1887

One Early Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience Produces Sustainable Knowledge Gains, but only Transient Perception Gains

    Authors: Tom D. Wolkow1, Jill Jenkins1, Lisa Durrenberger1, Kylie Swanson-Hoyle2, Lisa M. Hines1,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biology, College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80918; 2: Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80918
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 05 August 2018 Accepted 18 February 2019 Published 28 June 2019
    • ©2019 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: Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Co-Director, UCCSTeach Program, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80918. Phone: 719-255-3192. Fax: 719-255-3046. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. June 2019 vol. 20 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    1.26 MB
  • XML
    135.67 Kb
  • HTML
    89.06 Kb

    Abstract:

    Universities have been called upon to integrate research experiences into early, introductory courses to better prepare our STEM workforce. This call is primarily based on short-term studies that link research experiences with knowledge and perception gains. However, the influence of pre-existing student characteristics has not been fully disentangled from the research experience, and the long-term stability of these gains is uncertain. To address these issues, we integrated a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) into randomly assigned sections of a required freshman-level biology laboratory course. We previously reported that this CURE resulted in immediate targeted knowledge and perception gains. Here, we evaluate the stability of these gains as students progressed through a biology degree program. At sophomore year, the impact of the CURE on student perception was still apparent. When compared to controls, students who participated in the CURE perceived a greater understanding of what researchers do and an increased interest in pursuing a research career. However, by senior year, these positive perceptions had fallen to levels shared by control groups. Targeted knowledge gains persisted throughout this study. Our results support CURE logic models predicting that multiple CUREs will be required to sustain perception gains.

