1887

Multi-Institutional, Multidisciplinary Study of the Impact of Course-Based Research Experiences

    Authors: Catherine M. Mader1,*, Christopher W. Beck2, Wendy H. Grillo3, Gail P. Hollowell3, Bettye S. Hennington4, Nancy L. Staub5, Veronique A. Delesalle6, Denise Lello7, Robert B. Merritt7, Gerald D. Griffin8,10, Chastity Bradford8, Jinghe Mao4, Lawrence S. Blumer9, Sandra L. White11
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Physics, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423; 2: Department of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322; 3: Department of Biology, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC 27707; 4: Department of Biology, Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS 39174; 5: Biology Department, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258; 6: Department of Biology, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA 17325; 7: Department of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063; 8: Department of Biology, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee Institute, AL 36088; 9: Department of Biology, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA 30314; 10: Department of Biology, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423; 11: Center for Science, Math and Technology Education, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC 27707
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 08 March 2017 Accepted 13 June 2017 Published 01 September 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: Department of Physics, Hope College, Holland MI 49423. Phone: 616-395-7114. Fax: 616-395-7123. E-mail: mader@hope.edu.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. September 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    71.46 Kb
  • PDF
    1.50 MB
  • XML
    81.22 Kb

    Abstract:

    Numerous national reports have called for reforming laboratory courses so that all students experience the research process. In response, many course-based research experiences (CREs) have been developed and implemented. Research on the impact of these CREs suggests that student benefits can be similar to those of traditional apprentice-model research experiences. However, most assessments of CREs have been in individual courses at individual institutions or across institutions using the same CRE model. Furthermore, which structures and components of CREs result in the greatest student gains is unknown. We explored the impact of different CRE models in different contexts on student self-reported gains in understanding, skills, and professional development using the Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) survey. Our analysis included 49 courses developed and taught at seven diverse institutions. Overall, students reported greater gains for all benefits when compared with the reported national means for the Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE). Two aspects of these CREs were associated with greater student gains: 1) CREs that were the focus of the entire course or that more fully integrated modules within a traditional laboratory and 2) CREs that had a higher degree of student input and results that were unknown to both students and faculty.

