A Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) using Ocean Plastic Microbes as a Framework that Is Impactful for Both In-Person and Online Course Modalities

Barral, Ana Maria; Simmons, Rachel E.; Boman-Davis, Marie; DeForce, Emelia; Bowman, Jeff S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1295987

Education Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Discussion Data Availability Additional Points Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 1295987 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1295987

A Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) using Ocean Plastic Microbes as a Framework that Is Impactful for Both In-Person and Online Course Modalities

Ana Maria Barral,¹Rachel E. Simmons,¹Marie Boman-Davis,²Emelia DeForce,³and Jeff S. Bowman³

Academic Editor: Enrique Palou

Received23 Jan 2023

Revised11 Mar 2023

Accepted16 Mar 2023

Published22 Apr 2023

Abstract

A course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) is described, both in its original, field-based and in-person design, as well as its adaptation to online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CURE experience was centered around the topic of microbes attaching to ocean plastic debris, and included connecting nontraditional undergraduate students attending a primarily teaching institution to personnel of a research-intensive institution. The CURE was implemented in nonmajors and majors’ general biology laboratory courses, as well as in an introductory microbiology lab course for health majors. Student perception of the CURE was assessed quantitatively through self-administered retrospective surveys, and qualitatively using open-ended survey questions and focus group interviews. Survey questions were grouped into four themes: (1) research at the research institution, (2) research at the teaching institution, (3) laboratory skills, and (4) interest in science. To assess impact of the CURE by modality, major and course level, theme scores were analyzed using ANOVAs (α = 0.05). Changes in student perception of learning were measured by comparing the “before” and “after” survey scores in each theme. The main source of variation in the model was time, followed by theme and major, while modality had a negligible effect. Overall, there were increases in student perception of learning across all themes across modality, major, and course level; however, not all were statistically significant. Highest gains were observed among nonmajors, while those of the majors’ upper division courses were the lowest. On the other hand, majors’ overall scores were the highest. Health majors’ survey gains were mostly between those of nonmajors and majors. Qualitative data contextualized the quantitative results. The online adaptation was a valuable alternative, especially for nonmajors, as it expanded the range of students reached, with results similar to the in-person alternative. Preliminary data show a positive effect of the CURE in student success majoring in biology.

1. Introduction

Low graduation rates and underrepresentation of minorities in STEM disciplines have been widely discussed in the last decades. In 2012, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a group of distinguished scientists and engineers who provide advice to the President of the United States on science and technology matters, released a groundbreaking report that drew attention to the concerningly low graduation rate in STEM fields and emphasized the importance of enhancing STEM education at all levels [1]. Attrition of students from STEM careers can be attributed to multiple factors during students’ educational journey [2], and minority students often feel a lack of belonging in academia [3]. Increased awareness of these issues has brought a surge of education research focused on improving STEM education, through the implementation and assessment of interventions that can promote student success, such as the AAU STEM Initiative [4], focus on diversity and inclusive teaching [5, 6], mentoring [7, 8], and among others. In a recent article in Science Magazine, Dr. Jo Handelsman, a prominent researcher in the field of science education pointed at the slow pace of change in supporting students from historically excluded communities, who are “discouraged and often alienated by the climate and teaching methods commonly found in STEM classrooms” [9].

STEM educators face the challenging task of rethinking their teaching approaches to promote diversity while ensuring that students persist and succeed in their disciplines [10]. As students bring their unique background and experiences to the classroom, the onus is on the instructors to address “how to select the right tools for the job, how to use the tools, and what latitude there is for using a range of tools” [11].

1.1. Undergraduate Research Experiences

Access to authentic research experiences is considered an evidence-based high-impact educational practice [12] and proven to sustain student interest and boost retention in the sciences for all students [13]. Undergraduate research experiences may be particularly important for racial/ethnic minority students, who are underrepresented in higher education at the undergraduate level, in graduate school enrollment, and in terms of degree completion [14, 15]. Multiple barriers exist to involve students in research projects, particularly in community colleges and primarily teaching institutions [16, 17], making a strong case for “replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses” [1, 18].

1.2. Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE)

CUREs are considered an effective approach to increase student interest and engagement in STEM disciplines and broaden participation by specifically benefitting underrepresented student populations [19–22]. CUREs usually contribute knowledge to a research question by having students collect and analyze data within the framework of courses. The research project can be set up as an individual course, or as modules within courses. Successful CURE frameworks include The Genomic Education Partnership [23], SEA-PHAGES [24], and Tiny Earth [25, 26]. Of particular interest in the case of using CUREs to engage historically underrepresented (HU) students in STEM is the well-documented fact that HU undergraduates in all disciplines tend to express altruistic work goals, such as jobs that offer the chance to help others [27]. Designing learning experiences that align with HU students’ equity ethics through projects that can benefit both global and local communities is a promising approach to diversify STEM education [3].

Success of CUREs can be assessed in multiple ways, from institutional indicators such as persistence in and graduation from STEM programs, to more short-term measures such as surveys and qualitative data stemming from interviews or focus groups [28, 29].

