Search

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) incorporate authentic research instead of confirmatory exercises into laboratory courses. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a general shift in instructional modalities from face-to-face (F2F) towards hybrid and online teaching. Student impacts caused by the abrupt shift to online teaching have been characterized, but comparisons between modalities for CUREs are missing. Therefore, we evaluated student learning and attitudinal outcomes in F2F, hybrid, and online delivery of an introductory college biology CURE. Additionally, we compared student outcomes between White/Asian students and persons excluded due to ethnicity or race (PEER) in these modalities. There were significant learning differences between modalities, but there were no significant learning differences by PEER status. Of six attitudinal variables, one varied significantly by modality and three varied significantly for PEER students. These results suggest that CUREs can be adapted to the online or hybrid modality with minimal impacts on student outcomes.

This study investigated the impact of a summer institute with follow-up coaching (treatment) versus no professional development (control) on middle and high school teacher and student science practice outcomes. Treatment teachers participated in a 2-week summer institute that used evidence-based professional development practices followed by remotely delivered instructional coaching led by project-based science coaches over 6-8 weeks during the school year. Results from 124 teachers across 110 schools showed significant differences between treatment and control groups for teacher science practice knowledge, performance, beliefs, and self-efficacy and student science practice skills and self-efficacy. Teacher effect sizes for the combined summer institute plus coaching (treatment) across all dependent variables ranged from 0.67 to 1.37. Student comparisons showed higher science practice performance for the treatment group; effect sizes were 0.39 for high school and 0.34 for middle school. Results demonstrated significantly higher increases in student self-efficacy for the treatment compared to the control group, and this increased self-efficacy was sustained through the end of the school year. Results substantiate the value of combining coaching with a summer institute to support teacher growth and development, with the summer institute providing foundational knowledge and fostering teacher self-efficacy to effectively implement newly learned instructional practices. The coaching in turn built on that foundation and provided needed support for teachers to transfer knowledge and skills to classroom practice.

In response to calls for reform in undergraduate biology education, we conducted research examining how varying active-learning strategies impacted students' conceptual understanding, attitudes, and motivation in two sections of a large-lecture introductory cell and molecular biology course. Using a quasi-experimental design, we collected quantitative data to compare participants' conceptual understanding, attitudes, and motivation in the biological sciences across two contexts that employed different active-learning strategies and that were facilitated by unique instructors. Students participated in either graphic organizer/worksheet activities or clicker-based case studies. After controlling for demographic and presemester affective differences, we found that students in both active-learning environments displayed similar and significant learning gains. In terms of attitudinal and motivational data, significant differences were observed for two attitudinal measures. Specifically, those students who had participated in graphic organizer/worksheet activities demonstrated more expert-like attitudes related to their enjoyment of biology and ability to make real-world connections. However, all motivational and most attitudinal data were not significantly different between the students in the two learning environments. These data reinforce the notion that active learning is associated with conceptual change and suggests that more research is needed to examine the differential effects of varying active-learning strategies on students' attitudes and motivation in the domain.

Within the past decade, course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have emerged as a viable mechanism to enhance novices' development of scientific reasoning and process skills in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. Recent evidence within the bioeducation literature suggests that student engagement in such experiences not only increases their appreciation for and interest in scientific research but also enhances their ability to "think like a scientist." Despite these critical outcomes, few studies have objectively explored CURE versus non-CURE students' development of content knowledge, attitudes, and motivation in the discipline, particularly among nonvolunteer samples. To address these concerns, we adopted a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the aforementioned outcomes following implementation of a novel CURE in an introductory cell/molecular biology course. Results indicate that CURE participants exhibited more expert-like outcomes on these constructs relative to their nonCURE counterparts, including in those areas related to self-efficacy, self-determination, and problem-solving strategies. Furthermore, analysis of end-of-term survey data suggests that select features of the CURE, such as increased student autonomy and collaboration, mediate student learning and enjoyment. Collectively, this research provides novel insights into the benefits achieved as a result of CURE participation and can be used to guide future development and evaluation of authentic research opportunities.

Rationale: Clinical practice guidelines support structured, progressive protocols for improving walking after stroke. Yet, practice is slow to change, evidenced by the little amount of walking activity in stroke rehabilitation units. Our recent study (n = 75) found that a structured, progressive protocol integrated with typical daily physical therapy improved walking and quality-of-life measures over usual care. Research therapists progressed the intensity of exercise by using heart rate and step counters worn by the participants with stroke during therapy. To have the greatest impact, our next step is to undertake an implementation trial to change practice across stroke units where we enable the entire unit to use the protocol as part of standard of care. Aims: What is the effect of introducing structured, progressive exercise (termed the Walk 'n Watch protocol) to the standard of care on the primary outcome of walking in adult participants with stroke over the hospital inpatient rehabilitation period? Secondary outcomes will be evaluated and include quality of life. Methods and sample size estimates: This national, multisite clinical trial will randomize 12 sites using a stepped-wedge design where each site will be randomized to deliver Usual Care initially for 4, 8, 12, or 16 months (three sites for each duration). Then, each site will switch to the Walk 'n Watch phase for the remaining duration of a total 20-month enrolment period. Each participant will be exposed to either Usual Care or Walk 'n Watch. The trial will enroll a total of 195 participants with stroke to achieve a power of 80% with a Type I error rate of 5%, allowing for 20% dropout. Participants will be medically stable adults post-stroke and able to take five steps with a maximum physical assistance from one therapist. The Walk 'n Watch protocol focuses on completing a minimum of 30 min of weight-bearing, walking-related activities (at the physical therapists' discretion) that progressively increase in intensity informed by activity trackers measuring heart rate and step number. Study outcome(s): The primary outcome will be the change in walking endurance, measured by the 6-Minute Walk Test, from baseline (T1) to 4 weeks (T2). This change will be compared across Usual Care and Walk 'n Watch phases using a linear mixed-effects model. Additional physical, cognitive, and quality of life outcomes will be measured at T1, T2, and 12 months post-stroke (T3) by a blinded assessor. Discussion: The implementation of stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial enables the protocol to be tested under real-world conditions, involving all clinicians on the unit. It will result in all sites and all clinicians on the unit to gain expertise in protocol delivery. Hence, a deliberate outcome of the trial is facilitating changes in best practice to improve outcomes for participants with stroke in the trial and for the many participants with stroke admitted after the trial ends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]