Enhancing scientific identity and persistence through a poultry-focused course-based undergraduate research experience.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are high-impact educational practices designed to engage students in authentic research while fostering the development of critical skills for persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). A key, yet underappreciated, component of successful CUREs is the role of undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs). Despite their significance, there is a notable gap in training and professional development opportunities tailored to these undergraduates, potentially undermining the effectiveness and inclusivity of CUREs. This paper highlights the essential contributions of UTAs in CUREs. Specifically, this paper explores the specialized role of undergraduate peer mentors (UGPM, type of UTA) in a three-semester CURE program at Binghamton University and examines their experiences through four unique student perspectives. These accounts highlight the benefits and impacts of the UGPM role in CUREs and emphasize the need for both formal and informal training approaches to equip UGPMs with technical and interpersonal skills necessary for mentoring and teaching in CUREs. By drawing on UGPM perspectives, we identify some best practices for their professional development and advocate for more structured approaches to UTA or UGPM training. These recommendations aim to ensure that UTAs and UGPMs not only thrive as mentors but also enhance the learning outcomes and research experiences of their peers in CUREs.

The drive to broaden equitable access to undergraduate research experiences has catalyzed the development and implementation of course‐based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Biology education has prioritized embedding CUREs in introductory labs, which are frequently taught by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Thus, a CURE GTA is expected not only to teach but also to support novice student researchers. We know little about how GTAs perform as research mentors in a CURE, or how the quality of their mentorship and support impacts undergraduate students. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a phenomenological study of an introductory biology CURE, interviewing 25 undergraduate students taught by nine different GTAs at a single institution. We used self‐determination theory to guide our exploration of how students' autonomous motivation to engage in a CURE is impacted by perceptions of GTA support. We found that highly motivated students were more likely to experience factors hypothesized to optimize motivation in the CURE, and to perceive that their GTA was highly supportive of these elements. Students with lower motivation were less likely to report engaging in fundamental elements of research offered in a CURE. Our findings suggest that GTAs directly impact students' motivation, which can, in turn, influence whether students perceive receiving the full research experience as intended in a CURE. We contend that practitioners who coordinate CUREs led by GTAs should therefore offer curated training that emphasizes supporting students' autonomous motivation in the course and engagement in the research. Our work suggests that GTAs may differ in their capacity to provide students with the support they need to receive and benefit from certain pedagogical practices. Future work assessing innovative approaches in undergraduate biology laboratory courses should continue to investigate potenital differential outcomes for students taught by GTAs.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have grown in popularity, particularly within introductory biology courses, to provide more students with authentic research experiences. CUREs have been shown to have many of the same positive effects as conventional research experiences; however, most assessments of CUREs lack an appropriate comparison group to evaluate their effectiveness. Here, we introduced a CURE into an introductory biology lab at a regional public university but maintained a traditional, "cookie-cutter" lab in half the lab sections over a 3-year period. We compared changes in test scores and survey responses, final lab and lecture scores, and D, F, withdrawal, and incomplete (DFWI) and retention rates between non-honors biology students in each group. While both groups showed significant improvement in test scores, only transfer students had significantly greater improvement in the CURE vs traditional lab. Students in both groups showed significant increases in self-confidence in some lab-related tasks, but differences in these changes were generally not significant between groups. There were no significant differences in final lecture score, lab score, DFWI rate, or retention rate. Factors affecting the lack of measured CURE success may include the type of CURE chosen, student career interests, and COVID-19; other positive impacts of the CURE may not have been captured by our measurements. This study demonstrates the importance of carefully choosing a CURE to match the student population, as well as assessing the CURE's impact against a comparison group.

While it has been established that course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) lead to student benefits, it is less clear what aspects of CUREs lead to such gains. In this study, we aimed to understand the effect of students analyzing their own data, compared with students analyzing data that had been collected by professional scientists. We compared the experiences of students in a CURE investigating whether the extinction risk status of terrestrial mammals and birds is associated with their ecological traits. Students in the CURE were randomly assigned to analyze either data that they had collected or data previously collected by professional scientists. All other aspects of the student experience were designed to be identical. We found that students who analyzed their own data showed significantly greater gains in scientific identity and emotional ownership than students who analyzed data collected by professional scientists.

Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) have been well developed in the hard sciences, but math CUREs are all but absent from the literature. Like biology and chemistry, math programs suffer from a lack of research experiences and many students are not able to participate in programs like REUs (Research Experiences for Undergraduates). CUREs are a great alternative, but the current definition of CURE (see [1]) has potential barriers when applied to mathematics (e.g. time, novelty of project). Our solution to these barriers was to develop a math CURE pathway in which students complete "Math CUREs" in targeted courses. After finishing the pathway (or part of the pathway), students complete a research project in at least one of the following areas: Lie theory, representation theory, or combinatorics. The focus of this paper is the math CURE implemented in a discrete mathematics course for math and computer science majors. We share our experiences with the development and implementation of this CURE over several iterations as well as the impact of the CURE on students experiences through participant survey data obtained from this CURE.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are being championed as scalable ways of involving undergraduates in science research. Studies of CUREs have shown that participating students achieve many of the same outcomes as students who complete research internships. However, CUREs vary widely in their design and implementation, and aspects of CUREs that are necessary and sufficient to achieve desired student outcomes have not been elucidated. To guide future research aimed at understanding the causal mechanisms underlying CURE efficacy, we used a systems approach to generate pathway models representing hypotheses of how CURE outcomes are achieved. We started by reviewing studies of CUREs and research internships to generate a comprehensive set of outcomes of research experiences, determining the level of evidence supporting each outcome. We then used this body of research and drew from learning theory to hypothesize connections between what students do during CUREs and the outcomes that have the best empirical support. We offer these models as hypotheses for the CURE community to test, revise, elaborate, or refute. We also cite instruments that are ready to use in CURE assessment and note gaps for which instruments need to be developed.

Course Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) are an effective method of teaching students not only content, but also critical thinking, scientific practice, and other skills beneficial to their education and success. They lower the barrier to participation in undergraduate research, thereby increasing access to entry. Thus, CUREs are especially valuable to under-performing students as they are an effective means of bridging the achievement gap. Due to the value and effectiveness of CUREs in student development, Lynn University has implemented a means by which students are exposed to CUREs and skills necessary to complete a CURE throughout the Environmental Studies major curriculum. This presentation will give a description of the curriculum and how CUREs and CURE-required skills are taught throughout the curriculum culminating in a fully independent capstone research project.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are an effective method of engaging large numbers of students in authentic research but are associated with barriers to adoption. Short CURE modules may serve as a low-barrier entryway, but their effectiveness in promoting expansion has not been studied. The Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance in the Environment (PARE) project is a modular CURE designed to be a low-barrier gateway into CURE use. In a series of interviews, we track and characterize use of PARE in 19 PARE-interested instructors throughout the Innovation-Decision Process described by Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory. The majority (16/19) implement PARE at least once, and a majority of these implementers (11/16) expanded use by the final interview. Three of four cases of discontinuance were due to a disruption such as moving institutions or a change in course assignment and occurred for community college faculty. Expanders expressed fewer personal challenges than nonexpanders. Overall analysis shows that perception of barriers is nuanced and impacted by the innovation itself, the institutional context, and one’s own experiences. These results suggest that a short duration, low barrier CURE can serve as a catalyst for implementation of a longer duration CURE.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) integrate an authentic research experience for students into a laboratory course. CUREs provide many of the same benefits to students as individual faculty-mentored research experiences. However, faculty experiences in teaching CUREs are not as well understood. There are no studies that compare faculty’s anticipated experiences to actual experiences, and little comparison of the faculty experience by institution. Through interviews with eight biology faculty from four institutions, the faculty experience in implementing a CURE in an introductory biology laboratory was explored using qualitative analysis. Institutions included: a small, minority-serving, women’s, primarily undergraduate university; a small, residential, primarily undergraduate college; a midsized doctoral university; and a large community college. Interviews were conducted at three time points: before professional development (PD), after the initial semester of teaching the CURE, and after teaching the CURE at least twice (1 year later). Faculty described resources, benefits, challenges, and feelings about teaching the CURE. However, anticipated experiences were often not the same as those actually experienced. There were also institutional differences in resources, benefits, challenges, and feelings. Implications for CURE PD include specific content such as strategies for teaching effective research group work, development of student proposals, and student time management.