1.3. Ocean Plastic CURE

This paper describes the implementation of a CURE at a private nonprofit Hispanic and Asian American Native American Pacific Islander-Serving university with a nontraditional student population and an accelerated academic schedule, in collaboration with a research-intensive institution. The CURE is based on the relevant topic of ocean plastic pollution, specifically early colonization of floating plastic types [30–33]. The hypothesis of the CURE was that a topic with both global and local significance would be impactful for students, increasing their perception of knowledge regarding plastic pollution research at the participating institutions, scientific skills, as well as their appreciation of science. In turn, this could result in increased retention in STEM programs and/or increased enrollment by nonmajors in STEM programs.

Started in 2018 as a fully in-person experience including a field trip to the research institution, the CURE was adapted to an online alternative due to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. Pivoting to online courses was a global solution to the need for isolation and social distancing, which was particularly difficult for courses with hands-on components, such as laboratory and field trip courses [34–37].

Results showed that the CURE, both in-person and online, significantly increased student perception of knowledge in the science and research topics surveyed, as well as their appreciation of science. In addition, the online adaptation of the CURE resulted in a threefold increase of the number of students reached. Different gains were observed depending on major and courses, and qualitative data provided additional insights on the impact of the CURE.

2. Methods

2.1. Human Subjects Protocol

This project was exempted by the National University (NU) Institutional Review Board (IRB), document number IRB-FY17-18-527.

2.2. Description of the CURE

The CURE is centered around microbial populations attaching to floating plastic in coastal waters [38–41] and consists of content modules of variable complexity implemented in a number of laboratory courses. These ranged from nonmajors’ general biology laboratory course to upper division majors’ laboratory courses. CURE dimensions [20] and the associated activities and their delivery method are shown in Figure 1. Short-term outcomes of the CURE included increased student engagement and appreciation of science, while long-term outcomes targeted increased enrollment and retention in the BS Biology program.

In summary, sterilized pieces of floating plastic (“samples”)—high density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, and polypropylene (PP)—were pretreated using 70% ethanol washes and UV irradiation and deployed ∼5 m under the water surface near the Ellen Browning Scripps Memorial pier by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO), San Diego, CA. Deployment times were at least 30 days. Results from student work have been published elsewhere [40, 41]. Plastic samples were collected and processed by students, which included swabbing and inoculating Marine Agar 2216 (Fisher Scientific) and ChromAgar Vibrio™ (ChromAgar, Paris, France) media. Student laboratory activities included observation of colonies and Gram staining (general biology), as well as isolation of DNA from the plastic, 16S metabarcoding, and Blast analysis to identify colonies (microbiology and molecular biology). All samples were processed in a BSL-2 level laboratory setting, following the ASM guidelines for Biosafety in Teaching Laboratories.

2.3. Student Activities during the CURE

For background information, students in all courses were required to watch the documentary “Into the Gyre” [42]. Laboratory activities were dependent on the type of course. An essential element in all courses was a field trip to the SIO, where students participated in deploying and/or collecting the plastic samples. Direct interactions with researchers were an important element of the CURE, achieved informally during the field trip, and in a more structured setting as a Question and Answer (Q&A) session afterward.

2.4. Courses

The CURE was implemented in a variety of in-person laboratory courses for which the CURE content was relevant. These courses were taught in an accelerated format of either 4 weeks or 8 weeks (if taught concurrently with lecture). In this setting, students do not take any other courses during this time. Each course consists of 45 hr of in-class time (corresponding to 10 sessions of 4.5 hr, twice a week in addition to two Saturdays). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, the CURE offerings were expanded to online sections of General Biology Lab courses (both nonmajors and majors). The CURE was additionally implemented in introductory microbiology courses (both online and in-person modalities).

BIO100A (nonmajors general biology laboratory) is a General Education (GE) course taken by nonscience majors. The course is offered in-person and online, both modalities including hands-on experimentation (in the laboratory or using household items, respectively). In this paper, BIO100A students will be referred as “nonmajors.”

BIO169A (lower division majors general biology laboratory) is also a GE course but directed to biology majors and offered regularly in-person only. Content is focused on basic laboratory skills. One section was taught online during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.

BIO407A (molecular biology laboratory) is an upper division in-person course taught concurrently with its lecture counterpart over 8 weeks.

In this paper, students from BIO169A and BIO407A courses will be referred to as “majors.”

Both BIO193A and BIO203A are introductory microbiology lab courses taught concurrently with their lecture counterpart over 8 weeks. BIO203A is an in-person course, and its content is in accordance with the ASM Microbiology in Nursing and Allied Health (MINAH) curriculum guidelines (https://asm.org/Guideline/ASM-Microbiology-in-Nursing-and-Allied-Health-MIN). BIO193A is an online asynchronous course developed for certain programs that do not require hands-on laboratory experiences. Its content is in accordance with most of the MINAH curriculum guidelines and includes virtual simulations and other online activities.

In this paper, BIO193A and BIO203A students will be referred to as “health majors.”

Courses were taught by both the authors (A.M.B. and R.E.S.) and by other faculty (see Acknowledgments). Materials for instruction were provided in advance by the authors to guarantee uniformity. Authors (A.M.B., R.E.S., and J.S.B) coordinated and participated in crucial activities such as the field trip experience and Q&A session.

