What's on my surfaces? design and implementation of an indoor surface films CURE-inspired project†
Andrea L. Van Wyk‡
*,
Alexandria Julius,
Lauren Andrews,
Binaya Shrestha,
Scott K. Shaw and
Renée S. Cole
Department of Chemistry, University of Iowa, IA 52242, USA. E-mail: andrea.vanwyk@drake.edu
First published on 22nd July 2025
Abstract
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) allow all students to engage in undergraduate research experiences and gain important skills such as problem solving and critical thinking. The goal of this work was to design a CURE-inspired project for an upper-level analytical chemistry laboratory course that engaged students in novel research to detect and quantify the amount of nitrate and nitrite in indoor surface films. The students searched for and read literature on indoor surface films, collected samples from a location of their choosing, quantitatively analyzed the samples with HPLC, and created a customer report to describe their findings. Two semesters of implementation revealed that the project successfully engaged students in elements of the research process and met many of the learning goals. Student focus group interviews revealed that students were personally invested in the research process because they were investigating indoor spaces where they spend a lot of time and that they perceived this laboratory experience to resemble that of authentic research.
Background
Over the last few decades there have been national calls to increase retention and to grow the number of STEM graduates to meet economic demands of the growing technology and science industries (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, National Research Council, 2011, Olson and Riordan, 2012). These calls have raised attention placed on the education STEM students are receiving and the skills they need to develop in preparation for the job market. In particular, it has been recommended to replace standard laboratory activities with discovery-based research experiences (Olson and Riordan, 2012, National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, 2017). A wealth of research has shown that students gain rich benefits when they engage in undergraduate research experiences (UREs) such as learning to think like a scientist, finding research exciting, and increases in their intentions to pursue graduate education or careers in science (Kardash, 2000, Seymour et al., 2004, Laursen et al., 2010, Eagan et al., 2011). While studies have shown benefits for all students when engaging in research experiences, the benefits to students in historically underserved groups are also significant (Villarejo et al., 2008, Eagan et al., 2011). Additionally, graduate programs are increasingly expecting student-applicants to have UREs when applying to their programs (Bangera and Brownell, 2014).Why do a CURE?
UREs are valuable but limited in number. There are limited number of URE opportunities available working in faculty research labs within a department or national programs such as the National Science Foundation's Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, creating competition for spots. This limitation is accentuated for historically underserved student groups (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Students also have to know that such opportunities exist and seek them out. Studies have shown that few students are aware that these opportunities exist when they apply to college and in their introductory years (Healey et al., 2010, Spronken-Smith et al., 2014). At smaller institutions such as community colleges and primarily undergraduate institutions, students may have even more limited awareness and access to UREs (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Along with this, students, particularly first-generation students, may not realize the rich benefits of UREs. These opportunities require time outside of regular courses, employment, and extracurriculars that a student may be juggling. Many research opportunities are volunteer and unpaid, at least at the start, and may not be feasible for students working to finance their college education (Bangera and Brownell, 2014).Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are a way to eliminate barriers that exist with UREs by embedding the same types of experiences into existing course structures which all students take as part of a bachelor's degree curriculum. A CURE has students working in a course to address a research question or problem that is novel and of interest to the scientific community (Auchincloss et al., 2014). They can vary in design but must have five key characteristics as defined by the CURE network in 2014: use of science practices, discovery, broadly relevant or important work, collaboration, and iteration (Auchincloss et al., 2014). These characteristics set CUREs apart from other laboratory approaches. For instance, for an inquiry-based laboratory activity, the discovery and broadly relevant aspects are limited as the instructor often knows that outcome of the activity and the research question being answered is not novel. A CURE can be designed around an instructor's research interests or can be a part of an already existing multiple institution program such as BASIL (Roberts et al., 2019, Sikora et al., 2020) or CASPiE (Weaver et al., 2006, Weaver et al., 2008, Wink and Weaver, 2008, Szteinberg and Weaver, 2013).
CUREs benefit not only the students but also the teaching assistants and faculty who develop and facilitate them. Studies have shown many positive outcomes for students who engage in a CURE, including increased scientific skills, increased scientific self-efficacy, better understanding of the nature of science, interest in pursuing scientific careers, and improved retention in STEM degrees (Harrison et al., 2011, Brownell et al., 2012, Brownell et al., 2015, Shapiro et al., 2015, Rodenbusch et al., 2016, Chase et al., 2017, Indorf et al., 2019, Cooper et al., 2020). Graduate teaching assistants or postdoctoral scholars who are involved in designing or facilitating a CURE benefit from career preparation for those interested in teaching and gain experience guiding undergraduate students through a research project (Cascella and Jez, 2018, Goodwin et al., 2021). In addition to the benefits to graduate student learning, faculty who design and implement CUREs benefit from the integration of research and teaching, collection of larger amounts of data, exploration of topics that would otherwise not be achievable, and publications (Elgin et al., 2016, Shortlidge et al., 2016).
Key aspects of designing a CURE
As interest in implementing CUREs has increased, guidance has been provided for designing a CURE (Cooper et al., 2017, Dolan and Weaver, 2021, Provost, 2022). The consensus of this guidance is to use Backward Design where the research goals and student learning objectives are defined first and then the CURE is designed to align with those (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005). Defining the research goal of the CURE is crucial to ensuring the CURE can be built around a research question that is broadly relevant and will yield novel data (Cooper et al., 2017). It is also important to consider the appropriateness of the research questions for the population that will be completing it as well as the practical considerations such as the resources and equipment that may be needed. Once a specific research question is determined, the student learning goals must be established. The nature of the research question may constrain what student learning goals are possible for a CURE. Student learning goals can be cognitive, affective, and/or psychomotor (Cooper et al., 2017). A single laboratory experience may not be able to incorporate all course learning goals, so it is important to carefully consider what student learning goals are the highest priority and best suited for the CURE. It is also important to consider the appropriateness of these learning goals for the student population and ensure the goals are specific and measurable to facilitate assessment and iteration.Once the research goals and the student learning goals are determined, the next step is to consider what would serve as evidence that students are meeting the intended outcomes, which will then inform appropriate assessment strategies to evaluate progress towards the goals (Cooper et al., 2017). For evaluating progress towards the research goals, measures similar to apprenticeship-style UREs can be used, such as surveys, concept inventories, and course artifacts (Cooper et al., 2017). Once the assessment plan is in place, the last step is to design activities and instruction aligned with those goals (Cooper et al., 2017). These activities and instruction provide students opportunities to practice and make progress with the goals of the CURE prior to any forms of assessment. The final step is to further iterate and revise upon the implementation of the CURE.
Previous CUREs and project-based laboratory experiences designed for analytical chemistry
Although CUREs have a longer history in biology education, they are becoming more common in chemistry curricula. There have been several published CUREs or research-based laboratory projects in analytical and environmental chemistry (Kesner and Eyring, 1999, Kerr and Yan, 2016, Heider et al., 2018, Lau et al., 2019, Miller and Gift, 2019, Allen et al., 2021, Muna, 2021, Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022, Scarborough et al., 2022, Tong et al., 2023). Published CUREs or research-based laboratory projects have focused on a variety of topics including detecting lead in soil samples (Muna, 2021) or paint (Kesner and Eyring, 1999), assessing water filtration systems (Gouger and Mirowsky, 2022), water quality analysis (Miller and Gift, 2019), quantifying sucralose in water-treatment wetlands (Heider et al., 2018), analyzing modified sugar molecules in membranes (Allen et al., 2021), and lead in red clover (Tong et al., 2023). These topics were often chosen because of the relevancy of the topics to students’ lives or a connection to an instructor’s research. There have also been examples of CUREs that were designed to connect content from analytical chemistry and another discipline such as organic chemistry (Allen et al., 2021) and environmental toxicology (Lau et al., 2019).Published analytical CUREs and research-based projects highlight various laboratory components that engage students in authentic research. One laboratory component that has been highlighted is having students write research questions and hypotheses (Gouger and Mirowsky, 2022, Provost, 2022). Writing research questions is a science practice identified by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) but tends to be a practice students get limited experience with. Published CUREs/projects that had students develop their own research question (Gao, 2015) often provided some guidance such as a topic to help narrow the options, or provided feedback to students on their research question. Developing a hypothesis was seen less frequently in analytical CUREs/projects (Gouger and Mirowsky, 2022) but has been identified as an important part of the research process (Provost, 2022).