Key Concept Ranking

Elements
0.8184184
Lead
0.6026515
Spring
0.5151515
Maize
0.48207104
0.8184184

References & Citations

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science2011Vision and change in undergraduate biology educationA 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
2. National Research Council2003Bio2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologistsThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
3. Woodin T, Carter VC, Fletcher L2010Vision and change in biology undergraduate education, a call for action—initial responsesCBE Life Sci Educ9717310.1187/cbe.10-03-0044205163502879380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044
4. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)2012Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematicsExecutive Office of the PresidentWashington, DC
5. 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
6. 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
7. Corwin LA, Graham MJ, Dolan EL2015Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: an agenda for future research and evaluationCBE Life Sci Educ14es110.1187/cbe.14-10-0167256878264353087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167
8. Auchincloss LC, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, Hanauer DI, Lawrie G, McLinn CM, Pelaez N, Rowland S, Towns M, Trautmann NM, Varma-Nelson P, Weston TJ, Dolan EL2014Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting reportCBE Life Sci Educ13294010.1187/cbe.14-01-0004245915013940459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
9. Kardash CM2000Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentorsJ Educ Psych9219120110.1037/0022-0663.92.1.191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.191
10. Laursen SL, Hunter A-B, Seymour E, Thiry H, Melton G2010Undergraduate research in the sciences: engaging students in real scienceJossey-BassSan Francisco, CA
11. Lopatto D2010Science in solution: the impact of undergraduate research on student learningCouncil On Undergraduate ResearchWashington, DC
12. Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW2014Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementationCBE Life Sci Educ1310211010.1187/cbe.13-08-0169245915093940451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0169
13. Bangera G, Brownell SE2014Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusiveCBE Life Sci Educ1360260610.1187/cbe.14-06-0099254524834255347 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099
14. Hanauer DI, Dolan EL2014The project ownership survey: measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiencesCBE Life Sci Educ1314915810.1187/cbe.13-06-0123245915133940455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0123
15. Staub NL, Blumer LS, Beck CW, Delesalle VA, Griffin GD, Merritt RB, Hennington BS, Grillo WH, Hollowell GP, White SL, Mader CM2016Course-based science research promotes learning in diverse students at diverse institutionsCUR Quarterly37364610.18833/curq/37/2/11 http://dx.doi.org/10.18833/curq/37/2/11
16. Beck CW, Butler A, Burke da Silva K2014Promoting inquiry-based teaching in laboratory courses: are we meeting the grade?CBE Life Sci Educ1344445210.1187/cbe.13-12-0245251852284152206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0245
17. Brownell SE, Hekmat-Scafe DS, Singla V, Seawell PC, Imam JF, Eddy SL, Stearns T, Cyert MS2015A high-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to interpret dataCBE Life Sci Educ14ar2110.1187/cbe.14-05-0092260338694477737 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0092
18. Linn MC, Palmer E, Baranger A, Gerard E, Stone E2015Undergraduate research experiences: impacts and opportunitiesScience3471261757126176110.1126/science.1261757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757
19. Lopatto D2015Consortium as experiment101122National Academies of Sciences Engineering and MedicineIntegrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate curriculumThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
20. Elgin SC, Bangera G, Decatur SM, Dolan EL, Guertin L, Newstetter WC, San Juan EF, Smith MA, Weaver GC, Wessler SR, Brenner KA2016Insights from a convocation: integrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate curriculumCBE Life Sci Educ15fe210.1187/cbe.16-03-0118271461584909350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0118
21. Shortlidge EE, Brownell SE2016How to assess your CURE: a practical guide for instructors of course-based undergraduate research experiencesJ Microbiol Biol Educ1739940810.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1103
22. Cohen J1988Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences2nd edLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesHillsdale, NJ
23. Maher JM, Markey JC, Ebert-May D2013The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative researchCBE Life Sci Educ1234535110.1187/cbe.13-04-0082240063823763001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-04-0082
24. Velasco JB, Knedeisen A, Xue D, Vickery TL, Abebe M, Stains M2016Characterizing instructional practices in the laboratory: the laboratory observation protocol for undergraduate STEMJ Chem Educ931191120310.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00062
25. Suzuki R, Shimodaira H2013Package ‘pvclust’Version122
26. Jordan TC, Burnett SH, Carson S, Caruso SM, Clase K, DeJong RJ, Dennehy JJ, Denver DR, Dunbar D, Elgin SC, Findley AM2014A 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
27. Lopatto D, Alvarez C, Barnard D, Chandrasekaran C, Chung HM, Du C, Eckdahl T, Goodman AL, Hauser C, Jones CJ, Kopp OR2008Genomics education partnershipScience32268468510.1126/science.1165351189743352953277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165351
28. Call GB, Olson JM, Chen J, Villarasa N, Ngo KT, Yabroff AM, Cokus S, Pellegrini M, Bibikova E, Bui C, Cespedes A2007Genomewide clonal analysis of lethal mutations in the Drosophila melanogaster eye: comparison of the x chromosome and autosomesGenetics17768969710.1534/genetics.107.077735177209112034635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.077735
29. Clark IE, Romero-Calderón R, Olson JM, Jaworski L, Lopatto D, Banerjee U2009“Deconstructing” scientific research: a practical and scalable pedagogical tool to provide evidence-based science instructionPLoS Biol7e100026410.1371/journal.pbio.1000264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000264
30. Staub NL, Poxleitner M, Braley A, Smith-Flores H, Pribbenow CM, Jaworski L, Lopatto D, Anders KR2016Scaling up: adapting a phage-hunting course to increase participation of first-year students in researchCBE Life Sci Educ15ar1310.1187/cbe.15-10-0211271461604909335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0211
31. Sarmah S, Chism GWIII, Vaughan MA, Muralidharan P, Marrs JA, Marrs KA2016Using zebrafish to implement a course-based undergraduate research experience to study teratogenesis in two biology laboratory coursesZebrafish1329330410.1089/zeb.2015.110726829498 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/zeb.2015.1107
32. Reed KE, Richardson JM2013Using microbial genome annotation as a foundation for collaborative student researchBiochem Mol Biol Educ41344310.1002/bmb.2066323382124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20663
33. Miller CW, Hamel J, Holmes KD, Helmey-Hartman WL, Lopatto D2013Extending your research team: learning benefits when a laboratory partners with a classroomBioScience6375476210.1093/bioscience/63.9.754 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioscience/63.9.754
34. Burnette JM, Wessler SR2013Transposing from the laboratory to the classroom to generate authentic research experiences for undergraduatesGenetics19336737510.1534/genetics.112.1473553567729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.147355
35. Makarevitch I, Frechette C, Wiatros N2015Authentic research experience and “big data” analysis in the classroom: maize response to abiotic stressCBE Life Sci Educ14ar2710.1187/cbe.15-04-0081 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0081
36. Kowalski JR, Hoops GC, Johnson RJ2016Implementation of a collaborative series of classroom-based undergraduate research experiences spanning chemical biology, biochemistry and neurobiologyCBE Life Sci Educ15ar5510.1187/cbe.16-02-0089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-02-0089
37. Corwin LA, Runyon C, Robinson A, Dolan EL2015The laboratory course assessment survey: a tool to measure three dimensions of research-course designCBE Life Sci Educ14ar3710.1187/cbe.15-03-0073264669904710398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-03-0073
jmbe.v18i2.1317.citations
jmbe/18/2
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
2017-09-01
2017-11-18

