Project description:Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are being championed as scalable ways of involving undergraduates in science research. Studies of CUREs have shown that participating students achieve many of the same outcomes as students who complete research internships. However, CUREs vary widely in their design and implementation, and aspects of CUREs that are necessary and sufficient to achieve desired student outcomes have not been elucidated. To guide future research aimed at understanding the causal mechanisms underlying CURE efficacy, we used a systems approach to generate pathway models representing hypotheses of how CURE outcomes are achieved. We started by reviewing studies of CUREs and research internships to generate a comprehensive set of outcomes of research experiences, determining the level of evidence supporting each outcome. We then used this body of research and drew from learning theory to hypothesize connections between what students do during CUREs and the outcomes that have the best empirical support. We offer these models as hypotheses for the CURE community to test, revise, elaborate, or refute. We also cite instruments that are ready to use in CURE assessment and note gaps for which instruments need to be developed.
Project description:Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) are attractive solutions for scaling undergraduate research experiences at primarily undergraduate teaching institutions, where resources for faculty research activities can be limited. The Sustainable Interdisciplinary Research to Inspire Undergraduate Success (SIRIUS) project is a unique program that integrates CUREs, coordinated around a local real-world problem, throughout a biology department's curricula. The CUREs are scaffolded to provide all biology majors with multiple opportunities to engage in scientific investigations as they advance through introductory, intermediate, and advanced courses. In this mixed methods, cross-sectional study, we explore students' perceptions of the authenticity of their experiences as they progress through the SIRIUS CUREs. Triangulated data collected from two instruments indicated that students in advanced courses recognized more involvement in research activities and perceived greater authenticity in the science they were performing compared with introductory and intermediate students. Intermediate and advanced students perceived more opportunities for independence; however, experiences with failure and the influence these experiences had on the perceptions of authenticity was primarily observed with advanced students. This study contributes to the growing literature on CUREs with a focus on students from a primarily undergraduate institution with multiple minority-serving designations.
Project description:The recent push for more authentic teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics indicates a shared agreement that undergraduates require greater exposure to professional practices. There is considerable variation, however, in how "authentic" science education is defined. In this paper we present our definition of authenticity as it applies to an "authentic" large-scale undergraduate research experience (ALURE); we also look to the literature and the student voice for alternate perceptions around this concept. A metareview of science education literature confirmed the inconsistency in definitions and application of the notion of authentic science education. An exploration of how authenticity was explained in 604 reflections from ALURE and traditional laboratory students revealed contrasting and surprising notions and experiences of authenticity. We consider the student experience in terms of alignment with 1) the intent of our designed curriculum and 2) the literature definitions of authentic science education. These findings contribute to the conversation surrounding authenticity in science education. They suggest two things: 1) educational experiences can have significant authenticity for the participants, even when there is no purposeful design for authentic practice, and 2) the continuing discussion of and design for authenticity in UREs may be redundant.
Project description:Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) for non-science majors (nonmajors) are potentially distinct from CUREs for developing scientists in their goals, learning objectives, and assessment strategies. While national calls to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education have led to an increase in research revealing the positive effects of CUREs for science majors, less work has specifically examined whether nonmajors are impacted in the same way. To address this gap in our understanding, a working group focused on nonmajors CUREs was convened to discuss the following questions: 1) What are our laboratory-learning goals for nonmajors? 2) What are our research priorities to determine best practices for nonmajors CUREs? 3) How can we collaborate to define and disseminate best practices for nonmajors in CUREs? We defined three broad student outcomes of prime importance to the nonmajors CURE: improvement of scientific literacy skills, proscience attitudes, and evidence-based decision making. We evaluated the state of knowledge of best practices for nonmajors, and identified research priorities for the future. The report that follows is a summary of the conclusions and future directions from our discussion.
