Science Bootcamp Goes Virtual: a Compressed, Interdisciplinary Online CURE Promotes Psychosocial Gains in STEM Transfer Students

An online research immersion program to increase introductory science student confidence and science identity

The number of undergraduate students from underrepresented backgrounds enrolled in science and technology-related courses has increased over the past 20 years, but these students' persistence in STEM majors until graduation still lags behind the overall college population. Interventions like exposure to independent research, instruction using active learning, and connection within a scientific community have been shown to increase persistence and the development of science identity, especially for underrepresented minority students (URM), students with high financial need, and first-generation college students. However, exposure to research for introductory students can be expensive or challenging for an institution to provide and for some students to access. We designed Wintersession Research Week as a remotely taught, collaborative introduction to independent research for beginning undergraduate students, prioritizing those traditionally underrepresented in STEM (low income, first generation, and URM students). Because this program utilized graduate students as research mentors, we also provided training and mentoring to develop the next generation of science faculty. We found that the program helped undergraduate student participants to develop a scientific identity and increase confidence in their skills, and that graduate students found the experience valuable for their future teaching. We believe that elements of this program are adaptable to both virtual and in-person settings as an introduction to research, mentorship, and teaching for students and mentors.

Can We Quantify If It's a CURE?

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) rapidly have become more common in biology laboratory courses. The effort to implement CUREs has stimulated attempts to differentiate CUREs from other types of laboratory teaching. The Laboratory Course Assessment Survey (LCAS) was developed to measure students' perceptions of how frequently they participate in activities related to iteration, discovery, broader relevance, and collaboration in their laboratory courses. The LCAS has been proposed as an instrument that can be used to define whether a laboratory course fits the criteria for a CURE or not. However, the threshold LCAS scores needed to define a course as a CURE are unclear. As a result, we examined variation in published LCAS scores among different laboratory course types. In addition, we examined the distribution of LCAS scores for students enrolled in our research-for-credit course. Overall, we found substantial variation in scores among CUREs and broad overlap among course types in scores related to all three scales measured by the LCAS. Furthermore, the mean LCAS scores for all course types fell within the main part of the distribution of scores for our mentored research students. These results suggest that the LCAS cannot be used to easily quantify whether a course is a CURE or not. We propose that the biology education community needs to move beyond trying to quantitatively identify whether a course is a CURE. Instead, we should use tools like the LCAS to investigate what students are actually doing in their laboratory courses and how those activities impact student outcomes.