References & Citations

1. Knight J 2004 Internationalization remodeled: definition, approaches, and rationales J Stud Int Educ 8 5 31 10.1177/1028315303260832 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832
2. Chen X 2013 STEM attrition: college students’ paths into and out of STEM fields National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education Washington, DC
3. Carnevale AP, Desrochers DM 2002 The missing middle: aligning education and the knowledge economy US Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education Washington, DC
4. Acemoglu D, Autor D 2011 Skills, tasks and technologies: implications for employment and earnings Handb Labor Econ 4 1043 1171 10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5
5. Joint Economic Committee 2012 STEM education: preparing jobs of the future United States Senate, 112th Congress Washington, DC
6. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 2012 Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics US Government Office of Science and Technology Washington, DC
7. Torpey E 2014 Healthcare: millions of jobs now and in the future Career Outlook, US Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, DC
8. National Science Board 2015 Revisiting the STEM workforce: a companion to science and engineering indicators 2014 National Science Foundation Arlington, VA
9. 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
10. Hunter A, Laursen S, Seymour E 2007 Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development Sci Ed 91 36 74 10.1002/sce.20173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173
11. 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 18056301 2104507 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
12. Shaffer CD, Alvarez C, Bailey C, Barnard D, Bhalla S, Chandrasekaran C, Chandrasekaran V, Chung HM, Dorer DR, Du C, Eckdahl TT, Poet JL, Frohlich D, Goodman AL, Gosser Y, Hauser C, Hoopes LL, Johnson D, Jones CJ, Kaehler M, Kokan N, Kopp OR, Kuleck GA, McNeil G, Moss R, Myka JL, Nagengast A, Morris R, Overvoorde PJ, Shoop E, Parrish S, Reed K, Regisford EG, Revie D, Rosenwald AG, Saville K, Schroeder S, Shaw M, Skuse G, Smith C, Smith M, Spana EP, Spratt M, Stamm J, Thompson JS, Wawersik M, Wilson BA, Youngblom J, Leung W, Buhler J, Mardis ER, Lopatto D, Elgin SC 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
13. Hester S, Buxner S, Elfring L, Nagy L 2014 Integrating quantitative thinking into an introductory biology course improves students’ mathematical reasoning in biological contexts CBE Life Sci Educ 13 54 64 10.1187/cbe.13-07-0129 24591504 3940463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-07-0129
14. Dweck CS 1986 Motivational processes affecting learning Am Psychol 41 1040 1048 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
15. Bandura A 1989 Social cognitive theory 92 96 Barnouw E International encyclopedia of communications 4 Oxford University Press New York, NY
16. Moulton KD, Brown SD, Lent RW 1991 Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation J Couns Psychol 38 30 38 10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30
17. Schunk DH 1991 Self-efficacy and academic motivation Educ Psychol 26 207 10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2
18. Schunk DH, Pajare F 2005 Competence perceptions and academic functioning 85 104 Elliot AJ, Dweck CS Handbook of competence and motivation Guilford Publications New York, NY
19. Betz NE 2006 Developing and using parallel measures of career self-efficacy and interests with adolescents Pajares F, Urdan T Adolescence and education: self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents 5 Information Age Publishing Greenwich, CT
20. Drew JC, Triplett EW 2008 Whole genome sequencing in the undergraduate classroom: outcomes and lessons from a pilot course J Microbiol Biol Educ 9 3 11 10.1128/jmbe.v9.89 23653818 3577148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v9.89
21. Lopatto D 2008 Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research experiences: The SURE survey 112 132 Taraban R, Blanton RL Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science US Teachers College Press New York, NY
22. Schunk DH, Pintrich P, Meese JL 2008 Motivation in education 3rd ed. Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ
23. Harrison M, Dunbar D, Ratmansky L, Boyd K, Lopatto D 2011 Classroom-based science research at the introductory level: changes in career choices and attitude CBE Life Sci Educ 10 279 286 10.1187/cbe.10-12-0151 21885824 3164567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-12-0151
24. Siritunga D, Montero-Rojas M, Carrero K, Toro G, Vélez A, Carrero-Martínez FA 2011 Culturally relevant inquiry-based laboratory module implementations in upper-division genetics and cell biology teaching laboratories CBE Life Sci Educ 10 287 297 10.1187/cbe.11-04-0035 21885825 3164568 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-04-0035
25. Bascom-Slack CA, Arnold AE, Strobel SA 2012 IBI series winner. 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
26. 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
27. Hanauer DI, Frederick J, Fotinakes B, Strobel SA 2012 Linguistic analysis of project ownership for undergraduate research experiences CBE Life Sci Educ 11 378 385 10.1187/cbe.12-04-0043 23222833 3516793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0043
28. Graham MJ, Frederick J, Byars-Winston A, Hunter AB, Handelsman J 2013 Science education: Increasing persistence of college students in STEM Science 341 1455 1456 10.1126/science.1240487 24072909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487
29. Jordan TC, Burnett SH, Carson S, Caruso SM, Clase K, DeJong RJ, Dennehy JJ, Denver DR, Dunbar D, Elgin SC, Findley AM, Gissendanner CR, Golebiewska UP, Guild N, Hartzog GA, Grillo WH, Hollowell GP, Hughes LE, Johnson A, King RA, Lewis LO, Li W, Rosenzweig F, Rubin MR, Saha MS, Sandoz J, Shaffer CD, Taylor B, Temple L, Vazquez E, Ware VC, Barker LP, Bradley KW, Jacobs-Sera D, Pope WH, Russell DA, Cresawn SG, Lopatto D, Bailey CP, Hatfull GF 2014 A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students MBio 5 01051 01013 10.1128/mBio.01051-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01051-13
30. Rodenbusch S, 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 ar20 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117 27252296 4909342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117
31. Corwin LA, Graham MJ, Dolan EL 2015 Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: an agenda for future research and evaluation CBE Life Sci Educ 14 es1 10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167 25687826 4353087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167
32. Linn MC, Palmer E, Baranger A, Gerard E, Stone E 2015 Undergraduate research experience: impacts and opportunities Science 347 627 633 10.1126/science.1261757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757
33. Kloser M, Brownell S, Shavelson R, Fukami T 2013 Effects of a research-based ecology lab course: a study of non-volunteer achievement, self-confidence, and perception of lab course purpose J Coll Sci Teach 42 72 81
34. 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
