Faculty Perspectives on Developing and Teaching Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences

Abstract

National calls for the transformation of undergraduate biology education have recommended the integration of research experiences into the undergraduate curriculum. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have emerged as a model by which to offer research experiences to all students. Studies have demonstrated that students benefit in multiple ways from CUREs, but little is known regarding how faculty benefit. This study presents the first qualitative investigation into the perspectives of a diverse group of faculty members who have developed and taught CUREs stemming from their own research interests. The faculty participants reported a number of faculty benefits that can result from a CURE, identified a variety of challenges to implementing CUREs, and speculated about the attributes of a successful CURE instructor. Altogether, our findings could be a way to promote the widespread implementation of CUREs.

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

“…Moreover, between 50 and 100% (75% overall) of all faculty–student coauthored publications and between 17 and 94% (50% overall) of faculty–student coauthored presentations in the post-CURE period directly resulted from research related to work done in the CUREs (Table 3), suggesting that integration of faculty research into these courses had a direct and positive impact on faculty research productivity. This overlap of teaching and research matches with the synergism between teaching and research observed at other liberal arts institutions, reinforcing a major benefit identified by other CURE faculty from independent CUREs (Brownell and Kloser, 2015; Shortlidge et al ., 2016). Such benefits require that faculty research be easily integrated in a CURE format, which was one impediment mentioned by other CURE faculty (Lopatto et al ., 2014; Shortlidge et al ., 2016).…”

“…still saw a substantial increase in productivity provide compelling support that some of the increased faculty productivity was a direct result of involvement in these CUREs. Overall, our total publication counts, in both science and science education, were above the 1.32 average publication outcomes measured for 38 CURE active faculty (Shortlidge et al ., 2016). Furthermore, publication numbers are underrepresented in this table, as several faculty members have additional CURE-related publications in various stages of preparation and the data presented do not account for lab-connected outcomes that have been incorporated into successful external grant applications.…”

“…The majority of the CURE results were not immediately ready for publication, but the ability of students in all three CUREs to generate novel publishable or preliminary data supports the findings of these and several other faculty research–driven laboratory courses on a variety of topics (Gardner et al ., 2011; Miller et al ., 2013; Harvey et al ., 2014; Sarmah et al ., 2016). The wide range of student-initiated research projects investigated in phase 2 has also started new ongoing research projects in each of the faculty members’ laboratories (Figure 2), reinforcing a previously quantitated benefit to faculty from CURE participation (Sanders et al ., 2016; Shortlidge et al ., 2016). In addition to incorporation into the research laboratory, CURE results have served as preliminary data for ongoing studies in subsequent iterations of these CUREs, creating a reinforcing cycle and lowering faculty load in future CURE cycles.…”

“…Rather than designing a CURE on an entirely new project with which a faculty member has little prior experience, incorporating a project that builds on current work being done in a faculty member’s own research laboratory has the potential to facilitate research progress for the faculty member, while also maximizing student learning in the CURE (Darden, 2003; Kloser et al ., 2011; Brownell and Kloser, 2015). However, despite this call, few reports of courses designed specifically around faculty research interests have been reported, and those courses that have been reported focused entirely on data collection, were multi-institutional network CUREs with unique challenges from independent CUREs, or have yet to be assessed for their dual effects on both student learning and faculty research productivity (Nadelson et al ., 2010; Kloser et al ., 2011; Ditty et al ., 2013; Miller et al ., 2013; Lopatto et al ., 2014; Shortlidge et al ., 2016). …”

Practical Scientific Knowledge Education based on Herbert Spencer’s “What Knowledge is of Most Worth?”

“…The teachers are "teaching by doing" and students are "learning by doing" through deepen the practiceoriented curriculum transformation. The reform of university biology education has introduced the widespread integration of research experiences into the undergraduate curriculum that students and faculty get benefits in multiple ways (Shortlidge et al, 2016).…”