Another important component of CUREs/projects is a literature review (Tomasik et al., 2014, Kerr and Yan, 2016, Lau et al., 2019, Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022). Often the literature review objectives include helping students understand what is known on the topic of the CURE (Tomasik et al., 2014, Kerr and Yan, 2016), locating a reasonable experimental protocol (Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022), and better understanding of the motivation for the work (Lau et al., 2019).
After doing a literature search, many CUREs/projects ask students to make decisions for the data collection and data analysis processes. Many CUREs/projects gave students choices on what type of samples they wanted to analyze (Kerr and Yan, 2016, Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022, Gouger and Mirowsky, 2022) or had them collect their own samples (Tomasik et al., 2014, Heider et al., 2018, Miller and Gift, 2019, Muna, 2021, Tong et al., 2023). Studies have demonstrated that allowing students to choose their samples or having them collect samples relevant to their life encourages autonomy and motivation for the project (Kesner and Eyring, 1999, Lau et al., 2019). Along with data collection, a hallmark component of published CUREs/projects is having students design the experimental protocol. Examples of some student designed experimental protocols include searching the literature for established protocols (Gao, 2015, Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022, Scarborough et al., 2022), assessing and selecting the most appropriate analytical technique for analysis (Gao, 2015, Muna, 2021), improving a student generated protocol through instructor feedback (Gao, 2015, Lau et al., 2019, Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022, Gouger and Mirowsky, 2022), and iterating the experimental protocol (Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022).
The last component of published CUREs/projects is having students communicate their findings. Some CURE projects require formal laboratory reports in the style of a scientific journal (Gao, 2015, Heider et al., 2018, Miller and Gift, 2019, Allen et al., 2021, Muna, 2021, Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022, Gouger and Mirowsky, 2022, Scarborough et al., 2022, Tong et al., 2023). Other projects had students give oral presentations (Gao, 2015, Kerr and Yan, 2016, Allen et al., 2021, Gouger and Mirowsky, 2022, Scarborough et al., 2022) or poster presentations at a campus research symposium (Lau et al., 2019). Some studies had more of a service-learning emphasis and had students write up a customer report, or share their findings with the community (Kesner and Eyring, 1999, Tomasik et al., 2014, Heider et al., 2018, Lau et al., 2019, Miller and Gift, 2019, Scarborough et al., 2022, Tong et al., 2023). These shared research components informed how we designed our CURE-inspired laboratory project.
Development of the indoor surface films project
Background information about the course
We sought to develop a CURE-inspired laboratory project for an upper-level analytical chemistry laboratory course at a large public Midwestern University. This course primarily serves 3rd and 4th year undergraduate chemistry majors. This course covers three large units: electrochemistry, spectroscopy, and separations. Prerequisite courses include a quantitative analysis laboratory course and two analytical chemistry lecture courses.Lecture for the course meets twice a week for 75 minutes where the course instructor provides information on the theory and instrumental techniques related to the chemistry unit of study. Following the lectures on that unit, students complete a 4-week laboratory rotation where they complete laboratory procedures related to the unit. Students attend two laboratory periods each week (∼6 hours total) and work in pairs on their assigned procedures. GTAs facilitate the procedures, and support students as they process and analyse their data. At the end of the semester students complete a laboratory practical on one of the instruments used previously in the semester. Laboratory procedures that students complete in this course are largely structured and guided inquiry, as seen in Table 1, where the focus is on learning the laboratory technique or instrument and then analyzing the data in the context of the research question (Bruck et al., 2008). Because of this reliance on traditional laboratory experiments and the occurrence of this course towards the end of the Chemistry degree, we chose to design a project-based lab to engage students in a high level of inquiry and to encourage their development of transferrable research skills.
| Laboratory experiment | Level of inquiry |
|---|---|
| Plots and fits | 0.5 (Structured inquiry) |
| Coulometry | 1 (Guided inquiry) |
| Cyclic voltammetry | 1 (Guided inquiry) |
| UV-Vis | 1 (Guided inquiry) |
| ICP-AES | 1 (Guided inquiry) |
| FTIR | 1 (Guided inquiry) |
| Fluorescence | 1 (Guided inquiry) |
| Gas chromatography | 1 (Guided inquiry) |
| Capillary electrophoresis | 1.5 (between guided and open inquiry) |
Topic of the CURE-inspired laboratory project
We chose to focus the chemistry content of the project on characterizing indoor surface films, which is a growing area of research in environmental chemistry (Ault et al., 2020, Liu et al., 2020). Indoor surface films are ca. micrometer thick films that form on surfaces such as tables, walls, and floors in indoor areas (Liu et al., 2020). Understanding the chemical composition of these films is important for understanding potential human health impacts that come from indoor environments. Because indoor films are a relatively new research area, little is known about how their composition varies across indoor locations or the principal factors that impact their development. Characterizing indoor films from various locations, chosen by the students, serves as a great basis for a CURE-inspired laboratory project as it results in data that is novel and contributes to the growing knowledge base of indoor surface films.Project goals and student learning objectives
To design a CURE-inspired laboratory project around the characterization of indoor surface films, we started by narrowing the research area to a single research question and identifying student learning objectives for the experience. Cooper et al. recommends using Backward Design in designing a CURE, both in terms of the research objectives and student learning objectives, where the outcomes are defined first and then learning experiences are designed to align with those outcomes (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005, Cooper et al., 2017, Dolan and Weaver, 2021, Neiles and Arnett, 2021). We defined the following research question: What levels of nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate are present in various indoor surface films? To design a learning experience to address this research outcome, we found and modified a Reverse Phase High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (RP-HPLC) protocol for the separation of nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate ions and designed a protocol for collecting and extracting indoor surface films for analysis (Moshoeshoe and Obuseng, 2018). Details of the chemical protocol are provided in the ESI.†Along with a research objective, we focused our CURE-inspired laboratory project on a mixture of content-focused and skill-focused student learning objectives:
Content-based student learning objectives:
1. Synthesize current literature on indoor films and factors that influence their composition
2. Use findings from the literature review to inform a hypothesis
3. Optimize a protocol for extracting indoor films and isolating the nitrate/nitrite/phosphate using HPLC
4. Determine analyte peaks of interest in HPLC chromatograms
5. Quantify the level of nitrate/nitrite/phosphate in indoor films
Skill-based student learning objectives:
6. Develop proficiency with the literature review writing style
7. Contextualize and justify findings in the context of the research question
8. Communicate findings to a general audience
We then used Backward Design to design aspects of the project where students could engage with and be assessed on each student learning objective. Details of the different elements of the CURE are outlined below.
