How to Assess Your CURE: A Practical Guide for Instructors of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences

Abstract

Integrating research experiences into undergraduate life sciences curricula in the form of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) can meet national calls for education reform by giving students the chance to “do science.” In this article, we provide a step-by-step practical guide to help instructors assess their CUREs using best practices in assessment. We recommend that instructors first identify their anticipated CURE learning outcomes, then work to identify an assessment instrument that aligns to those learning outcomes and critically evaluate the results from their course assessment. To aid instructors in becoming aware of what instruments have been developed, we have also synthesized a table of “off-the-shelf” assessment instruments that instructors could use to assess their own CUREs. However, we acknowledge that each CURE is unique and instructors may expect specific learning outcomes that cannot be assessed using existing assessment instruments, so we recommend that instructors consider developing their own assessments that are tightly aligned to the context of their CURE.

Implementing and Evaluating a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) at a Hispanic-Serving Institution

“…CUREs are laboratory-based courses in which students engage in authentic ("real") research (Auchincloss et al, 2014;Bangera & Brownell, 2014;Jordan et al, 2014;Shortlidge & Brownell, 2016). CUREs are characterized by five critical factors (Auchincloss et al, 2014).…”

“…Does this mean that our CURE is primarily confirmatory (e.g., Lopatto, 2007;Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & Deantoni, 2004;Thiry, Laursen, & Hunter, 2011) with respect to STEM persistence for these more advanced students, or is it having a transformative impact (e.g., Villarejo et al, 2008)? Finally, as is the case for the field in general, we would also like to better understand what aspects of our CURE are contributing to our measures and predictors of persistence, so we can ensure these aspects are maintained across all iterations of our CURE (Auchincloss et al, 2014;Corwin et al, 2015;Shortlidge & Brownell, 2016). For example, a recent study found that project ownership mediated the positive impacts of CURE design elements of discovery, iteration, and collaboration on scientific career intentions (Corwin et al, 2018).…”

“…There are many open research questions about CUREs, particularly how specific aspects of CURE design contribute to specific outcomes (Auchincloss et al, 2014;Corwin et al, 2015;Shortlidge & Brownell, 2016). While many reports of CUREs have noted a variety of positive outcomes (see Corwin et al, 2015 for a review of CURE outcomes), it is still not known if all outcomes are achieved consistently across all CUREs, or whether outcomes vary based on student-specific factors (e.g., academic level, racial/ethnic background), characteristics of the institution, or aspects of the CURE itself (Corwin et al, 2015;Dolan, 2016).…”

BioSkills Guide: Development and National Validation of a Tool for Interpreting the Vision and Change Core Competencies

“…Assessment is an essential part of evidence-based curriculum review. For some competencies, such as Process of Science, a number of high-quality assessments have been developed (for example, Dasgupta, Anderson, & Pelaez, 2014;Deane, Nomme, Jeffery, Pollock, & Birol, 2016;Gormally et al, 2012;Sirum & Humburg, 2011;Timmerman et al, 2011); for a general discussion of CURE assessment see (Shortlidge & Brownell, 2016)). However, substantial gaps remain in the availability of assessments for most other competencies.…”

Bringing immersive science to undergraduate laboratory courses using CRISPR gene knockouts in frogs and butterflies

“…Finally, a major challenge in refining our courses is identifying and implementing appropriate assessments that often go well beyond the generic university questionnaires typically given at the end of a course. Many CURE assessment tools have been developed that test personal gains in confidence, cognitive skills or understanding of the scientific process (Shortlidge and Brownell, 2016). Instructors should ideally choose assessment tools that have been validated in a similar test population (e.g.…”