Abstract
Undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education presently suffers from low retention rates, and the attrition rates are disproportionately high for underrepresented minority students (URMs). Increased retention and equitable recruitment are important goals for STEM educators to ensure that a diverse workforce is able to address the developing needs of the 21st century. To address these needs, the National Science Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other experts and organizations have urged institutions to redesign their undergraduate biology curricula to include higher levels of inquiry, increased autonomy, and authentic research for their students. Studies provide evidence of multiple benefits associated with participation in research, including enhanced scientific identity, increased knowledge acquisition, improved self-efficacy, and increased likelihood to persist in the major. Unfortunately, there are barriers associated with traditional undergraduate research experiences (UREs), including insufficient time and a lack of space and available faculty mentors. Additionally, there are inequities associated with student access to UREs due to their unpaid nature and often biased recruitment practices. Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) purport to provide many of the same benefits of traditional UREs; however, because they take place within normal class time, they are available to all students. Calls for the transformation of undergraduate biology curriculum were accompanied by calls for coordinated efforts to improve faculty development. Faculty resistance to change is well documented and thought to be due to barriers including inadequate training and incentives; however, there is mounting evidence that Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) are a successful method for encouraging pedagogical change. The Department of Biological Sciences at California State University, Sacramento maintains a high student-to-faculty ratio and its faculty members carry heavy teaching loads. These factors contribute to the small proportion of biology majors who are able to participate in faculty-mentored research opportunities each year. The Sustainable Interdisciplinary Research to Inspire Undergraduate Success (SIRIUS) Project aims to solve this problem through the development of an FLC that will design, implement, and assess CUREs in 12 existing biology laboratory courses. This research focused on the assessment of the faculty development portion of the SIRIUS Project and the two CUREs implemented in introductory biology series courses. This study specifically 1) evaluated the impacts of faculty development on SIRIUS FLC members, 2) evaluated the effects of implemented CUREs on introductory biology students’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and 3) explored the relationships between demographic variables and the dispositions of students who participated in CUREs. Faculty members reported high levels of satisfaction with the SIRIUS Summer Institute, which represented the first activity of the SIRIUS FLC, and all participants felt that a productive and collaborative environment was achieved. Faculty interviews revealed four motivators for participation, which varied according to the stage of career of the faculty member. While student survey data demonstrated successful implementation of CUREs, an instructor effect was observed between students taught by FLC members and nonmembers. The effects narrowed after a short, one-hour training on the SIRIUS Project and CURE strategies was provided for instructors who did not participate in the SIRIUS faculty development activities. The first two CUREs implemented as part of the SIRIUS Project were the introductory biology series courses, BIO1: Introduction to Ecology, Evolution, and Biodiversity and BIO2: Introduction to Cells, Molecules, and Genes. Student survey data showed increases in self-efficacy within one semester for both BIO1 and BIO2 students who reported low pre-course lab confidence; however, BIO1 students who reported high pre-course lab confidence reported no significant gains post-course. BIO2 students who reported high pre-course lab confidence showed significant losses in self-efficacy post-course. BIO2 students taught with the new CURE curriculum demonstrated more expert-like thinking on questions related to scientific identity than students who were taught with the pre-CURE curriculum. Furthermore, students taught with the CURE curriculum were more likely to explain how their research was relevant beyond the classroom when asked to explain why they thought they were performing real science. When prompted about their future STEM goals, students reported high levels of indecision. When pre-course BIO1 students were compared to post-course BIO2 students, fewer students strongly disagreed they would pursue a STEM career; however, the majority of students remained undecided. BIO1 students reported differences in pre-course lab confidence when genders and Pell Grant qualification were compared, but these differences were eliminated post-course. Notably, students who qualified for Pell Grants reported significantly higher gains by the end of BIO1 than their non-qualifying peers. Overall, we have demonstrated that faculty have successfully implemented CUREs in the introductory series biology courses, and students are self-reporting changes to their scientific identities and increases in their self-efficacy. These data provide evidence that the SIRIUS Project is taking steps toward, and may be able to overcome barriers associated with, equitable and broad student access to UREs.