Course-Embedded Undergraduate Research Experiences - American

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 12, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1231.ch007

Chapter 7

Course-Embedded Undergraduate Research Experiences: The Power of Strategic Course Design Nichole L. Powell and Brenda B. Harmon* Department of Chemistry, Oxford College of Emory University, 810 Whatcoat St., Oxford, Georgia 30054 *E-mail: [email protected]

Research experiences expose students to the complex thinking and analytical skills associated with the quest for knowledge. Embedding authentic research experiences into the first and second year college curriculum therefore requires strategic course design in order to foster the scientific thinking skills students need to successfully navigate their experience. In this chapter we present the use of backward course design and inquiry-based pedagogies as ways to equip students with the habits of mind and laboratory research “toolkit” necessary to design experiments, analyze and evaluate the data they obtain, and to embrace the inherent uncertainty associated with the research process. Our approach resulted in a large majority of students reporting a readiness for more demanding research. We have made the time commitment required of faculty using this approach by anchoring the research undertaken by students to faculty members’ interests.

© 2016 American Chemical Society Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

“The job of the lab course is to provide the experience of doing science. By offering a genuine, unvarnished science experience, a lab course can make a student into a better observer, a more careful and precise thinker, and a more deliberate problem solver. And that is what education is all about.”


- Miles Pickering (1)

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report in 2012 providing a strategy for improving STEM education during the critical first two years of college. The council has recommended engaging students in real science by replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses (2) . At our institution we have developed and successfully implemented an authentic research experience across the first and second years that mimics – as much as possible − the apprenticeship model of discovery-based research. Oxford College is a 925 student freshman and sophomore division of Emory University, where inquiry-based courses are a required component of the general education program. Our science classes are limited to 24 students, and faculty teach both lecture and laboratory. We have approached incorporating authentic research into our curriculum by anchoring the undergraduate teaching labs to our joint research interests. As faculty at a small institution, this approach has provided motivation for the time commitment involved and allowed us to integrate teaching and research in a sustainable way. The approach we use has not been to simply incorporate research into the laboratory experience; we want to continually strive for a curriculum that improves both cognitive and affective student learning outcomes. Using inquiry-based methods, which provide a window into student thinking, we have been able to identify gaps in student understanding and therefore create an iterative course design process where we are always improving and developing more targeted laboratories, assignments, and assessments. If the goal is to provide all beginning students with a version of a mentored research experience, then the approach toward learning goals for the laboratory courses must be similar (3). In the apprenticeship model, an undergraduate would be instructed to learn the techniques and thinking skills, as well as the attitudes necessary for the research project. Our experience has shown us that, in order for our laboratory courses to achieve the goals of contributing to the general education of all students, as well as developing future scientists, the technical, cognitive, and affective skills are not separable and therefore all three must be addressed in curriculum design.

The Oxford College CURE A course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) has been defined as a learning experience integrating the use of scientific practices in the discovery of knowledge or insights that have a broad scientific relevance; involving 120 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


collaboration and iterative work on the part of the students (4).When planning a CURE, the importance of selecting a research task appropriate to the level of development of the students is critical. For us working with first and second year undergraduates, this meant selecting a very small portion of our overall research problem to present to students as a culminating task. The multiyear program developed at our small college anchors the authors’ undergraduate teaching labs to the problem of designing, synthesizing, and testing possible anticancer compounds (5). Students enrolled in Organic Chemistry II attempt to synthesize, separate, and preliminarily characterize one of a series of compounds with potential anticancer activity. Additional purification, characterization, and cytotoxicity testing is performed by sophomore students engaged in an independent research experience with faculty members. General Chemistry II students evaluate a series of compounds, including those made by the sophomores, for their DNA binding ability and relate their findings to cytotoxicity studies. This approach allows students in our program to work on different aspects of the project at different times in their development and encounter the same research question from different perspectives and contexts.Our course design targets an enduring understanding of the concepts of chemical bonding, polarity, and evaluation of the validity of evidence. Because a solid grasp of these concepts is integral to understanding many aspects of the project, students apply the same concepts in different inquiry-based activities in order to practice integrating their knowledge in novel and complex situations. Repetition of concepts in different contexts allows students to achieve a higher level of mastery of the big ideas, prepares them to navigate the research experience more independently, and supports more meaningful connections between general and organic chemistry. In developing any CURE, the range of laboratory techniques students are required to learn will not include all the practical skills traditionally covered in a laboratory course. Emphasis is placed on depth rather than breadth in developing laboratory skills, with stress given to independence during a culminating research experience. Students spend time developing good laboratory techniques in context, as well as integrating some of the thinking skills and attitudes necessary for the research process. In order to simulate the apprenticeship model of discovery-based research, students in our program are not provided with a laboratory manual or detailed protocols. Instead, they are introduced to the research project at the beginning of the semester and given literature to orient them. They are made aware that the entire semester of laboratory activities are meant to prepare them to be successful in the culminating research experience. Further background materials, mentoring, and support are provided in real time as the project progresses. In the Organic Chemistry lab, students learn separation and identification techniques that are repeated in different contexts and in different combinations. They need to develop an understanding of the strengths and limitations of each technique. For their final research project they need to be able to select and sequence techniques that will allow them to independently purify and characterize their target molecule. The General Chemistry II students need to develop experimental design and data analysis skills that will provide them with insights regarding the validity of their measurements. In this course nearly 121 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

