No abstract

Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (spring 2020), universities quickly moved to remote instruction. Our research during this time frame included investigating course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in General Chemistry, and we found ourselves in the middle of a CURE study without any laboratory component (aka “CURE-disrupted”). While the literature surrounding the importance of CUREs is extensive, based on our literature search, we posit that this is the first report of a study demonstrating student outcomes when given the CURE offering without actually implementing the wet-lab component. Consequently, we asked “is it important for students to execute the entire research project of a CURE or to simply understand scientific reasoning and rationalization of the processes?” Herein, we report student responses as “expert-like” and “non-expert-like” data using the CLASS instrument, and we describe the qualitative results from focus groups for the participating CURE and non-CURE students. Top emergent themes from the CURE participants included: Discovery (29.91%), Understanding by Doing (23.41%), and Research Skills and Techniques (20.36%). Conversely, students in the traditional lab reported top emergent themes mostly surrounding course organization, and top emergent themes included: Required More Structure (14.69%), Research Skills and Techniques (7.3%), and Understanding by Doing (6.11%). These preliminary findings demonstrate the value of a CURE, even while disrupted. While this pandemic allowed for the unique opportunity to evaluate offering a CURE without a wet-lab-based experience, we ultimately suggest that additional studies be completed surrounding this idea, in a more controlled (nonremote) learning environment to corroborate these findings.

No abstract

Plasma metabolite analysis is frequently used to assess the energetic state and energy intake of birds. Plasma β‐hydroxybutyrate (BUTY) is a common metabolite used in these studies, and is correlated with fasting and mass loss. BUTY is typically quantified in laboratory assays that are costly, time‐consuming, and prone to human error. We tested the accuracy and precision of a field‐ready handheld BUTY meter. We compared BUTY concentration values obtained in the laboratory and with the handheld meter in plasma samples from 19 Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum), and assessed precision with repeat analysis of a single sample. The handheld meter reported BUTY concentrations in < 2 min, was highly precise, and as accurate as the laboratory assay method—all ideal for field conditions. Collecting blood samples for laboratory analysis, particularly from remote field sites, involves a series of risks and challenges for permitting or the logistics of storage and shipping, as well as the associated costs. Analyzing samples on site, whether with the unit we tested or other similar handheld meters, makes plasma metabolite analysis practical and possible in field conditions and for taxa where this technique has been underused due to permitting, transport, or other logistical constraints of laboratory analysis methods. The cost of analysis is similar on a per sample basis, but, without the need to store and transport samples, using handheld meters in the field may be cheaper.