A central support system can facilitate implementation and sustainability of a Classroom-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) in Genomics

Abstract

In their 2012 report, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology advocated "replacing standard science laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses"-a challenging proposition that presents practical and pedagogical difficulties. In this paper, we describe our collective experiences working with the Genomics Education Partnership, a nationwide faculty consortium that aims to provide undergraduates with a research experience in genomics through a scheduled course (a classroom-based undergraduate research experience, or CURE). We examine the common barriers encountered in implementing a CURE, program elements of most value to faculty, ways in which a shared core support system can help, and the incentives for and rewards of establishing a CURE on our diverse campuses. While some of the barriers and rewards are specific to a research project utilizing a genomics approach, other lessons learned should be broadly applicable. We find that a central system that supports a shared investigation can mitigate some shortfalls in campus infrastructure (such as time for new curriculum development, availability of IT services) and provides collegial support for change. Our findings should be useful for designing similar supportive programs to facilitate change in the way we teach science for undergraduates.

Figure 1.

Faculty identification of barriers to implementing and sustaining a research-based lab course in genomics. Mean faculty ratings (on the anonymous survey), scoring both the importance (red bar) and the presence on campus (blue bar) of 25 items, at the time when the respondent attempted to implement genomics research lab activities. Respondents rated importance on a scale of 1 (marginally important) to 5 (very important), and rated presence on a scale of 1 (absent) to 5 (present in abundance). Items are sorted top to bottom by importance (red bar). The mean response for presence (blue bar) was superimposed over the red to highlight the difference; if presence exceeds importance, only the blue bar is visible. The difference between importance (red, what is needed) and presence (blue) suggests barriers to implementation. Numerical data are provided in Supplemental Material S8.

Figure 2.

Frequency of the most significant barriers. The results shown are from keyword analysis of responses to the question “What do you perceive as the most significant barrier opposing your efforts to teach genomics by engaging students in research?” Open survey responses; data are presented in Supplemental Material S4.

Figure 3.

Faculty ratings of GEP assistance for starting and sustaining their research-based genomics lab. Faculty rated the importance of GEP resources/activities for starting (blue bars) or maintaining (red bars) their teaching using genomics research, using a scale of 1 (marginally important) to 5 (very important). Data from the anonymous faculty survey; means are shown.

Figure 4.

Importance of a central support system. Keyword analysis of responses to the question “Is a central support system (i.e., a centrally organized research project, shared training curriculum, central IT support) of continuing importance for your teaching genomics?” Open survey responses; data are presented in Supplemental Material S5.

Figure 5.

Faculty incentives. Keyword analysis of responses to the question “What do you perceive as the most significant incentive for sustaining your efforts to teach genomics by engaging students in research?” Open survey responses; data are presented in Supplemental Material S6.

Figure 6.

Faculty ratings of reasons for persistence. Faculty members rated their reasons for continuing as a member of the GEP on a scale of 1 (marginally important) to 5 (very important). Data from the anonymous faculty survey. Means and SDs shown.