1887

Each to Their Own CURE: Faculty Who Teach Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Report Why You Too Should Teach a CURE

    Authors: Erin E. Shortlidge1,2, Gita Bangera3, Sara E. Brownell1,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ, 85281; 3: WISE Institute, Bellevue College, Bellevue, WA 98007
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 28 October 2016 Accepted 17 February 2017 Published 26 May 2017
    • ©2017 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

    • Supplemental materials available at http://asmscience.org/jmbe
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 451 E. Tyler Mall, Tempe AZ, 85281. Phone: 480-965-0803. Fax: 480-965-6899. E-mail: [email protected].
    • 2 Currently: Department of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 9701
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    90.65 Kb
  • PDF
    1.47 MB
  • HTML
    72.52 Kb

    Abstract:

    Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) meet national recommendations for integrating research experiences into life science curricula. As such, CUREs have grown in popularity and many research studies have focused on student outcomes from CUREs. Institutional change literature highlights that understanding faculty is also key to new pedagogies succeeding. To begin to understand faculty perspectives on CUREs, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 61 faculty who teach CUREs regarding why they teach CUREs, what the outcomes are, and how they would discuss a CURE with a colleague. Using grounded theory, participant responses were coded and categorized as tangible or intangible, related to both student and faculty-centered themes. We found that intangible themes were prevalent, and that there were significant differences in the emphasis on tangible themes for faculty who have developed their own independent CUREs when compared with faculty who implement pre-developed, national CUREs. We focus our results on the similarities and differences among the perspectives of faculty who teach these two different CURE types and explore trends among all participants. The results of this work highlight the need for considering a multi-dimensional framework to understand, promote, and successfully implement CUREs.

Key Concept Ranking

Biochemical Test
0.6974013
Petri Dish
0.65625
Gram Staining
0.6031427
Lead
0.4625
Stems
0.41197842
0.6974013

