RESUMEN
Researchers who work on course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and issues related to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) retention have begun exploring changes in student thinking about what it means to be a scientist. To support this effort, we developed rubrics to score answers to three open-response prompts: What does it mean to think like a scientist? What does it mean to do science? and Did you do real research in your coursename labs? The rubric development process was iterative and was based on input from the literature, experienced researchers, and early-career undergraduates. A post hoc analysis showed that the rubric elements map to 27 of 31 statements in the Culture of Scientific Research (CSR) framework, suggesting that scored responses to the three prompts can assess how well students understand what being a science professional entails. Scores on responses from over 400 students who were starting an introductory biology course for majors furnish baseline data from the rubrics and suggest that (i) undergraduates at this level have, as expected, a novice-level understanding of CSR, and (ii) level of understanding in novice students does not vary as a function of demography or academic preparation. Researchers and instructors are encouraged to add CSR to their list of learning objectives for CUREs and consider assessing it using the rubrics provided here.
RESUMEN
We developed labs on the evolution of antibiotic resistance to assess the costs and benefits of replacing traditional laboratory exercises in an introductory biology course for majors with a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE). To assess whether participating in the CURE imposed a cost in terms of exam performance, we implemented a quasi-experiment in which four lab sections in the same term of the same course did the CURE labs, while all other students did traditional labs. To assess whether participating in the CURE impacted other aspects of student learning, we implemented a second quasi-experiment in which all students either did traditional labs over a two-quarter sequence or did CURE labs over a two-quarter sequence. Data from the first experiment showed minimal impact on CURE students' exam scores, while data from the second experiment showed that CURE students demonstrated a better understanding of the culture of scientific research and a more expert-like understanding of evolution by natural selection. We did not find disproportionate costs or benefits for CURE students from groups that are minoritized in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