How the project met the 5 criteria for a CURE
Taking inspiration from the CURE structure, we designed our project to adhere to the five defining characteristics of a CURE set forth in Auchincloss et al.: (Auchincloss et al., 2014) use science practices, discovery, broadly relevant or important work, collaboration, and iteration. For the emphasis on science practices, we wanted to provide opportunities for students to engage in the science practices of planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating and communicating information (National Research Council, 2012, NGSS Lead States, 2013). We integrated places for planning out investigations into the pre-laboratory work, while analyzing and interpreting data, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating and communicating information were focused through the final report write-up. The second and third tenets, discovery and broadly relevant work, were met through the research premise of the project. Students were tasked with quantifying the amount of nitrate and nitrite in indoor surface films from a location of their choosing; values not known in literature. This topic is a relatively new and growing area of chemistry research, and it is significant as humans spend 90% of their time indoors (Klepeis et al., 2001, Ault et al., 2020). The fourth tenet, collaboration, is met by having students work together through the laboratory work. While students are working up their individual samples from the location of their choosing, they work with a partner to prepare and run standards and can consult each other during their individual sample analysis. The last tenet, iteration, was met through providing opportunities for feedback and revision throughout the project, such as with the pre-laboratory planning questions and literature review assignment. With the constraints on time for this project, students were not able to iterate the laboratory protocol to the extent of a full CURE.Scaffolding for the project
In examining coursework in chemistry classes serving as prerequisites for this course we noted how stark of a difference a CURE-inspired laboratory project would be for students in comparison to their previous experiences. To ensure that students were equipped for the experiences, we scaffolded the project through a variety of supporting activities over the course of the semester as seen in Fig. 1. These activities engaged students in the normal flow of a research project, starting with a review of literature, developing a plan, collecting data, and disseminating the findings. | ||
| Fig. 1 Timeline of project activities over the course of the semester of implementation. | ||
An example of one student's submitted literature review, data collection plan, pre-laboratory questions and customer report have been provided in the ESI.†
Implementation and assessment of the CURE-inspired laboratory project
Implementation details
This CURE-inspired project has been implemented twice in an upper-level analytical chemistry laboratory course that meets during the spring semester. Details about the number of students and GTAs are listed in Table 2.| Semester 1 | Semester 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of students | 15 | 25 |
| Number of sections (number of primary GTAs) | 2 | 3 |
| Number of floater GTAs (split time across laboratory sections) | 1 | 1 |
Each laboratory section was run by a GTA. There was a primary GTA for their respective laboratory section which met twice a week. Both semesters there was an additional GTA who was a floater and attended the first part of each laboratory section to help the primary GTA. Both semesters this was a GTA who has taught the course several times and was proficient with the laboratory experiments and instrumentation.
Research questions
Along with implementing the CURE-inspired laboratory project, we also wanted to assess the impact of the project on student learning and student perceptions by asking the following research questions:1. In what ways do students meet the learning objectives of the CURE-inspired laboratory project?
2. In what ways do students perceive that they are impacted by completing the CURE-inspired laboratory project?
Data collection
To assess the effectiveness and impact of the project implementation, several data sources were collected from students who provided consent to be in the research study. Students provided consent to each type of data separately, so the n-values are not consistent for each data source and are dependent on students uploading their completed assignment to the course page for grading. The same data collection methods were used for both years that the project was implemented. All data was deidentified and pseudonyms used in their place and the data was stored on a secure drive.
Box 1 Semi-structured interview question protocol used for student focus group interviews1. What did you learn through completing the Indoor Films lab?2. How was the Indoor Films lab different than other labs that you completed in this course or other chemistry courses you’ve taken? 3. What did you like about this laboratory experience compared to some in the past? 4. What were come challenges of the Indoor Films lab? 5. How do you think this Indoor Films lab prepared you for your future career? 6. From your perspective as the one who completed the lab, what are some ways we can improve the Indoor Films lab for future semesters? |
Data analysis
For both years that the CURE-inspired project was implemented, each data source was analyzed in the following manner.Changes to the design of the project based on preliminary results of implementation
From the preliminary results acquired from the first semester of implementation, we made several changes to the project structure to address the sticking points and students’ feedback. For the literature review assignment, the first change that we made based on students’ feedback was to extend the assignment timeframe from one week to two weeks. We also dedicated an additional half laboratory period (1.5 hours) to working on the literature review as a group. The first author gave a presentation of different resources available to students that focused on the purpose of a literature review, how to go about generating a literature review, and the resources available to them to locate literature. Students were then given time to start searching the literature with help from the course instructor and GTAs. We also developed a resource sheet with links to resources on writing a literature review, organizing literature, available databases, and examples of good literature reviews as seen in the ESI.†From initial focus group interviews we learned that many students had not written a literature review before and so we thought it would be beneficial to provide an opportunity for students to receive feedback and revise their literature reviews to get more experience. We added an in-class activity where students paired up and reviewed each other's literature reviews with the aid of a worksheet of guiding questions aligned with the literature review rubric. This activity can be seen in the ESI.† Through this activity students provided feedback on the organization, synthesis of literature, content, and citations format. After the activity, students revised their literature reviews and resubmitted it for a final grade.
From the preliminary student work for the data collection plan, we noticed that students often lacked a written explanation for their proposed location and hypothesis of findings. We modified the assignment slightly to emphasize that students should provide an explanation or justification to back up why they want to study that location and their hypothesis.
We made several changes to the laboratory procedure to enhance the separation chemistry. We changed the mobile phase composition, column and HPLC run parameters. We also switched to smaller wafers for film collection (50 mm) that could easily fit in the bottom of a glass beaker and decreased the sonication time. These conditions are presented in the student procedure presented in the ESI.† We also gave the TAs more training on the HPLC so they could better assist students and troubleshoot problems.
One piece of feedback that we received from the students on the pre-laboratory questions was to have the GTAs check over the pre-laboratory question prior to starting the laboratory work so they could receive feedback and make changes before getting too far into the laboratory work. Since the pre-laboratory questions for the CURE-inspired laboratory project were more conceptual and focused on experimental design rather than other pre-laboratory assignments where students practice calculations, we felt that it was important that GTAs review students’ pre-laboratory assignments prior to laboratory. Additionally, we modified a few pre-laboratory questions to improve their clarity based on student responses from cohort 1.
For the customer report we identified a few places that we needed to clarify or scaffold more. We included more explicit prompting for students to describe the risks of the nitrate/nitrite levels, implications of those levels, suggestions for improvement and more guidance on creating a graphic for their customer report. From the initial focus group interviews we learned that for many students writing a customer report was a new form of writing for them, so we wanted to provide students with more guidance and resources to assist them in their writing. We created a resource document with links to resources on how to communicate scientific findings to a general audience, designing a graphic, and an example customer report. We also provided a suggestion of having a friend or family member who is not an expert in science to read through and provide feedback.
Ethical considerations
The research received approval from the Human Subjects office at the University of Iowa (IRB no 201401740).Results and discussion
The various data sources collected for both semesters of implementation were analyzed to answer the two research questions. To determine students’ achievement of the learning outcomes of the project we analyzed students’ course artifacts and the laboratory observations. To determine students’ perceptions of the experience we analyzed their pre- and post-survey responses and their focus group interviews.RQ1: in what ways do students meet the learning objectives of the project?
