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

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.

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.