Students' Emotions, Perceived Coping, and Outcomes in Response to Research-Based Challenges and Failures in Two Sequential CUREs

Student Perspectives of Success and Failure in Biology Lecture: Multifaceted Definitions and Misalignments

Investigating definitions of success and failure among introductory biology students is essential for understanding what underlies their self-efficacy; a student who gets a B on an exam may lose self-efficacy if they define failure as anything less than an A. Yet, whether students have the same definitions for success as they have for failure in these classes is unknown, nor how those definitions relate to course performance. To better understand student definitions for success and failure and their implications, this mixed-methods study collected survey data from students in two introductory biology courses about their definitions of success and failure and their self-reported grades. Coding of open-ended responses revealed four broad themes related to both success and failure: Performance, Content, Preparation, and Attitude. Although there were common themes in how students defined success and failure overall, individual students often (65%) described success or failure in relation to different standards. We also found some definitions of success and failure were predicted by grades. These results highlight the complexity of building self-efficacy in introductory biology and suggest the need for greater awareness and acknowledgment of the different standards students use to judge their success and failure.

Not the same CURE: Student experiences in course-based undergraduate research experiences vary by graduate teaching assistant

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.