35. Wolkow TD, Durrenberger LT, Maynard MA, Harrall KK, Hines LM 2014 A comprehensive faculty, staff, and student training program enhances student perceptions of a course-based research experience at a two-year institution CBE Life Sci Educ 13 724 737 10.1187/cbe.14-03-0056 25452494 4255358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0056
36. Duschl A, Schweingruber HA, Shouse AW 2007 Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K–8 The National Academies Press Washington, DC
37. Bowman NA, Hill PL 2011 Measuring how college affects students: social desirability and other potential biases in college student self-reported gains New Dir Inst Res 150 73 86
38. Albanese M, Dottl S, Mejicano G, Zakowski L, Seibert C, Van Eyck S 2006 Distorted perceptions of competence and incompetence are more than regression effects Adv Health Sci Educ 11 267 278 10.1007/s10459-005-2400-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-2400-7
39. Shi J, Wood WB, Martin JM, Guild NA, Vicens Q, Knight JK 2010 A diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology CBE Life Sci Educ 9 453 461 10.1187/cbe.10-04-0055 21123692 2995763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-04-0055
40. Lopatto D 2004 Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings Cell Biol Educ 3 270 277 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045 15592600 533131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045
41. Lave J, Wenger E 1991 Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation Cambridge University Press New York, NY 10.1017/CBO9780511815355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
42. Martensen D, Eriksson H, Ingelman-Sundberg M 1985 Medical chemistry: evaluation of active and problem-oriented teaching methods Med Educ 19 34 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01136.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01136.x
43. Albanese M, Mitchell S 1993 Problem-based learning: a review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues Acad Med 68 52 81 10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012 8447896 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012
44. Dochy F, Segers M, Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D 2003 Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis Learn Instr 13 533 568 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
45. Strobel J, van Barneveld A 2009 Is PBL effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing problem-based learning to conventional classroom learning Interdiscipl J Prob Based Learn 3 44 58
46. Clements DH 1984 Training effects on the development and generalization of Piagetian logical operations and knowledge of number J Educ Psychol 76 766 776 10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.766
47. Clements DH, Sarama J 2008 Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum Am Educ Res J 45 443 494 10.3102/0002831207312908 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312908
48. Clements DH, Sarama JH, Spitler ME, Lange AA, Wolfe CB 2011 Mathematics learned by young children in an intervention based on learning trajectories: a large-scale cluster randomized trial J Res Math Educ 42 127 166 10.5951/jresematheduc.42.2.0127 http://dx.doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.2.0127
49. Wendell KB, Rogers C 2013 Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school J Eng Educ 102 513 540 10.1002/jee.20026 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026
50. Aldemir J, Kermani H 2016 Integrated STEM curriculum: improving educational outcomes for Head Start children Early Child Dev Care 187 1694 1706 10.1080/03004430.2016.1185102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1185102
51. Maltese A, Tai RH 2010 Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interest in science Int J Sci Educ 32 669 685 10.1080/09500690902792385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385
52. Tai RT, Liu CQ, Maltese AV, Fan XT 2006 Planning early for careers in science Science 312 1143 1144 10.1126/science.1128690 16728620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1128690
53. Maltese AV, Melki CS, Wiebke HL 2014 The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM Sci Ed 98 937 962 10.1002/sce.21132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21132
54. Battle ES 1965 Motivational determinants of academic task persistence J Pers Soc Psychol 2 209 218 10.1037/h0022442 14316982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022442
55. Eccles J, Adler TF, Futterman R, Goff SB, Kaczala CM, Meece J, Midgley C 1983 Expectancies, values and academic behaviors 75 146 Spence JT Achievement and achievement motives WH Freeman San Francisco, CA
56. Fouad NA, Smith PL 1996 A test of a social model for middle school students: math and science J Couns Psychol 43 338 346 10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.338
57. Grandy J 1998 Persistence in science of high-ability minority students: results of a longitudinal study J Higher Educ 69 589 620
58. Smith FM, Hausfaus CO 1998 Relationship of family support and ethnic minority students’ achievement in science and mathematics Sci Ed 82 111 125 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199801)82:1<111::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-K http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199801)82:1<111::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-K
59. Jodl KM, Michael A, Malanchuk O, Eccles JS, Sameroff A 2001 Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents’ occupational aspirations Child Dev 72 1247 1265 10.1111/1467-8624.00345 11480945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00345
60. Hrabowski FA 2003 Raising minority achievement in science and math Educ Leadersh 60 44 49
61. Cleaves A 2005 The formation of science choices in secondary school Int J Sci Ed 27 471 486 10.1080/0950069042000323746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323746
62. Lent RW, Brown SD, Sheu HB, Schmidt J, Brenner BR, Golster CS, Wilkins G, Schmidt LC, Lyons H 2005 Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: utility for women and students at historically Black universities J Couns Psychol 52 84 92 10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.84 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.84
63. Russell M, Atwater M 2005 Traveling the road to success: a discourse on persistence throughout the science pipeline with African American students at a predominantly White institution J Res Sci Teach 42 691 715 10.1002/tea.20068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20068
64. Simpkins SD, Davis-Kean PE, Eccles JS 2006 Math and science motivation: a longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs Dev Psychol 42 70 83 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70 16420119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70
65. Aschbacher PR, Li E, Roth EJ 2010 Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine J Res Sci Teach 47 564 582
66. Fries-Britt SL, Younger TK, Hall WD 2010 Lessons from high-achieving students of color in physics New Dir Inst Res 148 75 83
67. Dabney K, Chakraverty D, Tai RH 2013 The association of family influence and initial interest in science Sci Ed 97 395 409 10.1002/sce.21060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21060
68. Chen X 2015 STEM attrition among high-performing college students: scope and potential causes J Technol Sci Ed 5 41 59