every laboratory session involves experimental design, issues with accuracy and precision in measurement, and data analysis. Students must develop attitudes that allow them to recognize the need to acquire precise data as well as the habit of mind to strive for accuracy.


Developing Scientists: An Iterative Inquiry Approach While the application of content knowledge and exposure to techniques are typical goals for a laboratory curriculum, the development of inquiry and scientific reasoning skills, as well as the attitudes necessary for laboratory work should be the most important goals (6). Following detailed procedures or only engaging in simple inquiry tasks perpetuates an over-simplified view of the nature of science (7). Students need to develop troubleshooting strategies as well as independence in order to move beyond simple inquiry tasks. They also need to be able to use indirect reasoning on their own, connecting data, measurements, and observations to the research problem through multiple layers of abstraction. We structure small inquiry tasks throughout the semester that are situated in increasingly more complex contexts, requiring that students spend time navigating through relevant and irrelevant details in order to take ownership of the inquiry process. As instructors, it is a bit like developing puzzles for students that look superficially different each time, but that actually require the same thinking skills and habits of mind. We address misconceptions by looking for opportunities to create a missing piece for students to focus on and discover. In addition, we allow them to make naive decisions that lead to mistakes, or even encourage the use of techniques that lead to flaws in the data. We model more sophisticated thinking only after the students have completed their tasks, giving feedback and advice for the next laboratory challenge. In our experience, the ability to embrace mistakes is a necessary attitude for participating in research. In the apprenticeship model of a mentored research experience, students are naturally exposed to challenges inherent in the research process. Through the necessity of troubleshooting flawed techniques and approaches that result in messy data, apprentice researchers begin to recognize science as an iterative process. In traditional “cookbook” laboratory pedagogies, most of the possibility of data failure has been carefully eliminated by giving students detailed protocols to follow. In these situations students who acquire poor data are only required to discover what they personally did wrong...not what is wrong with a larger messy data set or with the method itself. In order to foster a tolerance for uncertainty, we carefully structure opportunities for moments of enlightenment, while reinforcing the idea that success is not always guaranteed. We feel strongly that effective science education must consistently push students to realize that science is about more than just verifying straightforward hypotheses; it is also concerned with discovering complex methodological flaws in order to ascertain the validity of evidence, and the need to form new hypotheses (8–10). When using this approach, the learning environment must support the notion that discovering mistakes or flaws is every bit as important as “success”. 122 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Evidence of Impact Incorporating a CURE into the teaching laboratory inevitably reduces the breadth of techniques and topics that students are exposed to, but it also increases the depth of the experience. The laboratory course can also be designed to engage students in ways that require them to practice integrating their learning. Inquiry-based and problem-based approaches in the laboratory are reported to foster improved metacognition in students (11). Once we began to assess student self-reported gains and reflections (see below), we realized that in some students this deeper engagement may have led to a transformative experience. The perceptions of students were measured by administering a modified ROLE survey at the end of each course (12, 13). The modifications included leaving spaces for open-ended reflective comments and the addition of four Likert-scale items addressing student outcomes which were developed by faculty in a year-long inquiry-based teaching seminar at Oxford College. Students were asked to rate the extent to which the laboratory course supported their growth in the following areas: •

