meeting. Even if you don't make a personal connection at the meeting, if people begin to associate your name with a topic, they will often reach out to you when they need an expert to sit on a committee, write a paper, or collaborate on a project.

Personal Reasons To Present Abstracts/Posters

Development of a national reputation is important not only in garnering interesting opportunities, but it is also key to career advancement. For fellows, presenting at national meetings can forge connections with future employers and lead to that all-important “first job.” For junior faculty, demonstration of a national reputation is often the main criterion for promotion and presentations at national meetings help establish this reputation. 8 Junior faculty may also make connections that lead to potential job opportunities of which they might not otherwise have been aware.

There are three additional practical reasons to present at a national meeting. First, having something accepted for presentation is often the only way your department will reimburse your trip to the meeting. Second, going through the work of abstract submission and presentation helps tremendously in manuscript preparation. It provides a deadline and forces you to organize your thoughts, analyze your data, and place them in an understandable format. This makes the eventual job of writing the manuscript much less daunting. Third, presenting also allows you to get immediate feedback, which can then make the manuscript stronger before it is submitted. Such feedback often gives the presenter additional ideas for analyses, alternate explanations for findings, and ideas regarding future directions.

Although these personal and practical reasons for presenting are derived from our own experiences, they are concordant with the survey results of 219 presenters at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting. 9 This survey also highlighted how posters and oral presentations can meet these needs differently. For example, for these presenters, posters were preferred for getting feedback and criticism and for networking and collaborating. Oral presentations, on the other hand, were preferred for developing a national reputation and sharing important findings most effectively. For all of these reasons, many academic centers have developed highly effective programs for trainees and junior faculty to help encourage submissions 10 , 11 so it is wise to seek out such programs if they exist in your home institution.

Getting Started

Realizing the importance of presenting at national meetings may be the easy part. Actually getting started and putting together a submission is where most fall short. The critical first step is to pick something that interests you. For original research, hopefully your level of interest was a consideration at the beginning of the project, although how anxious you are to work on the submission may be a good barometer for your true investment in the project.

For case studies, make sure the topic, and ideally the case, fuel a passion. Unlike original research, in which mentors and advisors are usually established at study conception, case studies often require you to seek appropriate collaborators when contemplating submission. It is the rare submission that comes from a single author. In choosing collaborators, look for a senior mentor with experience submitting posters and an investment in both you and the topic. There is nothing more disheartening for the junior clinician than having to harass a mentor whose heart is not in the project.

Another critical step is to choose the right meeting for the submission. Although many submissions may be to palliative care meetings (e.g., American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine), there is great benefit to both the field and your career in presenting at other specialty meetings. Presentations at well-recognized nonpalliative care meetings further legitimize the field, increase your national visibility, and lead to interesting and fruitful collaborations. Additionally, these types of presentations may be looked on with more favor by people reviewing your CV who are not intimately familiar with the world of palliative care. Table 1 presents some questions you should discuss with your mentor and ask yourself when choosing a meeting. Some of these questions may have conflicting answers, and you should be thoughtful in weighing what is most important.

Once you have chosen your meeting, go to the meeting's website and review all of the instructions. Check requirements regarding what material can be presented. For example, many meetings will allow you to present data that were already presented at a regional meeting but not data that were previously presented at another national meeting. Most meetings also do not allow you to present data that are already published, although it is generally acceptable to submit your abstract at the same time you submit your paper for publication. If the paper is published before the meeting, make sure to inform the committee—most often you will still be able to present but will be asked to note the publication in your presentation. Regarding the submission, most conferences have very specific instructions and the rules are strict. The applications are generally online with preset fields and word limits. It is helpful to examine review criteria and deadlines for submission, paying particular attention to time zones. Finally, it can be invaluable to read published abstracts from the last meeting and to talk with prior presenters to get a sense of the types of abstracts that are accepted.

The next step is to start writing. The key to success is to leave enough time as there are often unavoidable and unplanned technical issues with the online submission that you will confront. Additionally, you will want to leave time to get input from all of the authors and from people who have not been primarily involved in the project—to make sure that a “naïve” audience understands the message of the abstract. Finally, remember that an abstract/poster does not have to represent all of the data for a study and can just present an interesting piece of the story.

Most submissions require several rewrites. These can become frustrating, but it is important to realize that there is a very specific language for these types of submissions that your mentor should know and that you will learn over time. The most common issue is the need to shorten the abstract to fit the word limit. Strategies to ensure brevity include using the active voice, employing generic rather than trade names for drugs and devices, and avoiding jargon and local lingo. Use no more than two or three abbreviations and always define the abbreviations on first use. Do a spelling/grammar check and also have someone proofread the document before submitting. References are generally not included on abstracts. Most importantly, be concise, write lean, and avoid empty phrases such as “studies show.” A review of 45 abstracts submitted to a national surgical meeting found that concise abstracts were more likely to be accepted, 12 and this small study certainly reflects our experiences as submitters and reviewers.

