1887

Discovery and Broad Relevance May Be Insignificant Components of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) for Non-Biology Majors

    Authors: Cissy J. Ballen1,*, Seth K. Thompson1,2, Jessamina E. Blum1, Nicholas P. Newstrom3, Sehoya Cotner1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biology Teaching and Learning, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; 2: Department of Water Resources, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; 3: Program in Human Sexuality, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 31 October 2017 Accepted 16 February 2018 Published 25 May 2018
    • ©2018 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/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 Biology Teaching and Learning, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, 3-154 Molecular & Cellular Biology, 420 Washington Avenue SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2018 vol. 19 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    64.27 Kb
  • XML
    75.63 Kb
  • PDF
    343.12 Kb

    Abstract:

    Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are a type of laboratory learning environment associated with a science course, in which undergraduates participate in novel research. According to Auchincloss et al. (CBE Life Sci Educ 2104; 13:29–40), CUREs are distinct from other laboratory learning environments because they possess five core design components, and while national calls to improve STEM education have led to an increase in CURE programs nationally, less work has specifically focused on which core components are critical to achieving desired student outcomes. Here we use a backward elimination experimental design to test the importance of two CURE components for a population of non-biology majors: the experience of discovery and the production of data broadly relevant to the scientific or local community. We found nonsignificant impacts of either laboratory component on students’ academic performance, science self-efficacy, sense of project ownership, and perceived value of the laboratory experience. Our results challenge the assumption that all core components of CUREs are essential to achieve positive student outcomes when applied at scale.

References & Citations

1. Lopatto D 2007 Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning CBE Life Sci Educ 6 297 306 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
2. Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J 2007 Benefits of undergraduate research experiences Science (Washington) 316 548 549 10.1126/science.1140384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1140384
3. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099
4. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
5. Ballen CJ, Blum JE, Brownell S, Hebert S, Hewlett J, Klein JR, McDonald EA, Monti DL, Nold SC, Slemmons KE, Soneral PAG, Cotner S 2017 A call to develop course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) for nonmajors courses CBE Life Sci Educ 16 2 mr2 10.1187/cbe.16-12-0352 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0352
6. Wei CA, Woodin T 2011 Undergraduate research experiences in biology: alternatives to the apprenticeship model CBE Life Sci Educ 10 123 131 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028
7. Linn MC, Palmer E, Baranger A, Gerard E, Stone E 2015 Undergraduate research experiences: impacts and opportunities Science 347 1261757 10.1126/science.1261757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757
8. Cooper KM, Soneral PA, Brownell SE 2017 Define your goals before you design a CURE: a call to use backward design in planning course-based undergraduate research experiences J Microbiol Biol Educ 18 2 10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1287
9. 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 4 493 534 10.1002/sce.10131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131
10. Ballen CJ, Wieman C, Salehi S, Searle JB, Zamudio KR 2017 Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning CBE Life Sci Educ 16 ar56 10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344
11. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F 1998 Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis Psychol Bull 124 240 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
12. Bandura A 1997 Self-efficacy: the exercise of control W.H. Freeman and Company New York, NY
13. Lopatto D 2004 Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings Cell Biol Educ 3 270 277 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045
14. Hathaway RS, Nagda BA, Gregerman SR 2002 The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: an empirical study J Coll Student Dev 43 614 631
15. Kremer JF, Bringle RG 1990 The effects of an intensive research experience on the careers of talented undergraduates J Res Dev Educ 24 1 1 5
16. Cotner S, Ballen C, Brooks DC, Moore R 2011 Instructor gender and student confidence in the sciences: a need for more role models J Coll Sci Teach 40 96 101
17. Ballen CJ, Newstrom NP 2017 Testing hypotheses about sexual violence among adolescents Cotner S, Nelson P Evolution and biology of sex: laboratory investigations 4th ed Bluedoor Minnetonka, MN
18. Norman G 2010 Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics Adv Health Sci Educ 15 625 632 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
19. Murray J 2013 Likert data: what to use, parametric or nonparametric? Int J Bus Soc Sci 4 11 258 264
20. Fox MF, Firebaugh G 1992 Confidence in science: the gender gap Soc Sci Q 73 1 101 113
21. Robnett RD, Chemers MM, Zurbriggen EL 2015 Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity J Res Sci Teach 52 847 867 10.1002/tea.21221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21221
22. Hanauer DI, Dolan EL 2014 The project ownership survey: measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiences CBE Life Sci Educ 13 149 158 10.1187/cbe.13-06-0123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0123
23. Rowland S, Pedwell R, Lawrie G, Lovie-Toon J, Hung Y 2016 Do we need to design course-based undergraduate research experiences for authenticity? CBE Life Sci Educ 15 ar79 10.1187/cbe.16-02-0102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-02-0102
24. Gormally C, Brickman P, Lutz M 2012 Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments CBE Life Sci Educ 11 364 377 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026
25. Fraser BJ 1978 Development of a test of science related attitudes Sci Educ 62 509 515 10.1002/sce.3730620411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730620411

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515
2018-05-25
2019-10-14

Abstract:

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are a type of laboratory learning environment associated with a science course, in which undergraduates participate in novel research. According to Auchincloss et al. (CBE Life Sci Educ 2104; 13:29–40), CUREs are distinct from other laboratory learning environments because they possess five core design components, and while national calls to improve STEM education have led to an increase in CURE programs nationally, less work has specifically focused on which core components are critical to achieving desired student outcomes. Here we use a backward elimination experimental design to test the importance of two CURE components for a population of non-biology majors: the experience of discovery and the production of data broadly relevant to the scientific or local community. We found nonsignificant impacts of either laboratory component on students’ academic performance, science self-efficacy, sense of project ownership, and perceived value of the laboratory experience. Our results challenge the assumption that all core components of CUREs are essential to achieve positive student outcomes when applied at scale.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/19/2/jmbe-19-63.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Summary of differences and similarities among three laboratory learning environments: CURE, discovery-based inquiry, inquiry (see Ballen et al. [ 5 ]). Specifically, CUREs possesses all five core components; discovery-based labs lack broad relevance; inquiry labs lack discovery and broad relevance. We used a backward elimination experimental design to test the importance of one or more CURE components for student success. CURE = Course-based undergraduate research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2018 vol. 19 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Mean scores (95% CI) reported by students on project-ownership survey items (Assessment 2) do not significantly differ across CURE (blue), discovery-based inquiry (yellow), and inquiry (orange) laboratory treatment groups ( = 302). The survey gauged to what extent students felt invested in the project (Investment), agreed that work on their project was broadly relevant beyond the classroom (Broad relevance), that there was the potential to discover something new (Discovery), that their research project was interesting (Interesting), and that they were responsible for the outcomes of the project (Independence). For all analyses of individual survey items, > 0.15. CURE = Course-based undergraduate research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2018 vol. 19 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Percentages of binned themes from open-ended responses by students about one of three laboratory experiences (CURE, discovery-based inquiry, or inquiry). We categorized responses based on whether students emphasized real-world application (dark blue), choice/ownership/discovery (orange), learning science process skills (SPS; purple), learning something new (yellow), or needing more guidance (green) in their answers. CURE = Course-based undergraduate research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2018 vol. 19 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515
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