•

•

•

Students engage in critical writing, oral presentation, and/or collaborative work to practice the ways knowledge is pursued in different disciplines. They should be able to ask more meaningful questions, question and examine evidence more rigorously, and use evidence in argument more effectively. Students repeatedly practice complex, multi-faceted problem solving which is often connected to real-world scenarios or ethical issues. More importantly, they can break-down the problem-solving process and articulate: (1) what they are doing; (2) why they are doing it; and (3) where they might go next. Students face increasingly difficult challenges in order to stretch their abilities to apply theory, analysis, and evaluation. They demonstrate increasing self –reliance and embrace mistakes as a necessary part of the inquiry process. Students inquire independently from multiple disciplinary perspectives and should demonstrate an increased awareness of the ways in which ideas and information become knowledge and understanding.

Likert-Scale Self-Reported Gains The perceptions of students taking two identical course sections of General Chemistry II (the same instructor taught the lecture and laboratory of both A and B sections) were measured by administering the modified ROLE survey. Those Likert-scale responses that align most closely with our CURE outcomes are summarized in Figure 1. It is interesting to note that only 5% of students in Section A, had any previous in-class research experience compared to 49% of students in section B, the section with students reporting the largest gains. A number of students in section B mentioned that previous inquiry-driven and course-embedded research experiences in Biology II at Oxford College made 123 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


them more comfortable with difficult coursework and the research process (14). Self–confidence is an affective gain that received equally low scores for both sections of the General Chemistry II course. This finding is consistent with other studies that have suggested that engaging in open-inquiry activities gives students a more accurate impression of their current abilities (9).

Figure 1. Summary of self-reported gains for the General Chemistry II students using a modified ROLE survey (12, 13) Likert-scale items. 1.1 Commitment to developing good lab techniques; 1.2 Learning to persevere at a task; 1.3 Tolerance for obstacles faced in the research process; 1.4 Increasing self-reliance and embracing mistakes; 1.5 Learning to work independently; 1.6 Self-confidence; 1.7 Ability to acquire and analyze data; 1.8 Understanding the need to acquire precise data;1.9 Question and examine evidence more rigorously; 1.10 Understanding the research process; 1.11 Interest in chemistry research; 1.12 Readiness for more demanding research. Perceptions of learners in Organic Chemistry II were also measured by administering the modified ROLE survey. Two laboratory sections were taught by one of the authors using an inquiry-based CURE approach, and two sections were taught by a different instructor using traditional cookbook methods. In order to investigate the effect of prior CURE experiences on student perceptions, all of the students included in this analysis had completed at least one CURE, some had even completed multiple CUREs. A subset of Likert-scale responses corresponding to our programe outcomes are summarized in Figure 2. Students enrolled in the CURE sections of the Organic Chemistry laboratory reported higher gains across the board including a majority of students (80%) reporting a readiness for more demanding research. Interestingly, in the traditional Organic Chemistry laboratory sections, a large majority (90%) of the 25% of students who reported that they had made large or very large gains in understanding the research process, also reported that they had no interest in chemical research. 124 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 2. Summary of Likert-scale self-reported gains for Organic Chemistry II students who had participated in at least one previous CURE using a modified CURE survey (12, 13) Likert-scale items. 1.1 Commitment to developing good lab techniques; 1.2 Learning to persevere at a task; 1.3 Tolerance for obstacles faced in the research process; 1.4 Increasing self-reliance and embracing mistakes; 1.5 Learning to work independently; 1.6 Self-confidence; 1.7 Ability to acquire and analyze data; 1.8 Understanding the need to acquire precise data;1.9 Question and examine evidence more rigorously; 1.10 Understanding the research process; 1.11 Interest in chemistry research; 1.12 Readiness for more demanding research.

Emergent Themes One modification of the ROLE survey was the inclusion of spaces for open-ended reflective responses. The reflective responses were processed using inductive thematic analysis, coding each individual occurrence and searching across the data set to find repeated patterns of meaning (15). The themes that emerged from analyzing the qualitative data are followed by a few representative student comments.

