This report presents a summary of a meeting on assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), including an operational definition of a CURE, a summary of research on CUREs, relevant findings from studies of undergraduate research internships, and recommendations for future research on and evaluation of CUREs.

A rubric for experimental design (RED) was developed to measure undergraduate biology students' knowledge of and diagnose their difficulties with experimental design.

G lobally, efforts to improve science education continue (1, 2). In the United States, primary and secondary (K-12) science education lags on international assessments and struggles to sustain qualified K-12 science teachers and to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers (2). At U.S. colleges and universities, more than half of entering science majors leave the sciences, most (90%) complaining of ineffective teaching (3). Of those who remain in science, 74% express the same complaint (3). Further work is needed within specific science disciplines on how students most effectively learn that discipline (4). To address K-12 science education, undergraduate science education, and discipline-specific science education research, one approach is seeding university science departments with Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES), scientists who take on specialized science education roles within their discipline (5). We present data on SFES in science departments throughout the 23-campus California State University (CSU) system (6), the largest U.S. university system (annual enrollment ~450,000 students). The CSU's primary missions are undergraduate, master's-level graduate, and K-12 teacher education. CSU undergraduates are among the top one-third of their high-school graduating classes. The 23 campuses include institutions that differ substantially in their founding dates, settings, student populations, enrollment sizes, and levels of research orientation. We investigated SFES numbers, characteristics, training, professional activities, and persistence. We identified, with the aid of deans, 156 CSU faculty as SFES and invited all 156 to complete a 111-question survey (7), which we

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been described in a range of educational contexts. Although various anticipated learning outcomes (ALOs) have been proposed, processes for identifying them may not be rigorous or well documented, which can lead to inappropriate assessment and speculation about what students actually learn from CUREs. In this essay, we offer a user-friendly and rigorous approach based on evidence and an easy process to identify ALOs, namely, a five-step Process for Identifying Course-Based Undergraduate Research Abilities (PICURA), consisting of a content analysis, an open-ended survey, an interview, an alignment check, and a two-tiered Likert survey. The development of PICURA was guided by four criteria: 1) the process is iterative, 2) the overall process gives more insight than individual data sources, 3) the steps of the process allow for consensus across the data sources, and 4) the process allows for prioritization of the identified abilities. To address these criteria, we collected data from 10 participants in a multi-institutional biochemistry CURE. In this essay, we use two selected research abilities to illustrate how PICURA was used to identify and prioritize such abilities. PICURA could be applied to other CUREs in other contexts.

College and university science departments are increasingly taking an active role in improving science education. Perhaps as a result, a new type of specialized science faculty position within science departments is emerging—referred to here as science faculty with education specialties (SFES)—where individual scientists focus their professional efforts on strengthening undergraduate science education, improving kindergarten-through-12th grade science education, and conducting discipline-based education research. Numerous assertions, assumptions, and questions about SFES exist, yet no national studies have been published. Here, we present findings from a large-scale study of US SFES, who are widespread and increasing in numbers. Contrary to many assumptions, SFES were indeed found across the nation, across science disciplines, and, most notably, across primarily undergraduate, master of science-granting, and PhD-granting institutions. Data also reveal unexpected variations among SFES by institution type. Among respondents, SFES at master of science-granting institutions were almost twice as likely to have formal training in science education compared with other SFES. In addition, SFES at PhD-granting institutions were much more likely to have obtained science education funding. Surprisingly, formal training in science education provided no advantage in obtaining science education funding. Our findings show that the SFES phenomenon is likely more complex and diverse than anticipated, with differences being more evident across institution types than across science disciplines. These findings raise questions about the origins of differences among SFES and are useful to science departments interested in hiring SFES, scientific trainees preparing for SFES careers, and agencies awarding science education funding.