There have been multiple calls to incorporate the teaching of scientific practices within science laboratory courses over the past decade. To accomplish this goal, changes must be made to the curriculum standards, instructional programs, and assessment-evaluation systems used in laboratory courses. One instructional program that can used in a laboratory course to help students learn scientific practices such as investigation design, collecting and analyzing data, argument generation and critique, and science writing is the argument-driven inquiry (ADI) instructional model. This article describes the development of an end-of-course assessment, the Investigation Design, Explanation, and Argument Assessment for General Chemistry I Laboratory (IDEAA-GC1), that educators can use to measure students' ability to use scientific practices after incorporating the ADI instructional model into the General Chemistry I Laboratory. This new instrument has strong face and content validity as well as consistent instructor grading. The face validity of the instrument was established through iterative revisions of the IDEAA-GC1 based on faculty and student feedback. Content validity was established through the alignment of the IDEAA-GC1 with scientific practices and anchoring concepts as described by the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol and the General Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map.

The Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQ II) was developed to measure aspects of student motivation in college-level science courses. Items on the SMQ II are structured such that the word ‘science’ can be replaced with any discipline title (e.g., chemistry) to produce a discipline-specific measure of student motivation. Since its original development as the Science Motivation Questionnaire and subsequent refinement, the SMQ II and its discipline-specific variants have been used in a number of science education studies. However, many studies have failed to produce acceptable validity evidence for their data based on the proposed internal structure of the instrument. This study investigated if modifications could be made to the SMQ II such that it produces consistent structural evidence across its use in various forms. A modified SMQ II (mSMQ II) was tested with wording variants (‘science’ and ‘biology’ or ‘chemistry’) in general biology and in preparatory and general chemistry courses at several institutions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to cull problematic items and evaluate the structure of the data based on the relations posited by the SMQ II developers. While extensive revisions resulted in acceptable data model fit for the five-factor structural models in most course and wording conditions, significant issues arose for the single-factor scales. Therefore, potential users are cautioned about the utility of the SMQ II or its variants to support the evaluation of classroom practices. A reflective review of the theoretical underpinnings of the SMQ II scales call into question the original framing of the scales and suggests potential alternatives for consideration.

This manuscript describes the implementation of a Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) sequence in chemistry that uses research to link a lower division, organic chemistry course to an upper-division, analytical chemistry course. In the CURE sequence, students created a library of modified sugar molecules during CURE-1, Organic, and then evaluated the behavior of those molecules within membranes during CURE-2, Analytical. In order to ascertain the causal mechanisms underlying the effectiveness and sustainability of CUREs within the standard chemistry curriculum, we conducted research on students in CURE laboratories and Standard Instruction (SI) laboratories. Results from the Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) Survey, the Laboratory Course Assessment Survey (LCAS), and an end-of-course assessment are presented. Equivalency of the CURE and comparison groups was established based on demographic factors, reported gender and minority status, expected major, and grade in the prerequisite course. A direct comparison of this nature revealed the benefits of the CURE sections and equality in assessment performance regardless of the instructional method.

This paper describes the design and implementation of a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) sequence in chemistry that links a lower-division, organic chemistry course to an upper-division, analytical chemistry course. The focus of student research is on blood preservation using trehalose derivatives in order to mimic the tardigrade, a microscopic extremophile, which produces sugar molecules to survive desiccation and freezing. Students created a library of modified sugar molecules in the organic CURE and then evaluated the behavior of those molecules within membranes in the analytical CURE. The CURE sequence has been run with three student cohorts which were selected to match the demographics of all students in the course. This article details the student selection process, the course design, the faculty implementation, and revisions. Fidelity of the CURE is demonstrated with survey results. We also describe adaptation of the research courses to accommodate the COVID-19 restrictions.