Increasingly, college courses have transitioned from traditional lecture to student-centered active learning, creating more opportunities for students to interact with each other in class. Recent studies have indicated that these increased interactions in active learning can create situations where students’ identities are more salient, which could result in novel challenges for students with marginalized identities. Christianity has been shown to be a marginalized identity in the context of undergraduate biology courses, but it is unknown whether Christian students experience challenges in their interactions with other students in class. The social psychology framework of concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) was used to explore the experiences of Christian students during peer interactions in undergraduate biology courses. Thirty students were interviewed, and most felt their religious identity was salient during peer interactions in biology. Students also reported that they have more opportunities to reveal their religious identity in courses that incorporate peer discussion than in courses that do not. Students claimed that revealing their religious identity to their peers could be beneficial because they could find other religious students in their courses, grow closer with their peers, and combat stereotypes about religious individuals in science. Though most students anticipated stigma, which caused some students to choose not to reveal their religious identities, comparatively few had experienced stigma during peer interactions in their college biology courses, and even fewer had experienced stigma from peers who knew they were religious. These findings indicate that it be may important to teach students how to be culturally competent to reduce Christian students’ anticipated and experienced stigma in active learning courses.

Bioethics is an important aspect of the core competency of biology of understanding the relationship between science and society, but because of the controversial nature of the topics covered in bioethics courses, different groups of students may experience identity conflicts or discomfort when learning about them. However, no previous studies have investigated the impact of undergraduate bioethics students’ experiences in bioethics courses on their opinions and comfort. To fill this gap in knowledge, we investigated undergraduate bioethics students’ attitudes about and comfort when learning abortion, gene editing, and physician assisted suicide, as well as how their gender, religious, and political identity influence their attitudes and changes in their attitudes after instruction. We found that religious students were less supportive of gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide than nonreligious students, non-liberal students were less supportive of abortion and physician assisted suicide than liberal students, and women were less supportive of abortion than men. Additionally, we found that religious students were less comfortable than nonreligious students when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, and non-liberal students were less comfortable than liberal students when learning about abortion. When asked how their comfort could have been improved, those who felt that their peers or instructors could have done something to increase their comfort most commonly cited that including additional unbiased materials or incorporating materials and discussions that cover both sides of every controversial issue would have helped them to feel more comfortable when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide. Finally, we found that students who were less comfortable learning about abortion and physician assisted suicide were less likely to participate in discussions regarding those topics. Our findings show that students in different groups not only tend to have different support for controversial topics like gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, but they also feel differentially comfortable when learning about them, which in turn impacts their participation. We hope that this work helps instructors to recognize the importance of their students’ comfort to their learning in bioethics courses, and from this study, they can take away the knowledge that students feel their comfort could be most improved by the incorporation of additional inclusive materials and course discussions regarding the controversial topics covered in the course.