3.2.2 Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs)
In 2008, the AAC&U identified 10 high-impact practices that increase undergraduate student performance for all, but especially for students from underserved groups (Kuh, 2008). Undergraduate research is one of these practices and the goal of the 2008 report was to make excellence inclusive, that is to empower educational goals for all students, not just for some (Kuh, 2008). Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) provide an excellent way to make this high-impact practice available to whole classrooms of students, instead of to just a few. CUREs reduce barriers to student research (e.g., lack of positions, limited access) and help alleviate impact of the “hidden curriculum” (e.g., networking, applying to a lab, having a CV) often present in academia (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Thus, CUREs provide research opportunities for students from various backgrounds and can make the opportunity to do research more equitable. CUREs also address numerous core concepts and competencies detailed in Vision and Change(AAAS, 2011; 2015; 2018) and in the BioSkills Guide (Clemmons et al, 2020). Lastly, CUREs can be done in both introductory and upper level courses by adjusting learning outcomes and scope of the project (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Shortlidge et al, 2016; 2017), making them a good option for multiple different courses, including those in non-majors biology (Ballen et al,. 2017b).
CUREs are designed to engage students through active learning by applying material learned in lecture to research questions that could impact the broader scientific community (Auchincloss et al, 2014; Shortlidge et al, 2016). According to a collective report, CUREs should1 .) engage students in multiple scientific practices (e.g., asking questions, building models, proposing hypotheses, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, etc.), 2. ) contain elements of discovery, that is students should address novel scientific questions and outcomes should not be predetermined, 3. ) make students part of the broad scientific community, either via authorship, dissemination of findings to relevant stakeholders, or other activities, 4. ) involve collaboration and cooperation among students, and 5. ) embrace the iterative nature of science (Auchincloss et al, 2014). More details on the above points and on what makes a CURE different from a traditional lab, an inquiry-based lab, or an internship can be found in the literature (see Auchincloss et al., 2014) and online. CUREnet (https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/) was established in 2012 to support networking among faculty developing, teaching, and assessing CUREs and provides a wealth of information for instructors wanting to incorporate CUREs into their courses. Instructors should also see work by Shortlidge and colleagues (Shortlidge et al, 2016; 2017) for helpful information on challenges and solutions to creating and implementing a CURE. CUREs are typically based on an instructor’s own research program and thus the type and scope of questions changes from semester to semester, so there is no single way to develop a CURE. However, CUREnet has a database of CUREs available for searching, it may be helpful to view other ecology and evolution course CUREs for inspiration (https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/collection.html).
Due to the hands-on nature of scientific research, it may initially seem difficult to successfully implement a biology-based CURE online; however, with a strong focus on key learning outcomes and careful course design, it can be done. By using scientific teaching and backwards design, instructors can distill the critical aspects of their CURE framework and make sure online activities emphasize those points (Cooper et al, 2017). They can then define the research questions and the scope of work appropriate for their course name and student level. For a helpful flowchart on how to organize and structure a CURE, see work by Cooper and colleagues (especially see Figure 1 in Cooper et al, 2017).
One of the major learning outcomes for CUREs is to have students participate in iterative work, and in the process gain problem solving and critical thinking skills (Cooper et al, 2017). CUREs also aim to increase scientific literacy, encourage pro-science attitudes, and build evidence-based, decision-making skills (Cooper et al, 2017). The online format does not allow for students to participate in direct lab experimentation; however, they can still engage in many aspects of a research project that do not require use of equipment or access to research sites. Most CUREs take place during a course lab session, which is usually a period separate from the lecture. With the transition online, the entire time slot allotted for the lab may not be feasible. Therefore, one of the first adjustments to move CUREs to an online format is to tailor the scope of research questions addressed as the course’s main goal to fit in the possibly shortened class session time frame of the online format.