Components of each student artifact were mapped to the learning objective that it targeted. The student learning objectives and corresponding student artifact components are seen below in Table 3.| Student learning objective | Components of student artifacts | |
|---|---|---|
| Content | SLO #1: synthesize current literature on indoor films and factors that influence their composition | Literature review assignment – rubric items 2 (motive for indoor film studies), 4 (factors of composition), 5 (sources of PM) |
| Content | SLO #2: use literature to inform a hypothesis | Data collection plan – rubric item 2 (hypothesis) pre-laboratory questions 1–3 |
| Content | SLO #3: optimize a protocol for isolating and determining nitrate and nitrite in an indoor film | Data collection plan – rubric item 1 (proposed location) pre-laboratory questions 1, 4–7 |
| Content | SLO#4: determine analyte peaks of interest | Pre-laboratory questions 7–8 |
| Content | SLO #5: quantify the level of nitrate and nitrite in indoor films | Customer report – rubric item 1 (level of analytes) |
| Skill | SLO #6: develop proficiency with writing a literature review | Literature review assignment – rubric items 1 (organization) and 3 (synthesis of previous research) |
| Skill | SLO #7: communicate findings to a general audience | Customer report – rubric items 4 (graphic) and 5 (appropriate language) |
| Skill | SLO #8: contextual findings and justify findings in the context of the research question | Customer report – rubric items 2 (analyte level justification) and 3 (risks/implications/suggestions for improvement) |
Content SLO #1: synthesize current literature on indoor films and factors that influence their composition
Students demonstrated proficiency with SLO 1 through their literature review assignments. The primary roles of the literature review were to encourage students to understand where their research fits in with the current knowledge of the field and to give them some context as to what they may expect for results. Students explained the study motivation well, as all but two students received an exemplary or proficient score as seen in Fig. 2. | ||
| Fig. 2 Student scores on the literature review assignment for each rubric item. | ||
One of the goals of the literature review was to build students’ knowledge base on known factors that impact indoor surface films and sources of particulate matter (particularly for nitrate and nitrite) that may be in the films, and to encourage them to consider what may be in the environments they planned to sample. Students didn’t focus on factors of indoor films as much as we had intended with only 45% of students scoring exemplary or proficient as seen in Fig. 2. Students who scored lacking on this rubric item either listed 0–1 factors and/or sources for indoor film composition or focused on sources of particulate matter, which was a separate rubric item. Some of the common reasons for receiving a developing score were describing fewer than 3 factors, not backing up claims with citations, and not describing factors that could impact indoor film composition. When considering the sources of particulate matter, 5 of 23 students (22%) in cohort 2 scored developing or lacking, which is much improved when compared to cohort 1, where half of the class scored at developing or lacking levels. The main reasons students received a developing score on this rubric item was because they listed types of particulate matter that may be present but did not connect it back to a source, listed only 1–2 possible sources, or had broad sources but not the specific particulate matter it would produce.
Content SLO #2: use literature to inform a hypothesis
Students demonstrated their proficiency with SLO 2 through elements of the data collection plan and some of the pre-laboratory questions. For the data collection plan, students were instructed to draw on the findings of their literature review to generate a hypothesis for what they may find and provide a justification to support that hypothesis. Students generated a wide range of hypotheses as reported in the ESI.† Just under half (47%) of the hypotheses submitted were qualitative statements such as “high levels,” “slightly elevated level,” or “higher than average.” The other hypotheses contained a value for one or more of the analytes, often taken from literature or based off literature values. As seen in Fig. 3, 66% of students scored either exemplary or proficient for writing a hypothesis. The students who scored lacking provided no justification for their hypothesis. The students who scored developing often would justify their hypothesis by listing a factor of indoor surface films but not describing how the factors support the hypothesis. Another common issue was students using literature to inform their hypothesis but not discussing how their specific location was similar or different to that in the study and how that may influence their hypothesis. | ||
| Fig. 3 Student scores on the data collection assignment for each rubric item for students both cohorts (n = 32). | ||
The first three pre-laboratory questions were aimed at getting students to consider what they may find in their results, largely informed by their synthesis of literature in the literature review. The first pre-laboratory question had students consider the approximate order of magnitude they expected to find for their nitrate and nitrite concentrations. All but two students reported correct orders of magnitude for their concentrations. Students struggled with the justification as shown by 13/34 students not providing an adequate literature supported justification. For questions 2 and 3, all the students were able to provide reasonable types or classes of chemicals they would expect to in their indoor films and list reasonable species that could be interferents in their HPLC data. A small number of students (3 for question 2 and 2 for question 3) provided justifications to support these claims.
Overall, students met SLO 2 demonstrating that they could use what they found in literature to inform a reasonable hypothesis. There is room for growth here with encouraging a higher level of argumentation supporting the hypotheses.
Content SLO #3: optimize a protocol for isolating and determining nitrate and nitrite in an indoor film
Students had opportunities in the data collection plan and several pre-laboratory questions to demonstrate proficiency with SLO 3. In the data collection plan students proposed a location to collect their indoor films samples and provided some justification as to why it would be an appropriate and interesting place to study the nitrate/nitrite level. The locations that students chose to investigate included apartment kitchens, bedrooms local restaurants and dining halls, gyms, and hotel lobbies. By far the most popular locations were students’ apartment kitchens, living rooms, and bedrooms. This was most likely due to a convenience in sampling and a curiosity about their living environments. Overall students did well on this task with 72% of students scoring either an exemplary or proficient score on proposing a location as seen in Fig. 3. Nine students scored developing because their justification for their chosen location lacked an explanation. For example, many students who received this score said something along the lines of “I will collect here because it is near a stove.” A justification like this begs the question of “why is sampling near a stove interesting or important?”Pre-laboratory questions 1 and 4–7 had planning elements that students completed prior to the laboratory work. After laboratory observations of cohort 1 revealed students mishandling their samples and introducing sources of error, we added a second part to question 1 to have students focus on ways they could minimize uncertainty. Each student provided appropriate ways they could minimize uncertainty, but many students only listed one way rather than multiple ways. Question 4 asked students to compare and contrast normal-phase HPLC and reverse-phase HPLC (RP-HPLC) and consider scenarios where these different approaches would be best suited. While RP-HPLC was the chosen method for this project, it was chosen out of convenience and cost-effectiveness rather than being best suited for the research question students were investigating in the CURE. Overall students were able to compare and contrast the two approaches but there was a lot of confusion about when RP-HPLC is the most appropriate technique. Many students correctly identified from the procedure that they would be using RP-HPLC and most likely concluded that it had to be the most appropriate technique. This may indicate confusion by the students on different HPLC approaches and the scenarios where each of these approaches would be best suited. It could also be tied to the fact that laboratory materials, particularly in the “cookbook” style, tend to employ optimized techniques, which leads students to a mindset of expecting that we always use the ideal approach in research. Additional discussion on resources and finances in making methodological decisions for laboratory protocols would be valuable. Question 5 asked students to think about the separation conditions and the role of a mobile phase with a very low pH in the separation of nitrate and nitrite. Students struggled with this question and most provided an incorrect or partially incorrect reason. This highlights possible misunderstandings about the separation mechanisms in HPLC. Questions 6 and 7 asked students to write out a detailed procedure for preparing their mobile phase and to plan out how they would prepare standard solutions to create a calibration curve. Students left out many of the details they would need in responses to these questions, such as the fluid volumes, adjusting mobile phase pH, and masses of standards needed. The laboratory observations revealed that students opted to spend the first few minutes of the laboratory period doing these calculations, which reduced opportunities to validate their calculations and delayed their start to the laboratory work. Additionally, while GTAs were encouraged to provide feedback to students on their pre-laboratory questions, particularly these questions where students were writing a protocol, observations revealed that most did not. Setting up a structure were students turned in their proposed procedure in advance and received feedback would allow for revisions prior to completing the laboratory work.
While students were able to propose a location to collect indoor surface films and consider ways to minimize error while collecting and analyzing their films, students struggled with understanding why we were using RP-HPLC, how the separation was occurring, and generating detailed laboratory procedures. This may indicate both students’ unfamiliarity with HPLC as well as their unfamiliarity with high inquiry laboratory experiments, which require them to do more planning.
