A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses within the years 2000 through 2020. The goals of this review were to 1) create a resource of STEM CUREs identified by their discipline, subdiscipline, and level; 2) determine the activities included in each CURE, particularly the primary components listed in the CURE definition as well as specific science practices we identified as key to scientific reasoning; and 3) identify the next steps needed in CURE creation and implementation. Our review found 242 CURE curricula described in 220 total articles, with most described in biology, although STEM disciplines, including chemistry and biochemistry, have begun to publish CURE curricula as well. We also found that most CUREs include the primary components. However, when we look at the specific science practices essential to scientific reasoning, we found that these are less common in many CUREs and are implemented differently. We encourage CURE authors to consider including these science practices and potentially measuring their impact on student outcomes. The present work provides a summary of the current published CUREs, their disciplines, course levels, primary components, and specific science practices.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are laboratory courses that integrate broadly relevant problems, discovery, use of the scientific process, collaboration, and iteration to provide more students with research experiences than is possible in individually mentored faculty laboratories. Members of the national Malate dehydrogenase CUREs Community (MCC) investigated the differences in student impacts between traditional laboratory courses (control), a short module CURE within traditional laboratory courses (mCURE), and CUREs lasting the entire course (cCURE). The sample included approximately 1,500 students taught by 22 faculty at 19 institutions. We investigated course structures for elements of a CURE and student outcomes including student knowledge, student learning, student attitudes, interest in future research, overall experience, future GPA, and retention in STEM. We also disaggregated the data to investigate whether underrepresented minority (URM) outcomes were different from White and Asian students. We found that the less time students spent in the CURE the less the course was reported to contain experiences indicative of a CURE. The cCURE imparted the largest impacts for experimental design, career interests, and plans to conduct future research, while the remaining outcomes were similar between the three conditions. The mCURE student outcomes were similar to control courses for most outcomes measured in this study. However, for experimental design, the mCURE was not significantly different than either the control or cCURE. Comparing URM and White/Asian student outcomes indicated no difference for condition, except for interest in future research. Notably, the URM students in the mCURE condition had significantly higher interest in conducting research in the future than White/Asian students.

Course-based research experiences (CUREs) are shown to be more engaging for college students, lead to better academic performance, and increase students’ intent to persist in science. This especially holds true when compared to lecture-based science courses with standard lab assignments. Less attention has been given, however, to the nuanced week-by-week experiences of students participating in CURE courses over a semester. This study addresses why it is crucial to understand how student interest is sustained throughout the CURE course, despite potential challenges and frustrations. Conducted over a 15-week period, this longitudinal study examines enrolled students (N = 170) who had one of 13 instructors from six institutions. The results indicate that students’ high frustration with participation in CUREs moderates the relationship between perceived challenge and interest. In addition, higher levels of the variable ‘meaning making’ among students have significant associations with week-by-week interest maintenance throughout the semester. Findings suggest that to sustain high levels of student interest over a semester, CURE instructors should focus more on reducing student frustration within CURE course operations. To further support student interest, these findings also suggest that instructors need to foster and emphasize the connections of CURE course content to students’ own lives and personal goals to sustain their interest.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have grown in popularity, particularly within introductory biology courses, to provide more students with authentic research experiences. CUREs have been shown to have many of the same positive effects as conventional research experiences; however, most assessments of CUREs lack an appropriate comparison group to evaluate their effectiveness. Here, we introduced a CURE into an introductory biology lab at a regional public university but maintained a traditional, “cookie-cutter” lab in half the lab sections over a 3-year period. We compared changes in test scores and survey responses, final lab and lecture scores, and D, F, withdrawal, and incomplete (DFWI) and retention rates between non-honors biology students in each group. While both groups showed significant improvement in test scores, only transfer students had significantly greater improvement in the CURE vs traditional lab. Students in both groups showed significant increases in self-confidence in some lab-related tasks, but differences in these changes were generally not significant between groups. There were no significant differences in final lecture score, lab score, DFWI rate, or retention rate. Factors affecting the lack of measured CURE success may include the type of CURE chosen, student career interests, and COVID-19; other positive impacts of the CURE may not have been captured by our measurements. This study demonstrates the importance of carefully choosing a CURE to match the student population, as well as assessing the CURE’s impact against a comparison group.

Course-based research pedagogy involves positioning students as contributors to authentic research projects as part of an engaging educational experience that promotes their learning and persistence in science. To develop a model for assessing and grading students engaged in this type of learning experience, the assessment aims and practices of a community of experienced course-based research instructors were collected and analyzed. This approach defines four aims of course-based research assessment—(1) Assessing Laboratory Work and Scientific Thinking; (2) Evaluating Mastery of Concepts, Quantitative Thinking and Skills; (3) Appraising Forms of Scientific Communication; and (4) Metacognition of Learning—along with a set of practices for each aim. These aims and practices of assessment were then integrated with previously developed models of course-based research instruction to reveal an assessment program in which instructors provide extensive feedback to support productive student engagement in research while grading those aspects of research that are necessary for the student to succeed. Assessment conducted in this way delicately balances the need to facilitate students’ ongoing research with the requirement of a final grade without undercutting the important aims of a CRE education.

Bonnie: So I chose to adopt BASIL because we have a pretty diverse group of students on our campus. We have traditional students coming in at 18. We have a lot of retired military that come in, so veterans, international students, immigrants, and they really go into a wide variety of career options after: some go into industry, some go into sales, some go to graduate programs. And the one thing that we know that every employer, graduate program, whatever it’s going to be, wants them to be able to do, is to learn how to get stuck, which happens in real research, and how to figure out how to get unstuck, how to move forward when you run into a barrier. How do you problem solve and how do you motivate yourself to get through that? And so that’s an experience we really want every student in our program to have.