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,*
-
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
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.
References & Citations
Supplemental Material
-
Appendix 1: Participant demographics, Appendix 2: Additional methods and response categories by faculty position, Appendix 3: Exploratory factor analysis and results
-
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
-
PDF
576.53 Kb
-
PDF
-

Article metrics loading...
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.

Full text loading...
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
Figures
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 (U = 219; p = 0.0008; n = 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 (t = 2.36, p = 0.02; n = 61) than those who implemented pre-developed CUREs.

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 (U = 219; p = 0.0008; n = 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 (t = 2.36, p = 0.02; n = 61) than those who implemented pre-developed CUREs.
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 (p = 0.01; n = 61). Full professors did not differ in mean number of tangible statements made from the faculty with other positions.

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 (p = 0.01; n = 61). Full professors did not differ in mean number of tangible statements made from the faculty with other positions.
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 (p = 0.03; n = 61) and student-centered (p = 0.05; n = 61). Those who develop CUREs collectively state faculty-centered tangible benefits more than those who implement CUREs (p = 0.003; n = 61) and those who implement CUREs state student-centered intangible benefits more often than those who develop CUREs (p = 0.03; n = 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.

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 (p = 0.03; n = 61) and student-centered (p = 0.05; n = 61). Those who develop CUREs collectively state faculty-centered tangible benefits more than those who implement CUREs (p = 0.003; n = 61) and those who implement CUREs state student-centered intangible benefits more often than those who develop CUREs (p = 0.03; n = 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.