Content SLO#4: determine analyte peaks of interest
Students had opportunities in pre-laboratory questions 7 and 8 to show proficiency with determining the analyte peaks of interest in the chromatograms they would be collecting. An addition to pre-laboratory question 7 in the second iteration had students think about how they could confirm the identity of the peaks in the chromatograms if they combined their standards (which was recommended to save run and preparation time). 11/23 students in cohort 2 either did not answer the question, provided a vague answer, or talked about their hypothesized elution order. This suggests students may need more support in understanding the role of running standards and interpreting HPLC chromatograms. Question 8 asked students how they would quantitatively determine the resolution of the nitrate and nitrite peaks. Overall, students did well at identifying the resolution equation they were taught in class. Many responses could have been enhanced by describing what information they would need to extract from their chromatograms to use the resolution equation but that was not directly asked of the students. From these two questions we can see that students did well at identifying aspects taught in class but many failed to consider the measures they could take in practice to determine the identity of peaks.Content SLO #5: quantify the level of nitrate and nitrite in indoor films
Students primarily had the opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency with SLO 5 through the customer report. One focus of the customer report was to assess students on communicating the level of nitrate/nitrite they determined in their film in a way that a non-expert could understand (level of analytes). All students were able to get measurable results for at least one analyte (most commonly nitrate). The values for their results ranged significantly over the scale of ppm to ppb (assuming calculations were done correctly) as seen in the ESI,† table. Compared to the values students found in literature, their values were often lower. As seen in Fig. 4, over half of the students in both cohorts (17/30) scored exemplary or proficient, while 11 students scored developing and two students scored lacking. The students who received lacking on this rubric item did not report the results from their investigation, just what they found in literature. The common reasons for receiving a developing score were because only one analyte concentration was reported, reported results were vague (ex: “below 2 μM”), the level of certainty was not reported for measured values, or results were not reported in a manner that non-scientists would be able to understand. While all students appeared to get measurable results, the communication of those results for many students was not at the level we had anticipated. | ||
| Fig. 4 Student scores on customer report rubric items. | ||
Skill SLO #6: develop proficiency with writing a literature review
From focus group interviews with students in cohort 1 we learned that many students had limited experience writing a literature review, so this became a skill we put more focus on for cohort 2. One focus was on the style of writing of a literature review, namely the organization and synthesis of literature (organization). As seen in Fig. 2 all the students in both cohort 1 and 2 scored either an exemplary or proficient score for rubric item 1 focused on organization, indicating that their narrative was written in a cohesive and logical manner rather than a list of responses to the guiding questions that were provided. Another focus was on clearly and concisely synthesizing 2–4 research studies on indoor surface films to build a knowledge base of indoor surface films (synthesis of previous research). As seen in Fig. 2, the majority of students in cohort 2 scored exemplary or proficient on this category. This was an improvement from cohort 1, which had a large percentage (70%) of students scoring developing. Students who scored developing on this category would reference studies without talking about what was learned from the studies or they would talk about the studies in isolation rather than integrating the findings of the studies.Placing a heavier emphasis on developing literature review writing skills in the second cohort led us to include a peer review activity. In this activity, students submitted a rough draft and a revised draft, which were analyzed to determine what types of changes students made to their literature reviews based on the feedback they received in the peer review activity. Of the 23 students in cohort 2, only 3 individuals submitted literature reviews that were completely identical to their rough drafts. The 20 students who made changes in their literature reviews made a wide range of changes. Some students made small changes such as changing citation formatting, correcting spelling, writing out analyte names or acronyms, adding 1–2 new citations, or adding introductory sentences or transitions. Some students had larger changes such as adding new paragraphs to address topics not initially included, breaking apart paragraphs to better articulate distinct topics, or reordering paragraphs to enhance the flow of the narrative. A few students who initially had written their literature reviews in an annotated bibliography type of style drastically changed their literature review to be a cohesive synthesis of the literature as intended. Seeing so many changes in students’ literature reviews indicates that students received feedback they could incorporate and continue to hone their literature writing skills. The overall improvements to performance on the literature reviews indicates that the changes to the implementation were successful in supporting students’ abilities to read and synthesize the literature.
Skill SLO #7: communicate findings to a general audience
One of the primarily skills we wanted students to work on with the customer report was their ability to communicate their findings to a general audience. Students in our setting primarily write scientific laboratory reports to a technical audience and we saw this as an opportunity to develop proficiency with science communication. Two of the rubric items assessed students on their ability to generate a graphic that could easily be understood by a non-expert and using an appropriate level of language in their report so that a non-expert could understand. Just over half of the students (16/30) scored proficient or exemplary on the graphic as seen in Fig. 4. 14 students scored developing or lacking because they had a lot of chemistry specific information within their graphics such as analyte formulas or graphs such as a calibration curve that would be difficult for non-experts to interpret, or it was difficult to pull the meaning from the graphic. This same trend was seen with the appropriateness of language students used. As seen in Fig. 4, 16/30 students scored developing or lacking on this rubric item due to the inclusion of chemistry specific terminology and the inclusion of elements more typical of a traditional laboratory report such as methodological information about how the samples were prepared and ran. Another common problem was that students did not contextualize the units they were using to report their concentration or what those levels would mean for humans living in those spaces. For example, one student defined parts-per-million by saying it was a tenth of a milligram in 1 liter of water, which would not help situate the meaning of that unit to a non-expert. Both analyses highlight that that for many students their prior experiences primarily consisting of traditional laboratory reports may have informed their expectations for this type of writing and that more opportunities to practice this writing style would be beneficial.Skill SLO #8: contextualize and justify findings in terms of the research question
The last skill that we wanted students to work on through the customer report was being able to contextualize their findings. They were assessed on this through two of the rubric items focusing on students’ ability to justify the level of nitrate/nitrite they found in their samples and examine how well students described the risks and implications of those levels and provided suggestions for improvement. As seen in Fig. 4, students in cohort 1 did not perform as well as cohort 2 students, as more than 50% of cohort 1 (7/11) scored absent, lacking, or developing on the rubric item for justifying their level of nitrate/nitrite. Responses in these categories did not include any justification or provided broad sweeping statements of factors that could impact nitrate/nitrite levels. Many students also failed to address factors related to their specific location of study rather than general factors. In cohort 2 however, all but 4 students scored exemplary or proficient. Analysis of how students described the risks/implications and suggestions associated with the level of nitrate/nitrite resulted in 16/30 students received absent, lacking, or developing. Students who scored lacking or developing used vague statements such as “the level is higher than normal” or provided very general suggestions for improving the levels of nitrate/nitrite without making connections to their location of study. Students’ performance on these rubric items indicate that contextualizing findings may be a place of further growth.RQ2: in what ways do students perceive that they are impacted by completing the project?
In another section of the survey, students indicated the extent to which they expected various course elements to be present. In both cohort 1 and 2 we saw a trend for statements 1–3 and 4–6 as seen in Fig. 5. The first set of statements focuses on who will know the outcome of the laboratory experiments. As the statements change from “the students will know the outcome” to “only the instructor” to “no one knows the outcome,” we see a decrease in the expected level. With this project falling into the category of “no one knows the outcome” (statement 3) we can see that students were not anticipating engaging in many laboratory experiences where neither they nor the instructor knows the outcome. This could be due to prior laboratory experiences where they engaged in cookbook style laboratory experiments where the outcome is known. Looking at statements 4–6 we can see they vary in who is designing the laboratory experiment or research project. As it goes from “structured by the instructor” to “students have some input” to “entirely student designed” we see this same decrease in the expected level. With students have significant autonomy and design control in the project, it is important to recognize that students were not anticipating a significant level of involvement in designing laboratory experiments. This could again be due to prior experiences in laboratory courses where they engaged in laboratory experiments that did not require them to engage in the design process. This may also highlight the need for instructors to manage student expectations for the CURE as well as provide extra supports as this may be a new experience for students.
