Comparing the Impact of Course-Based and Apprentice-Based Research Experiences in a Life Science Laboratory Curriculum

Abstract

This four-year study describes the assessment of a bifurcated laboratory curriculum designed to provide upper-division undergraduate majors in two life science departments meaningful exposure to authentic research. The timing is critical as it provides a pathway for both directly admitted and transfer students to enter research. To fulfill their degree requirements, all majors complete one of two paths in the laboratory program. One path immerses students in scientific discovery experienced through team research projects (course-based undergraduate research experiences, or CUREs) and the other path through a mentored, independent research project (apprentice-based research experiences, or AREs). The bifurcated laboratory curriculum was structured using backwards design to help all students, irrespective of path, achieve specific learning outcomes. Over 1,000 undergraduates enrolled in the curriculum. Self-report survey results indicate that there were no significant differences in affective gains by path. Students conveyed which aspects of the curriculum were critical to their learning and development of research-oriented skills. Students' interests in biology increased upon completion of the curriculum, inspiring a subset of CURE participants to subsequently pursue further research. A rubric-guided performance evaluation, employed to directly measure learning, revealed differences in learning gains for CURE versus ARE participants, with evidence suggesting a CURE can reduce the achievement gap between high-performing students and their peers.

Implementation of a Collaborative Series of Classroom-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Spanning Chemical Biology, Biochemistry, and Neurobiology

“…A wide variety of CUREs have been developed and assessed; these range from large multi-institutional CUREs to single-section, single-institution CUREs (Hatfull et al ., 2006; Wu, 2013; Buonaccorsi et al ., 2014; Jordan et al ., 2014; Lopatto et al ., 2014; Brownell et al ., 2015; Corwin et al ., 2015; Russell et al ., 2015; Shapiro et al ., 2015). The target demographics for CUREs also vary across the undergraduate spectrum from introductory major and nonmajors courses to upper-level multisemester courses (Nadelson et al ., 2010; Brownell et al ., 2015; Rowe et al ., 2015).…”

“…With the confirmed benefits of CUREs to students and faculty (Wu, 2013; Auchincloss et al ., 2014; Harvey et al ., 2014; Corwin et al ., 2015), a limited number of institutions have begun to develop CURE programs that span multiple courses or even an entire curriculum (Knutson et al ., 2010a,b; Russell et al ., 2015; Shapiro et al ., 2015; Sanders et al ., 2016). These larger-scale CUREs provide tractable models of modern, collaborative science and move toward the complex, interdisciplinary nature of scientific investigation.…”

“…For example, an integrated CURE-based curriculum was recently described that jointly studied insect biodiversity across a sophomore-level cell biology course and a junior-level ecology course, with sharing of resources, results, and learning outcomes to produce significant student benefits and novel research products (Russell et al ., 2015). The competency-based research laboratory curriculum (CRLC) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), also provided divergent CUREs or apprentice-based research experiences (AREs) to every student across the curriculum (Shapiro et al ., 2015; Sanders et al ., 2016). These separate CURE and ARE tracks produced similar student outcomes for each curriculum, with the CURE track proving particularly effective in reducing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students (Shapiro et al ., 2015).…”

Examining and contrasting the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses

“…[5][6][7]23,24]]. While they offer an interesting solution to these issues, none of our study population had experience in CUREs and so we did not consider them in this work.…”

Engaging Students in Authentic Research in Introductory Chemistry and Biology Laboratories

“…This bias can be seen when the pre factors were compared in the research and non-research sections. Some institutions are in the early stages of eliminating the self-select bias by converting all sections of a course in an academic semester, but that in turn eliminates a control group for comparison 15,16 . In Biology F3: intellectual accessibility, and in both courses F1pre: initial interest, were significantly different at the beginning of the semester.…”