General Chemistry II

Independence The level of independence required by the guided- and open-inquiry pedagogies was challenging and required a deeper level of understanding than structured laboratory experiences. For many learners it was a powerful and eventually positive force. 125 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

“pushed to do more than we thought we could.” “took me out of my comfort zone and tested my ability to work without guidelines.” “understanding was vital.” “pushed us to think critically and independently while acting based off understanding - not rote memory.”


For others this level of independence was overwhelming. “like being suddenly dropped in a shark tank.”

Mistakes The student responsibility for decision making resulted in many mistakes and blind alleys that were frustrating, but were ultimately seen as valuable to learning. Students felt that mistakes encouraged improved conceptual understanding, commitment, and scientific habits of mind. “This experience showed me that I am more curious about things after I make a mistake, which enhances learning.” “One major improvement I made from my mistakes was taking better observations during labs.” “Mistakes encouraged me to be more careful and organized when conducting experiments.”

Flawed Data Students felt that flawed data required more attention to the role of evidence in the inquiry process and that unsubstantiated hypotheses led to an increased understanding of the nature of science. “By having such strange data, this allowed me to fully examine the data and question each aspect of it. Although the lab would have been easier with nicer data, I would not have learned nearly as much.” “In fact, the ‘bad’ data may have made the research far more interesting and informative than ‘good’ data.” “emphasized how important it is to have multiple trials.” “Science is not a game of trying to be right all the time.” “You need to learn to respect the truth.”

126 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Tolerance for Uncertainty


The authentic research experience required a tolerance for uncertainty. Students who were comfortable with uncertainty felt it made the experience more significant or interesting. “If the answer is known, like most of the experiments we do, there is less significance in the lab.” “a lot more interesting for me when we don’t know what the exact outcomes should be.” However, students who were uncomfortable with uncertainty felt it made the experience unnerving or more difficult. “I like to have a definite answer for things.”

Organic Chemistry II, CURE Approach

Course Structure The progressive course structure challenged students to grow intellectually by requiring independent thinking and encouraging questioning. Repetition in different contexts allowed their abilities to grow over time, which led to a sense of accomplishment. “I think this was one of the most important courses I’ve taken. It taught me to think independently and always to question rather than simply follow instructions.” “This class has helped me (even in other classes) ask ‘why am I doing this?’ and ‘what does this mean?’ I have learned to engage in a higher/ deeper level of learning and understanding.” “This is one of the few classes where I studied to learn rather than for a grade. The setup of this course stretched me and allowed me to have this experience.”

Mistakes Mistakes and flawed data were built into the student experience. Overcoming mistakes motivated learning and led to increased understanding. “I realized the necessity of making mistakes and was motivated to learn about the details and chemistry behind the process rather than going through the motions.” 127 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

“The way this course was taught forced me to be willing to accept mistakes and find out why.” “I’ve learned that mistakes are a huge part of science. I’ve learned to trust myself.”


Quality of Evidence A focus on the quality of evidence and creating meaning from the data resulted in a more holistic perspective. “This class taught me to see from a holistic perspective. To notice that I may not be considering everything. I’ve improved my ability in stepping back and evaluating.” “Writing conclusions really helped me understand and differentiate little details from big overall concepts.” “My ability to organize and interpret large amounts of data improved. I can now use my results and apply them to bigger concepts.”

Organic Chemistry II, Traditional Approach Interestingly, only two of the students in the sections taught using traditional methods wrote any reflective comments, the rest of the students left this portion of the survey blank. “It often felt like I was just following directions with little or no critical thinking.” “don’t feel that I learned much.”

Lessons Learned/Advice Getting Started: Planning Backwards In developing a CURE, the specifics of the culminating research task dictate the techniques and content students must master during the course. We advocate using the “backward course design” process, in which students are expected to learn, do, and understand at the end of the course is identified first and then content knowledge and activities are chosen that will support achieving those goals (16–19). According to Wiggins and McTighe, when using the backward design process, it is important to select a research project that not only has the potential to engage students, it must incorporate big ideas and enduring understandings that we want students to retain even after they have forgotten many of the details (19). It is therefore important to select a research task that is appropriate for the level of development of the students. This also supports the ability for students to take true ownership of the culminating research experience, since they are better able 128 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


