Course‐based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) can provide undergraduate students access to research opportunities when student and faculty resources are limited. In addition to expanding research opportunities, CUREs may also be explored as a pedagogical tool for improving student learning of course content and laboratory skills, as well as improving meta‐cognitive features such as confidence. We examined how a 6‐week CURE in an upper‐level undergraduate biochemistry lab affected student gains in content knowledge and confidence in scientific abilities, compared to a non‐CURE section of the same course. We find that gains in content knowledge were similar between CURE and non‐CURE sections, indicating the CURE does not negatively impact student learning. The CURE was associated with a statistically significant gain in student confidence, compared to non‐CURE group. These results show that even a relatively short CURE can be effective in improving student confidence at scientific research skills, in addition to expanding access to research.
Analysis of Attitudinal Student Learning Benefits from a Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) Adapted for Online Format
Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) are an increasingly utilized model for exposing students to research. The lack of robust assessments is a major hurdle to wider adoption of CUREs. The Coronavirus Infectious Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated a drastic shift of in-person courses to the online format. Using the Participant Perception Indicator (PPI) survey, we measured students’ self-reported changes in learning from such a biochemistry course at a large university in south Florida based on the Biochemistry Authentic Scientific Inquiry Lab (BASIL) model. By doing this, we were able to better understand the student-benefits of CUREs and how these benefits are affected by changes in learning modalities between two relevant semesters, i.e., winter and summer of 2020. Anticipated learning outcomes (ALOs) help partially fill the gap left by the loss of physical interaction in experimental procedures. Our analysis indicated that students learned more through bioinformatic experiments compared to their wet-lab counterparts. Using pre- and post- surveys, students reported that their experience and confidence gains lagged behind their knowledge gain of technique-based skills. Students are not as confident in their understanding of techniques when unable to perform those in the physical laboratory. Thus, despite extensive pursuit of the purpose and protocols of the experiments and techniques, neither their experience nor their confidence was on par with their knowledge. This study is one of the first examples demonstrating a quantitative student-learning assessment of a CURE in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The novel assessment strategies targeted to identify gaps in learning mastery could facilitate the adoption of CUREs, fostering opportunities for all undergraduate students to vital laboratory research experiences in STEM.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2142033
- PAR ID:
- 10409092
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- FDLA journal
- Volume:
- 7
- Issue:
- Spring
- ISSN:
- 2474-5669
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1-19
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
null (Ed.)Here we present unique perspectives from undergraduate students (n=3) in STEM who have taken both a traditional laboratory iteration and a Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) iteration of the same introductory chemistry course. CUREs can be effective models for integrating research in courses and fostering student learning gains. Via phenomenological interviews, we asked students to describe the differences in their perspectives, feelings, and experiences between a traditional lab guided by a lab manual and a CURE. We found that (i.) critical thinking/problem solving, (ii.) group work/collaboration, (iii.) student-led research questions and activities, and (iv.) time management are the top four emergent themes associated with the CURE course. Students also indicated that they learned more disciplinary content in the CURE, and, importantly, that they prefer it over the traditional lab. These findings add another dimension of success to CUREs in STEM education, particularly surrounding student retention.more » « less
-
The Association of American Colleges and Universities identifies undergraduate research experiences as a high impact practice for increasing student success and retention in STEM majors. Most undergraduate research opportunities for community college engineering students involve partnerships with universities and typically take the form of paid summer experiences. Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) offer an alternative model with potential for significant expansion of research opportunities for students. This approach weaves research into the courses students are already required to complete for their degrees. CUREs are an equitable approach for introducing students to research because they do not demand extracurricular financial and/or time commitments beyond what students must already commit to for their courses. This paper describes an adaptable model for implementing a CURE in an introductory engineering design and computing course that features applications of low-cost microcontrollers. Students work toward course learning outcomes focused on computer programming, engineering design processes, and effective teamwork in the context of multi-term research and development efforts to design, build, and test devices for other CUREs in science lab courses as well as for other applications at the college or with community partners. Students choose from a menu of projects each term, with a typical course offering involving four to six different projects running simultaneously. Each team identifies a focused design and development scope of work within the larger context of the project they are interested in. They give weekly progress reports and gather input from their customers. The work culminates in a prototype and final report to document their work for student teams who will carry it forward in future terms. We assessed the impact of the experience on students’ beliefs about science and engineering, STEM confidence, and career aspirations using a nationally normed survey for CUREs in STEM and report results from five terms of offering this course. We find statistically significant pre-post gains on two-thirds of the survey items relating to students’ understanding of the research process and confidence in their STEM abilities. The pre-post gains are generally comparable to those reported by others who used the same survey to assess the impact of a summer research experience for community college students. These findings indicate that the benefits of student participation in this CURE model are comparable to the benefits students see by participation in summer research programs.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)ABSTRACT Undergraduate research plays an important role in the development of science students. The two most common forms of undergraduate research are those in traditional settings (such as internships and research-for-credit in academic research labs) and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Both of these settings offer many benefits to students, yet they have unique strengths and weaknesses that lead to trade-offs. Traditional undergraduate research experiences (UREs) offer the benefits of personalized mentorship and experience in a professional setting, which help build students’ professional communication skills, interest, and scientific identity. However, UREs can reach only a limited number of students. On the other end of the trade-off, CUREs offer research authenticity in a many-to-one classroom research environment that reaches more students. CUREs provide real research experience in a collaborative context, but CUREs are not yet necessarily equipping students with all of the experiences needed to transition into a research lab environment outside the classroom. We propose that CURE instructors can bridge trade-offs between UREs and CUREs by deliberately including learning goals and activities in CUREs that recreate the benefits of UREs, specifically in the areas of professional communication, scientific identify, and student interest. To help instructors implement this approach, we provide experience- and evidence-based guidance for student-centered, collaborative learning opportunities.more » « less
-
Rumain, Barbara T. (Ed.)Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are laboratory courses that integrate broadly relevant problems, discovery, use of the scientific process, collaboration, and iteration to provide more students with research experiences than is possible in individually mentored faculty laboratories. Members of the national Malate dehydrogenase CUREs Community (MCC) investigated the differences in student impacts between traditional laboratory courses (control), a short module CURE within traditional laboratory courses (mCURE), and CUREs lasting the entire course (cCURE). The sample included approximately 1,500 students taught by 22 faculty at 19 institutions. We investigated course structures for elements of a CURE and student outcomes including student knowledge, student learning, student attitudes, interest in future research, overall experience, future GPA, and retention in STEM. We also disaggregated the data to investigate whether underrepresented minority (URM) outcomes were different from White and Asian students. We found that the less time students spent in the CURE the less the course was reported to contain experiences indicative of a CURE. The cCURE imparted the largest impacts for experimental design, career interests, and plans to conduct future research, while the remaining outcomes were similar between the three conditions. The mCURE student outcomes were similar to control courses for most outcomes measured in this study. However, for experimental design, the mCURE was not significantly different than either the control or cCURE. Comparing URM and White/Asian student outcomes indicated no difference for condition, except for interest in future research. Notably, the URM students in the mCURE condition had significantly higher interest in conducting research in the future than White/Asian students.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