2.5. Online Adaptation

The CURE was implemented for in-person courses between December 2018 and February 2020. The activities included both the field trip and hands-on laboratory experiments. Starting March 2020, all in-person courses migrated online and field trip activities were halted. CURE activities were resumed in a virtual setting in November 2020. In July–August 2021, selected course sections returned to an in-person setting, and students completed lab experiments on plastic samples collected by the instructor. In parallel, other online sections participated virtually. Students watched video recordings of sample deployment and collection, as well as recordings of laboratory activities related to the project (inoculation of samples, observation of colonies, Gram staining, DNA extraction, PCR, gel electrophoresis). The Q&A panel was organized online using Zoom. Students from all participating courses and sections were invited, and after a general session students could choose breakout rooms for small-group discussions based on specific topics of interest. Table 1 shows the changes to the CURE to allow for online delivery.

2.6. Assessment of the CURE: Surveys

Student perception of learning was assessed through self-administered retrospective surveys that included standard multiple choice/selection questions, as well as open-ended text response questions. Surveys were deployed after the field experience (in a time-frame within 72 hr after the Q&A panel). The retrospective questions required the students to provide a response after the event (i.e., “after”) and then to reflect back (i.e., “before”) to their status (e.g., level of knowledge) prior to the event [43]. Students were asked to rate their knowledge, competence, or interest in questions focused on four themes: (1) research at SIO (SIO), (2) research at NU (Research), (3) laboratory skills (Skills), and (4) interest in science (Interest) (Table 2). The data collected from the surveys were delivered to Steuck & Associates (grant external evaluator), who de-identified and completed preliminary analyses.

2.7. Assessment of the CURE: Qualitative Data

Starting program year 2 (2018), the student survey included two 3-part questions and asked the students to write 1–2 sentences for each part. The purpose of the questions was to understand how the NU CURE program impacted student’s personal and professional interests in the areas of biology, research, and ocean plastics. These questions are as follows:(i)What worked? Describe up to three things that you liked and/or worked well in this course.(ii)We are planning similar research experiences for other Biology courses. What are your recommendations?

Three sets of focus group interviews were carried out via Zoom between fall 2020 and summer 2021 by the external evaluation team (n = 25). Most students (n = 21) were from the nonmajors’ group, together with one major and three health majors. These interviews focused mostly on the online experience in order to assess the fidelity of implementation of the CURE. Additional questions were asked to assess career interest and process improvement. Online focus group questions (Steuck & Associates, unpublished reports) included: “Tell us about the online experience. What kinds of activities did you participate in for the SIO ocean plastic research virtual experience? Would you have been more or less likely to attend if the experience was in-person? Do you feel like you would have the same benefits if the field trip was in-person instead of virtual? In what ways?” Career and interest focus group questions (Steuck & Associates, unpublished reports) included: Has your experience in this project changed your awareness of professional careers related to biology? How can your knowledge of biology support your future career decisions and goals? “Was there even a flicker of a moment when you thought about doing ocean plastics research?” Process improvement focus group questions (S&A, unpublished reports) included: “What worked well?” and “What can be improved?”

2.8. Statistical Analyses and Graphing

A χ² test was used to evaluate the demographic similarities between the total population and that of the survey responders. Only subpopulations with at least five participants were included. A Student t-test was used to compare the before and after scores of the 15 survey questions.

For some analyses, scores were binned according to the four themes of the survey: knowledge about SIO research, knowledge about research at NU, laboratory skills, and appreciation of science. Because datasets contained both paired responses (before and after survey scores of the same student) and grouping (modality, major, course) data, repeated measures ANOVA models () were used to simultaneously test for effects over time and effects from other variables. For these analyses and visualizations, JMP (SAS, Cary, NC) and Prism 9 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA) softwares were used.

Figure 1 was created with Biorender (biorender.com, agreement KU255LCD98).

3. Findings

3.1. CURE Participation and Demographics

Between November 2018 and August 2021, a total of 442 students participated in the CURE as assessed by roster data. From those, 232 survey responses were collected (52.5% response rate).

Table 3 shows the demographic characteristics of the total student population as well as the survey responders. Student demographics were diverse, with Hispanics constituting the second-highest group. As it is typical for the university, military students constituted the majority (over 60%) of the student population and the average age was 31.

A χ² test did not reveal significant differences between the total and the survey-responder populations regarding gender, ethnicity, or military status (, data not shown). Therefore, the survey responder population can be considered representative of the total population.

Of the 232 survey responses received, 187 were considered valid (42.3% response rate). The invalidated responses were either sent by students who did not attend the course, dropped, did not complete required questions, or did not participate in the CURE activities.

Table 4 shows the number of total students and survey responders according to the course, major, and their modality. Overall, 320 students (72%) participated in the online CURE, versus 122 in-person (28%).

3.2. Students Rate Their Experience Higher After the CURE

Over the 3 years of the CURE experience, students had consistently rated their “after” CURE experience higher than the “before” experience in the 15 survey questions (Figure 2(a)). A paired t-test of the scores of all questions before and after for all students showed a significant difference (, t = 20, df = 14).