to see how their individual contribution will impact the success of the project, and are able to place the goals of each task in an appropriate intellectual context. Once the research project is selected and the techniques, thinking skills and attitudes students will need in order to navigate the experience are identified, the immensity of the task can seem overwhelming. It is then essential to keep in mind that it is unrealistic to design a CURE that meaningfully engages students in every activity identified as the nature and practice of science. However, the project should give the students the opportunity to integrate multiple scientific practices, not simply be involved in data collection. We suggest that faculty interested in developing a CURE approach the design and implementation of the project as an iterative process. Start small with a research module that lasts for four to six weeks of the semester, then develop assessments for identifying the learning goals you hope to achieve. Assessment can span a range of methods from informal checks for understanding that take place while interacting with student teams during the laboratory session such as oral questions, observations of behavior at key points, and informal dialogues, to pre- and post- lab quizzes. More formal assessments may include written work such as individual laboratory reports as well as a written practical exam where students are given a laboratory scenario and asked to analyze, interpret, explain, or predict. At each step during the course students should receive informal and/or formal feedback on their progress toward the important learning goals. The most important evidence of student learning should be demonstrated during the performance of, and on the written component of the final research task. At the end of the semester, we found it very useful to set aside time to evaluate what went well, what students struggled with the most, and to strategize ways to help the next set of students develop the necessary skills. Incorporate Inquiry-Based Activities Based on our experiences using a variety of approaches in laboratory instruction, we have observed that the affective development of students, as demonstrated by their behaviors and perceptions, may be impacted by the type of pedagogy used. This observation has led us to propose that the spectrum of pedagogies that students encounter in laboratory curricula, from cookbook through guided- and open- or authentic inquiry, to a mentored research apprenticeship, plays a role in shaping their behaviors and subsequently their attitudes about science (see Figure 3) (20). CUREs are a powerful way of engaging large numbers of students in research practice, and the inclusion of inquiry-based activities into the overall course design may enhance transformation in the affective domain. Strategic incorporation of iterative inquiry experiences and frequent feedback leading up to the research project can allow students to independently exhibit the behaviors necessary to complete the research task, and also foster the behaviors necessary for their development as scientists. Building on the work of others we have identified a laboratory research “toolkit” for our own CURE program: a set of thinking skills, habits of mind, and attitudes that students must acquire in order to accomplish the culminating research task (see Figure 4A and 4B) (3, 8, 21–24). We contend that this toolkit is at the heart of our discipline and we strive to place it at the heart of the 129 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


laboratory experience, providing students with insights into how knowledge is generated, tested, and used. The toolkit requires foundational skills as well as higher-order and abstract thinking skills that are not easy for students to acquire and may sometimes be counter-intuitive. In our experience, these latter types of thinking skills are best taught over the course of the semester using inquiry-based pedagogies where decisions regarding both the procedure and solution are constructed by the students (25).

Figure 3. Inquiry Pedagogies Shape Student Behavior by Increasing Independence Over Time As defined by Wiggins and McTighe, knowing is associated with facts, memorization, and superficial knowledge, while understanding is the ability to transfer knowledge to new and at times confusing situations. It involves “…the capacity to take what we know and use it creatively, flexibly, fluently, in different settings or problems, on our own” (19). Inquiry-based approaches require students to take an active intellectual role in their work and develop increasing independence over time through progressive development of skills, guided by practice and feedback (26). In a typical cookbook curriculum, laboratory experiences simply expose students to techniques and concepts. In an intentionally designed inquiry-based curriculum, students are challenged with an increasing level of inquiry throughout the semester to allow them to become more comfortable with the scientific process by asking questions and finding ways of answering questions independently. We argue that intentionally staging these inquiry experiences over the course of the semester allows students to “practice transfer” and ultimately begin integration of the concepts and thinking skills from the toolkit (27). The laboratory research toolkit also includes associated patterns 130 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


of thought necessary for each cognitive process skill. Repetition of similar inquiry tasks in different contexts fosters the habits of mind necessary to develop as scientists. Habits of mind for intelligent behavior are defined as “characteristics of what intelligent people do when they are confronted with problems, the resolutions to which are not immediately apparent” (28). When students engage in repetition of these thinking skills and habits of mind throughout the semester as they prepare for a final culminating research task, the experience can also lead to changes in attitudes that indicate a transformation into developing scientists.



