Not the same CURE: Student experiences in course-based undergraduate research experiences vary by graduate teaching assistant

Abstract

To expose all undergraduate science students to the benefits of participating in research, many universities are integrating course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) into their introductory biology laboratory curriculum. At large institutions, the bulk of introductory labs are instructed by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Graduate students, who are often teachers and researchers in training, may vary in their capacity to effectively teach undergraduates via the CURE model. To explore variation in GTA teaching and the subsequent outcomes for students, we used a case study research design at one institution where introductory biology students participate in GTA-taught CURE lab sections. We used multiple data sources, including in-class focus groups, worksheets, and surveys to explore student perceptions of the GTA-led CURE. Students perceived variation both in the ability of their GTAs to create a supportive and comfortable learning environment, and in the instructional priorities of their GTAs. We also compared student and GTA perspectives of student engagement with research elements in the CURE. While GTAs were divided in their perceptions of whether the CURE provided students with the opportunity to experience the element of relevant discovery, most students—regardless of their GTA—did not perceive that relevant discovery was emphasized in the CURE. Finally, individual GTAs seemed to influence how students perceived why they were participating in the CURE. These data imply that students in CUREs may have vastly different and potentially inequitable research experiences depending on their instructor.

Graduate teaching assistants impact student motivation and engagement in course‐based undergraduate research experiences

“…We reported that some GTAs may prioritize providing research support over emotional support to students, while others may focus solely on “content delivery”, neglecting mentorship roles in the CURE (Goodwin, Cary, & Shortlidge, 2021). In a second unit of this study, we explored course‐wide patterns between students' experiences and their GTA, demonstrating that GTAs influence student perceptions of the classroom environment, the CURE elements they engage in, and the purpose of the CURE (Goodwin et al, 2022). This current study offers an exploration of how GTAs with the same professional development experiences, and in the same instructional context, still provide different levels of mentorship and support, resulting in varying perceptions and experiences by students in the “same” CURE.…”

“…In SEA‐PHAGES, students experience each of the five CURE elements in that: (1) they engage in multiple Scientific Practices , including learning different scientific techniques (e.g., micropipetting, gel electrophoresis) and skills, such as data analysis and science communication (e.g., writing scientific reports); (2) they Collaborate with other students and instructors throughout the duration of the course; (3) they have opportunities to Iterate several of the experimental steps in order to successfully isolate and characterize their bacteriophages; (4) any bacteriophage they successfully isolate is likely to be Novel and previously undescribed by other scientists, due to the great diversity of bacteriophages; and (5) bacteriophage information is archived in an online database and has the potential to be useful for other scientists ( Broader Relevance ). However, the Broader Relevance of this implementation of the SEA‐PHAGES CURE is limited, as the bacterial host that students work with does not have a known relevance within the scientific community (Goodwin et al, 2022). Furthermore, students in this course are unable to conduct genomic analyses that could feasibly increase the value of a contribution to the online database (Goodwin et al, 2022).…”

“…In one study unit, we conducted interviews with the nine GTAs and found that GTAs differ in their perceptions of the purpose of their role as CURE instructor (Goodwin, Cary, & Shortlidge, 2021). A second study unit draws on multiple data sources to explore the variation of experiences and perceptions for students who are taught by different GTAs in a CURE (Goodwin et al, 2022). The study unit presented in this work is designed to understand how different GTAs create different experiences for their students by exploring variations in student perceptions of their GTA's support in the CURE classroom.…”

“…However, the Broader Relevance of this implementation of the SEA-PHAGES CURE is limited, as the bacterial host that students work with does not have a known relevance within the scientific community (Goodwin et al, 2022). Furthermore, students in this course are unable to conduct genomic analyses that could feasibly increase the value of a contribution to the online database (Goodwin et al, 2022). Students who do not successfully isolate their own bacteriophage after attempting to do so for several weeks are given a sample of a previously isolated "practice" phage and follow the same subsequent experimental steps as the students who successfully find their own novel phage.…”

Beyond performance, competence, and recognition: Forging a science researcher identity in the context of research training

“…In addition, a growing body of research has revealed that research experiences can vary in ways that have the potential to disrupt students’ science identity (Camacho et al, 2021; Goodwin et al, 2022; Limeri et al, 2019; Remich et al, 2016; Rodriguez et al, 2022; Thiry et al, 2012; Tuma et al, 2021). For instance, students vary in the extent to which they are epistemically involved in, or intellectually responsible for, their research (Burgin et al, 2012).…”