The Abstract for an Original Research Study

The styles of abstracts for original studies vary. Guidelines exist for manuscript abstracts reporting various types of original research (CONSORT, 13 – 15 IDCRD, 16 PRISMA, 17 QUOROM, and STROBE 18 ) and review of these guidelines can be helpful to provide a format. There are also guidelines that exist for evaluating conference abstracts that may be informative, such as the CORE-14 guidelines for observational studies. 19 In general, a structured abstract style is favored. 20 – 21 In this paper, we will present general styles for each type of abstract that will need to be adapted to the type of study and the rules of the conference. Table 3 outlines the general format for an abstract for original research. Each section contains tips for how to write the section, rather than example text from a study. Therefore, you may find it most helpful to review the figures alongside examples of previously accepted abstracts.

Abstract for an Original Research Study

In any abstract, it is particularly important to focus on the title as it is often the only item people will look at while scanning the meeting program or wandering through the poster session. It should be no more than 10–12 words 2 and should describe what was investigated and how, instead of what was found. It should be engaging, but be cautious with too much use of humor as this can become tiresome and distracting. Below the title, list authors and their affiliations. The remaining sections of the abstract are discussed in the figure.

The Abstract for a Case Study

The abstract for a case study contains many of the same elements as the abstract for original research with a few important differences. Most importantly, you need to use the abstract to highlight the importance of the issue the case raises and convince the reader that both the case and the issue are interesting, novel, and relevant. A general format is provided in Table 4 .

Abstract for a Case Study

Preparing Posters

Once the abstract is prepared, submitted, and, hopefully, accepted, your next job is to prepare the presentation. Whereas a few select abstracts are typically selected for oral presentation (usually 8–10 minutes followed by a short question-and-answer period), the majority of submitted abstracts will be assigned to poster sessions. (Readers interested in advice for oral presentations are referred to reference 22 ). Posters are large (generally approximately 3 × 6 ft) visual representations of your work. Most posters are now one-piece glossy prints from graphics departments or commercial stores, although increasingly academic departments have access to printing facilities that may be less expensive than commercial stores. Additionally, many meetings now partner with on-site printing services, which are convenient and reasonably priced. Generally, the material is prepared on a PowerPoint (or equivalent) slide and this is given to the production facility. The easiest way to prepare your first poster is to ask your institution if it has a preferred or required template. If such a template does not exist, ask for a trusted colleague's slide from an accepted poster. This gives you the format and institutional logos, and you simply need to modify the content. In preparing your poster for printing, review the meeting instructions and try to make your poster as close to the maximum dimensions as possible. Try to complete the poster early to allow for production delays. Consider shipping your poster to the conference or carry it in a protective case and check with the airline regarding luggage requirements. On-site printing eliminates travel hassles but does not allow much time for any problems that may arise.

What goes on the poster?

Both the content and the visual appeal of the poster are important. In fact, one study found that visual appeal was more important than content for knowledge transfer. 23 Although the poster expands the content of your abstract, resist the urge to include too much information. It is helpful to remember the rule of 10s: the average person scans your poster for 10 seconds from 10 feet away. When someone stops, you should be able to introduce your poster in 10 seconds and they should be able to assimilate all of the information and discuss it with you in 10 minutes. 3 Figures 1 and ​ and2 2 show the layouts of posters for a case and for an original study. The general rule is to keep each section as short and simple as possible, which allows for a font large enough (nothing smaller than 24 point 4 ) for easy reading of the title from 10 feet away and the text from 3–5 feet away. Leave blank space and use colors judiciously. Easily read and interpretable figures and simple tables are more visually appealing than text, and they are typically more effective in getting one's message across. It is helpful to get feedback on one's poster before finalizing and printing—ideally from people not familiar with the work to get a true objective view.

Poster for original research.

Poster for case study.

Although it may seem simple enough to prepare a good poster, many fall short. One author reviewed 142 posters at a national meeting and found that 33% were cluttered or sloppy, 22% had fonts that were too small to be easily read, and 38% had research objectives that could not be located in a 1-minute review. 5 Another study of an evaluation tool for case report posters found that the areas most needing improvement were statements of learning objectives, linkages of conclusions to learning objectives, and appropriate amount of words. 24

The Poster Presentation

Posters are presented at “Poster Sessions,” which are designated periods during the meeting when presenters stand by their posters while conference attendees circulate through the room. Refreshments are often served during these sessions and the atmosphere is generally more relaxed and less stressful than during oral presentations. Additionally, the one-on-one contact allows greater opportunity for discussion, feedback, and networking. Awards are often presented to the best posters and ribbons may designate these posters during the session.