(a)

(b)

The complexity of the data, due to planned (major, course, themes) and unplanned (modality) factors influencing the results required multiple analyses. Figure 2(b) shows the survey scores gains (“after” minus “before” response scores) binned by the four themes, averaged, and separated by modality (in-person and online) and major (majors, health majors, and nonmajors). To explore the different factors contributing to the gain, the binned scores were compared using a repeated measures ANOVA (Table 5). Before and after survey scores were binned according to four themes and averaged. Of all the individual factors analyzed, the most significant was time (before vs. after), responsible for 35% of all variation (partial η² 0.354), followed by theme and major, while modality had a negligible value (less than 1%). Significant interactions were also observed between all factors. In addition, item reliability (Cronbach’s α) was 0.8786 for the whole set of variables.

The analysis with the binned scores showed that overall, “after” scores were higher than “before” scores, and “before” scores for online students were lower than those for in-person, but the “after” scores were not different, resulting in higher gains for online students. Pairwise comparisons by themes within majors showed highest gains for nonmajors, where the “after” scores for all themes were significantly higher than the “before” scores ( for all themes). Health majors had significantly higher “after” scores in Research (), Skills (), and Interest (), but not for SIO. Majors showed significant gains for SIO (), Research (), and Skills (), but not Interest.

A similar analysis was run using an average score of the 15 questions comparing modalities. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons showed significant difference between “before” and “after” scores for both in-person and online students (), as well as between in-person and online students before the CURE experience (). However, no significant difference was observed between the scores of in-person and online students after the CURE experience.

As modality was found not to be a significant source of variation, it was removed as a factor in further analyses. Next, the gains of each major by themes were compared using a 2-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons. Figure 3 shows the survey gains across majors and themes. Nonmajors had significantly higher gains compared to majors in all aspects but knowledge of SIO research. Health majors had gains similar to nonmajors in interest and skills, but significantly lower in the case of SIO knowledge () and research ().

3.3. Course-Level Results

The nonmajors student population, while heterogeneous in respect to their majors, was all derived from one course (BIO100A). Health majors were also derived from one-course type (introductory microbiology, either online, or in-person). Majors, on the other hand, included both lower and upper division courses (BIO169A, general biology and BIO407A, molecular biology, respectively). Therefore, it was decided to compare student survey gains by courses. As modality was not considered a significant contributor to variation, the BIO193A and BIO203A courses (online and in-person microbiology courses in health majors) were consolidated as one group (labeled HM). A two-way ANOVA showed Course as the only significant factor (, Table 6). Figure 4(a) shows a heatmap of the “before” and “after” survey scores by the courses analyzed in Table 6. Majors in general had higher “before” scores compared to nonmajors and health majors. Gains, therefore, were more pronounced for nonmajors and health majors. As shown in Figure 4(b), there was no significant difference in gains between the lower division (BIO169A) and upper division (BIO407A) majors courses. Interestingly, the highest gains within the SIO theme were observed for the lower division majors. As noted before, highest gains corresponded to nonmajors in all themes but SIO, significantly higher than health majors for both SIO () and Research (), and significantly higher for Interest compared to both lower division () and upper division () majors.

(a)

(b)

3.4. Student Open-Ended Comments and Focus Groups

These results were gathered from the annual reports of the grant external evaluator (Steuck & Associates, unpublished reports). Due to IRB privacy rules, the grant PIs did not have access to the raw data and relied on consolidated and deidentified summaries. Between August 2019 and February 2020, 42 students submitted answers to the two open-ended questions in the survey. Of those, 31 were nonmajors, 7 lower division majors, and 4 upper division majors.

Regarding the question of what worked well, among the nonmajors, a majority of the comments focused on three primary components: the high quality of the instructors, the field trip experience, and the lab work. Many students noted that the field trip was a unique experience that added excitement to the course while also allowing them to better understand field research and the broader context of plastic pollution. In addition, the lab experiments were highlighted by many students as impactful, noting that they provided opportunities for hands-on learning, and that they were grounded in real-world problems and context. The undergraduate lower division biology majors mentioned the field trip, lab exercises, and learning from the scientists working in the field as aspects they felt worked well. Notably, the students felt the CURE helped reinforce scientific concepts they had learned in class, and half of the students mentioned that the experience increased their interest in participating in and/or learning about research. The undergraduate upper division biology majors emphasized the same benefits as the lower division biology majors, further highlighting the benefits of the CURE lab experiments, the on-site field trip, and the interactions with the RI scientists.

Regarding the question of what can be improved, nonmajors had few suggestions, but some pointed to the logistics of the field trip, need for more advance information, and particularly to focus less on career paths during the discussion. The undergraduate lower division biology majors suggested improvements in three key areas: streamlining the field trip, expanding the lab experience, and giving the students the chance to write and publish findings. The undergraduate upper division biology majors had fewer suggestions for improvement and rather emphasized the importance of the CURE experience overall, stressing the need for hands-on involvement in research experiences.

After the transition to the online CURE experience, 43 students completed the open-ended questions, resulting in 195 comments. As the courses were online and included other virtual lab components besides the CURE, some of the comments addressed those components or technical issues unrelated to the CURE. Most specific comments related to the topic of what worked were in relationship to their knowledge of ocean plastic research. The majority of the comments came from nonmajors, and only one lower division major submitted answers. Overall, students valued the experience and referred positively to the knowledge gained about plastic research and meeting with experts in smaller groups during the panel. Table 7 includes representative quotes from the open-ended comments.

