1887

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

    Authors: Casey Shapiro1,††, Jordan Moberg-Parker2,††, Shannon Toma1, Carlos Ayon1, Hilary Zimmerman1, Elizabeth A. Roth-Johnson3, Stephen P. Hancock4, Marc Levis-Fitzgerald1, Erin R. Sanders2,3,5,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Center for Educational Assessment, Office of Instructional Development, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; 2: Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; 3: Department of Life Sciences Core Education, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; 4: Department of Biological Chemistry, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; 5: Center for Education Innovation and Learning in the Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Center for Education Innovation and Learning in the Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, 251 Hershey Hall, 612 Charles E. Young Dr. South, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Phone: 310-825-1783. E-mail: erins@microbio.ucla.edu.
    • †† These authors contributed equally to the work.
    • ©2015 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 186-197. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
  • HTML
    93.61 Kb
  • PDF
    1.00 MB

    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.

References & Citations

1. Allen D, Tanner K2007Putting the horse back in front of the cart: using visions and decisions about high-quality learning experiences to drive course designCBE Life Sci Educ6858910.1187/cbe.07-03-0017175488701885907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-03-0017
2. Allen D, Tanner K2006Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learnersCBE Life Sci Educ519720310.1187/cbe.06-06-0168170122101618692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-06-0168
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science2011Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action: a summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of ScienceJuly 15–17, 2009Washington, DC
4. Anderson LW, et al2001A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, Abridged EditionAddison Wesley Longman, IncNew York, NY
5. Association of American Medical Colleges and Howard Hughes Medical Institute2009Scientific foundations for future physicians: report of the AAMC-HHMI CommitteeAssociation of American Medical CollegesWashington, DC
6. Auchincloss LC, et al2014Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting reportCell Biol Educ13294010.1187/cbe.14-01-0004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
7. Aud S, et al2010The condition of education 2010NCES 2010-028Washington, DC
8. Bangera G, Brownell SE2014Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusiveCBE Life Sci Educ13602606254524834255347
9. Beck C, Butler A, da Silva KB2014Promoting inquiry-based teaching in laboratory courses: are we meeting the grade?CBE Life Sci Educ13444452251852284152206
10. Bergevin C2010Towards improving the integration of undergraduate biology and mathematics educationJ Microbiol Biol Educ11283310.1128/jmbe.v11i1.134236536943577239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v11i1.134
11. Brownell SE, et al2015A high-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to interpret dataCBE Life Sci Educ14ar21260338694477737
12. Chen X2013STEM attrition: college students’ paths into and out of STEM fields. Statistical Analysis ReportNCES 2014-001Washington, DC
13. Cortina JM1993What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applicationsJ Appl Psychol789810.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
14. Cortright RN, Collins HL, Rodenbaugh DW, DiCarlo SE2003Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testingAdv Physiol Educ2710210810.1152/advan.00041.200212928319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00041.2002
15. Corwin LA, Graham MJ, Dolan EL2015Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: an agenda for future research and evaluationCBE Life Sci Educ14es1256878264353087
16. Creswell JW2009Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approachesSAGE Publications, IncThousand Oaks, California
17. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, Gutmann ML, Hanson WE2003Advanced mixed methods research designs, 209–240Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral researchSAGE Publications, IncThousand Oaks, California
18. Cronbach LJ1951Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of testsPsychometrika1629733410.1007/BF02310555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
19. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP2008Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biologyCBE Life Sci Educ736838110.1187/cbe.08-05-0024190474242592046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
20. Desai KV, Gatson SN, Stiles TW, Stewart RH, Laine GA, Quick CM2008Integrating research and education at research-extensive universities with research-intensive communitiesAdv Physiol Educ3213614110.1152/advan.90112.200818539852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.90112.2008
21. Ditty JL, et al2010Incorporating genomics and bioinformatics across the life sciences curriculumPLoS Biol8e100044810.1371/journal.pbio.1000448207114782919421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000448
22. Eagan MK, Hurtado S, Chang MJ, Garcia GA, Herrera FA, Garibay JC2013Making a difference in science education: the impact of undergraduate research programsAm Educ Res J5068371310.3102/0002831213482038 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831213482038
23. Eaton TT2009Engaging students and evaluating learning progress using collaborative exams in introductory coursesJ Geosci Educ5711312010.5408/1.3544241 http://dx.doi.org/10.5408/1.3544241
24. Graham MJ, Frederick J, Byars-Winston A, Hunter A-B, Handelsman J2013Increasing persistence of college students in STEMScience3411455145610.1126/science.124048724072909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487
25. Hammersley M, Atkinson P1995Ethnography: principles in practiceRoutledgeNew York, NY
26. Harrison M, Dunbar D, Ratmansky L, Boyd K, Lopatto D2011Classroom-based science research at the introductory level: changes in career choices and attitudeCBE Life Sci Educ1027928610.1187/cbe.10-12-0151218858243164567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-12-0151
27. Hatfull GF, et al2006Exploring the mycobacteriophage metaproteome: phage genomics as an educational platformPLoS Genet2e9210.1371/journal.pgen.0020092167898311475703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020092
28. Hunter A-B, Laursen SL, Seymour E2007Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional developmentSci Educ91367410.1002/sce.20173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173