The research questions presented to students should be scaled down to be achievable in the time frame of a semester and with the switch from bench or field work to more computational or data analysis techniques (see Section 3.2.3). In a traditional CURE the research questions presented to students are individualized and involve numerous lab techniques, the questions in an online format must be adjusted due to inability to physically access the lab. The research question(s) should be small in scope and engage students, but also be achievable in the realm of a semester (Auchincloss et al 2014). It is not necessary for students to tackle a large research project and it is incredibly difficult due to the semester time limit (Cooper et al, 2017). It is appropriate in CUREs for students to work in small groups and address specific aspects of the same research question. The small project size does not affect student’s ability to achieve the course learning objectives. Use of an online video conferencing tool and synchronous meetings are necessary to aid the collaborative nature of research. As to not overwhelm students, each class or CURE lab session should only focus on only a few of the course’s learning objectives at a time while simultaneously meeting the broader CURE learning objectives mentioned above. Therefore, meetings can be categorized into three types:1. ) student-led primary literature readings (also known as “journal clubs”) to increase scientific literacy, 2. ) videos or live demonstrations of experimental techniques/field work and 3. ) analysis of primary data collected by the instructor or other researchers in the field to build evidence-based decision making skills. All three of these class session types provide an opportunity to encourage pro-science attitudes.
The first type of class session, primary literature readings, requires students to choose research articles that provide background information for their individual research question. Project options should be provided at the start of the semester to give students ample time to decide on their direction. Faculty members should provide students with a small list of research question options and act as guides as they progress. This way students are entering the course interested in the project, but able to have a sense of supervision. Students present important findings from research papers that directly relate to their research question. This will provide background and significance for their specific project. Allowing students agency over articles and research avenues is in-line with UDL and can help increase motivation. It is recommended that the instructor organize the first class session to provide an example of organization and scope of each presentation.
The second type of meeting, live demonstrations of experimental techniques /field work, requires the use of external devices such as document camera, video camera, or handheld microscope. The use of technology in a CURE is even greater than a traditional lab as CUREs emphasize the experience, use, and application of laboratory techniques (Auchincloss et al, 2014; Shortlidge et al, 2016). Use of the technology is even more accentuated in an online format. Incorporating external technology provides the opportunity to bring students closer to the experimental details. It is recommended if you are videoing a complicated fieldwork protocol to employ a second person for filming. The advantage of creating content live or during a synchronous session is it can be recorded and most, but not all, video conferencing programs will provide a transcript of recorded sessions keeping the course accessible and inclusive. This will aid if any students can not attend the live session or have hearing difficulties. Also it allows students to ask the instructor questions during the demonstration and provides instructors the opportunity to engage in discussion with students and make adjustments of technique explanations if needed, thereby keeping the session more collaborative. The instructor can incorporate techniques incrementally through the semester starting simple and building on the techniques making it an iterative process. If it is not possible to create content de novo, using other researchers’ videos is perfectly acceptable and continues to fulfill the objectives of the course. If utilizing videos made by other researchers try to choose videos that are concise, shorter in length, only cover the techniques directly related to the project and provide captions or a transcript (for helpful tips for using videos in classes, see Prud’homme-Genereux et al, 2019).
The third type of class session, data analysis, allows students to gain critical thinking skills and apply their knowledge from previous meetings. Students can gain practical knowledge of how data is compiled, interpreted, and evaluated by professional researchers. Giving students the time to explain results and create figures contributes to their overall understanding of research and improves their skills as scientists. Continued formative assessment throughout the CURE is recommended to gauge student comprehension of specific learning objectives. With application of the aforementioned techniques students can remain a powerful tool to expose students to research and address core competencies in evolution and ecology. Once students have analyzed data and drawn conclusions about their dataset and research question, they can prepare that material for broader dissemination. Instructors may encourage students to prepare manuscripts for submission to traditional peer-reviewed journals, or to places like Science Matters Journal, BMC Research Notes, Micropublication.org, or the Journal for Young Investigators. However, dissemination can be accomplished in a variety of different ways and will depend on the course, scope, and project
Non-laboratory-based student research can also be used to increase inclusion in the current classroom and the future curriculum. For example, Favero and Van Hoomissen created a new course in which anatomy & physiology students were tasked with the creation of culturally relevant examples in human biology (Favero and Van Hoomissen, 2019). To do this, students had to locate, organize, read, and synthesize literature. They also had to apply that knowledge to create new content. The ultimate goal was to create diverse and inclusive teaching material for future courses, but the experience provided much more than the original goal, for students and instructors. This application of student-led research engaged and motivated students and met several of the core competencies listed in Vision and Change and in the BioSkills Guide. Instructors can use assignments like these to continually interrogate racist, sexist, heteronormative, Eurocentric information presented in many textbooks and to diversify their curriculum and syllabus. This type of course-based research could easily be incorporated into an online ecology or evolution course and diversification of the curriculum in these fields is urgently needed.