Table 1.
Course outline.
Table 2.
Learning goals, objectives, and aligned activities.
Fig 1.
Examples of student-generated data.
Climbing ability was tested in knockdown flies (green bars), as well as positive (PLA2G6 null mutant, gray bars) and negative control flies (isogenic wild-type, black bars) at young age (≤ 10 days) and older age (> 20 days). PLA2G6 mutant flies displayed severe climbing defects after 20 days of age. Knockdown in cholinergic neurons (A, ChAT-GAL4) but not dopaminergic neurons (B, ple-GAL4) resulted in reduced climbing in flies aged past 29 days. Averaged climbing indices are shown. Error bars are standard deviation. Lower numbers on the bars indicate the number of groups averaged; upper numbers indicate total number of flies assayed per condition. Statistical analysis by unpaired t-tests, as compared to negative controls. *p<0.01, ***p<0.0001.
Fig 2.
Students report high levels of prior experience with traditional, non-active course elements on the CURE pre-course survey.
Students were asked to rate level of prior experience in 25 different course elements as none (1), little (2), some (3), much (4), extensive (5). Selected traditional, non-active course elements are shown in (A) and active course elements in (B). Mean response with standard error (n = 13) is shown in light blue, with the national mean from the CURE benchmark data shown in gray. One-sample t-tests were performed to compare national mean (as population mean) to our students’ responses. *p<0.01.
Fig 3.
Student CURE survey responses show high gains in learning goals of thinking, communicating, and performing like a scientist.
Students were asked to rate the amount of “benefits” gained in the post-course survey only as no/very little (1), small (2), moderate (3), large (4), and very large (5). Students were also asked to rate level of prior experience in 25 different “course elements” on the pre-course CURE survey and level of gained experience on the post-course survey as none (1), little (2), some (3), much (4), extensive (5). Selected benefits gained and course element experience/expertise relevant to learning how to “think” (A), “communicate” (B, D), and “perform” (C, E) like scientists are displayed (mean with standard error, n = 13 for course elements, n = 14 for benefits).
Fig 4.
Students report broader benefits to career goals on CURE survey.
Students were asked to report career goals pre-course (A, n = 13), and any change in career goals as a result of the CURE in the post-course survey (B, n = 14). Students were asked to rate the amount of “benefits” gained in the post-course survey only as no/very little (1), small (2), moderate (3), large (4), and very large (5). Selected benefits representative of broader benefits to career goals are shown in (C, mean, standard error, n = 14). (D) Positive and negative science attitudes were assessed (see Methods) in the pre- (light blue) and post- (blue) course survey (black bars represent mean ± standard error, n = 13). National benchmark mean is shown as a single data point (gray) and one-sample t-tests using national mean as population mean show statistical significance: *p<0.01. No significant differences were found between pre- and post-course science attitudes.
Fig 5.
Student written reports from the CURE lab display high achievement of learning goals.
(A) Written lab reports from the 2018 CURE lab (blue, n = 14) and prior year non-CURE lab (“2017 inquiry-based,” gray, n = 24) were scored according to our rubric (see Methods) in five different areas: communicate, think, and perform like a scientist learning goals, conceptual understanding of biological principles relevant to the lab experiments, and conceptual understanding of scientific methods principles. Each score is reported as a percentage of the total possible points in that category. Bars are medians and interquartile ranges, statistical analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s correction for multiple comparisons. ****p<0.0001, ***p<0.001, *p<0.05. (B) Lab reports from the 2018 CURE scored higher in rubric elements relevant to the scientific method (section 10). Blue bars represent percentage of 2018 lab reports that earned 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2 points on each rubric element (scores of 0.5 and 1.5 resulted from averaging the two independent graders’ scores). Gray bars represent 2017 lab reports.
Table 3.
Examples of graded rubric elements from lab reports.
Table 4.
Student narrative responses.