Auchincloss et al. (2014) Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences a meeting report

Short summary of the scope and focus in the article

The paper titled “Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report” presents the outcome of a working group on the initiative called Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Network (CUREnet). They first tried to define a quite rigorous definition on 5 scientific activities (dimensions), and based on the 5 dimensions, the authors tried to differentiate 4 types of lab learning contexts, namely traditional lab course, inquiry lab course, CURE, and research internship.

Then the paper spent a lot of space in reviewing existing literature on the evaluation and assessment of CURE, and try to provide some recommendations on next (collective) steps to push forward the academic efforts in the assessment of CURE.

Quote a statement that summarizes what the author claims they contribute to the field.

“a small working group with expertise in CURE design and assessment was assembled in September 2013 to:

• Draft an operational definition of a CURE;

• Summarize research on CUREs, as well as findings from studies of undergraduate research internships that would be useful for thinking about how students are influenced by participating in CUREs; and

• Identify areas of greatest need with respect to evaluation of CUREs and assessment of CURE outcomes.

In this paper, we summarize the meeting discussion and offer recommendations for next steps in the assessment of CUREs.”

In your own words, compare the results/arguments presented in the article with the authors’ claim(s) you identified in question 1.

Obviously this is a report on an initial meeting, the three goals have been somewhat covered in the outcome. But there are some places that have not been covered sufficiently, in my opinion.

Firstly, it is the “operational definition” of a CURE, the 5 dimensions form a useful framework to identify the differences between the 4 types of lab learning contexts, namely traditional lab course, inquiry lab course, CURE, and research internship. But this is not sufficiently an “operational definition” of a CURE.

Secondly, the 2nd goal is partially realized, as the goal says “Summarize research on CUREs”, but they mainly focus on “research on evaluation and assessment of CUREs”.

Thirdly, the 3rd goal says “Identify areas of greatest need”, which is partially done in the Section “CURRENT KNOWLEDGE FROM ASSESSMENT OF CUREs”. But I think it would have been better if the authors could explicitly summarize (and even better prioritize) all the gaps and challenges in the literature review presented in this section.

Is the argument that the authors provide solid enough based on the evidence and/or theoretical considertaions to convince you of their claim(s)?

Their recommendations have been built on quite rigorous review on existing literature, which are quite convincing. My concern is mainly, as mentioned in my answer to 3), some of the aspects for each goal are missing.

What is missing in the article?

Besides the points that I made in my answer to 3), I also wish the authors could further elaborate on the following issues:

Firstly, in Table 1, the authors claim that CUREs can scale up to “many students”, compared to “few students” accommodated by “Research internships”. But how? As a teacher, I want to see a CURE in action.

Secondly, the framework in Table 2, the five dimensions are nice tools, but the degree and intensity, e.g., “Rarely”, “Often”, “Significant” are still quite vaguely defined to me.

What was most interesting for you?

Learn about CURE, which is especially relevant for large class settings. The 5 dimensions of scientific activities and the differences between the 4 types of lab course contexts are useful to think about CURE. But I would like to have more operational information and case studies on both successful and failed CUREs.

How does this article relate to your own teaching?

It is very relevant, the 5 dimensions got me to reflect on the activities I have planned for both my bachelor and master courses.

What can you learn from it?

I use this paper as an entry point, and will try to dig out more operational techniques and case studies on CUREs from more recent papers.