Evaluating the Impact of CURE Course Design Characteristics on Student Interest, Engagement, and Persistence

Yale University, New Haven CT

Investigators

Abstract

With support from the NSF Improving Undergraduate STEM Education Program: Education and Human Resources (IUSE: EHR), this project aims to serve the national interest by examining how students benefit from Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs). Evidence suggests that early, authentic research experiences have a more positive affect than traditional learning contexts on college students' STEM learning, motivation, and academic plans. Unfortunately, opportunities for undergraduate research are available to relatively few students. Although traditional undergraduate laboratory classes can support a large number of students, they do not typically engage students in discovery and iteration, which are characteristics of authentic research. A solution that provides more students with greater access to an "authentic" research experience is the CURE. CUREs combine many of the authentic features of a faculty member's research lab with the larger capacity of a course environment. This scalability and authenticity have led to growth of CURE programs and expansion across colleges and universities. As CURE offerings spread, however, the enthusiasm for them has not been matched by a consistent approach to evaluation or educational theory grounding. Therefore, research is needed to assist instructors in understanding how CUREs work, when CUREs are most effective, and who CUREs benefit. Addressing this gap in the literature will contribute to improving undergraduate STEM education in the United States by providing evidence and tools to improve the quality of research opportunities experienced in course settings. In turn, access to these improved research opportunities can increase the retention of potential STEM majors who are vulnerable to exiting the major early in their academic careers, including those from groups underrepresented in STEM fields. Although assessment of some pre-/post-CURE student outcomes has been conducted, it is not yet documented how students experience and react to various CURE course design features, such as iterative experimentation and dealing with ill-defined, complex tasks. In addition, it remains unknown how students react to CURES over a semester-long experience. Finally, it is not known how the instance and emphasis of different features of CURE courses throughout a semester interact with student interest to increase (or decrease) students' motivation to persist in a course of study. This project will address these gaps in the literature by: 1) Developing a taxonomy of "authentic research" characteristics for systematic classification of CUREs across departments and institutions; 2) Measuring how student interest (based on motivation theory) varies over the course of a given CURE as a result of these course characteristics; and 3) Exploring interactions between course characteristics, student interest, and longer-term STEM persistence and career goals. The project aims to complete these tasks by studying course design and student outcomes in a natural sample of undergraduate CURE courses at three universities: a research-focused private, a research-focused public, and an undergraduate-focused public. Data collection will include a combination of quantitative (syllabus analysis and student interest surveys) and qualitative (student interviews) research methods. The results of this study will expand practitioners' knowledge of course-based approaches to STEM engagement. It will also inform those in the STEM education research community who are interested in studying CUREs with new research questions to explore. The NSF IUSE: EHR Program supports research and development projects to improve the effectiveness of STEM education for all students. Through the Engaged Student Learning track, the program supports the creation, exploration, and implementation of promising practices and tools. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.