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
2019-06-28
2019-10-21

Abstract:

Universities have been called upon to integrate research experiences into early, introductory courses to better prepare our STEM workforce. This call is primarily based on short-term studies that link research experiences with knowledge and perception gains. However, the influence of pre-existing student characteristics has not been fully disentangled from the research experience, and the long-term stability of these gains is uncertain. To address these issues, we integrated a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) into randomly assigned sections of a required freshman-level biology laboratory course. We previously reported that this CURE resulted in immediate targeted knowledge and perception gains. Here, we evaluate the stability of these gains as students progressed through a biology degree program. At sophomore year, the impact of the CURE on student perception was still apparent. When compared to controls, students who participated in the CURE perceived a greater understanding of what researchers do and an increased interest in pursuing a research career. However, by senior year, these positive perceptions had fallen to levels shared by control groups. Targeted knowledge gains persisted throughout this study. Our results support CURE logic models predicting that multiple CUREs will be required to sustain perception gains.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Author and Article Information

  • Received 05 August 2018 Accepted 18 February 2019 Published 28 June 2019
  • ©2019 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: Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Co-Director, UCCSTeach Program, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80918. Phone: 719-255-3192. Fax: 719-255-3046. E-mail: [email protected].

Figures

One Early Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience Produces Sustainable Knowledge Gains, but only Transient Perception Gains
[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-1,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-1,properties={foaf_givenname=Tom D., foaf_name=Tom D. Wolkow, foaf_surname=Wolkow, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-2,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-2,properties={foaf_givenname=Jill, foaf_name=Jill Jenkins, foaf_surname=Jenkins, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-3,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-3,properties={foaf_givenname=Lisa, foaf_name=Lisa Durrenberger, foaf_surname=Durrenberger, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-4,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-4,properties={foaf_givenname=Kylie, foaf_name=Kylie Swanson-Hoyle, foaf_surname=Swanson-Hoyle, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-aff2]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-5,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-5,properties={foaf_givenname=Lisa M., foaf_name=Lisa M. Hines, foaf_surname=Hines, pub_correspondenceLink=*, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679-aff1]]}]]
Citation: Wolkow T, Jenkins J, Durrenberger L, Swanson-Hoyle K, Hines L. 2019. One early course-based undergraduate research experience produces sustainable knowledge gains, but only transient perception gains . J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 20(2): doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679.f1-jmbe-20-32
FIGURE 1
An illustration of the study design with the timeline for survey administration. This study is a cross-sectional assessment of students at different time points, as opposed to a longitudinal study that follows the same group of students after the initial implementation. CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; IMCA = introductory molecular & cell biology assessment.
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f1_thmb.gif
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f1.gif
Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

An illustration of the study design with the timeline for survey administration. This study is a cross-sectional assessment of students at different time points, as opposed to a longitudinal study that follows the same group of students after the initial implementation. CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; IMCA = introductory molecular & cell biology assessment.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. June 2019 vol. 20 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679.f2-jmbe-20-32
FIGURE 2
The CURE had an immediate positive impact on perceived learning of biological concepts. Among students in the short-term study, a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure responses to the following statement for all lab experiments: “This lab helped me to understand the biological concepts and material discussed in this course.” “Same traditional labs” refers to the overall average of the mean ratings for the 9 traditional labs that both the traditional and experimental sections performed, “SUR CURE labs” refers to the overall average of the mean ratings for the research labs performed only by the experimental sections, and “other labs” refers to the overall average of the mean ratings for additional traditional labs that were completed by the traditional group only. * < 0.05. Sample sizes: 39 for EXP, 48 for TRA. SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience; EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f2_thmb.gif
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f2.gif
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

