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.

Fig 1. GTAs varied in their ability to create a positive learning environment.

Student descriptions of their GTA’s competency during focus groups were coded to compare the frequency at which students describe their GTA’s actions as highly competent (“Above and beyond”), meeting expectations (“Baseline”), not meeting expectations (“Insufficient”) or highly incompetent or destructive of the classroom environment (“Help!”). GTAs are ordered from A to J by decreasing proportions of positive (i.e., “Above and beyond” and “Baseline”) codes. More than half of the statements made by students of GTAs A through F represented these positive environment codes, while more than half of the statements made by students G through J represented adverse (“Insufficient” or “Help”) codes.

Fig 2. GTAs emphasized different lab priorities.

(A) The percent of students overall who reported that each item was among the most (blue bar) or least (orange bar) prioritized for their GTA. Students reported that items near the top of the panel (i.e., "Scientific practices"; “Understanding bacteriophage system”) were most prioritized by their GTA, while items near the bottom of the panel (i.e., “Lecture reinforcement”; “Career clarification”) were least prioritized. (B) The percent of each GTA’s students who reported that specific items were most prioritized by their GTA. (C) The percent of each GTA’s students who reported that specific items were least prioritized by their GTA. Letters in (B) and (C) identify the students of individual GTAs, demonstrating that students of different GTAs differed in their perspectives of the importance of each item to their GTAs.

Fig 3. GTAs impact student perceptions of essential CURE constructs, and perceive greater presence of CURE constructs in the curriculum than their students.

Grey bars represent the summed average (± 1 SD) of the three constructs measured in the student LCAS (Collaboration, Iteration, and Broader Relevance/Novel Discovery) for students of each GTA. Students of GTAs A, B, and C perceive significantly higher elements of research in their classes than do students of GTAs G and H. Yellow circles represent the summed average of the three constructs for each GTA’s LCAS score, allowing for comparison of the GTA’s perspective of facilitating Collaboration, Iteration, and Broader Relevance/Novel Discovery to student’s perceptions of experiencing those research elements. Most GTAs perceive similar or slightly higher levels of research elements in their CURE classrooms as their students. However, three GTAs (F, G, and J) perceive notably higher levels of these research elements in their class than their students.

Fig 4. GTAs impact how students perceive the purpose of participating in a CURE.

We coded student reflection questions to identify the proportion of each GTA’s students who believed that the university employed CUREs in introductory biology labs for student-centered purposes or non-student-centered purposes. Letters above bars indicate significant differences in the proportion of a GTA’s students who believe that the CURE has a non-student centered purpose: bars that do not share a common letter indicate a significant difference in perceived purpose for students of the indicated GTA. Most students believed that the CURE served a student-centered purpose; however, students of GTAs C and F more frequently reported that the CURE served a non-student centered purpose.