Between November 2020 and August 2021, a total of 25 students participated in focus group interviews (one biology major, three health majors, and the rest nonmajors).

Regarding their careers and interests, all students commented that they learned about new professional careers, that they did not know about prior to this biology course, such as being a research scientist. All students interviewed expressed certainty in their chosen career paths and despite learning new information about research careers, they did not feel inclined to consider changing their major. On the other hand, the majority of the students interviewed agreed that the course changed their personal behaviors to be more environmentally conscious and/or reinforced good behaviors.

Their recommendations for the CURE often overlapped with issues experienced in the online modality in general. Specific suggestions included making the ocean plastic project a centerpiece of the course, to incorporate service-learning opportunities, and to bring guest speakers.

While most students valued online courses and understood the reasons of moving the CURE to a virtual delivery, most students expressed they wished they could attend in-person.

4. Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic emergency upended life and particularly education worldwide. The sudden pivot to online delivery brought many challenges but also revealed technological opportunities that are advantageous and will remain intact even after the return to in-person education [44–46].

The CURE described in the paper was designed for in-person courses, with a field trip experience and direct interactions with researchers. In this modality, less than 100 students participated, and 79 survey responses were collected across all courses. While we could see consistent gains as measured by survey questions and positive feedback in open-ended questions, the potential to reach larger populations was limited. One clear impact of the online adaptation was its expansion. At the end of the third year, the implementation of the CURE in a larger number of online nonmajors sections resulted in an increase of participant and survey responders to 442 and 187, respectively, a more than threefold increase. In fact, the pandemic has produced a number of “virtual field trip” alternatives that can make field studies a more accessible and inclusive discipline [35, 36, 47].

The 15-question retrospective survey used provided detailed insights about the different aspects that were most impacted as part of the CURE. The survey questions reflected student perception of their knowledge of research and competence in skills, as well as interest in science. Evaluating student learning can be difficult [48] and due to the wide heterogeneity of courses and implementation, it was not possible to devise an overarching assessment.

In order to analyze the impact of the intervention, survey scores were binned into the four themes of the questions and explore the effect of time, course modality (in-person vs. online), and student population (majors and courses) through sequential ANOVA analyses. An initial Manova revealed the largest impact to the factor time (with after scores being significantly higher than before scores), followed by major and themes. Modality only had a negligible effect on the variation. While students in the online sections had lower “before” scores, they “caught up” to the in-person students in the “after” scores.

Subsequent ANOVA analyses of survey gains in dependence of major, themes, and courses, showed the highest impact in nonmajors, especially the theme Interest in Science. This is partly attributable to the fact that majors have higher before scores compared to nonmajors. Research has shown that majors’ study approaches and previous knowledge is different from nonmajors, aspects to be considered when designing science courses [16, 49, 50].

In open-ended comments from the surveys and focus group interviews students expressed they gained knowledge regarding plastic pollution, the process of science, and scientific research as a career option. In addition, many commented on heightened awareness of everyday actions to protect the environment, and interest in activities relevant to their communities. However, nonmajors did not consider a career change to STEM disciplines, which can be partly explained by the particular student population targeted in this CURE: nontraditional and adult learners.

In the United States, data indicate that the number of nontraditional students surpasses that of traditional students [51]. While there is no one definition of what a nontraditional student is, they are characterized as older, often having jobs and with a higher minority representation [52]. In contrast, traditional students tend to be full-time students who are 18–24 years of age [53]. NU student population had an average age of 32 (results not shown). Active learning may be particularly beneficial for adult learners [54, 55], as studies have shown that adult learners come to the classroom with their life experiences, which provide both a rich supply of resources and possible misconceptions for the learning process [56]. Former and active-duty US Navy students interviewed reported previous knowledge and/or concerns about handling of plastic debris on ships (Steuck & Associates report, unpublished).

The majors’ group was smaller compared to the nonmajors, and in addition, included two very different courses: a lower division general biology laboratory and an upper division molecular biology laboratory course. Majors in general, and particularly the upper division students, had higher “before” scores, resulting in small gains particularly in Interest and Skills. Majors overall appreciated the direct interaction with scientists, and the opportunity to do hands-on research. Due to program requirements, the upper division courses were always taught in-person, although during the pandemic, they did not participate in the in-person field trip.

While it is too early to fully analyze the long-term impact of the CURE, it is noteworthy that of the biology majors who took BIO169A (lower division general biology lab) the year before the implementation of the CURE, 72% discontinued or changed majors, while in the following three cohorts with the CURE, this number dropped to 45%, 25%, and 17% respectively (results not shown). Of the 11 students who participated in both the lower and upper division CURE, 55% have graduated, and 27% were still active in the program.

