Comparing the Outcomes of pre-CURE Compared to Inquiry-based Introductory Biology Labs

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are expanding across institutions and topics, enabling more students to participate in authentic research. This study introduces “pre-CURE” labs, which provide research experiences but may include lower-stakes, non-iterative, or narrowly relevant outcomes. Students’ scientific paper writing was used to compare a guided-inquiry and pre-CURE version of the same introductory biology lab. Guided-inquiry students performed better on argumentation themes, while pre-CURE students learned more about experimental design, likely because pre-CURE allowed productive failure.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Background on undergraduate research and CUREs

Rationale and challenges for CURE implementation

Comparing the Outcomes of“pre-CURE” Compared to Inquiry-based Introductory Biology Labs Allison L. Lansverk 1, Deborah A. Lichti 1,2, Kate W. Blinka 1, Kristine L. Callis-Duehl 1,3 1Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858 2Interdisciplinary Science Learning Laboratories, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716 3Education Research and Outreach, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63017 Abstract Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are increasing being taught to undergraduates across institutions and topics and offer an opportunity for more students to participate in authentic research. There are many types of “CUREs” with varying degrees of including all five elements identified by Auchincloss et al. (2014) as defining a CURE course. Even when authentic research labs do not include all the elements of a CURE, they still provide students an opportunity to engage in the process of science and could be an important transition from inquirystyle labs to full CURE labs. In this paper, we call labs that provide research experiences, yet may include lowerstakes, non-iterative or narrowly relevant results “pre-CURE” labs. We sought to assess if students were developing a better understanding of experimental design and scientific argumentation in a pre-CURE vs. a guided-inquiry version of the same introductory biology lab, as evidenced by scientific paper writing assignments. Students in guided-inquiry labs performed better on argumentation themes (p=0.01549) in their lab reports, conceivably because they had narrower variable selection. However, students learned more about experimental design in the pre-CURE course (p=1.77-12) . Particularly because the pre-CURE gave the students the opportunity to fail by allowing them to design experiments that did not yield results. Keywords: pre-CURE, CURE, citizen science, productive failure, laboratory, undergraduate Introduction Research experiences are an integral component of education for biology students. Experience conducting research has a major impact on the development of analytical and applied skills and the understanding of the relevant concepts, as well as along-term impact on the student’s continued passion for and involvement in science (Latzer et al., 2015) . It has long been recognized that undergraduate research experiences (UREs) are an important part of training each subsequent generation of scientists (Kinkead, 2012). Apprenticeship has been the classical model for undergraduate research, and positive outcomes are reported for undergraduates who are able to participate in some sort of research endeavor (Gentile, Brenner, and Stephens, 2017) . In 2009, the American Association for the Advancement (AAAS) of Science published “Vision and Change,” a call to action to engage undergraduates in authentic science experiences (Woodin et al., 2010) . One of the ways that students can participate in research is a coursebased undergraduate research experience (CURE)(Brownell and Kloser, 2015) . Dolan (2016) defines CUREs as “learning experiences in which whole classes of students address a research question or problem with unknown outcomes or solutions that are of interest to external stakeholders,” which is in contrast to more traditional apprenticeship-type research experiences that are often more or less one on one. This also differs from an inquiry-based model for a laboratory class since tobe a true CURE, as with any scientific research, thereis an unknown experimental outcome to the students and scientific community alike (Latzer et al., 2015, Dolan, 2015) . CUREs are gaining use (Figure 1) . Approximately 307 institutions of higher education, 17 of which are international, are currently registered within CUREnet, a network of programs and people creating CUREs established in 2012 by Erin Dolan (University of Georgia), Dave Micklos (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), and Nancy Trautmann (Cornell Lab

FAQs

What does the study call “pre-CURE” labs?

The study defines “pre-CURE” labs as research-experience labs that may include lower-stakes, non-iterative, or narrowly relevant results rather than all elements of a full CURE course.

How were student outcomes compared between pre-CURE and guided-inquiry labs?

Outcomes were assessed using scientific paper writing assignments, focusing on experimental design and scientific argumentation themes.

What were the main results regarding argumentation and experimental design?

Students in guided-inquiry labs performed better on argumentation themes, while students in the pre-CURE course learned more about experimental design.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man