Length of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CURE) impacts student learning and attitudinal outcomes: A study of the Malate dehydrogenase CUREs Community (MCC).

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are laboratory courses that integrate broadly relevant problems, discovery, use of the scientific process, collaboration, and iteration to provide more students with research experiences than is possible in individually mentored faculty laboratories. Members of the national Malate dehydrogenase CUREs Community (MCC) investigated the differences in student impacts between traditional laboratory courses (control), a short module CURE within traditional laboratory courses (mCURE), and CUREs lasting the entire course (cCURE). The sample included approximately 1,500 students taught by 22 faculty at 19 institutions. We investigated course structures for elements of a CURE and student outcomes including student knowledge, student learning, student attitudes, interest in future research, overall experience, future GPA, and retention in STEM. We also disaggregated the data to investigate whether underrepresented minority (URM) outcomes were different from White and Asian students. We found that the less time students spent in the CURE the less the course was reported to contain experiences indicative of a CURE. The cCURE imparted the largest impacts for experimental design, career interests, and plans to conduct future research, while the remaining outcomes were similar between the three conditions. The mCURE student outcomes were similar to control courses for most outcomes measured in this study. However, for experimental design, the mCURE was not significantly different than either the control or cCURE. Comparing URM and White/Asian student outcomes indicated no difference for condition, except for interest in future research. Notably, the URM students in the mCURE condition had significantly higher interest in conducting research in the future than White/Asian students.

Using the science of positive psychology in the formative evaluation of social justice interventions: A case example.

The pursuit of culturally responsive approaches for designing and evaluating programs to promote social justice has become of the utmost importance to the evaluation community in the past decade. A strengths-focused evaluation approach has great promise for empowering individuals, groups, communities, and organizations, and identifying program strengths to build upon in addition to illuminating program deficits. However, there is a dearth of literature on using a strengths approach to evaluate interventions and programs to promote social justice. Drawing from the two disciplines of positive psychology and evaluation, this article illustrates a strengths-focused approach to formative evaluation using a case example of a halfway house for previously incarcerated women. The findings exemplify the positive psychological phenomena that emerge as a result of focusing the evaluation on program strengths. The case demonstrates that the application of a strengths-focused approach to evaluating social justice interventions can be empowering for institutions and the communities they serve.

External Collaboration Results in Student Learning Gains and Positive STEM Attitudes in CUREs.

The implementation of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) has made it possible to expose large undergraduate populations to research experiences. For these research experiences to be authentic, they should reflect the increasingly collaborative nature of research. While some CUREs have expanded, involving multiple schools across the nation, it is still unclear how a structured extramural collaboration between students and faculty from an outside institution affects student outcomes. In this study, we established three cohorts of students: 1) no-CURE, 2) single-institution CURE (CURE), and 3) external collaborative CURE (ec-CURE), and assessed academic and attitudinal outcomes. The ec-CURE differs from a regular CURE in that students work with faculty member from an external institution to refine their hypotheses and discuss their data. The sharing of ideas, data, and materials with an external faculty member allowed students to experience a level of collaboration not typically found in an undergraduate setting. Students in the ec-CURE had the greatest gains in experimental design; self-reported course benefits; scientific skills; and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) importance. Importantly this study occurred in a diverse community of STEM disciplinary faculty from 2- and 4-year institutions, illustrating that exposing students to structured external collaboration is both feasible and beneficial to student learning.