Project description:To expose all undergraduate science students to the benefits of participating in research, many universities are integrating course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) into their introductory biology laboratory curriculum. At large institutions, the bulk of introductory labs are instructed by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Graduate students, who are often teachers and researchers in training, may vary in their capacity to effectively teach undergraduates via the CURE model. To explore variation in GTA teaching and the subsequent outcomes for students, we used a case study research design at one institution where introductory biology students participate in GTA-taught CURE lab sections. We used multiple data sources, including in-class focus groups, worksheets, and surveys to explore student perceptions of the GTA-led CURE. Students perceived variation both in the ability of their GTAs to create a supportive and comfortable learning environment, and in the instructional priorities of their GTAs. We also compared student and GTA perspectives of student engagement with research elements in the CURE. While GTAs were divided in their perceptions of whether the CURE provided students with the opportunity to experience the element of relevant discovery, most students—regardless of their GTA—did not perceive that relevant discovery was emphasized in the CURE. Finally, individual GTAs seemed to influence how students perceived why they were participating in the CURE. These data imply that students in CUREs may have vastly different and potentially inequitable research experiences depending on their instructor.
Project description:The ability to analyze large data sets ("Big Data") is an increasingly important skill in modern science. In Biochemistry, the increased volume and velocity of data is particularly evident in the rapid expansion of biological databases. We present a modular bioinformatics course to survey the analysis of genomic data for advanced undergraduates. Research activities include genome scanning for endogenous retroviruses, annotating genomic sequences and a brief exploration of programming in R. A summative poster session was used to disseminate their work. This course is amenable to remote or online instruction. Supplemental materials provided include a schedule and outline. This article reports a session from the virtual international 2021 IUBMB/ASBMB workshop, "Teaching Science on Big Data."
Project description:Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) integrate an authentic research experience for students into a laboratory course. CUREs provide many of the same benefits to students as individual faculty-mentored research experiences. However, faculty experiences in teaching CUREs are not as well understood. There are no studies that compare faculty's anticipated experiences to actual experiences, and little comparison of the faculty experience by institution. Through interviews with eight biology faculty from four institutions, the faculty experience in implementing a CURE in an introductory biology laboratory was explored using qualitative analysis. Institutions included: a small, minority-serving, women's, primarily undergraduate university; a small, residential, primarily undergraduate college; a midsized doctoral university; and a large community college. Interviews were conducted at three time points: before professional development (PD), after the initial semester of teaching the CURE, and after teaching the CURE at least twice (1 year later). Faculty described resources, benefits, challenges, and feelings about teaching the CURE. However, anticipated experiences were often not the same as those actually experienced. There were also institutional differences in resources, benefits, challenges, and feelings. Implications for CURE PD include specific content such as strategies for teaching effective research group work, development of student proposals, and student time management.
Project description:Integrating research experiences into undergraduate life sciences curricula in the form of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) can meet national calls for education reform by giving students the chance to "do science." In this article, we provide a step-by-step practical guide to help instructors assess their CUREs using best practices in assessment. We recommend that instructors first identify their anticipated CURE learning outcomes, then work to identify an assessment instrument that aligns to those learning outcomes and critically evaluate the results from their course assessment. To aid instructors in becoming aware of what instruments have been developed, we have also synthesized a table of "off-the-shelf" assessment instruments that instructors could use to assess their own CUREs. However, we acknowledge that each CURE is unique and instructors may expect specific learning outcomes that cannot be assessed using existing assessment instruments, so we recommend that instructors consider developing their own assessments that are tightly aligned to the context of their CURE.
Project description:Undergraduate students interact with the culture of scientific research when they participate in direct mentorship experiences and laboratory courses such as course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Much work has been done to explore how CUREs impact the interest, motivation, and retention of undergraduate students in science. However, little work has been done exploring students' experiences and perceptions of the culture of scientific research in the CURE context, and how different CURE models representing different subfields of science impact these experiences and perceptions. This study explored which cultural aspects of scientific research students experienced after participating in a CURE and whether their perceptions of those cultural aspects differed based on students' participation in a bench-based or computer-based research project. Students discussed the Practices and Norms/Expectations of scientific research most frequently. Students in the bench-based and computer-based project areas mentioned different cultural aspects as important to their experiences. Bench-based and computational students also had different perceptions of some of the same cultural aspects, including Teamwork, Freedom & Independence, and Persistence & Resilience. These results suggest that different CURE models differentially impact students' experiences and perceptions of the culture of scientific research, which has implications for examining how students move into scientific research.