Figure 4. The Oxford CURE program laboratory research “toolkit.” (A) Repeated application of thinking skills can develop habits of mind necessary for both general education and scientific research. (B) Repeated integration of thinking skills and habits of mind can lead to transformation as indicated by student self-reported attitudinal gains using a modified ROLE survey. Combining a staged, iterative inquiry approach with a culminating research experience may have produced a transformation in our students’ thinking skills, habits of mind, and attitudes that are more aligned with the hypothesized longterm outcomes gained through participation in multiple CUREs (4). We therefore advocate for the incorporation of iterative inquiry experiences in CUREs as a means of fostering long-term development, retention, and the ability to transfer these skills and behaviors into new contexts. Break the Design and Implementation Down into Manageable Pieces The goal of a CURE is to foster behaviors inherent in scientific practice; however, trying to incorporate too many elements into the course too soon can be overwhelming for faculty as well as students. Incorporate inquiry-based activities into the course only after you have developed the CURE elements and have identified the thinking and technical skills you wish to foster. Approach 132 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

the course design process in an iterative manner, using formative and summative assessments to inform course refinement. Each iteration of the course provides a window into students’ thinking so that you will be better able to target their misunderstandings to help them to gain a deeper conceptual understanding of their project. We recommend using guided inquiry-based activities since they are more manageable for both students and faculty who are new to these approaches.


Summary Course-based research experiences are a powerful way to expose students to the complex nature of the research process, but must provide them with a toolkit for the development of the appropriate scientific habits of mind. Strategic course planning using methods such as backward course design enables instructors to target specific technical, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Higher-level intellectual skills are not easy to acquire; nevertheless, they can be effectively fostered using inquiry-based pedagogies that provide a window into the student thought process. Allowing students to make their own naïve decisions can provide educators with an understanding of what students actually struggle with, thereby allowing them to incorporate appropriate assignments and strategies. Here we have presented our own implementation of a course-based research experience, situated in the first and second year curriculum. A majority of our students reported that they made important affective and cognitive gains during the program. These gains are similar to those reported by previous researchers indicating that inquiry-based learning, and especially research-situated inquiry learning, can lead to deeper understanding and higher levels of student motivation (29, 30). The self-reported gains and themes that emerged from the two different populations of the General Chemistry II sections and the Organic Chemistry II CURE vs traditional students indicate that repeated exposure to course-embedded research may lead to a dramatic transformation in the critical first two years of college. We argue that in the overall laboratory course design, technical and cognitive skills cannot be separated from, or even prioritized over, affective skills. The habits of mind that can be developed in a liberal arts context are exportable long-term skills which often result in combinations of focus and flexibility that make for intelligent, and sometimes courageous risk taking (31). While science courses have always been a valued aspect of higher education, all too often the laboratory experience is a place where students “see” science they have learned about in lecture, or where they practice technical skills. Early authentic research experiences can provide students with an unvarnished science experience. However, the experiences are only authentic when students have opportunities to make their own decisions, learn from mistakes, and develop attitudes that help them overcome a fear of failure and build up a tolerance for uncertainty. When iterative inquiry-based approaches and authentic research are incorporated into a laboratory course, students can practice the important habits of mind and attitudes necessary, not only for developing as scientists, but as citizens who make decisions in an increasingly complex, globalized world. Faculty who are adventurous enough to incorporate inquiry-based authentic research during 133 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

the critical early years seek, not only to transform STEM education, but to transform their students as well.

References 1.


