This content will become publicly available on March 9, 2024
- Award ID(s):
- NSF-PAR ID:
- Rumain, Barbara T.
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
Laboratory experimentation is a key component of the development of professional engineers. However, experiments conducted in chemical engineering laboratory classes are commonly more prescriptive than the problems faced by practicing engineers, who have agency to make consequential decisions across the experiment and communication of results. Thus, understanding how experiments in laboratory courses vary in offering students opportunities to make such decisions, and how students navigate higher agency learning experiences is important for preparing graduates ready to direct these practices. In this study, we sought to answer the following research questions: How do students perceive their agency in course-based undergraduate research experiences? What factors are measured by the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey? To better understand student perceptions of their agency in relation to laboratory experiments, we first conducted a case study of a course-based research experience (CURE) in a senior-level chemical engineering laboratory course. We then surveyed six upper-division laboratory courses across two universities using an initial version of the Consequential Agency in Laboratory Experiments survey. We used exploratory factor analysis to investigate the validity of the data from the survey for measuring relevant constructs of authenticity, agency in specific domains, responsibility, and opportunity to make decisions. We found that with instructional support, students in the CURE recognized that failure could itself provide opportunities for learning. They valued having the agency to make consequential decisions, even when they also found the experience challenging. We also found strong support for items measuring agency as responsibility, authenticity, agency in the communication domain, agency in the experimental design domain, and opportunity to make decisions. These findings give us insight into the value of higher agency laboratory experiments, and they provide a foundation for developing a more precise survey capable of measuring agency across various laboratory experiment practices. Such a survey will enable future studies that investigate the impacts of increasing agency in just one domain versus in several. In turn, this can aid faculty in developing higher agency learning experiences that are more feasible to implement, compared to CUREs.more » « less
The drive to broaden equitable access to undergraduate research experiences has catalyzed the development and implementation of course‐based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Biology education has prioritized embedding CUREs in introductory labs, which are frequently taught by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Thus, a CURE GTA is expected not only to teach but also to support novice student researchers. We know little about how GTAs perform as research mentors in a CURE, or how the quality of their mentorship and support impacts undergraduate students. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a phenomenological study of an introductory biology CURE, interviewing 25 undergraduate students taught by nine different GTAs at a single institution. We used self‐determination theory to guide our exploration of how students' autonomous motivation to engage in a CURE is impacted by perceptions of GTA support. We found that highly motivated students were more likely to experience factors hypothesized to optimize motivation in the CURE, and to perceive that their GTA was highly supportive of these elements. Students with lower motivation were less likely to report engaging in fundamental elements of research offered in a CURE. Our findings suggest that GTAs directly impact students' motivation, which can, in turn, influence whether students perceive receiving the full research experience as intended in a CURE. We contend that practitioners who coordinate CUREs led by GTAs should therefore offer curated training that emphasizes supporting students' autonomous motivation in the course and engagement in the research. Our work suggests that GTAs may differ in their capacity to provide students with the support they need to receive and benefit from certain pedagogical practices. Future work assessing innovative approaches in undergraduate biology laboratory courses should continue to investigate potenital differential outcomes for students taught by GTAs.
