Sadie Hebert, Jessamina Blum, Deena Wassenberg, Sehoya Cotner
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are laboratory experiences that involve students in five dimensions – use of scientific practices, discovery, broadly relevant work, collaboration, and iteration. Based on several learning theories including social activism, social cognitive, and situated learning, we know that participating in real-world, relevant, collaborative experiences that connect to the world outside of the classroom can lead to meaningful learning. In the CURE framework, real-world, relevant experiences come from the dimension of broadly relevant work. However, implementing the “broadly relevant work” dimension is logistically challenging in a large-enrollment, non-majors course and it is unclear if this dimension is necessary for positive student outcomes. To understand how broadly relevant research experiences impact student outcomes, we surveyed non-biology majors following participation in a student-led inquiry or broadly relevant research experience. Students in the student-led inquiry research experience asked their own research question but did not contribute new information to the scientific community, whereas students in the broadly relevant research experience (a CURE) were assigned a research question and did contribute new information to the scientific community. In the survey, students were asked whether they preferred choosing their own research question for which the results are already known; they would not contribute new information with broad relevance to the scientific community (hereafter “choice”) or being assigned a research question for which the results are not known; they would contribute new information with broad relevance to the scientific community (hereafter “relevance”). For students that participated in the student-led inquiry research experience, 46% preferred “choice” and 54% preferred “relevance”. In contrast, students that participated in the broadly relevant research experience overwhelmingly preferred “relevance” (90%) over “choice” (10%). There was a significant association between research experience and preference (x2 (1) = 22.53, p < 0.001). The most common reasons students chose “choice” were personal interest or enjoyment (58%) and confirmation of known results (36%). The most common reasons students chose “relevance” were interest or enjoyment (45%), broad relevance (44%), or discovery (32%). The results from project ownership questions showed that students that participated in the broadly relevant research experience reported a greater sense of project ownership compared to students that participated in the student-led inquiry research experience. Future analysis will investigate these students’ science attitudes, confidence, and identity to determine whether broad relevance is necessary for positive student outcomes in this population.
