Assessment of the Short-Term Outcomes of a Semester-Long CURE in General Chemistry Lab

Abstract

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are becoming more prevalent throughout chemistry curricula as a mechanism to lower barriers to participation, improve retention, and decrease success gaps for historically minoritized populations. Given the evidence that longduration and early entry experiences are more impactful, herein we describe a semester-long CURE in General Chemistry II Lab. The curriculum outcomes were assessed with an inquiry classification scheme and a rubric blended from Auchincloss et al. and Clark et al. Student outcomes were assessed in the context of the five essential components of authentic research experiences utilizing Lopatto's CURE Survey, student lab reports, and interviews from graduate assistants and peer research mentors. A comparison to benchmark data and those reported for upper-division chemistry CUREs reveals significant gains in scientific skills, communication, and attitudes about science.

A Review of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences in Chemistry

“…Iteration was encompassed by a broad set of possible activities; most often, iteration entailed students conducting similar experiments multiple times throughout the course. For example, students might perform similar synthetic procedures to synthesize analogous compounds, or they might conduct multiple trials and iteratively refine procedures (e.g., refs , , ). In some cases, students would first conduct experiments following previously published protocols in order to establish a baseline or gain familiarity with laboratory procedures, followed by conducting modified protocols guided by their specific research questions (e.g., refs , , ).…”

“…One CURE, which was altered due to COVID, involved students submitting their literature-based projects (called molecular case studies) to Molecular CaseNet for professional peer review and publication . While relatively few articles engaged students with disseminating results beyond the classroom, many CUREs nevertheless involved students with preparing laboratory reports or classroom presentations (e.g., refs , , , , , , , ). Although these reports or presentations were not disseminated beyond the classroom, the students still engaged with the practice of synthesizing and communicating their findings orally or through writing, thus partially meeting the science practice of disseminating results.…”

“…The SURE focuses on evaluating the benefits for undergraduates participating in research experiences and determining the influence of such experiences on career plans, and the CURE Survey includes similar questions, while also including questions related to course elements and attitudes toward science. Several researchers used variations of the CURE Survey and the SURE; ,,,,− ,− ,,,, in one case, the course was evaluated with the Research on the Integrated Science Curriculum (RISC) Survey, another survey developed by Lopatto to identify learning gains and attitudes toward science, which includes elements of both the CURE and SURE survey . Another commonly used survey was the Laboratory Course Assessment Survey (LCAS), which specifically measures student perceptions of discovery, relevance, collaboration, and iteration in the context of CUREs. ,,,, Other reports included self-assessment surveys focused on perceived gains related to experimental skills or other learning goals. ,, …”

“…Qualitative evaluations most often included presenting student responses to open-ended survey questions, including feedback surveys or course evaluations as well as survey questions seeking student perspectives on the real-life applications of the CURE. − ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,− Other qualitative evaluations included interviews or focus groups with students ,, and interviews with instructors or graduate teaching assistants . Another approach for qualitative evaluation involved assessing the curricular materials and characterizing student performance on materials generated during the course, such as lab notebooks, lab reports, or presentations. , Lastly, some reports included detailed descriptions of the instructor’s perspective of the CURE, ,, in one case including a qualitative evaluation from an external evaluator …”

“…38−40,44,46,50,52,57,58,60,62,63,67,74,77,84,86−90 Other qualitative evaluations included interviews or focus groups with students 56,71,79 and interviews with instructors or graduate teaching assistants. 81 Another approach for qualitative evaluation involved assessing the curricular materials 81 and characterizing student performance on materials generated during the course, such as lab notebooks, lab reports, or presentations. 39,81 Lastly, some reports included detailed descriptions of the instructor's perspective of the CURE, 44,49,64 in one case including a qualitative evaluation from an external evaluator.…”