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are an effective way to integrate research into an undergraduate science curriculum and extend research experiences to a large, diverse group of early-career students. We developed a biology CURE at the University of Miami (UM) called the UM Authentic Research Laboratories (UMARL), in which groups of first-year students investigated novel questions and conducted projects of their own design related to the research themes of the faculty instructors. Herein, we describe the implementation and student outcomes of this long-running CURE. Using a national survey of student learning through research experiences in courses, we found that UMARL led to high student self-reported learning gains in research skills such as data analysis and science communication, as well as personal development skills such as self-confidence and self-efficacy. Our analysis of academic outcomes revealed that the odds of students who took UMARL engaging in individual research, graduating with a degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) within 4 years, and graduating with honors were 1.5–1.7 times greater than the odds for a matched group of students from UM’s traditional biology labs. The authenticity of UMARL may have fostered students’ confidence that they can do real research, reinforcing their persistence in STEM.more » « less
Responding to the need to teach remotely due to COVID-19, we used readily available computational approaches (and developed associated tutorials (https://mdh-cures-community.squarespace.com/virtual-cures-and-ures)) to teach virtual Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) laboratories that fulfil generally accepted main components of CUREs or Undergraduate Research Experiences (UREs): Scientific Background, Hypothesis Development, Proposal, Experiments, Teamwork, Data Analysis, Conclusions, and Presentation1. We then developed and taught remotely, in three phases, protein-centric CURE activities that are adaptable to virtually any protein, emphasizing contributions of noncovalent interactions to structure, binding and catalysis (an ASBMB learning framework2 foundational concept). The courses had five learning goals (unchanged in the virtual format),focused on i) use of primary literature and bioinformatics, ii) the roles of non-covalent interactions, iii) keeping accurate laboratory notebooks, iv) hypothesis development and research proposal writing, and, v) presenting the project and drawing evidence based conclusions The first phase, Developing a Research Proposal, contains three modules, and develops hallmarks of a good student-developed hypothesis using available literature (PubMed3) and preliminary observations obtained using bioinformatics, Module 1: Using Primary Literature and Data Bases (Protein Data Base4, Blast5 and Clustal Omega6), Module 2: Molecular Visualization (PyMol7 and Chimera8), culminating in a research proposal (Module 3). Provided rubrics guide student expectations. In the second phase, Preparing the Proteins, students prepared necessary proteins and mutants using Module 4: Creating and Validating Models, which leads users through creating mutants with PyMol, homology modeling with Phyre29 or Missense10, energy minimization using RefineD11 or ModRefiner12, and structure validation using MolProbity13. In the third phase, Computational Experimental Approaches to Explore the Questions developed from the Hypothesis, students selected appropriate tools to perform their experiments, chosen from computational techniques suitable for a CURE laboratory class taught remotely. Questions, paired with computational approaches were selected from Modules 5: Exploring Titratable Groups in a Protein using H++14, 6: Exploring Small Molecule Ligand Binding (with SwissDock15), 7: Exploring Protein-Protein Interaction (with HawkDock16), 8: Detecting and Exploring Potential Binding Sites on a Protein (with POCASA17 and SwissDock), and 9: Structure-Activity Relationships of Ligand Binding & Drug Design (with SwissDock, Open Eye18 or the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE)19). All involve freely available computational approaches on publicly accessible web-based servers around the world (with the exception of MOE). Original literature/Journal club activities on approaches helped students suggest tie-ins to wet lab experiments they could conduct in the future to complement their computational approaches. This approach allowed us to continue using high impact CURE teaching, without changing our course learning goals. Quantitative data (including replicates) was collected and analyzed during regular class periods. Students developed evidence-based conclusions and related them to their research questions and hypotheses. Projects culminated in a presentation where faculty feedback was facilitated with the Virtual Presentation platform from QUBES20 These computational approaches are readily adaptable for topics accessible for first to senior year classes and individual research projects (UREs). We used them in both partial and full semester CUREs in various institutional settings. We believe this format can benefit faculty and students from a wide variety of teaching institutions under conditions where remote teaching is necessary.more » « less
Undergraduate instructional biology laboratories are typically taught within two paradigms. Some labs focus on protocols and techniques delivered in “cookbook” format with defined experimental outcomes. There is increasing momentum to alternatively employ student-driven, open-ended, and discovery-based strategies, often
viacourse-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) using crowd-sourcing initiatives. A fraction of students also participate in funded research in faculty research labs, where they have opportunities to work on projects designed to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. These experiences are widely recognized as valuable but are not scalable, as most institutions have many more undergraduates than research lab positions. We sought to address this gap through our department’s curriculum by creating an opportunity for students to participate in the real-world research process within a laboratory course. We conceived, developed, and delivered an authentic, guided research experience to students in an upper-level molecular biology laboratory course. We refer to this model as a “research program-linked CURE.” The research questions come directly from a faculty member’s research lab and evolve along with that research program. Students study post-transcriptional regulation in mycobacteria. We use current molecular biology methodologies to test hypotheses like “UTRs affect RNA and protein expression levels,” “there is functional redundancy among RNA helicases,” and “carbon starvation alters mRNA 5′ end chemistries.” We conducted standard assessments and developed a customized “Skills and Concepts Inventory” survey to gauge how well the course met our student learning outcomes. We report the results of our assessments and describe challenges addressed during development and execution of the course, including organizing activities to fit within an instructional lab, balancing breadth with depth, and maintaining authenticity while giving students the experience of obtaining interpretable and novel results. Our data suggest student learning was enhanced through this truly authentic research approach. Further, students were able to perceive they were participants and contributors within an active research paradigm. Students reported increases in their self-identification as scientists, and a positive impact on their career trajectories. An additional benefit was reciprocation back to the funded research laboratory, by funneling course alumni, results, materials, and protocols.