The first step to a successful poster presentation is to simply show up. Surveys of conference attendees clearly indicate that it is necessary for the presenter to be with his/her poster for effective communication of the results. 23 This is also your time to grow your reputation, network, and get feedback, so do not miss the opportunity to reap the rewards of your hard work. In preparation, read any specific conference instructions and bring business cards and handouts of the poster or related materials. While standing at your poster, make eye contact with people who approach but allow them to finish reading before beginning a discussion. 4 As noted above, you should be prepared to introduce your poster in 10 seconds then answer questions and discuss as needed. Practicing your introduction and answers to common questions with colleagues before the meeting can be invaluable. Before your presentation, your mentor should also contact important people in the field related to your topic and ask them to come by your poster. You should have a list of these people and know who they are and when they are coming. Standard questions you may ask are included in Table 1 . You should also have prepared questions targeted specifically for each of the people your mentor has contacted. You should then suggest these people as reviewers when you submit your manuscript.

After the Presentation

After the presentation, key steps remain to get the most out of the process. First, ask for feedback so you can make adjustments for the next presentation. Also, think about what parts of the poster you can use for other reasons. It is often helpful to export a graph or figure to use in future presentations. The key is to “double-dip” and use everything to its fullest extent. In addition, to make the maximal use of the networking opportunities you should follow up with anyone who asked for more information or inquired about collaborations. In the excitement of the meeting anything seems possible, but it is easy to lose that momentum when you get home. In one study, only 29% of presenters replied to requests for additional information, and they generally took over 30 days to respond. 25

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is critical to write up your work for publication. Although posters are important, publications are the true currency of academia. Unfortunately, the percentage of abstracts that are eventually published is low. 26 When asked why they had yet to publish, respondents in one study 27 cited: lacked time (46%), study still in progress (31%), responsibility for publication belonged to someone else (20%), difficulty with co-authors (17%), and low priority (13%). Factors that have been shown to increase the likelihood of abstract publication include: oral presentation (as opposed to a poster), statistical analysis, number of authors, and university affiliation. 28 – 31 Time to publication is generally about 20 months. 29

Conclusions

Writing abstracts and developing posters for national meetings benefit the field in general and the junior clinician in particular. This process develops critical skills and generates innumerable opportunities. We have presented a stepwise approach based on the literature and our personal experiences. We have also highlighted the hidden curriculum that separates the successful submissions from the rest of the pack. Hopefully, these tools will help palliative care fellows and junior faculty more easily navigate the process and benefit the most from the work they put into their projects.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Morrison is supported by a Mid-Career Investigator Award in Patient Oriented Research from the National Institute on Aging (K24 AG022345). A portion of this work was funded by the National Palliative Care Research Center.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

GRC Mitochondria and Chloroplasts 2024 Barcelona ES

» Conference website

Gordon Research Conferences (GRC) (2024-07-07) MitoGlobal

Abstract : The Gordon Research Conference on Mitochondria and Chloroplasts, Barcelona, Spain, 2024

Registration

Oroboros and grc2024.

2024, MitoGlobal, ORO 

• Publications

Records of the Gordon Research Conferences

• Print Generating
• Collection Overview
• Collection Organization
• Container Inventory

Scope and Content

The Records of the Gordon Research Conferences contain the organizational records of the Gordon Research Conferences (GRC), which mainly cover the period from 1927 to 2002. The records are arranged into the following twelve series:

• Neil E. Gordon and The Gibson Island Conferences
• Administrative Records - Minutes of Meetings
• Director’s Files
• Attendee Lists
• Conference Evaluations
• Host Institutions
• Addendum - Biographical
• Addendum - American Association for the Advancement of Science and Johns Hopkins University Materials
• Addendum - Paul D. Boyer Notes
• Addendum - Miscellaneous
• Addendum - Reproductive Tract Biology Conference
• Creation: 1870-2002
• Creation: Majority of material found within 1927-2002
• Gordon, Neil E. (Neil Elbridge), 1886- (Person)
• Twiss, Sumner B. (Person)
• Parks, George W. (Person)
• Cruickshank, Alexander M. (Person)
• Storm, Carlyle B., 1935- (Person)
• Gordon Research Conferences (Organization)
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (Organization)

Access Restrictions

There are no access restrictions on the materials for research purposes and the collection is open to the public.