References & Citations

1. Auchincloss LC, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, Hanauer DI, Lawrie G, McLinn CM, Pelaez N, Rowland S 2014 Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report CBE Life Sci Educ 13 29 40 10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004 24591501 3940459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 Vision 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 Science July 15–17, 2009 Washington, DC
3. Brownell SE, Kloser MJ 2015 Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology Stud Higher Educ 40 525 544 10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234
4. National Research Council (NRC) 2003 BIO 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists The National Academies Press Washington, DC
5. National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2015 Integrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate curriculum: report of a convocation The National Academies Press Washington, DC
6. Laursen S, Hunter A-B, Seymour E, Thiry H, Melton G 2010 Undergraduate research in the sciences: engaging students in real science John Wiley & Sons San Francisco, CA
7. Seymour E, Hunter AB, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T 2004 Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study Sci Educ 88 493 534 10.1002/sce.10131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131
8. Bangera G, Brownell SE 2014 Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive CBE Life Sci Educ 13 602 606 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099 25452483 4255347 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099
9. Weaver GC, Russell CB, Wink DJ 2008 Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science Nat Chem Biol 4 577 580 10.1038/nchembio1008-577 18800041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchembio1008-577
10. Bascom-Slack CA, Arnold AE, Strobel SA 2012 Student-directed discovery of the plant microbiome and its products Science 338 485 486 10.1126/science.1215227 23112324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1215227
11. Brownell SE, Kloser MJ, Fukami T, Shavelson R 2012 Undergraduate biology lab courses: comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences J Coll Sci Teach 41 18 27
12. Jordan TC, Burnett SH, Carson S, Caruso SM, Clase K, DeJong RJ, Dennehy JJ, Denver DR, Dunbar D, Elgin SC 2014 A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students M Bio 5 e01051 01013 24496795 3950523
13. Kloser MJ, Brownell SE, Shavelson RJ, Fukami T 2013 Effects of a research-based ecology lab course: a study of nonvolunteer achievement, self-confidence, and perception of lab course purpose J Coll Sci Teach 42 90 99
14. Rodenbusch SE, Hernandez PR, Simmons SL, Dolan EL 2016 Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees CBE Life Sci Educ 15 2 ar20 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117 27252296 4909342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117
15. Shaffer CD, Alvarez C, Bailey C, Barnard D, Bhalla S, Chandrasekaran C, Chandrasekaran V, Chung H-M, Dorer DR, Du C 2010 The Genomics Education Partnership: successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions CBE Life Sci Educ 9 55 69 10.1187/09-11-0087 20194808 2830162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/09-11-0087
16. Shapiro C, Moberg-Parker J, Toma S, Ayon C, Zimmerman H, Roth-Johnson EA, Hancock SP, Levis-Fitzgerald M, Sanders ER 2015 Comparing the impact of course-based and apprentice-based research experiences in a life science laboratory curriculum J Microbiol Biol Educ 16 186 10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
17. Shortlidge EE, Bangera G, Brownell SE 2016 Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences Bio Science 66 54 62
18. Lopatto D, Hauser C, Jones CJ, Paetkau D, Chandrasekaran V, Dunbar D, MacKinnon C, Stamm J, Alvarez C, Barnard D 2014 A central support system can facilitate implementation and sustainability of a classroom-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) in genomics CBE Life Sci Educ 13 711 723 10.1187/cbe.13-10-0200 25452493 4255357 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-10-0200
19. Shaffer CD, Alvarez CJ, Bednarski AE, Dunbar D, Goodman AL, Reinke C, Rosenwald AG, Wolyniak MJ, Bailey C, Barnard D 2014 A course-based research experience: how benefits change with increased investment in instructional time CBE Life Sci Educ 13 111 130 10.1187/cbe-13-08-0152 24591510 3940452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-08-0152
20. Austin AE 2011 Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education American Association for the Advancement of Science 2013 Annual Meeting
21. Boyer EL 1998 Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s research universities The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University Stony Brook, NY
22. Boyer EL 1990 Priorities of the professoriate Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Princeton, NJ
23. Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI, Boyer E 1997 Scholarship assessed Jossey-Bass San Francisco, CA
24. Sunal DW, Hodges J, Sunal CS, Whitaker KW, Freeman LM, Edwards L, Johnston RA, Odell M 2001 Teaching science in higher education: faculty professional development and barriers to change School Sci Math 101 246 257 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18027.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18027.x
25. Fairweather JS 2002 The mythologies of faculty productivity: implications for institutional policy and decision making J Higher Educ 73 26 48 10.1353/jhe.2002.0006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0006
26. Abes ES, Jackson G, Jones SR 2002 Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning Mich J Comm Serv Learn 9 1 5 17
27. Austin AE 1990 Faculty cultures, faculty values New Dir Inst Res 1990 61 74
28. Bouwma-Gearhart J 2012 Research university STEM faculty members’ motivation to engage in teaching professional development: building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego J Sci Educ Technol 21 558 570 10.1007/s10956-011-9346-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9346-8
29. Feldman KA, Paulsen MB 1999 Faculty motivation: the role of a supportive teaching culture New Dir Teach Learn 1999 69 78 10.1002/tl.7807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.7807
30. Lee J 2001 Instructional support for distance education and faculty motivation, commitment, satisfaction Brit J Educ Technol 32 153 160 10.1111/1467-8535.00186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00186
31. Matier MW 1990 Retaining faculty: a tale of two campuses Res Higher Educ 31 39 60 10.1007/BF00992556 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992556
32. Shulman LS 1993 Forum: teaching as community property: putting an end to pedagogical solitude Change Mag Higher Learn 25 6 7 10.1080/00091383.1993.9938465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1993.9938465
33. Trowler P, Knight PT 2000 Coming to know in higher education: theorising faculty entry to new work contexts Higher Educ Res Dev 19 27 42 10.1080/07294360050020453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360050020453
34. Johnson B, Christensen L 2008 Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches Sage Thousand Oaks, CA
35. Leydens JA, Moskal BM, Pavelich MJ 2004 Qualitative methods used in the assessment of engineering education J Engineer Educ 93 65 72 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00789.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00789.x
36. Atkinson R, Flint J 2001 Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies Soc Res Update 33 1 4
37. Cohen D, Crabtree B July 2006 Semi-structured interviews Qualitative Research Guidelines Project Robert Wood Johnson Foundation http://www.qualres.org
38. Strauss A, Corbin JM 1997 Grounded theory in practice Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA
39. Stemler SE 2004 A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability Pract Assess Res Eval 9 4 1
40. Campbell JL, Quincy C, Osserman J, Pedersen OK 2013 Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement Sociol Meth Res 42 294 320 10.1177/0049124113500475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
41. Rubin HJ, Rubin IS 2011 Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data Sage Thousand Oaks, CA
42. Raymond M, Rousset F 1995 An exact test for population differentiation Evolution 49 6 1280 1283 10.2307/2410454 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2410454
43. Blackburn RT, Lawrence JH 1995 Faculty at work: motivation, expectation, satisfaction Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, MD
44. Lechuga VM, Lechuga DC 2012 Faculty motivation and scholarly work: self-determination and self-regulation perspectives J Professor 6 2 59
45. Tien FF, Blackburn RT 1996 Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: measure refinement and theory testing J Higher Educ 67 1 2 22 10.2307/2943901 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2943901
46. Boyer EL 1994 The academic profession: an international perspective. A special report ERIC Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Princeton, NJ
47. Callister RR 2006 The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields J Technol Transf 31 367 375 10.1007/s10961-006-7208-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-7208-y
48. Johnsrud LK, Rosser VJ 2002 Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave: a multilevel explanation J Higher Educ 73 518 542 10.1353/jhe.2002.0039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0039
49. Rosser VJ 2004 Faculty members’ intentions to leave: a national study on their worklife and satisfaction Res Higher Educ 45 285 309 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000019591.74425.f1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000019591.74425.f1