Early research experiences must be made available to all undergraduate students, including those at 2-yr institutions who account for nearly half of America's college students. We report on barriers unique to 2-yr institutions that preclude the success of an early course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE). Using a randomized study design, we evaluated a CURE in equivalent introductory biology courses at a 4-yr institution and a 2-yr institution within the same geographic region. We found that these student populations developed dramatically different impressions of the experience. Students at the 4-yr institution enjoyed the CURE significantly more than the traditional labs. However, students at the 2-yr institution enjoyed the traditional labs significantly more, even though the CURE successfully produced targeted learning gains. On the basis of course evaluations, we enhanced instructor, student, and support staff training and reevaluated this CURE at a different campus of the same 2-yr institution. This time, the students reported that they enjoyed the research experience significantly more than the traditional labs. We conclude that early research experiences can succeed at 2-yr institutions, provided that a comprehensive implementation strategy targeting instructor, student, and support staff training is in place.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been proposed as a mechanism to democratize access to the benefits of apprentice-style scientific research to a broader diversity of students, promoting inclusivity and increasing student success and retention. As we evaluate CUREs, it is essential to explore their effectiveness within the environments of regional comprehensive universities and community colleges, because they are important access points for a wide variety of students. It is also important to address the potential influence of volunteer bias, where students can opt to enroll in either the CURE or a traditional lab, on the outcomes of CUREs. We evaluated a CURE at a regional comprehensive university under conditions both with and without volunteer bias. We find that nonvolunteer students report a lower sense of discovery and relevance of the CURE compared with students who volunteered for the course. Importantly, we also find that our replacement of the traditional lab class with a CURE resulted in lower scores on exams in the associated lecture course among students who are both BIPOC and Pell eligible. We call for additional research on the effects of CUREs at nonresearch-intensive institutions and without volunteer bias, to better understand the impact of these classes.

Efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning in animal science are forestalled by the lack of psychometric scales validated in our disciplinary context. Researchers have used instruments validated outside of animal science reliably, but this approach has questionable validity. The objective of our research was to adapt and validate scales to measure the motivational variables individual interest (II) and situational interest (SI) in introductory animal sciences students. A total of 254 introductory course students in two consecutive semesters rated their interest in animal sciences on unidimensional II (8-item) and 3-factor SI (11-item) scales previously validated for psychology undergraduates. After adapting instruments with wording specific to animal sciences, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses. First, we discovered and removed two problematic items from the unidimensional II scale, offered theory-based explanations for differential item functioning in animal sciences students, and validated a revised II scale (λ = 0.74 - 0.94, CFI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.027). Next, we confirmed the validity and reliability of the SI scale and its three subscales (λ = 0.83 - 0.96, CFI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.048). Finally, to explore the dimensionality of SI in our population, we fitted a bifactor model and computed ancillary indices. Results supported the reliability and empirical validity of the bifactor model as an alternative conceptualization of SI (CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.044). and indicated that the SI scale is mostly unidimensional (ω H = 0.923). This suggests that total SI scores can be used as a composite measure but that subscale scores are substantially contaminated by the general SI factor and should not be interpreted as unique. We present the finalized scales, recommendations for their use in animal sciences classrooms, and suggestions for future research.

