Abstract
Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) present students with unique opportunities to work through relevant scientific problems and experience what it is like to be a scientist. They are considered to be high impact practices based on the findings that students who participate in UREs are more likely to persist in their science major and enter a scientific career. Other benefits to participation in UREs include increased independence, increased cognitive and personal skills, and an increased sense of ownership for students. Unfortunately, most universities cannot offer UREs to the majority of their undergraduate science majors. One solution to this problem is to include research-based work in the course curriculum. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are designed to bring elements of the traditional UREs, including scientific practices, discovery, relevance, iteration and collaboration, into the classroom. The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, assess and refine a CURE module that could be used to inform the transformation of our biology department’s laboratory curriculum to include research experiences that would benefit all of our nearly 2,000 undergraduate majors. This study (1) assessed student interest and opportunity for participation in research through student and faculty surveys, (2) evaluated current laboratory curriculum from beginning, intermediate, and upper-division courses for the degree of inquiry, and (3) designed and evaluated a CURE to serve as a model for large-scale curricular reform. Survey results from 2012 indicated that 91% of students were interested in performing research, but only 14% had participated by their junior or senior year. Faculty survey results indicated that an average of 3 students per year were mentored by tenure-track faculty, but this accommodated less than 3% of biology pre-majors and majors. Assessment of the existing laboratory curriculum for levels of inquiry revealed either a lack, or very low levels, of inquiry in all but one lower division exercise. These results confirmed the need for curricular reform. To demonstrate feasibility, a three-week Model CURE was created to replace the traditional curriculum in an upper-division Developmental Biology course. Through the Model CURE, students studied the development of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) under normal conditions and after exposure to teratogens that are present in local waterways. Assessments of the impact of the new curriculum on student knowledge, skills, and attitudes were conducted over several semesters through pre-/post-instruction surveys, laboratory write-ups, an embedded exam essay question related to the CURE project and focus groups with students participating in traditional UREs and the Model CURE. Pre-/post-instruction surveys highlighted student gains and exposed areas of the curriculum that could still be improved. Evaluation of student laboratory write-ups indicated a shift in students’ perceived gains from basic techniques and foundational knowledge at the beginning of the Model CURE to research-related skills and advanced knowledge by the end. Insights from these assessments also lead to the addition of a fourth week and improvements to the laboratory manual. Analysis of student exam essays indicated that students recognized all five CURE elements in the research they performed during the module. Novel discovery was discussed least often, and was highlighted as an element of the curriculum that could use additional emphasis. Through focus groups, URE students noted the importance of the primary literature, the need for troubleshooting, the benefits of collaboration, the relevance of their projects, and the importance of building relationships with mentors. Model CURE students participating in focus groups also discussed troubleshooting, collaboration, relevance, and a sense of project ownership as elements present in their laboratory course, suggesting that they experienced many of the same benefits and gains as their URE counterparts. Collectively, these results indicate that even a short research module can have positive impacts on students and that evaluation of student data can lead to curricular improvements with observable student gains.