Copyright Information

The Science History Institute holds copyright to the Records of the Gordon Research Conferences. The researcher assumes full responsibility for all copyright, property, and libel laws as they apply.

Background Note

The Gordon Research Conferences (GRC) is a non-profit educational organization that arranges scientific conferences. Dedicated to building communities that advance the frontiers of science, the GRC brings together global networks of scientists to discuss the latest pre-publication research in their fields. In order to foster free and frank exchanges of ideas, note taking is discouraged and no formal records of the conferences are published. The origins of the GRC date back to the late 1920s, when Johns Hopkins University’s Department of Chemistry began an intermittent series of summer meetings to present new findings in chemistry and related fields. Neil E. Gordon, the Chair of Chemical Education at Johns Hopkins, soon took charge of organizing these meetings. Prominent academics from across the United States appealed to Gordon for permission to attend these meetings. The organization that became the Gordon Research Conferences was founded in 1931, when Neil E. Gordon began organizing formal summer meetings held on an annual basis. The initial meetings were held under the auspices of Johns Hopkins University. Seeking a more remote location, Gordon moved the meetings to Gibson Island, Maryland in 1934, where they became known as the Gibson Island Conferences. In 1938, he persuaded the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to take a formal role in organizing the conferences, with himself serving as Director. Under the AAAS’ auspices, the number of conferences grew. From 1938 to 1941, these conferences were known as the Special Research Conferences on Chemistry. In 1942, they were renamed the AAAS-Gibson Island Research Conferences. In 1945, Gordon relinquished control of the conferences to his assistant, polymer chemist Sumner B. Twiss. In 1947, the conferences were moved to Colby Junior College (now known as Colby-Sawyer College) in New London, New Hampshire and renamed the Chemical Research Conferences. That same year, W. George Parks, a Professor of Chemistry at the Rhode Island State College (now known as the University of Rhode Island), was appointed Director. In 1948, in honor of founder Neil E. Gordon, the organization was renamed the Gordon Research Conferences. Under W. George Parks’ leadership (1947-1968), the GRC experienced significant growth. Parks moved Its headquarters to Rhode Island State College’s campus in Kingston, Rhode Island. By 1956, the organization was holding thirty-six conferences with nearly four thousand participants from forty-six countries. That same year, the GRC was formally incorporated as a non-profit organization. Also under Parks’ directorship, new conference sites were added in New England and the West Coast. In 1968, Alexander M. Cruickshank, a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Rhode Island and W. George Parks’ longtime assistant, was appointed Director of the GRC. Under Cruickshank’s directorship (1968-1993), the GRC continued to grow rapidly. Additional conference sites in New England were added and the organization held its first overseas conferences in Italy (1990) and Germany (1991). The number of conferences and attendees also grew. Carlyle B. Storm, previously Chief Scientist for the Energetic Materials and Testing Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, was appointed Director of the GRC in 1993. Under Storm’s directorship (1993-2003), the GRC continued to experience rapid expansion. New international conference sites were added in Europe and Asia, including those in Switzerland, England, Hong Kong, and Japan. The GRC’s headquarters were moved to a new building in West Kingston, Rhode Island in 2002. Storm retired as Director in 2003 and was succeeded by current President and CEO Nancy Ryan Gray (2003-Present). The GRC currently organizes over 395 Gordon Research Conferences and Gordon Research Seminars per year in a wide range of scientific fields. It continues to maintain its policies of encouraging the informal free exchange of ideas and not publishing formal records of its conferences. Sources Gordon Research Conferences 75th Anniversary Website – https://www.frontiersofscience.org Gordon Research Conferences Website – https://www.grc.org Records of the Gordon Research Conferences, Science History Institute Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

96 Linear Feet (187 boxes)

Language of Materials

Additional description.

Organizational records of the Gordon Research Conferences, which mainly cover the period from 1927 to 2002.

Acquisition Information

The Records of the Gordon Research Conferences were donated to the Science History Institute (formerly the Chemical Heritage Foundation) by the Gordon Research Conferences in 2002 and 2004.

Related Materials

The Photographs from the Records of the Gordon Research Conferences are preserved at the Science History Institute (formerly the Chemical History Foundation) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Processing Information

The Records of the Gordon Research Conferences were processed by Andrew Mangravite in July 2002.

Related Names

• Colby-Sawyer College (Organization)
• Boyer, Paul D. (Paul Delos) (1918-07-31-2018-06-02) (Person)

Genre / Form

• Archival materials
• Cancer -- Congresses
• Catalysis--Congresses
• Congresses and conventions
• Corrosion and anti-corrosives -- Congresses
• Food -- Congresses
• Nutrition -- Congresses
• Pharmaceutical chemistry -- Congresses
• Reproduction -- Congresses
• Science -- Congresses
• Scientific apparatus and instruments -- Congresses
• Vitamins -- Congresses

Finding Aid & Administrative Information

Revision statements.