 | ||
| Fig. 5 Presurvey average responses (n = 9, cohort 1) to select survey items targeting who knows the outcome of the laboratory experiment (statements 1–3) and who designs the laboratory experiment (statements 4–6). | ||
| Item | Average score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| A lab or project in which only the instructor knows the outcome | 3.8 ± 0.44 |
| A least one project that is assigned and structured by the instructor | 4.1 ± 0.74 |
| Work in small groups | 4.3 ± 0.67 |
| Become responsible for part of the project | 3.6 ± 1.35 |
| Read primary scientific literature | 3.7 ± 0.95 |
| Collect data | 4.5 ± 0.71 |
| Analyze data | 4.6 ± 0.70 |
| Present results in written papers or reports | 4.0 ± 0.82 |
| Listen to lecture | 3.9 ± 0.74 |
Several of the course elements where students indicated growth are aligned with the goals of the project. Reading primary scientific literature was a major goal of the project and an area students indicated in the focus groups that they had limited experience with prior to this project. Becoming responsible for part of the project was also an element of the project that we anticipated may be a new experience for students and was an area where they indicated growth. Additionally, collecting data, analyzing data, working in small groups, and presenting results in written papers or reports were all elements aligned with the project that students marked high.
Another section of the postsurvey asked students to consider the possible benefits of the research experience and the degree to which they gained (1 no gain, 2 small, 3 moderate, 4 large, 5 very large gain) for each element. The areas where students indicated the largest gains are in Table 5 below.
| Item | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Skill in interpretation of results | 2.9 ± 1.10 |
| Tolerance for obstacles faced in the research process | 2.9 ± 1.37 |
| Readiness for more demanding research | 3.2 ± 1.32 |
| Ability to integrate theory and practice | 3.1 ± 1.20 |
| Understanding of how scientist work on real problems | 3.0 ± 1.05 |
| Understanding that scientific assertions require supporting evidence | 2.9 ± 1.37 |
| Ability to analyze data and other information | 3.4 ± 1.17 |
| Understanding science | 3.2 ± 1.03 |
| Learning laboratory techniques | 4.1 ± 1.10 |
| Skill in science writing | 3.2 ± 1.23 |
| Understanding of how scientists think | 2.9 ± 1.29 |
| Learning to work independently | 3.0 ± 1.15 |
A number of these elements are closely linked to the project. In particular, tolerance for obstacles faced in the research process was an idea that came up in some of the focus group interviews where students talked about the different challenges they encountered with the “messier data,” challenges with the HPLC malfunctioning, and difficulty developing a calibration method. Another key goal of the project was to expose students to aspects of authentic research, so it was encouraging to see high levels of understanding how scientists work on real problems, readiness for more demanding research, and understanding how scientists think. In the literature review, data collection plan, and the customer report we emphasized backing up claims with evidence and writing good explanations, so it is encouraging to see gains in understanding the scientific assertions require supporting evidence.
HPLC experience. The first major theme was that students found value in learning HPLC. In all six focus group interviews students talked about how getting hands-on experience with the instrument, software, and learning to read the chromatograms was a valuable experience. Arizona said,
“I liked getting to work with the HPLC instrument because we learned a lot about it through classes but like anytime we’ve used it before, it hadn’t been us using the instrument it's been like we create the samples and then sent them off. So, it was fun to actually see how it is done and actually do it myself.”
Students in cohort 2 focus groups also pointed to the idea that this project was longer, which provided them with time to go more in-depth with the technique, compared to other instrumental techniques they learned in the course that they would focus on for only one week. This idea matches a previous study that found that students engaging in a CURE were appreciative of being able to develop a deep understanding of one particular topic (Scarborough et al., 2022).
Many students also recognized the value of working with HPLC in preparation for a career in chemistry. Addison said, “Well I am currently job hunting and there's, in the types of chemistry that I'm looking at, or positions, there's a lot of requirement and desire for people who have knowledge with HPLC.” Christopher talked about having recently landed a job after graduation and one of the main techniques he will be using is HPLC, so this was a welcomed experience for preparing him for that job.
Learned about indoor surface films. Another major theme from the focus group interviews was students learning about indoor surface films. Across five focus group interviews, students voiced that they were unaware this area of chemistry research existed. Arizona said, “So I think some things that I learned from this lab was just about indoor films and like the fact that there is chemistry and research going on about the air quality inside of buildings. I did not even realize that was a thing.” This area of research was chosen both for its novelty but also for its relevancy as humans spend a significant amount of time indoors. This was an idea that Derek appreciated as he discussed the topic of the project being indoor surface films and how that helped him to see how research connects to real life. He said,
“And like, it felt more applicable to the real world because of that then. As opposed to like the more recent ones [labs] then, like GC and CE, I was kinda like “when is this ever going, to, why do I care about it really?”
Limited writing experience with literature reviews and customer reports. Another theme was that students had limited or no experience with writing a literature review or a customer report. Arizona said, “I had also never written a consumer report and then I also, I'd only done maybe one other literature review, so doing that was also fairly new for me.” Many students talked about how the customer report was a very different type of writing than they had done in the past and how it challenged them to think about their findings in a different way. Jackson said,
“Yeah, I did kinda have to think a little outside of the box about like how to describe parts per million to you know the average person I guess. And I mean, it's just kind of like in my brain what parts per million is.”
Lab structure was more like research. Another theme identified in every focus group interview was that the structure of the project was different than previous laboratory experiences. Students in cohort 1 largely focused on the difference between the project and other laboratory experiences as the project being “more vague”; students in cohort 2 largely focused on how it allowed them to be more independent and make more decisions throughout the experiment. Students in cohort 1 often suggested adding more detail and clearer directions to future iterations of the project. Other studies have found that students engaging in a CURE or inquiry-based laboratory experiment voiced frustration with the lack of guidance and offered more guidance as a recommendation for improvement (Naiker and Wakeling, 2015, Scarborough et al., 2022). Some students in cohort 1 acknowledged that the procedure being “vague” was purposeful to encourage them to make more decisions during the experiment. April recognized this saying,
“I thought that the procedure was a lot more vague, which can be a good thing, but for somebody like me who already struggles with labs, it was not great. [laughs] I just sometimes need to be told exactly what to do and I know that's not like the good way of doing it.”
Students in cohort 2 focused on the difference in structure of the project as allowing them to be more independent and make more decisions throughout the experiment. Anna said, “I feel like the procedure also gave us more room to like, there was room for interpretation to like do what we see as fit which was kinda cool.” Along with this, students referenced the whole project structure – starting with a literature review, planning how to collect the data, and writing up the findings in a way that others can understand – modelled authentic research. Luke, who disclosed that he was going to graduate school in chemistry said,
“I mean, yeah, it gives you a little bit of experience and you know if you're, I'm going to grad school, so it gives you a little bit of experience and like kinda being able to set up and design an experiment and then, you know, go through the necessary steps for experimental design and procedure.”
The other big theme that came up with the idea that the project was more like authentic research was that students did not know what the results would be and that the data was messier. Max said,
“I guess it's more of a realistic thing almost because all the teaching labs are designed to teach you and you're expected to get a certain thing where this you don't. As much as we did research about what we were expecting to get, you just didn't know what you were going to get. I think it's more realistic to real life.”
A student in cohort 1, Addison, recognized that the laboratory experiment was more “open-ended” and made a connection back to her experiences doing UREs. She said, “I feel like it is less structured because it is more open-ended, it's more like actual research rather than ‘this is a pre-established lab that we know what the answer should be and we lead you to it.’” This was an interesting idea that we wanted to probe for more directly, so we added an additional question to the interview protocol for cohort 2 focusing on similarities and differences between the project and UREs.
