Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology

Abstract

Recent calls for reform have advocated for extensive changes to undergraduate science lab experiences, namely providing more authentic research experiences for students. Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) have attempted to eschew the limitations of traditional 'cookbook' laboratory exercises and have received increasing visibility in the literature. However, evaluating the outcomes of these experiences remains inconsistent and incomplete partly because of differing goals and conceptual frameworks on the part of those both teaching and assessing the courses. This paper synthesizes existing literature on CUREs and assessment practices to propose a framework for how researchers and practitioners may better align the goals and evaluation practices of CUREs in order to provide a more consistent view of these reformed laboratory courses for the field.

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).…”

“…Integration of research experiences into classroom laboratories (CUREs) has been a major focus of recent revisions to undergraduate science curricula, given the documented benefits to student engagement, confidence, critical-thinking skills, and retention in science (Auchincloss et al ., 2014; Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Brownell and Kloser, 2015; Brownell et al ., 2015; Corwin et al ., 2015). Incorporation of faculty members’ research projects into CUREs can also decrease implementation efforts and maximize research and teaching benefits to faculty while promoting student learning and engagement outcomes (Darden, 2003; Nadelson et al ., 2010; Kloser et al ., 2011; Ditty et al ., 2013; Miller et al ., 2013; Russell et al ., 2015).…”

“…Chief among these with regard to CURE laboratories are the time and energy required for lab design and implementation, which must be balanced with the various other responsibilities of faculty who have both research and teaching obligations (Darden, 2003; Kloser et al ., 2011; Lopatto et al ., 2014). 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).…”

Do We Need to Design Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences for Authenticity?

“…The current landscape of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform promotes the ideal of undergraduates engaged in teaching and learning experiences that present accurate representations of what STEM professionals do in the “real world” (Brownell and Kloser, 2015). The greatest movement toward this ideal has arguably occurred within the last 5 years, with the rapid spread of course-based undergraduate research experiences, or CUREs (Auchincloss et al ., 2014; Brownell and Kloser, 2015; Linn et al ., 2015).…”

Development and Evaluation of the Tigriopus Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience: Impacts on Students’ Content Knowledge, Attitudes, and Motivation in a Majors Introductory Biology Course

“…In response, recent efforts within the bioeducation community have focused on the development and evaluation of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs)—opportunities that extend beyond traditional laboratory exercises and instead often challenge students to collaboratively develop or identify appropriate researchable questions, experimental protocols, and analytical approaches to make meaning of collected data (Auchincloss et al , 2014; Spell et al , 2014; Corwin et al , 2015). Though the structure of these authentic research experiences has been observed to vary widely (for instance, building upon faculty research interests [e.g., Brownell and Kloser, 2015] or aligning with national models such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s SEA-PHAGES program [Jordan et al , 2014]), the documented impacts of student participation in CUREs have largely been positive. Using both quantitative and grounded theory approaches, Brownell et al (2012, 2015) have shown, for instance, that students enrolled in introductory cell/molecular and organismal biology CUREs report a deeper appreciation for and interest in scientific research as compared with their peers completing traditional laboratory coursework.…”