• 2024: Finding aid revised by Kenton G. Jaehnig.

Repository Details

Part of the Science History Institute Archives Repository

Collection organization

Item Description, Box Number, Folder Number, Records of the Gordon Research Conferences, 1870-2002, Science History Institute Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Cite Item Description

Item Description, Box Number, Folder Number, Records of the Gordon Research Conferences, 1870-2002, Science History Institute Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. https://sciencehistory.libraryhost.com/repositories/3/resources/466 Accessed August 15, 2024.

View Staff Interface | Visit ArchivesSpace.org | v3.5.0

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference: A Meeting Report

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
• 2 Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus, San Juan, PR 00931.
• 3 Education Research and Outreach, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63123.
• 4 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
• 5 Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
• 6 Department of Biological Sciences, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23666.
• 7 Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
• 8 Department of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201.
• 9 Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217.
• 10 Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322.
• 11 Office of the Provost, Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522.
• 12 Biological Sciences Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
• 13 Science Division, Lane Community College, Eugene, OR 97405.
• 14 Thinking Matters Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
• 15 Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199.
• 16 Department of Biology, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA 30314.
• 17 Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309.
• 18 Department of Life Sciences Core Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095.
• 19 Department of Curriculum and Instruction-Science Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
• 20 Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California, San Diego, and San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120.
• PMID: 32357093
• PMCID: PMC8697667
• DOI: 10.1187/cbe.19-09-0188

The 2019 Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled "Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education," brought together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. Graduate students and postdocs had the additional opportunity to present and discuss research during a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) that preceded the GRC. This report provides a broad overview of the UBER GRC and GRS and highlights major themes that cut across invited talks, poster presentations, and informal discussions. Such themes include the importance of working in teams at multiple levels to achieve instructional improvement, the potential to use big data and analytics to inform instructional change, the need to customize change initiatives, and the importance of psychosocial supports in improving undergraduate student well-being and academic success. The report also discusses the future of the UBER GRC as an established meeting and describes aspects of the conference that make it unique, both in terms of facilitating dissemination of research and providing a welcoming environment for conferees.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The GRS/GRC from the perspective of a graduate student and first time attendee. Russo CD. Russo CD. Microb Ecol. 2013 May;65(4):922-3. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0179-2. Epub 2013 Jan 25. Microb Ecol. 2013. PMID: 23354178
• Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol. MacKinnon K, Marcellus L, Rivers J, Gordon C, Ryan M, Butcher D. MacKinnon K, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447004
• Macromolecular crowding: chemistry and physics meet biology (Ascona, Switzerland, 10-14 June 2012). Foffi G, Pastore A, Piazza F, Temussi PA. Foffi G, et al. Phys Biol. 2013 Aug;10(4):040301. doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/10/4/040301. Epub 2013 Aug 2. Phys Biol. 2013. PMID: 23912807
• How do the Institutes on Teaching and Learning (ITLs) nurture the members of the Physiology Educators Community of Practice (PECOP)? Goodman BE. Goodman BE. Adv Physiol Educ. 2017 Sep 1;41(3):354-356. doi: 10.1152/advan.00050.2017. Adv Physiol Educ. 2017. PMID: 28679571 Review.
• Meeting the Needs of A Changing Landscape: Advances and Challenges in Undergraduate Biology Education. Aikens ML. Aikens ML. Bull Math Biol. 2020 May 13;82(5):60. doi: 10.1007/s11538-020-00739-6. Bull Math Biol. 2020. PMID: 32399760 Review.
• Integration of Theory and Practice in Medical Morphology Curriculum in Postgraduate Training: A Flipped Classroom and Case-based Learning Exercise. Hu XM, Li ZX, Deng J, Han Y, Lu S, Zhang Q, Luo ZQ, Xiong K. Hu XM, et al. Curr Med Sci. 2023 Aug;43(4):741-748. doi: 10.1007/s11596-023-2759-9. Epub 2023 Jul 17. Curr Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 37455278
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.
• Argyris, C., Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Jossey-Bass.
• Corbo, J. C., Reinholz, D. L., Dancy, M. H., Deetz, S., Finkelstein, N. (2016). Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010113. 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010113 - DOI
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(23), 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Gentile, J., Brenner, K., Stephens, A. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from www.nap.edu/catalog/24622/undergraduate-research-experiences-for-stem-st...

