Welcome to ASMCUE in Seattle, Washington! Registered attendees are able to download the mobile app onto their phone, create a log-in, and make a personalized schedule and chat with attendees. Questions? Email [email protected]
Log in to add sessions to your schedule and sync them to your phone or calendar.
Undergraduate research experiences have been shown to improve students' critical thinking skills, increase retention in STEM, and foster scientific identity and belonging. Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) provide an inclusive model by embedding authentic research into laboratory coursework. Following the transition of MCB120L from a traditional laboratory course to a CURE format, we sought to compare the two instructional models from the student perspective. Students who completed the traditional MCB120L during the 2024–2025 academic year were recruited to participate in a Summer 2025 pilot of the CURE curriculum. Eleven students completed the pilot and provided weekly reflections comparing the traditional and CURE modules, as well as oral exit interviews. Students consistently reported that the traditional format built confidence through repetition and minimized the impact of mistakes but lacked the authenticity and accountability of a true research experience. In contrast, the CURE format was perceived as more challenging and less forgiving of errors, yet more engaging, purposeful, and representative of authentic scientific research. Students further suggested that incorporating CURE elements, such as continuity between experiments and introducing experimental uncertainty, could improve traditional laboratory courses. The CURE curriculum was fully implemented during the 2025–2026 academic year, and students completed pre- and post-course surveys measuring self-efficacy in scientific skills. Analysis comparing perceived scientific skill gains between the traditional and CURE cohorts across four domains—research preparation, methodology and data analysis, self-management and teamwork, and communication—is currently underway. Preliminary data from the traditional format show the greatest gains in methodology and data analysis and the smallest gains in research preparation, suggesting that while iterative experimentation effectively develops technical skills, it provides fewer opportunities to cultivate scientific reasoning. We invite discussion on strategies for incorporating authentic research experiences into laboratory curricula, particularly in resource-limited settings.