The CURE had an immediate positive impact on perceived learning of biological concepts. Among students in the short-term study, a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure responses to the following statement for all lab experiments: “This lab helped me to understand the biological concepts and material discussed in this course.” “Same traditional labs” refers to the overall average of the mean ratings for the 9 traditional labs that both the traditional and experimental sections performed, “SUR CURE labs” refers to the overall average of the mean ratings for the research labs performed only by the experimental sections, and “other labs” refers to the overall average of the mean ratings for additional traditional labs that were completed by the traditional group only. * < 0.05. Sample sizes: 39 for EXP, 48 for TRA. SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience; EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. June 2019 vol. 20 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679.f3-jmbe-20-32
FIGURE 3
The CURE had an immediate positive impact on perceived learning and understanding of fundamental laboratory techniques. Among students in the short-term study, a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure student responses to statements regarding the lab course overall. Students who reported an unfavorable response (i.e., neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) were collapsed to one category because the number of responses in each category was relatively small. * < 0.05, ^0.05 < < 0.1. Sample sizes: 39 for EXP, 48 for TRA. EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f3_thmb.gif
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f3.gif
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

The CURE had an immediate positive impact on perceived learning and understanding of fundamental laboratory techniques. Among students in the short-term study, a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure student responses to statements regarding the lab course overall. Students who reported an unfavorable response (i.e., neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) were collapsed to one category because the number of responses in each category was relatively small. * < 0.05, ^0.05 < < 0.1. Sample sizes: 39 for EXP, 48 for TRA. EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. June 2019 vol. 20 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679.f4-jmbe-20-32
FIGURE 4
Perception gains attributed to laboratory coursework were still apparent during sophomore year, but fell to control levels by senior year. The Sophomore Cellular Biology and Senior Seminar follow-up perception surveys allowed students to respond to identical statements relating to either their “lecture-based coursework thus far” or their “laboratory-based coursework thus far” using a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Responses were collapsed to 3 categories: disagree, neutral, agree. The EXP group reported that their laboratory-based coursework had enhanced understanding and increased interest in research on the Cellular Biology survey, but these differences faded by the Senior Seminar survey. * < 0.05. Sample sizes: Sophomore, 86 for EXP, 36 for TRA, 99 for OTHER and Senior, 75 for EXP, 103 for TRA, 135 for OTHER. EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; OTHER = UCCS students who completed a freshmen-level general biology laboratory at another institution; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f4_thmb.gif
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f4.gif
Image of FIGURE 4

Click to view

FIGURE 4

Perception gains attributed to laboratory coursework were still apparent during sophomore year, but fell to control levels by senior year. The Sophomore Cellular Biology and Senior Seminar follow-up perception surveys allowed students to respond to identical statements relating to either their “lecture-based coursework thus far” or their “laboratory-based coursework thus far” using a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Responses were collapsed to 3 categories: disagree, neutral, agree. The EXP group reported that their laboratory-based coursework had enhanced understanding and increased interest in research on the Cellular Biology survey, but these differences faded by the Senior Seminar survey. * < 0.05. Sample sizes: Sophomore, 86 for EXP, 36 for TRA, 99 for OTHER and Senior, 75 for EXP, 103 for TRA, 135 for OTHER. EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; OTHER = UCCS students who completed a freshmen-level general biology laboratory at another institution; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. June 2019 vol. 20 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679.f5-jmbe-20-32
FIGURE 5
Observed perception gains with respect to research experience were transient. Students were asked to rate the level of experience that they gained performing research techniques in their “undergraduate work thus far” using a Likert-item rating scale (1 = no experience, 2 = minimal experience, 3 = some experience, 4 = sufficient experience, 5 = extensive experience). Responses were collapsed to 3 categories: none or minimal, some, sufficient or extensive. On the Cellular Biology survey, the EXP group reported that they gained more experience applying computer technology to biological research, an integral component of the SUR CURE, when compared to both the TRA and OTHER groups. This difference diminished by Senior year. All other significant results were between EXP and OTHER groups only (not TRA), and thus, cannot be directly linked to the CURE. * < 0.05. Sample sizes: Sophomore, 86 for EXP, 36 for TRA, 99 for OTHER and Senior, 75 for EXP, 103 for TRA, 135 for OTHER. EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; OTHER = UCCS students who completed a freshmen-level general biology laboratory at another institution; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f5_thmb.gif
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f5.gif
Image of FIGURE 5