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Grants and funding

• R13 GM134534/GM/NIGMS NIH HHS/United States
• HHMI/Howard Hughes Medical Institute/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Volume 165, Issue 9, September 2024 (In Progress)
• Volume 165, Issue 8, August 2024
• Advance Articles
• Basic Science Collections
• Thematic Issues
• Clinical Practice Guidelines
• Endocrine Reviews
• Endocrinology
• Journal of the Endocrine Society
• The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
• JCEM Case Reports
• Molecular Endocrinology (Archives)
• Endocrine Society Journals
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with the Endocrine Society?
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Reprints, ePrints, Supplements
• About Endocrinology
• Editorial Board
• Author Resources
• Reviewer Resources
• Rights & Permissions
• Member Access
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic
• < Previous

GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES, Endocrinology , Volume 62, Issue 4, 1 April 1958, Pages 544–545, https://doi.org/10.1210/endo-62-4-544

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The Gordon Research Conferences for 1958 will be held from 9 June to 29 August at Colby Junior College, New London, New Hampshire; New Hampton School, New Hampton, New Hampshire and Kimball Union Academy, Meriden, New Hampshire.

Individuals interested in attending a Conference are requested to send their applications to the Director. Each applicant must state the institution or company with which he is connected and the type of work in which he is most interested. Attendance at each Conference is limited to 100. The complete program of the Conferences will be published in Science for February 28th.

Requests for attendance at the Conferences, or for any additional information, should be addressed to W. George Parks, Director, Department of Chemistry, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. From June 9 to August 29, 1958 mail should be addressed to Colby Junior College, New London, New Hampshire.

Endocrine Society members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

More on this topic, related articles in pubmed, citing articles via.

• About the Endocrine Society
• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1945-7170
• Print ISSN 0013-7227
• Copyright © 2024 Endocrine Society
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

About GRC 

The gordon research conferences provide an international forum for the presentation and discussion of frontier research in the biological, chemical, physical and engineering sciences and their interfaces..

GRC is a nonprofit organization dedicated to building communities that advance the frontiers of science.  Our conferences bring a global network of scientists together to discuss the latest pre-publication research in their field.  GRC's unique format focuses on discussion and provides conferees with the opportunity to network informally during free afternoon times.

GRC organizes over 395 Gordon Research Conferences (GRCs) and Gordon Research Seminars (GRSs) per year, each highlighting the latest, cutting-edge research in fields ranging from physics to neurobiology, material science and engineering, to medicine.

Whether you attend a GRC or a GRS, Gordon Research Conferences is well known for the discussions that take place after each scientific talk, where conference attendees debate the ideas presented to foster a dynamic scientific exchange. Each conference is limited to 200 attendees; scientists must apply to the  conference and be selected by the conference chair to attend the meeting.  All conferees are active participants in their community and contribute to moving the frontiers of the field forward.

Registration Form

MyGRC Account Check your application status, complete your registration, update your poster, change your rooming preference, make a bus reservation, print an invitation letter, print a receipt (which includes verification that you are presenting a poster) or print an invoice by logging into your account.

GRC Venues Everything you need to know, to plan your trip.

FAQs Instant answers to common questions.

Tell us how we can help

Call us and leave a detailed message at: 401-783-4011

*This voicemail is only checked once daily. Due to high volume of requests during the conference season, responses may be delayed.

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for Canadian premed students. **Please read community rules.** Highschool students, please check out the stickied thread. Join our new discord for quick responses and routine calls: (https://discord.gg/uJJfVRg4vJ). Current medical students, check out /r/MedSchoolCanada

I attended a Gordon research conference but abstracts are not made public does that mean I can’t list it for ucalgary?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

• Network Staff List
• Welcome Note
• Society for Romanian Studies
• External Links & Resources
• Digital Libraries, Archives & Projects
• Contact the Editors

V-CYBERCULT 2024: Visuality and Cyberculture International Conference

The Institute for Multidisciplinary Research in Art (ICMA) and the Faculty of Visual Arts and Design at George Enescu National University of the Arts (UNAGE) are pleased to invite submissions of abstracts, panel proposals, and artistic research contributions for the Visuality and Cyberculture International Conference (V-Cybercult 2024). The theme of this edition is AI Artistry Unleashed: Image Generation and Creative Synthesis in the Era of Advanced Neural Networks .

