Search for: All records

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) increase student access to research, providing opportunities for more students to engage with science practices and make novel science contributions. However, little is known about how to teach CUREs effectively. Effective CURE instruction relies on an instructor's knowledge of students, which is used to notice and respond to students as they conduct research. This study investigates CURE instructor knowledge of students that resulted from previous noticing when students experience research challenges. We surveyed a national sample of experienced CURE instructors about the challenges they have seen students experience that are distinctive to CUREs. Analysis from our deductive and inductive qualitative analysis of instructors’ knowledge of students indicated that they paid attention to student struggles in two main areas: nature of science and research as a practice. Instructor interpretations within these two areas provided nuanced insight into their knowledge of students’ knowledge, skills, and emotions across research challenges. Our results provide new insight into CURE instructor knowledge of students that was developed from noticing, which has implications for future research on CURE instruction and instructor professional development. 

Abstract Reformed science curricula provide opportunities for students to engage with authentic science practices. However, teacher implementation of such curricula requires teachers to consider their role in the classroom, including realigning instructional decisions with the epistemic aims of science. Guiding newcomers in science can take place in settings ranging from the classroom to the undergraduate research laboratory. We suggest thinking about the potential intersections of guiding students across these contexts is important. We describe the Classroom‐Research‐Mentoring (CRM) Framework as a novel lens for examining science practice‐based instruction. We present a comparative case study of two teachers as they instruct undergraduate students in a model‐based inquiry laboratory. We analyzed stimulated‐recall episodes uncovering how these teachers interacted with their students and the rationale behind their instructional choices. Through the application of the CRM Framework, we revealed ways teachers can have instructional goals that align with those of a research mentor. For example, our teachers had the goals of “creating an inclusive environment open to student ideas,” “acknowledging students as scientists,” and “focusing students on skills and ideas needed to solve biological problems.” We suggest three functions of research mentoring that translate across the classroom and research laboratory settings: (1) build a shared understanding of epistemic aims, (2) support learners in the productive use of science practices, and (3) motivate learner engagement in science practices.