Students in cohort 2 identified several similarities and differences. One student talked about how starting with a literature review is how they start their research as well to establish what is currently known in the field and where the gap is that they can aim to fill. Another student talked about how they would compare their findings to literature to help make sense of it, while another student referenced how consulting literature would give you a rough idea, but you would not know the exact results until completing the work. Another similarity that came up was how the students got to choose their experimental parameters and then execute them like they do in UREs. Along with making procedural decisions, one student referenced keeping a laboratory notebook and keeping daily summaries of research progress and findings. The last big similarity was in terms of communicating findings. This student talked about their experience giving a poster presentation and how important it was for them to be able to explain their results to anyone who walked up, no matter their level of experience with chemistry and how the customer report emphasized that skill.
Two significant differences students identified between our project and UREs centered on the amount of scaffolding and communication. Two focus groups identified that although the project had several similarities to URE, it was more scaffolded or structured than a URE in the sense they were provided with guiding questions, resources, and an experimental protocol. The other main difference identified was that the customer report focused on translating results to a more general audience, which is not a form of writing that this student had experienced within UREs. Specifically, Rory talked about how she enjoyed that type of writing and saw value in explaining her results to a more general audience, but that in her own research experience she focuses on technical writing to scientific audiences.
Enjoyed collecting their own samples. The last major theme was that students enjoyed collecting their own samples for analysis from a location of their choosing. This idea came up in all six focus group interviews. Many students talked about not having the opportunity to collect their own samples or choose their own samples in previous laboratory courses. Students also talked about how they felt more motivated and invested in the project because they collected samples from indoor locations where many students spent a lot of time. Derek said,
“I liked, I know we said this before, but I liked how it was our own sample. So, there wasn't like super emotional attachment to it, like that, but there was like a personal you collected the data in a sense.”
Students also expressed taking ownership of their research. Rory expressed her investment in the sample collection process by saying, “Yeah. I was very protective over my sample at my apartment, I'm like 'nobody touch this!' [laughs] So yeah it definitely felt like I had some skin in the game in that regard.” Other studies have found that when students are able to make decisions in the data collection process they are more invested (Kesner and Eyring, 1999, Heider et al., 2018, Miller and Gift, 2019).
Limitations
There are limitations for transferability of the results of this study to other settings. The first is that this project was designed to fit within the specific course constraints for an upper-level analytical course at a specific university. Because of this, the project may need to be modified to fit within another course structure or population. Another limitation is that this project was intentionally designed to have students do experimental design that did not include HPLC method development/optimization due to the time constraint of having only two laboratory periods for experimental analysis and students’ limited knowledge and experience with HPLC. If someone wanted to implement this CURE-inspired laboratory project with the goal of developing HPLC method development skills, the project would have to be greatly modified.Implications
Implications for designing a CURE or CURE-inspired project
Through the design of this project, we learned several lessons that may be helpful for others who want to design a CURE or CURE-inspired-inspired laboratory project. One of the major themes that arose in the focus group interviews was how much students enjoyed choosing the locations for their sample collection because they were interested in learning more about locations where they spent a lot of time. Since that aspect of the project was relevant to students, students found the experience to be meaningful and were in turn motivated. Our recommendation would be to consider what topics may be meaningful to students and will get them invested in the project.One concern when starting the project design was the limited amount of time students would have in the laboratory since we were implementing the CURE-inspired laboratory project in place of an older HPLC laboratory procedure that only allowed two laboratory periods (6 hours total) to complete the procedure. We wanted to make sure that the five tenets of a CURE (Auchincloss et al., 2014) were not significantly compromised due to this time constraint. Additionally, with novices using a complex instrument like HPLC, we were constrained in what experimental parameters students were allowed to iterate. However, even with these constraints we were able to design a project that maintained the five CURE tenets (Auchincloss et al., 2014) and had students doing a lot of the planning and design ahead of the laboratory work. The length of CUREs reported in the literature varies greatly. While our project is on the shorter end of this distributions, it shows what can be possible with careful planning. (Watts and Rodriguez, 2023).
In particular, because students in our population were entering the course with expectations of “cookbook” style laboratory experiments we did not want to throw students headfirst into an unstructured research experience. We designed our project to balance structure and scaffolding with engaging, authentic research elements. This work shows that you can carefully craft structures for students who have had primarily “cookbook” style laboratory experiences to move them towards more authentic research experiences without overwhelming them.
In our analysis of course artifacts and focus group interviews we found that students in our population had limited experience with writing literature reviews as well as writing to non-scientific audiences. These may be unique challenges to students in our population or institutional setting, but they also present excellent learning opportunities within (analytical) chemistry curricula. We found that students improved their literature review skills with the peer review activity and a similar activity could be beneficial for other courses and institutions.
The last lesson we learned was about creating assessments for the project. With the shift from traditional “cookbook” style laboratory experiences to more authentic research approaches where students are getting novel data, the assessment must shift away from “correctness” to assess the approach and process emphasized by the project. We also found that providing clear and detailed rubrics to students for the different assignments allowed students to adjust their expectations for the experience.
Implications for implementing a CURE or CURE-inspired project
Through implementing this project twice, there are a few implications for practitioners who may be considering implementing a CURE or CURE-inspired project in their own courses. We found it helpful to first assess what knowledge and experiences students had coming into the project. From the pre-survey results we saw that most of the students in our population were coming in with expectations aligned with traditional “cookbook” style laboratory experiences. This allowed us to help with student buy-in of the laboratory experience and provide support so students felt less uncomfortable with the different laboratory style. The focus group interview and course artifact analysis revealed that students in this population also had limited experience doing a literature search and literature review as well as communicating their findings to nontechnical audiences. This led us to build structures into the CURE-inspired laboratory project to support students with this skill development. It is helpful to look across the curriculum to get an understanding of the types of experiences students have had prior as well as polling students’ about their experiences to establish a baseline of what students know (Bruck and Towns, 2009).Another hurdle we faced in the implementation of the project was GTA facilitation. With both years of implementation, the GTAs were given advice on how best to facilitate the project so that it would support student discovery and skill building, but, in both years, laboratory observations revealed that GTAs facilitated the project in a similar manner as a more traditional “cookbook” style laboratory experiment. One of the aspects of laboratory learning that must change with the implementation of more authentic laboratory approaches such an inquiry-based laboratory experiments and CUREs is that the instructors/GTAs must take on more of a facilitative role to guide students rather than tell them what to do. Since both the students and GTAs were accustomed to traditional types of laboratory experiments, when students would ask the GTAs for help in the project, GTAs would often tell them the “correct” answer or approach, rather than encourage them to brainstorm a solution. For the success of a CURE or CURE-inspired laboratory project, it is important that the whole teaching team is trained on how to facilitate the laboratory experience in a way that is supportive of the student learning goals.