As advanced neural networks evolve, their capacity to generate and synthesize images grows exponentially and, in return, challenges our deepest-held notions of creativity, authorship, and the very essence of art itself. In this new era, tools such as DALL-E, GauGAN, StyleGAN, Pix2PixHD, Artbreeder, and DeepDream do more than mimic human artistic styles; they forge new paths, creating unprecedented forms of beauty and expression. These AI systems are not mere assistants to human artists but co-creators, provocatively blurring the lines between human and machine, creator and tool. Projects like “The Next Rembrandt” (J. Walter Thompson Amsterdam & Microsoft) and “Portrait of Edmond de Belamy” (Obvious), which became the first AI-generated artwork to be auctioned at Christie’s, exemplify this shift. At the same time, Trevor Paglen’s “The Machine Vision” series and Anna Ridler’s “Mosaic Virus” illustrate how AI can be used to showcase themes of surveillance and data. Memo Akten’s AI Art series and Refik Anadol’s “The Entropy Gardens” demonstrate how neural networks can generate new forms of abstract and immersive art.

Therefore, we ask ourselves: How does the involvement of AI in art creation challenge traditional notions of authorship and originality? In what ways do AI-generated artworks redefine our understanding of creativity? How should we attribute authorship in collaborative projects between human artists and AI systems? What new aesthetic principles are emerging from AI-generated art, and how do they compare to traditional art forms? Besides, deepfake technology, as seen in the portrayals of public figures like Donald Trump and Pope Francis, raises questions about authenticity and the power of AI in the media. What implications does AI-generated art have for the broader cultural landscape and our conception of visual culture? How do different cultures perceive and integrate AI-generated art, and what cultural biases might exist in AI art creation?

Submission Guidelines

• Individual proposal –  The abstracts of the communications (maximum 250 words) must be accompanied by 5 keywords, 3 bibliographical references and a biographical note of the author (maximum 200 words).
• Panel proposals  should include a short description and rationale (200 words) together with abstracts for each of the 3-4 papers (150-200 words each including 5 keywords, 3 bibliographical references and details of the contributor), and the name and contact details of the panel proposer. The panel proposer should coordinate the submissions for that panel as a single proposal.
• Artistic research  –   We actively support the presentation of artistic research related to the conference theme and topics. Abstracts should be up to 200 words with 3-4 screenshots of the artistic work or project and a biographical note.
• Book presentations  for authors who want to present their recent or on-going projects – send an abstract of maximum 250 words and a bibliographical note.

List of Topics

We invite submissions on topics including, but not limited to:

• AI and authorship.
• AI curation, curatorial challenges, art exhibitions and galleries in the metaverse.
• AI in architecture, in art history and visual analysis, in cultural and heritage preservation.
• AI in art and media: algorithmic art, generative art, data-driven art, emotional expression in art, hybrid art forms, digital and interactive media, video games, personalized art, sustainable art practices, cybernetic art, integration of AI with traditional art forms.
• AI techniques and technologies: deep learning, machine learning, computer vision, text-to-image models, inpainting, neural style transfer, deep-fakes, human image synthesis, image restoration, pixel-art scaling algorithms.
• AI’s role in augmenting cinematic visual storytelling and in enhanced live performances.
• CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks.
• Collaborative AI: human-AI co-creation, visual storytelling in AI-generated comics and graphic novels, synthetic media.
• Computational creativity.
• Digital immortality.
• Neuroaesthetics.
• Specific applications and concepts: motion capture, augmented, virtual, and extended realities (AR/VR/MR/XR), NFTs.
• Technological dystopia/utopia.
• The Metaverse.
• Transhumanism.

Organizing committee

• Prof. Cristian Nae (co-founder, ICMA Iași)
• Assoc. Prof. Oana-Maria Nae (project assistant & editor, UNAGE Iași)
• Asist. Lect. Cosmin Pănescu (UNAGE Iași)
• Assoc. Asist. Mihai Aureliu Savin (UNAGE Iași)
• Asist. Lect. Daniel Ungureanu (project manager & co-founder, UNAGE Iași)

Invited Speakers

• George LEGRADY (Distinguished Professor of Digital Media at University of California, Santa Barbara)
• Kang ZHANG  (Professor of Computational Media and Arts at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Guangzhou)

Publication

Visuality and Cyberculture International Conference organizing committee is aiming to publish an edited collection of papers focusing on the conference theme with a reputable academic publisher. Further details of how to submit will be announced after the conference.