Aim/Purpose: This article aimed to design and evaluate a pedagogical technique for altering students’ classroom digital multitasking behaviors. The technique we designed and evaluated is called course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE). With this technique, the students wrote a research article based on a multitasking experiment that the instructor conducted with the students. The students conducted a literature review, developed their own research questions, they analyzed experiment data, and presented results. This study evaluated the how the CURE contributed to student multitasking behavior change. Background: Multitasking is defined as doing more than one thing at a time. Multitasking is really the engagement in individual and discrete tasks that are performed in succession. Research showed that students multitasked very often during courses. Researchers indicated that this was a problem especially for online teaching, because when students went online, they tended to multitask. Extant research indicated that digital multitasking in class harmed student performance. Multiple studies suggested that students who multitasked spent more time finishing their tasks and made more mistakes. Regardless of students’ gender or GPA, students who multitasked in class performed worse and got a lower grade than those who did not. However, little is known about how to change students’ digital multitasking behaviors. In this study, we used the transtheoretical model of behavior change to investigate how our pedagogical technique (CURE) changed students’ digital multitasking behaviors. Methodology: Using a course-based undergraduate research experience design, a new classroom intervention was designed and evaluated through a content analysis of pre- and post-intervention student reflections. As part of the course-based undergraduate research experience design, the students conducted a literature review, developed their own research questions, they analyzed experiment data, and presented results. This study evaluated the how teaching using a course-based undergraduate research experience contributed to student multitasking behavior change. Transtheoretical model of behavior change was used to investigate how our pedagogical technique changed students’ digital multitasking behaviors. Contribution: The paper described how teaching using a course-based undergraduate research experience can be used in practice. Further, it demonstrated the utility of this technique in changing student digital multitasking behaviors. This study contributed to constructivist approaches in education. Other unwanted student attitudes and behaviors can be changed using this approach to learning. Findings: As a result of CURE teaching, a majority of students observed the negative aspects of multitasking and intended to change their digital multitasking behaviors. Sixty-one percent of the participants experienced attitude changes, namely increased negative attitude towards multitasking in class. This is important because research found that while both students and instructors believed off-task technology use hinders learning, their views differed significantly, with more instructors than students feeling strongly that students’ use of technology in class is a problem. Moreover, our study showed that with teaching using CURE, it is possible to move the students on the ladder of change as quickly as within one semester (13 weeks). Seventy-one percent of the students reported moving to a higher stage of change post-intervention. Recommendations for Practitioners: Faculty wishing to curb student digital multitasking behaviors may conduct in-class experimentation with multitasking and have their students write a research report on their findings. Course-based undergraduate research experiences may make the effects of digital multitasking more apparent to the students. The students may become more aware of their own multitasking behaviors rather than doing them habitually. This technique is also recommended for those instructors who would like to introduce academic careers as a potential career option to their students. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should explore changing other unwanted undergraduate student behaviors with course-based undergraduate experiences. Researchers may use the transtheoretical model of change to evaluate the effectiveness of techniques used to change behaviors. Impact on Society: The negative outcomes of digital multitasking are not confined to the classroom. Digital multitasking impacts productivity in many domains. If techniques such as those used in this article become more common, changes in multitasking intentions could show broad improvements in productivity across many fields. Future Research: This paper constitutes a pilot study due to the small convenience sample that is used for the study. Future research should replicate this study with larger and randomized samples. Further investigation of the CURE technique can improve its effectiveness or reduce the instructor input while attaining the same behavioral changes.

Introduction One of the challenges for Medical Laboratory Science (MLS) educators in a university-based program can be providing meaningful research experiences for all students. The availability of research positions for undergraduate MLS students in individual research labs is limited or not available, often due to time constraints within the MLS course schedule or other variables in the students’ lives outside of academe. Methods This study introduced a CURE (course-based undergraduate research experience) into a junior-level MLS microbiology course, where all students in the junior cohort participated in the same research agenda during the same semester. The objective was to provide equal access and an equitable experience for each MLS student in the cohort. The research question was determined with input from students and instructors and had application within the microbiology course where it was being infused. The study protocol was designed during class time and most tasks were completed in class as well. From a pedagogical perspective, the CURE model is designed around five basic parameters, including (1) use of multiple scientific practices, (2) the outcome is unknown, (3) there is a broader relevance or importance beyond this classroom experience, (4) collaboration is essential among students and instructors, and (5) iteration is built into the process. Conclusion We found this CURE resulted in useful data for both students and other outside stakeholders. This differs from basic inquiry models where students participate in the protocol, including interpretation of the data, but the answer or outcomes are already known by the instructors. While the learning curve for students and instructors can be steep when infusing a CURE into an already heavy content course, the rewards of providing equal access and an equitable experience for the entire cohort are well worth the additional time spent preparing for this challenge.

Undergraduate research experience is critical to success in post-graduate research settings. The recent movement away from "cookbook" style labs to course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in undergraduate laboratories has allowed universities to provide inclusive research experience while bypassing the limitations of extracurricular apprenticeships. This paper describes an upper-level biochemistry CURE designed to provide students with an introductory experience to graduate-level research by studying a suspected DNA helicase. This CURE is designed to span multiple semesters, where each student cohort builds upon the work of previous semesters. Pre- and post-course surveys were employed to assess student confidence in bench skills, perceptions of the course, and project ownership. The results show that the incorporation of lab meeting-style recitations and poster presentations led to higher project ownership, while overcoming troubleshooting was a significant challenge. Furthermore, confidence in every experimental technique increased significantly in all but one instance. Based on these results, this CURE is providing students with a realistic experience in graduate-level research.