An additional challenge of the implementation of the CURE was the accelerated course timeline, which required condensing the material into a maximum of 3 weeks exposure. The majority of nontraditional students and millennials prefer flexible formats that allow them to juggle multiple responsibilities [57], which may explain the popularity of intensive course formats. The one course per month format evaluated in this project is particularly beneficial for military students, which can schedule their classes around deployment and training schedules. Studies have shown that accelerated programs can be as successful and rigorous as their traditional counterparts [58–62]. However, this requires careful course design and adequate deployment of the content [63–65]. The original in-person CURE design placed a large portion of content and activities on the in-person half-day field trip experience. While survey results consistently showed gains after the CURE, some open-ended comments referred to the experience to be disconnected from the rest of the course material. The online pivot forced not only the substitution of in-person events to online delivery but also allowed for a more gradual introduction of the same content through recorded lectures that students could watch in their own time. More structured instruction has been shown to benefit certain demographic populations such as Blacks/African-Americans, Hispanics, or first-generation college students [66–68]. Another aspect that was improved with student feedback was the Q&A panel with researchers. The virtual setting (via Zoom) allowed not only more student and research participants but also small group discussions based on student interest. That way the discussion could be more tailored to a particular student group. For example, nonmajors expressed more interest in societal and community action than in changing majors, while majors received more information regarding laboratory technology and STEM careers.

It became clear from the early results of the CURE that NU nontraditional nonmajors students were not interested in a career change to STEM. In fact, many of the nonmajors took the biology course as one of their last courses due to their apprehension of sciences (Steuck & Associates report, unpublished). The increased appreciation of science and knowledge about ocean plastic pollution, together with a potential for changes in behavior are encouraging and by itself a worthy goal moving forward with the project. The inclusion of health majors was a step to explore additional student populations who could benefit from being exposed to a STEM research experience. Many HU students do not apply to STEM programs due to their lack of knowledge about the process and the long-term advantages of such careers [7, 19]. In addition, as health professions tend to have a higher representation of females while exhibiting lower wages than males [69], redirecting allied health students toward STEM careers may help counteract the overall lower representation of females in STEM disciplines [70, 71]. Preliminary data showed the health majors’ survey results to be intermediate between nonmajors and majors. In one section, taught in-person, the instructor applied the Tiny Earth [26] approach to isolate antibiotic-producing microbes from the plastic samples collected. Connecting the research aspect to a global health issue was highly motivating for students, although in the focus groups they expressed they were committed to their career goals (Steuck and Associates report, unpublished). It is planned to adapt the CURE to all microbiology courses at NU, with an increased emphasis on health and medical aspects in order for it to be more attractive to health majors.

Overall, survey results of the CURE were highly encouraging, especially the fact that an online adaptation increased the reach of the CURE while maintaining the gains, especially across nonmajors. On the other hand, focus group interviews showed that in-person students had a much higher engagement with the CURE, and many online students expressed the desire to participate in-person, especially in the field trip experience, given the option (results not shown).

The online CURE experience illustrates both the potential of expanding access to research activities by using virtual activities, and students’ desire for experimenting it in-person. In the future, the range of virtual opportunities will be expanded for nonscience majors, while maintaining in-person opportunities for majors, either as part of CUREs or by involving students in more structured research opportunities.

Data Availability

Aggregated numerical data of survey responses are available from corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional Points

Study Limitations. This study has several limitations. The 52.5% survey response rate may be reflective of a subpopulation of students who are either more engaged or more in need of the extra credit reward. The focus group participation was limited overall. Statistical analyses of the survey scores proved challenging, considering the large number of variables (time, major, modality, themes, and courses). In addition, there was also imbalance in student populations. Nonmajors constituted 75% and 72% of the total and the survey responder population, respectively. Some populations, such as the online majors group, were small compared to others. A particular limitation may be the removal of modality as a factor in some of the analyses. Results should be re-evaluated in the future with more comparable data groups. On the other hand, parallel analyses using an average score of all 15 survey questions yielded similar results to the binned analysis, supporting the validity of the conclusions. In addition, the effect of individual instructor and student engagement cannot be discounted, especially in the online setting. The original in-person setting guaranteed that all students would be exposed to the same experience by participating the field trip. In the online adaptation, while the same materials and assessments were posted for all courses and sections, the focus group interviews revealed that instructor engagement and promotion of the virtual field trip were uneven.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This project is funded by the NSF HSI’s new to NSF award #1832545 (A.M.B., R.E.S., J.S.B.). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the SIO and NU faculty, students, and personnel who helped the implementation and assessment of the CURE. We are greatly indebted to the many NU instructors who adopted the CURE materials and activities in their courses: Tedla Dadi, Kenneth Dery, Mary Dwyer, Jennifer Frere, Monica Gorman, Alan Khan, Huda Makhluf, Mario Mota, Lea Stage, and Chandrasen Soans. Special thanks to Heidi Burnett and Gabrielle Martin at NU Office of Institutional Research for setting up the survey deployment and collection, as well as providing demographic data. We would like to further acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the PhD students and postdocs at SIO that participated in the field trips, including Natalia Erazo, Jesse Wilson, Avishek Dutta, Beth Connors, Emelia Chamberlain, Benjamin Klempay, Clay McClure, Maile Heyer, and Matt Heron. The virtual adaptation of the CURE benefitted from both SIO and NU video materials. We thank Caitlyn Webster from SIO, as well as Saul Torres and Nelson Fernandez (NU) for the high-quality videos produced. We are indebted to Dr. Kurt Steuck and collaborators (Steuck and Associates), the grant external evaluator, for insights, analyses, and evaluations of the survey and focus group data collected the past year. The program was funded by NSF-HSI to A.M.B., R.E.S., and J.S.B. (award #1832545).

