Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have the potential to improve undergraduate biology education by involving large numbers of students in research. CUREs can take a variety of forms with different affordances and constraints, complicating the evaluation of design features that might contribute to successful outcomes. In this study, we compared students’ responses to three different research experiences offered within the same course. One of the research experiences involved purely computational work, whereas the other two offerings were bench-based research experiences. We found that students who participated in computer-based research reported at least as much interest in their research projects, a higher sense of achievement, and a higher level of satisfaction with the course compared with students who did bench-based research projects. In open-ended comments, similar proportions of students in each research area expressed some sense of project ownership as contributing positively to their course experiences. Their comments also supported the finding that experiencing a sense of achievement was a predictor of course satisfaction. We conclude that both computer-based and bench-based CUREs can have positive impacts on students’ attitudes. Development of more computer-based CUREs might allow larger numbers of students to benefit from participating in a research experience.

Prior studies have shown that students have difficulty understanding the role of mutation in evolution and genetics. However, little is known about unifying themes underlying students’ difficulty with mutation. In this study, we examined students’ written explanations about mutation from a cognitive science perspective. According to one cognitive perspective, scientific phenomena can be perceived as entities or processes, and the miscategorization of processes as entities can lead to noncanonical ideas about scientific phenomena that are difficult to change. Students’ incorrect categorization of processes as entities is well documented in physics but has not been studied in biology. Unlike other scientific phenomena that have been studied, the word “mutation” refers to both the process causing a change in the DNA and the entity, the altered DNA, making mutation a relevant concept for exploration and extension of this theory. In this study, we show that, even after instruction on mutation, the majority of students provided entity-focused descriptions of mutation in response to a question that prompted for a process-focused description in a lizard or a bacterial population. Students’ noncanonical ideas about mutation occurred in both entity- and process-focused descriptions. Implications for conceptual understanding and instruction are discussed.

Scientific research has a culture that can be challenging to enter. Different aspects of this culture may act as barriers or entry points for different people. Recognition of these barriers and entry points requires identifying aspects of the culture of scientific research and synthesizing them into a single, descriptive framework. A systematic literature review encompassing a two-pronged search strategy, descriptive mapping of ideas, and consensus building, was performed to identify aspects of scientific research culture. This resulted in the Culture of Scientific Research (CSR) Framework, composed of 31 cultural aspects categorized as either Practices, Norms/Expectations, or Values/Beliefs. Additional evidence of validity was collected through a survey that asked biological researchers to indicate which aspects in the framework were relevant to their experiences of research. The majority of survey respondents (n = 161) perceived the 31 aspects in the CSR Framework as relevant to biological research. This framework provides a consistent structure for describing the experiences of people engaging with the culture of scientific research. The literature review included literature from multiple disciplines, so the CSR Framework should be broadly applicable. Future applications of the CSR Framework include identifying possible barriers and entry points experienced by groups currently underrepresented in scientific research.

When conducting biological investigations, experts constantly integrate their conceptual and quantitative understanding of variation with the design and analysis of the investigation. This process is difficult for students, because curricula often treat these concepts as separate components. This study describes the effect of a curricular intervention aimed at improving students’ conceptual and quantitative understanding of variation in the context of experimental design and analysis. A model-based intervention curriculum consisting of five short modules was implemented in an introductory biology laboratory course. All students received the regular laboratory curriculum, and half of the students also received the Intervention curriculum. Students’ understanding of variation was assessed using a published 16-question multiple-choice instrument designed and validated by the research team. Students were assessed before and after the intervention was implemented, and normalized gain scores were calculated. Students who received the intervention showed significantly higher normalized gains than students who did not receive the intervention. This effect was not influenced by students’ gender or exposure to prior statistics courses and persisted into and through the following semester’s laboratory course. These results provide support for the use of model-based approaches to improve students’ understanding of biological variation in experimental design and analysis.

Undergraduate students interact with the culture of scientific research when they participate in direct mentorship experiences and laboratory courses such as course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Much work has been done to explore how CUREs impact the interest, motivation, and retention of undergraduate students in science. However, little work has been done exploring students’ experiences and perceptions of the culture of scientific research in the CURE context, and how different CURE models representing different subfields of science impact these experiences and perceptions. This study explored which cultural aspects of scientific research students experienced after participating in a CURE and whether their perceptions of those cultural aspects differed based on students’ participation in a bench-based or computer-based research project. Students discussed the Practices and Norms/Expectations of scientific research most frequently. Students in the bench-based and computer-based project areas mentioned different cultural aspects as important to their experiences. Bench-based and computational students also had different perceptions of some of the same cultural aspects, including Teamwork, Freedom & Independence, and Persistence & Resilience. These results suggest that different CURE models differentially impact students’ experiences and perceptions of the culture of scientific research, which has implications for examining how students move into scientific research.