Table 1.
Demographic information for the students in CURE sections, the propensity-score matched students in traditional sections, UNCG undergraduate biology majors overall, and UNCG undergraduates overall from the 2017–18 academic year.
Table 2.
Comparison of research elements in the traditional and CURE course designs.
Fig 1.
Lab report scores in the CURE sections.
Most students in CURE sections scored high on criteria for experimental design, graphing, statistical analysis, and evidence-based conclusions on the lab report. A. Percentage of lab reports by the combined total score on all 16 criteria. B. Percentage of lab reports scoring as meeting each of 16 criteria. Fall 2017, n = 42 CURE. Spring 2018, n = 40 CURE. “Combined” group represents combined data from Fall 2017 and Spring 2018, n = 82 CURE.
Fig 2.
Lab exam scores in the CURE sections.
Many students in CURE sections scored high on criteria for experimental design, use of model organisms, and understanding of statistical concepts. Figure represents the percentage of lab reports by the combined total score on 15 questions for 19 total points. Fall 2017, n = 42 CURE. Spring 2018, n = 39 CURE. “Combined” group represents combined data from Fall 2017 and Spring 2018, n = 81 CURE.
Fig 3.
Scientific mindsets on the CLASS-Bio instrument in the CURE and traditional sections.
Students in the CURE sections showed more expert-like Pre-to-Post shifts in scientific mindsets compared to students in traditional sections, who mostly experienced shifts toward novice-like mindsets. A. Pre-to-Post shifts in the combined Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 semester; n = 83 CURE, n = 83 Traditional. B. Pre-to-Post shifts in Fall 2017, n = 43 CURE, n = 43 Traditional. C. Pre-to-Post shifts in Spring 2018, n = 40 CURE, n = 40 Traditional.
Table 3.
Student confidence in research skills in the CURE and traditional sections.
Fig 4.
End-of-semester written reflections in the CURE and traditional sections.
Open-themed coding of student answers to five prompts revealed different themes in the answers of students in CURE sections compared to students in traditional sections. Fall 2017, n = 43 CURE, n = 43 Traditional. Spring 2018, n = 40 CURE, n = 40 Traditional. “Combined” group represents combined data from Fall 2017 and Spring 2018. n = 83 CURE, n = 83 Traditional. Color intensity is proportional to the percentage of students in each group selecting each response, as shown in each cell.
Fig 5.
Statistical reasoning ability on the SRBCI instrument in the CURE and traditional curriculum groups.
Students in the CURE sections had statistically significant Pre-to-Post improvements in SRBCI scores, but not matched students in the traditional group. SRBCI is a 12-point test. A. Average scores on the SRBCI by group and semester. B. Frequencies of individual Pre-to-Post learning gains by group for the combined semesters. Fall 2017, n = 43 CURE, n = 43 Traditional. Spring 2018, n = 40 CURE, n = 40 Traditional. “Combined” group represents combined data from Fall 2017 and Spring 2018. n = 83 CURE, n = 83 Traditional. The error bars represent the standard error.
Fig 6.
Experimental design ability on the E-EDAT instrument in the CURE and traditional curriculum groups.
Students in the CURE sections had statistically significant Pre-to-Post improvements in E-EDAT scores, but not matched students in the traditional sections. E-EDAT is scored on a 17-point rubric. Fall 2017, n = 43 CURE, n = 41 Traditional. Spring 2018, n = 40 CURE, n = 39 Traditional. “Combined” group represents combined data from Fall 2017 and Spring 2018. n = 83 CURE, n = 80 Traditional. The error bars represent the standard error.