References

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Executive Office of the President, 2012.
X. Chen and M. Soldner, STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields (NCES 2014-001), National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2013.
E. McGee, Black, Brown, Bruised: How Racialized STEM Education Stifles Innovation, Harvard Education Press, 2020.
Association of American Universities, Progress Toward Achieving Systemic Change: A Five-Year Status Report on the AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative, Association of American Universities, Washington, DC, 2017.
D. J. Asai and C. Bauerle, “From HHMI: doubling down on diversity,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 15, no. 3, Article ID fe6, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Dewsbury and C. J. Brame, “Inclusive teaching,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 18, no. 2, Article ID fe2, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Estrada, P. R. Hernandez, P. W. Schultz, and J. Herrera, “A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 17, no. 1, Article ID ar9, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Haeger and C. Fresquez, “Mentoring for inclusion: the impact of mentoring on undergraduate researchers in the sciences,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 15, no. 3, Article ID ar36, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Handelsman, S. Elgin, M. Estrada et al., “Achieving STEM diversity: fix the classrooms,” Science, vol. 376, no. 6597, pp. 1057–1059, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. P. McGlynn, “Identity matters: communicating about equity and opportunity for students in minority-serving institutions,” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 480–483, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. L. Dolan, “Biology education research 2.0,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 14, no. 4, Article ID ed1, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. D. Kuh, High-Impact Educational Practices: What They are, Who has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2008.
D. Lopatto, “Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 297–306, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. T. Jones, A. E. L. Barlow, and M. Villarejo, “Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 82–115, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Russell, M. P. Hancock, and J. McCullough, “Benefits of undergraduate research experiences,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5824, pp. 548-549, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Ballen, J. E. Blum, S. Brownell et al., “A call to develop course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) for nonmajors courses,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 16, no. 2, Article ID mr2, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Bangera and S. E. Brownell, “Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 602–606, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
American Association for Advancement of Science, 2015, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: Chronicling Change, Inspiring the Future.
O. A. Adedokun, A. B. Bessenbacher, L. C. Parker, L. L. Kirkham, and W. D. Burgess, “Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: mediating effects of research self-efficacy,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 940–951, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. C. Auchincloss, S. L. Laursen, J. L. Branchaw et al., “Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 29–40, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Esparza, A. E. Wagler, and J. T. Olimpo, “Characterization of instructor and student behaviors in CURE and non-CURE learning environments: impacts on student motivation, science identity development, and perceptions of the laboratory experience,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 19, no. 1, Article ID ar10, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Mordacq, D. L. Drane, S. L. Swarat, and S. M. Lo, “Research and teaching: development of course-based undergraduate research experiences using a design-based approach,” Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 64–75, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. C. R. Elgin, C. Hauser, T. M. Holzen et al., “The GEP: crowd-sourcing big data analysis with undergraduates,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 81–85, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Laungani, C. Tanner, T. D. Brooks et al., “Finding some good in an invasive species: introduction and assessment of a novel CURE to improve experimental design in undergraduate biology classrooms,” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, vol. 19, no. 2, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hurley, M. G. Chevrette, D. D. Acharya et al., “Tiny Earth: a big idea for STEM education and antibiotic discovery,” mBio, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. e03432–e03420, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Tiny Earth, (n.d.) https://tinyearth.wisc.edu/.
D. B. Thoman, E. R. Brown, A. Z. Mason, A. G. Harmsen, and J. L. Smith, “The role of altruistic values in motivating underrepresented minority students for biomedicine,” BioScience, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 183–188, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Brownell and M. J. Kloser, “Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 525–544, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Linn, E. Palmer, A. Baranger, E. Gerard, and E. Stone, “Undergraduate research experiences: impacts and opportunities,” Science, vol. 347, no. 6222, Article ID 1261757, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Amaral-Zettler, E. R. Zettler, and T. J. Mincer, “Ecology of the plastisphere,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 18, pp. 139–151, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Oberbeckmann and M. Labrenz, “Marine microbial assemblages on microplastics: diversity, adaptation, and role in degradation,” Annual Review of Marine Science, vol. 12, pp. 209–232, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Pinto, T. M. Langer, T. Hüffer, T. Hofmann, and G. J. Herndl, “The composition of bacterial communities associated with plastic biofilms differs between different polymers and stages of biofilm succession,” PLOS ONE, vol. 14, no. 6, Article ID e0217165, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Wright, G. Erni-Cassola, V. Zadjelovic, M. Latva, and J. A. Christie-Oleza, “Marine plastic debris: a new surface for microbial colonization,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 54, no. 19, pp. 11657–11672, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chopra, A. Rani, S. Chopra, P. Manik, and R. R. Singh, “Transition from physical to virtual classroom amidst COVID-19 crisis: Analyzing students’ perspective to drive improvement in the current online teaching methodology,” Journal of education and health promotion, vol. 10, Article ID 241, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Gielstra, L. Moorman, D. Cerney, N. Cerveny, and J. Gielstra, “GeoEPIC: innovating a solution to implement virtual field experiences for education in the time of COVID-19 and the post-pandemic era,” Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1–10, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Bond, J. H. Pugsley, L. Kedar et al., “Learning outcomes, learning support and cohort cohesion on a virtual field trip: an analysis of student and staff perceptions,” Geoscience Communication, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 