Click to view

FIGURE 5

Observed perception gains with respect to research experience were transient. Students were asked to rate the level of experience that they gained performing research techniques in their “undergraduate work thus far” using a Likert-item rating scale (1 = no experience, 2 = minimal experience, 3 = some experience, 4 = sufficient experience, 5 = extensive experience). Responses were collapsed to 3 categories: none or minimal, some, sufficient or extensive. On the Cellular Biology survey, the EXP group reported that they gained more experience applying computer technology to biological research, an integral component of the SUR CURE, when compared to both the TRA and OTHER groups. This difference diminished by Senior year. All other significant results were between EXP and OTHER groups only (not TRA), and thus, cannot be directly linked to the CURE. * < 0.05. Sample sizes: Sophomore, 86 for EXP, 36 for TRA, 99 for OTHER and Senior, 75 for EXP, 103 for TRA, 135 for OTHER. EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; OTHER = UCCS students who completed a freshmen-level general biology laboratory at another institution; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. June 2019 vol. 20 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679.f6-jmbe-20-32
FIGURE 6
Throughout the study, all three groups showed similar level of agreement with statements reflecting Core Concepts and Competencies. On the Sophomore Cellular Biology and Senior Seminar perception surveys, a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure student responses to statements that reflect Core Concepts. Some questions were based on the SURE survey developed by Lopatto (2004). Student responses were collapsed into two categories: consistent with the Core Concept or inconsistent/uncertain (i.e., neutral). The results were similar at both time points, so only the Senior data are presented. Overall, students in all groups were able to correctly identify (A) Core Concepts and (B) Core Competencies. While the TRA group had lower agreement than both the EXP and OTHER on one statement, no difference was identified between the EXP and OTHER groups. * < 0.05, ^0.05 < < 0.1. Sample sizes: Sophomore, 86 for EXP, 36 for TRA, 99 for OTHER and Senior, 75 for EXP, 103 for TRA, 135 for OTHER. These questions were added to the survey later, so the sample sizes were smaller ( 53 for EXP, 10 for TRA, 61 for OTHER). EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; OTHER = UCCS students who completed a freshmen-level general biology laboratory at another institution; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f6_thmb.gif
jmbe/20/2/jmbe-20-32f6.gif
Image of FIGURE 6

Click to view

FIGURE 6

Throughout the study, all three groups showed similar level of agreement with statements reflecting Core Concepts and Competencies. On the Sophomore Cellular Biology and Senior Seminar perception surveys, a Likert-item rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure student responses to statements that reflect Core Concepts. Some questions were based on the SURE survey developed by Lopatto (2004). Student responses were collapsed into two categories: consistent with the Core Concept or inconsistent/uncertain (i.e., neutral). The results were similar at both time points, so only the Senior data are presented. Overall, students in all groups were able to correctly identify (A) Core Concepts and (B) Core Competencies. While the TRA group had lower agreement than both the EXP and OTHER on one statement, no difference was identified between the EXP and OTHER groups. * < 0.05, ^0.05 < < 0.1. Sample sizes: Sophomore, 86 for EXP, 36 for TRA, 99 for OTHER and Senior, 75 for EXP, 103 for TRA, 135 for OTHER. These questions were added to the survey later, so the sample sizes were smaller ( 53 for EXP, 10 for TRA, 61 for OTHER). EXP = experimental and represents UCCS students who completed the SUR CURE; TRA = traditional and represents UCCS students who completed the traditional “cookbook” labs at UCCS; OTHER = UCCS students who completed a freshmen-level general biology laboratory at another institution; UCCS = University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; SUR = Soakin’ Up the Rays; CURE = course-based undergraduate research experience.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. June 2019 vol. 20 no. 2 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1679
Download as Powerpoint

Back to top
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