2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

Pickering, M. Are Lab Courses a Waste of Time? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1982, 210–211. Olson, S.; Riordan, D. G. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report to the President; Executive Office of the President: 2012. Elliott, M.; Stewart, K.; Lagowski, J. The Role of the Laboratory in Chemistry Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 145. Auchincloss, L. C.; Laursen, S. L.; Branchaw, J. L.; Eagan, K.; Graham, M.; Hanauer, D. I.; Lawrie, G.; McLinn, C. M.; Pelaez, N.; Rowland, S.; Towns, M.; Trautmann, N. M.; Varma-Nelson, P.; Weston, T. J.; Dolan, E. L. Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report. Cell Biol. Educ. 2014, 13, 29–40. Powell, N. L.; Harmon, B. B. Two-Year Community: Developing Scientists A Multiyear Research Experience at a Two-Year College. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2014, 44, 11–17. Weaver, G. C.; Russell, C. B.; Wink, D. J. Inquiry-based and Research-based Laboratory Pedagogies in Undergraduate Science. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2008, 4, 577–580. Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method: Model‐Based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92, 941–967. Chinn, C. A.; Malhotra, B. A. Epistemologically Authentic Inquiry in Schools: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Inquiry Tasks. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86, 175–218. Brickman, P.; Gormally, C.; Armstrong, N.; Hallar, B. Effects of InquiryBased Learning on Students’ Science Literacy Skills and Confidence. Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 2009, 3, 1–22. Germann, P. J.; Haskins, S.; Auls, S. Analysis of Nine High School Biology Laboratory Manuals: Promoting Scientific Inquiry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1996, 33, 475–499. Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M.; Stevens, R. Effect of Cooperative Problem-Based Lab Instruction on Metacognition and Problem-Solving Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 700–706. Lopatto, D. The Essential Features of Undergraduate Research. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly 2003, 24, 139–142. Lopatto, D. Exploring the Benefits of Undergraduate Research: The SURE Survey. In Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science; Taraban, R., Blandon, R. L., Eds.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, 2008; pp 112–132. 134 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


14. Jacob, N. P. Investigating Arabia Mountain: A Molecular Approach. Science 2012, 335, 1588–1589. 15. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006, 3, 77–101. 16. Carlson, D. L.; Marshall, P. A. Learning the Science of Research, Learning the Art of Teaching: Planning Backwards in a College Genetics Course. Bioscience Education 2009, 13. 17. Davidovitch, N. Learning-Centered Teaching and Backward Course Design - From Transferring Knowledge to Teaching Skills. Journal of International Education Research. 2013, 9, 329–338. 18. Fink, L. D. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. 2003. 19. Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J. Understanding by Design. ASCD: Alexandria, VA, 2005. 20. Krathwohl, D. R.; Bloom, B. S.; Masia, B. B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain. David McKay: New York, NY, 1964. 21. Edelson, D. C. Realising Authentic Science Learning through the Adaptation of Scientific Practice. International Handbook of Science Education. 1998, 1, 317–331. 22. Hunter, A.-B.; Laursen, S. L.; Seymour, E. Becoming a Scientist: The Role of Undergraduate Research in Students’ Cognitive, Personal, and Professional Development. Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 36–74. 23. Reeves, T. C.; Herrington, J.; Oliver, R. Authentic Activities and Online Learning. In Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education; Goody, A.; Herrington, J.; Northcote, M., Eds.; HERDSA: Jamison, ACT, 2002; 25, pp 562–567. 24. Brown, J. S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher. 1989, 18, 32–42. 25. Fay, M. E.; Grove, N. P.; Towns, M. H.; Bretz, S. L. A Rubric to Characterize Inquiry in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 212–219. 26. Lee, V. S. What is Inquiry-Guided Learning? New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2012, 129, 5–14. 27. Spronken‐Smith, R.; Walker, R. Can Inquiry‐Based Learning Strengthen the Links between Teaching and Disciplinary Research? Studies in Higher Education. 2010, 35, 723–740. 28. Costa, A. L. Describing the Habits of Mind. InLearning and Leading with Habits of Mind: 16 Essential Characteristics for Success; Costa, A. L.; Kallick, B., Eds.; ASCD: Alexandria, VA, 2008; pp. 15–41. 29. Berg, C. A. R.; Bergendahl, V. C. B.; Lundberg, B.; Tibell, L. Benefiting from an Open-Ended Experiment? A Comparison of Attitudes to, and Outcomes of, an Expository Versus an Open-Inquiry Version of the Same Experiment. International Journal of Science Education. 2003, 25, 351–372. 30. Winkelmann, K.; Baloga, M.; Marcinkowski, T.; Giannoulis, C.; Anquandah, G.; Cohen, P. Improving Students’ Inquiry Skills and 135 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Self-Efficacy through Research-Inspired Modules in the General Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 92, 247–255. 31. Roth, M. What’s a Liberal Arts Education Good For? http://www. huffingtonpost.com/michael-roth/whats-a-liberal-arts-educ_b_147584.html (accessed September 27, 2015).


Course-Embedded Undergraduate Research Experiences - American

Recommend Documents