29. Jones MT, Barlow AE, Villarejo M2010Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biologyJ High Educ818211510.1353/jhe.0.0082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0082
30. Jordan TC, et al2014A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate studentsMBio5e010511310.1128/mBio.01051-13244967953950523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01051-13
31. Karukstis KK, Elgren TE2007Developing and sustaining a research-supportive curriculum: a compendium of successful practicesCouncil on Undergraduate ResearchWashington, DC
32. Kober2015Reaching students: what research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineeringThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
33. Kuh GD2008High-impact educational practices: what they are, who has access to them, and why they matterAssociation of American Colleges and UniversitiesWashington, DC
34. Lincoln YS, Guba EG2013The constructivist credoLeft Coast Press, Inc.Walnut Creek, California
35. Linton DL, Farmer JK, Peterson E2014Is peer interaction necessary for optimal active learning?CBE Life Sci Educ132432524041502
36. Lopatto D, et al2008Genomics education partnershipScience32268468510.1126/science.1165351189743352953277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165351
37. Lopatto D2007Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learningCBE Life Sci Educ629730610.1187/cbe.07-06-0039180563012104507 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
38. Lopatto D, et al2014A central support system can facilitate implementation and sustainability of a classroom-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) in GenomicsCBE Life Sci Educ13711723254524934255357
39. Makarevitch I, Frechette C, Wiatros N2015Authentic research experience and “big data” analysis in the classroom: maize response to abiotic stressCBE Life Sci Educ14ar27
40. Nagda BA, Gregerman SR, Jonides J, von Hippel W, Lerner JS1998Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retentionRev High Educ22557210.1353/rhe.1998.0016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0016
41. National Research Council (U.S.)2011Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: summary of two workshopsThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
42. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century2003Bio2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologistsThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
43. Nulty DD2008The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?Assess Eval High Educ3330131410.1080/02602930701293231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
44. Olson S, Riordan DG2012Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematicsReport to the PresidentExecutive Office of the President. President’s Council of Advisors on Science & TechnologyWashington DC
45. Patton MQ2015Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practiceFourth editionSAGE Publications, IncThousand Oaks, California
46. Rowland SL, Lawrie GA, Behrendorff JB, Gillam EM2012Is the undergraduate research experience (URE) always best?: The power of choice in a bifurcated practical stream for a large introductory biochemistry classBiochem Mol Biol Educ40466210.1002/bmb.20576 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20576
47. Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J2007Benefits of undergraduate research experiencesScience (Washington)31654854910.1126/science.1140384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1140384
48. Sanders ER, Miller JH2010I, Microbiologist: a discovery-based course in microbial ecology and molecular evolutionASM PressWashington, DC.10.1128/9781555815943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/9781555815943
49. Semsar K, Knight JK, Birol G, Smith MK2011The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) for use in biologyCBE Life Sci Educ1026827810.1187/cbe.10-10-0133218858233164566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-10-0133
50. Seymour E, Hunter A-B, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T2004Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year studySci Educ8849353410.1002/sce.10131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131
51. Shaffer CD, et al2010The genomics education partnership: successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutionsCBE Life Sci Educ9556910.1187/09-11-0087201948082830162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/09-11-0087
52. Shaffer CD, et al2014A course-based research experience: how benefits change with increased investment in instructional timeCBE Life Sci Educ13111130245915103940452
53. Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK2011Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questionsCBE Life Sci Educ10556310.1187/cbe.10-08-0101213641003046888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
54. Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW2014Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementationCBE Life Sci Educ13102110245915093940451
55. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS2001Logistic regression, 517–581Using multivariate statistics4th edAllyn BaconBoston, MA
56. Thiry H, Laursen SL2011The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practiceJ Sci Educ Technol2077178410.1007/s10956-010-9271-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9271-2
57. Thompson B2004Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applicationsAmerican Psychological AssociationWashington, DC
58. Toven-Lindsey B, Levis-Fitzgerald M, Barber PH, Hasson T2015Increasing persistence in undergraduate science majors: a model for institutional support of underrepresented studentsCBE Life Sci Educ14ar12258284034477728
59. Villarejo M, Barlow AE, Kogan D, Veazey BD, Sweeney JK2008Encouraging minority undergraduates to choose science careers: career paths survey resultsCBE Life Sci Educ739440910.1187/cbe.08-04-0018190474262592049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-04-0018
60. Weaver GC, Russell CB, Wink DJ2008Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate scienceNat Chem Biol457758010.1038/nchembio1008-57718800041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchembio1008-577
61. Wei CA, Woodin T2011Undergraduate research experiences in biology: alternatives to the apprenticeship modelCBE Life Sci Educ1012313110.1187/cbe.11-03-0028216330573105915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028
62. Wiggins GP, McTighe J2005Understanding by designExpanded 2nd edAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentAlexandria, VA
63. Wood WB2003Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at large research universities: a perspective on the Boyer Commission ReportCell Biol Educ211211610.1187/cbe.03-02-000412888846162190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-02-0004
jmbe.v16i2.1045.citations
jmbe/16/2
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
2015-12-01
2017-12-14