• The conference takes place  online .
• The event’s official language is  English .
• Submission and participation are  free of charge .
• Abstracts will be submitted in text format (preferably doc, docx).
• Submissions must be  original  and written in  English .
• Accepted submissions will be presented at the conference:  15-20 min .
• Submission deadline : September 15, 2024 (full paper for the Conference Proceedings, if available)
• Acceptance notice : October 1, 2024
• Official program announcement : October 15, 2024
• Conference : November 1-2, 2024
• Paper submission deadline : December 31, 2024

Submissions should be sent at  [email protected] or https://easychair.org/cfp/V-CYBERCULT-2024  

Post a Reply

• Values, Vision, and Mission
• ARCUS Staff
• Board of Directors
• ARCUS Committees
• Board Member Job Description
• ARCUS Annual Reports
• Employment Opportunities
• Privacy Policy
• Member Information
• ARCUS Members
• ARCUS Community Member Profiles
• Organizational Member Application
• ARCUS Membership Donation
• Annual Meetings
• Research Seminar Series
• Community and Citizen Science
• Indigenous Scholars
• Early Career Conference Award
• Education Programs
• Sea Ice Prediction Network
• Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook
• The Arctic in the Classroom
• Navigating the New Arctic
• AGU Community Meetings
• Arctic Research Seminar Series
• ARCUS at AMSS 2024
• CCS in the Far North 2024
• Tundra Talks
• ARCUS Annual Meetings
• Beringia Days 2023
• ARCUS at ASSW 2023
• Arctic Research Virtual Speed Networking
• Community and Citizen Science in the Far North
• Arctic Research Collaboration Workshop
• Engaging Rural and Alaska Native Youth in Arctic STEM
• Sea Ice Prediction Network Meetings
• ARCUS at APECS 2020
• 2020 Polar Technology Conference
• NNA Investigators Meeting
• SEARCH Meetings
• Alaska Marine Science Symposium 2018
• Women's Perspectives Luncheon at Polar2018
• ARCUS at POLAR2018
• Arctic Research Day 2017
• Arctic Science Summit Week 2017
• ARCUS at Week of the Arctic 2017
• Alaska Marine Science Symposium 2016
• Arctic Science Summit Week 2016
• ARCUS at Arctic Circle 2016
• NPS Symposium 2016
• Arctic Science Ministerial Side-Event 2016
• USArray Sustainability Workshop 2016
• Arctic Observing Open Science Meeting 2015
• 2013 Logistics Workshop
• State of the Arctic 2010
• Northern Oil and Gas Forum 2010
• NPS Park Science in the Arctic 2008
• View Calendar
• Upcoming Events
• Search Events
• Submit Event
• Past Announcement Search
• Witness the Arctic
• Witness Community Highlights
• ARCUS Mailing Lists
• Arctic Links
• Directory of Arctic Researchers
• Publications Directory
• News Archive
• Conducting Research with Northern Communities
• Polar Education List
• Purchase Items
• Virtual Backgrounds
• ARCUS Archive Site
• Giving to ARCUS
• Donor Levels

Call for Abstracts and Registration: 2023 Gordon Research Conference and Seminar on Polar Marine Science

Call for Abstracts and Registration 2023 Gordon Research Conference and Seminar on Polar Marine Science 5-10 March 2023 Ventura, California

Abstract submission deadline: 5 February 2023

For more information, go to: https://www.grc.org/polar-marine-science-conference/2023/

Organizers invite abstracts and registration for the 2023 Gordon Research Conference (GRC) and Seminar on Polar Marine Science. This conference, with the theme of Integrating Ocean Physics and Biogeochemistry to Assess Polar Ecosystem Sensitivity to Rapid Change , will take place 5-10 March 2023 in Ventura, California.

This GRC on Polar Marine Science will highlight recent advances in the understanding of physical-chemical-biological linkages and feedback processes across coupled ocean-cryosphere-atmosphere-ecosystems of the Arctic and Southern oceans. Special emphasis will be given to understand impacts on polar marine species, food webs, and habitats. Sessions will highlight recent advance in polar climate change detection and attribution, impacts of multiple stressors on biota, changes in habitat distribution, integrated approaches to collect multi-disciplinary observations, and novel methods to analyze and link long-term time-series data with conceptual and numerical models.

The conference will consist of both talks and posters. One-minute oral summaries of posters will allow presenters to address the entire group, promoting enhanced interactions, in-depth discussions, and brainstorming. A GRC "Power Hour" will be held to help address the challenges women face in polar science and support the professional growth of women in our communities by providing an open forum for discussion and mentoring.

A Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) will be held on the weekend prior to the GRC. The GRS will provide a forum for graduate students and postdoctoral scientists to present their work in a peer-to-peer setting. The participants will discuss cutting-edge aspects of their research, and have the opportunity to build collaborative relationships with other early career researchers as well as with established scientists and mentors.

The seminar will focus on the spatial and temporal variability of processes (and specific methodology applied) occurring in the polar oceans, with a particular emphasis on interfaces. The seminar will feature approximately 10 talks and two poster sessions. All attendees are expected to actively participate in the GRS, either by giving an oral presentation or presenting a poster. Therefore, all applications must include an abstract.