307–323, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. T. González-Orta, D. Tobiason, B. J. Gasper, A. Raja, and S. Miller, “Rapid pivot of CURE wet lab to online with the help of instructor communities,” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. e00250–e00221, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Barral, R. Simmons, E. DeForce, and J. Bowman, “CUREing ocean plastic in pandemic times,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 35, no. S1, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Barral, R. E. Simmons, M. Boman-Davis, and J. S. Bowman, “CUREing ocean plastic microbes: positive experience of engaging non-traditional undergraduate students in a hispanic-serving institution,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 34, no. S1, pp. 1–1, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Barral and B. Stenson, “Enrichment of microbes potentially degrading polyethylene using a microcosm approach,” Fine Focus, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 84–101, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Leask, A. M. Barral, and R. E. Simmons, “Distinct bacterial populations colonizing plastic debris in coastal waters of southern California,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 34, no. S1, pp. 1–1, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Elliott, “Into the gyre. 590films,” (n.d.) https://vimeo.com/ondemand/intothegyre.
View at: Google Scholar
C. C. Pratt, W. M. McGuigan, and A. R. Katzev, “Measuring program outcomes: using retrospective pretest methodology,” American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 341–349, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. B. Adedoyin and E. Soykan, “Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 863–875, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Dhawan, “Online learning: a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis,” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 5–22, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Novelli, M. Biancolella, R. Mehrian-Shai et al., “COVID-19 one year into the pandemic: from genetics and genomics to therapy, vaccination, and policy,” Human Genomics, vol. 15, Article ID 27, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Washko, “Designing an asynchronous, self-led aquatic ecology field trip,” CourseSource, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Handelsman, S. Miller, and C. Pfund, Scientific Teaching, W.H. Freeman and Company, 2007.
J. K. Knight and M. K. Smith, “Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn genetics,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 34–44, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Watkins and E. Mazur, “Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors,” Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 36–41, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
A. W. Radford, M. Cominole, and P. Skomsvold, Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics of Nontraditional Undergraduates: 2011-12, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015, https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015025.
J. F. Donaldson and B. K. Townsend, “Higher education journals’ discourse about adult undergraduate students,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 27–50, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Choy, Findings from the Condition of Education 2002: Nontraditional Undergraduates, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002.
A. M. Barral, V. C. Ardi-Pastores, and R. E. Simmons, “Student learning in an accelerated introductory biology course is significantly enhanced by a flipped learning environment,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. D. Karge, K. M. Phillips, T. Jessee, and M. McCabe, “Effective strategies for engaging adult learners,” Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 53–56, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Knowles, R. Swanson, and E. F. Holton, “The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human,” in The Adult Learner The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resources Development, Routledge, 6 edition, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
C. B. Aslanian, D. D. L. Clinefelter, and A. J. Magda, Online College Students 2019: Comprehensive Data on Demands and Preferences, Wiley edu, Louisville, KY, LLC, 2019.
J. T. Baun, “A comparison of learning and retention between students taught in a traditional versus an accelerated format over four months in a clinical legal trial advocacy course: A quantitative evaluation study [The University of Nebraska - Lincoln],” ProQuest, 2008, Dissertations and Theses.
View at: Google Scholar
S. D. Brookfield, “A critical theory perspective on accelerated learning,” in Accelerated Learning for Adults: The promise and practice of Intensive Educational Formats (No. 97), R. J. Wlodkowski and C. E. Easworm, Eds., pp. 73–82, JosseyBass, San Francisco, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
C. E. Kasworm, “From the adult student’s perspective: Accelerated degree programs,” in Accelerated learning for adults: The promise and practice of intensive educational formats (New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education No. 97), R. J. Wlodkowski and C. E. Kasworm, Eds., pp. 17–28, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
P. A. Scott, “Attributes of high-quality intensive courses,” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, vol. 2003, no. 97, pp. 29–38, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide for Teaching All Adults, John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
L. D. Fink, “The power of course design to increase student engagement and learning,” Peer Review, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
S. S. Jaggars and D. Xu, “How do online course design features influence student performance?” Computers & Education, vol. 95, pp. 270–284, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Nomme and G. Birol, “Course redesign: an evidence-based approach,” The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 5, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Haak, J. HilleRisLambers, E. Pitre, and S. Freeman, “Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology,” Science, vol. 332, no. 6034, pp. 1213–1216, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Freeman, D. Haak, and M. P. Wenderoth, “Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 175–186, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. L. Eddy and K. A. Hogan, “Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work?” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 453–468, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Shannon, N. Minckas, D. Tan, H. Haghparast-Bidgoli, N. Batura, and J. Mannell, “Feminisation of the health workforce and wage conditions of health professions: an exploratory analysis,” Human Resources for Health, vol. 17, Article ID 72, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Weeden, D. Gelbgiser, and S. L. Morgan, “Pipeline dreams: occupational plans and gender differences in STEM major persistence and completion,” Sociology of Education, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 297–314, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yang and J. M. Barth, “Gender differences in STEM undergraduates’ vocational interests: people–thing orientation and goal affordances,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 91, pp. 65–75, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Ana Maria Barral et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

383

Downloads

321

Citations