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.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/16/2/jmbe-16-186.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Competency-based research laboratory curriculum (CRLC) for Life Science majors. Course requirements for each path are enclosed in separate gray boxes stemming from arrows labeled Path 1 and 2. Path 1 is comprised of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), and Path 2 is based on an apprenticeship model (designated AREs). The light blue boxes in Path 1 (left panel, AL) and the top pair of red (AR) and gray (AS) boxes in Path 2 denote courses students enroll in during the first of two 10-week terms. The teal boxes in Path 1 (right panel, BL) and the bottom pair of red (BR) and gray (BS) boxes in Path 2 delineate courses student take during the second 10-week term. Both paths are preceded by requisite lower-division courses. Bridging the way to Path 2 is a 10-week Research Acquaintance term, in which students “try out” research with a faculty mentor before deciding to apply to enroll in Path 2. Note that there was a fifth set of Path 1 courses offered during the first two years of the CRLC, but the second course was discontinued and the first course instead became an elective for major credit. Although this set of courses is omitted from the diagram, the final dataset for the surveys in this study includes these participants’ responses as long as they completed both the AL and BL courses.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 186-197. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Direct evidence of learning from a rubric-guided evaluation of embedded student assignments in Path 1 (CURE) and Path 2 (ARE). Rubrics were developed using a 3-point performance scale (1 = needs work, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = excellent) and employed to assess student oral presentation slides for Path 1 and Path 2 from the first term (T1) and second term (T2) of the curriculum (for rubrics, see Appendix 9 ). Rubric items were categorized as (A) LOCS or (B) HOCS ( 4 , 19 ). For Path 1, there were 14 LOCS rubric items at T1 and another 14 items at T2. For Path 2 T1 and T2, there were 8 and 10 LOCS rubric items, respectively. With respect to HOCS rubric items, for Path 1 there were 15 and 17 at T1 and T2, respectively. For Path 2, there were 14 HOCS rubric items at T1 and another 14 items at T2. Data points on graphs represent the mean score at each time point for each Path. At T1, the mean scores for Path 2 (red lines) were significantly higher († < 0.05) than Path 1 (blue lines) for both LOCS (A) and HOCS (B). The mean scores for Path 1 (blue lines) at T2 were significantly higher (* < 0.05) than the mean scores at T1 for both HOCS and LOCS items, while Path 2 students (red lines) did not demonstrate measureable gains between these two time points. LOCS = lower-order cognitive skills; HOCS = higher-order cognitive skills; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience; ARE = apprentice-based research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 186-197. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error