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.