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260
2017-05-26
2019-03-20

Abstract:

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) meet national recommendations for integrating research experiences into life science curricula. As such, CUREs have grown in popularity and many research studies have focused on student outcomes from CUREs. Institutional change literature highlights that understanding faculty is also key to new pedagogies succeeding. To begin to understand faculty perspectives on CUREs, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 61 faculty who teach CUREs regarding why they teach CUREs, what the outcomes are, and how they would discuss a CURE with a colleague. Using grounded theory, participant responses were coded and categorized as tangible or intangible, related to both student and faculty-centered themes. We found that intangible themes were prevalent, and that there were significant differences in the emphasis on tangible themes for faculty who have developed their own independent CUREs when compared with faculty who implement pre-developed, national CUREs. We focus our results on the similarities and differences among the perspectives of faculty who teach these two different CURE types and explore trends among all participants. The results of this work highlight the need for considering a multi-dimensional framework to understand, promote, and successfully implement CUREs.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/18/2/jmbe-18-29.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Faculty who develop CUREs differ in overall thematic responses from those who implement CUREs. a) Tangible themes are more prevalent in faculty who develop CUREs than in those who implement CUREs ( 219; 0.0008; 61). Intangible themes do not differ significantly among CURE types. Boxes represent middle quartiles. Box whiskers represent min to max, data mean are at crosses and median at the horizontal lines. b) Tangible:Intangible statement ratio differs by CURE type. Participants who developed CUREs tangible:intangible ratios are significantly higher ( = 2.36, 0.02; 61) than those who implemented pre-developed CUREs.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Tangible statements differ by the position that a faculty member has. The mean number of tangible statements made by participants across the three focal questions differed by position type. Instructors made significantly fewer tangible statements than did assistant or associate professors ( 0.01; 61). Full professors did not differ in mean number of tangible statements made from the faculty with other positions.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Relative frequency of each category of faculty responses. Motivations for faculty who develop CUREs are different than those of faculty who implement CUREs in that they state more tangible motivations, both faculty-centered ( 0.03; 61) and student-centered ( 0.05; 61). Those who develop CUREs collectively state faculty-centered tangible benefits more than those who implement CUREs ( 0.003; 61) and those who implement CUREs state student-centered intangible benefits more often than those who develop CUREs ( 0.03; 61). The relative frequency of pitch categories is not different between CURE types. Results are based on contingency tests and Fisher’s Exact test two-tail test of significance.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260
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