Cited by 20Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsUndergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research

Faculty Experiences during the Implementation of an Introductory Biology Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE)

Open access
DeChenne-Peters, S. E., Scheuermann, N. L.·2022·CBE—Life Sciences Education

Abstract

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) integrate an authentic research experience for students into a laboratory course. CUREs provide many of the same benefits to students as individual faculty-mentored research experiences. However, faculty experiences in teaching CUREs are not as well understood. There are no studies that compare faculty's anticipated experiences to actual experiences, and little comparison of the faculty experience by institution. Through interviews with eight biology faculty from four institutions, the faculty experience in implementing a CURE in an introductory biology laboratory was explored using qualitative analysis. Institutions included: a small, minority-serving, women's, primarily undergraduate university; a small, residential, primarily undergraduate college; a midsized doctoral university; and a large community college. Interviews were conducted at three time points: before professional development (PD), after the initial semester of teaching the CURE, and after teaching the CURE at least twice (1 year later). Faculty described resources, benefits, challenges, and feelings about teaching the CURE. However, anticipated experiences were often not the same as those actually experienced. There were also institutional differences in resources, benefits, challenges, and feelings. Implications for CURE PD include specific content such as strategies for teaching effective research group work, development of student proposals, and student time management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.21-06-0154

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
DeChenne-Peters, S. E., & Scheuermann, N. L.
Affiliations
  • Department of Biology, Georgia Southern University, Savannah, GA 31419
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2022-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
ar70-ar70
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296800830
Cited by
20
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
7.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Undergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research
Keywords
course-based undergraduate research experiences, faculty experiences, introductory biology, undergraduate laboratory course, faculty professional development, institutional differences, student time management
MeSH terms
Biology, Faculty, Female, Humans, Laboratories, Students, Universities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review