Abstract:

Numerous national reports have called for reforming laboratory courses so that all students experience the research process. In response, many course-based research experiences (CREs) have been developed and implemented. Research on the impact of these CREs suggests that student benefits can be similar to those of traditional apprentice-model research experiences. However, most assessments of CREs have been in individual courses at individual institutions or across institutions using the same CRE model. Furthermore, which structures and components of CREs result in the greatest student gains is unknown. We explored the impact of different CRE models in different contexts on student self-reported gains in understanding, skills, and professional development using the Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) survey. Our analysis included 49 courses developed and taught at seven diverse institutions. Overall, students reported greater gains for all benefits when compared with the reported national means for the Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE). Two aspects of these CREs were associated with greater student gains: 1) CREs that were the focus of the entire course or that more fully integrated modules within a traditional laboratory and 2) CREs that had a higher degree of student input and results that were unknown to both students and faculty.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/18/2/jmbe-18-44.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Cluster dendrogram based on faculty course elements. Values at nodes represent bootstrap values from 1,000 bootstrap samples. Institution, discipline, and course type (see text for explanation of course types) are indicated for each course. Course levels are introductory (+), intermediate (++), or advanced (+++). CREs with enrollments less than 10 (S), greater than 20 (L), or in between (M) are indicated. Courses were divided into two clusters as indicated for subsequent analysis. Based on differences in the course elements between the clusters (see Fig. 5 ), we defined courses as either “Low/moderate novelty and student design” or “High novelty and student design.” Smaller clusters represented as polytomies with high bootstrap support (100/100) are the same courses taught across multiple semesters. CRE = course-based research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. September 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Student self-reported benefits from CURE survey and SURE results. The Collaboration CURE mean and standard deviations represent the average of 49 different course means from collaboration CREs with standard deviations indicated. The National SURE mean and standard deviations are for summer 2014 averages for ≤ 3,041 student responses. Overall, students in our collaboration CREs reported greater or the same gains for 16 benefits when compared with the national means for the SURE. Data are presented in Appendix 2 . CRE = course-based research experience; CURE = classroom undergraduate research experience; SURE = survey of undergraduate research experiences.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. September 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Student self-reported benefits based on whether the CRE was a full-course experience or a module within a course. Means and standard errors are shown for full courses and modules (sequence, interlude, and interwoven). Students who participated in CREs that were full courses reported significantly greater gains than students who participated in CREs that were modules (Mixed effects GLMs, all comparisons significant after controlling for experimentwise-error rate with sequential Bonferroni). Numerical data are presented in Appendix 3 . CRE = course-based research experience; GLM = general linear model.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. September 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 4

Click to view

FIGURE 4

Student self-reported benefits based on module type. Means and standard errors are shown for full courses and the three module types (sequence, interlude, and interwoven). Letters above bars indicate the highest mean in each item (a) to the lowest. Shared letters indicate items are not statistically significantly different. In general, students who participated in courses in which modules were interwoven with more traditional laboratory exercises reported similar benefits to students in full-course CREs. Numerical data are presented in Appendix 4 . CRE = course-based research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. September 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 5

Click to view

FIGURE 5

Faculty-reported emphasis of course elements based on cluster elements. Clusters are defined based on the dendrogram in Figure 1 . Means and standard errors are reported for each cluster. Asterisks indicate items for which the two clusters’ means are statistically significantly different after sequential Bonferroni adjustment of significance values. Crosses indicate items for which the two clusters’ means are statistically significantly different at alpha = 0.05, but not significantly different after sequential Bonferroni correction. Based on the differences in the course elements between the clusters, we defined courses as being either “Low/moderate novelty and student design” or “High novelty and student design.” Numerical data are presented in Appendix 5 .

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. September 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 6

Click to view

FIGURE 6

Student self-reported benefits for “Low/moderate novelty and student design” or “High novelty and student design” courses and the National SURE results. The National SURE mean and standard deviations are for summer 2014 averages for ≤ 3,041 student responses. Means and standard errors for each item are shown. For all benefits except Oral Presentation, “High novelty and student design” courses in cluster 2 resulted in significantly higher benefits than “Low/moderate novelty and student design” courses after controlling for experimentwise-error rate with sequential Bonferroni. Numerical data are presented in Appendix 6 . SURE = survey of undergraduate research experiences.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. September 2017 vol. 18 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1317
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