Conclusions
The goal of this project was to design, implement, and assess a CURE-inspired project-based laboratory for an upper-level analytical chemistry laboratory course. We identified a novel area of chemistry research, indoor surface films, as a topic that would be meaningful to students. We used Backward Design to design a scaffolded experience that engaged students in the research process and emphasized the five main tenets of a CURE (Auchincloss et al., 2014). From the analysis of course artifacts, survey data, and focus group interviews collected in the two semesters the CURE-inspired laboratory project was implemented, we were able to assess how well students met the learning goals of the project and characterize their perceptions of the experience. Students were successfully engaged in authentic research over the course of the project, starting with successfully synthesizing literature, planning data collection, and developing part of an experimental protocol. Students were also successful in obtaining quantifiable data from their indoor film samples and writing a ‘customer report’ describing their findings to a nontechnical audience. Investigating student perceptions revealed that students were anticipating traditional “cookbook” style laboratory experience in this course, most likely informed by their past experiences. Focus group interviews revealed that students identified that the project had a very different structure than their previous laboratory experiments in this course and previous courses. Students recognized that the project was more akin to actual research and that it was designed purposefully for them to have more autonomy. Students enjoyed choosing a location to study and collecting their own indoor film samples to analyze. Overall, the CURE-inspired laboratory project was successful in teaching students about indoor surface films, in using HPLC to do quantitative analysis, and engaging them in authentic research.Author contributions
AV collected test samples, led method development, designed course materials, collected and analyzed all student data, and was the primary author of the manuscript. AJ and LA contributed significantly to the HPLC method development and films extraction for the procedure of the project. They collected and analyzed preliminary HPLC data. AJ also prepared silicon wafers for students to take home for the 2022 implementation. BS contributed significantly to the HPLC method development though optimizing mobile phase, column and run parameters. BS also prepared materials and oversaw the GTAs for the 2022 and 2023 implementations. SKS contributed expertise in indoor and outdoor surface film composition and analytical techniques to characterize films. SKS reviewed course materials for accuracy of content and appropriateness of techniques/content for the course level. RSC contributed expertise in course material design and educational assessment approaches. RSC reviewed course materials for alignment to learning objectives and advised on assessing the outcomes of the project. AV wrote the manuscript and AV, BS, RSC and SKS edited the manuscript.Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.Data availability
Data collected from human participants, described in the paper are not available for confidentiality reasons.Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the Roy J. Carver Trust for funding for the design and implementation of this project. AV would like to acknowledge the University of Iowa Graduate College for funding to support her work on the project. We would also like to acknowledge the 6 graduate teaching assistants who facilitated the project-based lab and provided feedback during the two semesters of implementation. We would like to acknowledge the laboratory staff who prepared materials and assisted with the implementation of the project. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge all the students who participated in the project and provided consent to analyze their data.Notes and references
- Agustian H. Y. and Seery M. K., (2017), Reasserting the role of pre-laboratory activities in chemistry education: a proposed framework for their design, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 518–532.
- Allen W. E., Hosbein K. N., Kennedy A. M., Whiting B. and Walker J. P., (2021), Design and Implementation of an Organic to Analytical CURE Sequence, J. Chem. Educ., 98, 2199–2208.
- 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. and Dolan E. L., (2014), Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 13, 29–40.
- Ault A. P., Grassian V. H., Carslaw N., Collins D. B., Destaillats H., Donaldson D. J., Farmer D. K., Jimenez J. L., Mcneill V. F., Morrison G. C., O’brien R. E., Shiraiwa M., Vance M. E., Wells J. R. and Xiong W., (2020), Indoor Surface Chemistry: Developing a Molecular Picture of Reactions on Indoor Interfaces, Chem, 6, 3203–3218.
- Bangera G. and Brownell S. E., (2014), Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Can Make Scientific Research More Inclusive, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 13, 602–606.
- Brownell S. E., Hekmat-Scafe D. S., Singla V., Chandler Seawell P., Conklin Imam J. F., Eddy S. L., Stearns T. and Cyert M. S., (2015), A high-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to interpret data, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 14, ar21.
- Brownell S. E., Kloser M. J., Fukami T. and Shavelson R., (2012), Undergraduate biology lab courses: comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences, J. College Sci. Teach., 41, 36–45.
- Bruck L. B., Bretz S. L. and Towns M., (2008), Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory, J. College Sci. Teach., 38, 52–58.
- Bruck L. B. and Towns M. H., (2009), Preparing Students To Benefit from Inquiry-Based Activities in the Chemistry Laboratory: Guidelines and Suggestions, J. Chem. Educ., 86, 820.
- Burand M. W. and Ogba O. M., (2013), Letter Writing as a Service-Learning Project: An Alternative to the Traditional Laboratory Report, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1701–1702.
- Cascella B. and Jez J. M., (2018), Beyond the Teaching Assistantship: CURE Leadership as a Training Platform for Future Faculty, J. Chem. Educ., 95, 3–6.
- Chase A. M., Clancy H. A., Lachance R. P., Mathison B., Chiu M. M. and Weaver G. C., (2017), Improving critical thinking via authenticity: the CASPiE research experience in a military academy chemistry course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 55–63.
- Cooper K. M., Knope M. L., Munstermann M. J. and Brownell S. E., (2020), Students who analyze their own data in a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) show gains in scientific identity and emotional ownership of research, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 21, 2157 DOI:10.1128/jmbe.v21i3.
- Cooper K. M., Soneral P. A. G. and Brownell S. E., (2017), Define Your Goals Before You Design a CURE: A Call to Use Backward Design in Planning Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 18, 18.2.30.
- Denofrio L. A., Russell B., Lopatto D. and Lu Y., (2007), Linking Student Interests to Science Curricula, Science, 318, 1872–1873.
- Dolan E. L. and Weaver G. C., (2021), A Guide to Course-based Undergraduate Research: Developing and Implementing CUREs in the Natural Sciences, W.H. Freeman, Macmillan Learning.
- Doughan S. and Shahmuradyan A., (2022), Introducing Second Year Analytical Chemistry Students to Research through Experimental Design in the Undergraduate Teaching Laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 4001–4007.
- Eagan M. K., Sharkness J., Hurtado S., Mosqueda C. M. and Chang M. J., (2011), Engaging undergraduates in science research: not just about faculty willingness, Res. Higher Educ., 52, 151–177.
- Elgin S. C. R., Bangera G., Decatur S. M., Dolan E. L., Guertin L., Newstetter W. C., San Juan E. F., Smith M. A., Weaver G. C., Wessler S. R., Brenner K. A. and Labov J. B., (2016), Insights from a Convocation: Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 15, fe2.
- Gao R., (2015), Incorporating Students’ Self-Designed, Research-Based Analytical Chemistry Projects into the Instrumentation Curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 444–449.
- Goodwin E. C., Cary J. R. and Shortlidge, E. E., (2021), Enthusiastic but Inconsistent: Graduate Teaching Assistants’ Perceptions of Their Role in the CURE Classroom, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 20, ar66.
- Gouger A. R. and Mirowsky, J. E., (2022), Using Project-Based Learning to Assess the Effectiveness of Water Filtration Devices in Removing Chemical Analytes in an Undergraduate Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 4016–4023.
- Harrison M., Dunbar D., Ratmansky L., Boyd K. and Lopatto D., (2011), Classroom-Based Science Research at the Introductory Level: Changes in Career Choices and Attitude, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 10, 279–286.
- Healey M., Jordan F., Pell B. and Short C., (2010), The research–teaching nexus: a case study of students' awareness, experiences and perceptions of research, Innov. Educ. Teach. Int., 47, 235–246.
- Heider E. C., Valenti D., Long R. L., Garbou A., Rex M. and Harper J. K., (2018), Quantifying Sucralose in a Water-Treatment Wetlands: Service-Learning in the Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 95, 535–542.
- Indorf J. L., Weremijewicz J., Janos D. P. and Gaines M. S., (2019), Adding Authenticity to Inquiry in a First-Year, Research-Based, Biology Laboratory Course, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 18, ar38.
- Kardash C. M., (2000), Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors, J. Educ. Psychol., 92, 191.
- Kerr M. A. and Yan F., (2016), Incorporating Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences into Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Curricula, J. Chem. Educ., 93, 658–662.
- Kesner L. and Eyring E. M., (1999), Service-Learning General Chemistry: Lead Paint Analyses, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 920.
- Klepeis N. E., Nelson W. C., Ott W. R., Robinson J. P., Tsang A. M., Switzer P., Behar J. V., Hern S. C. and Engelmann W. H., (2001), The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants, J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol., 11, 231–252.
- Lau J. K., Paterniti M. and Stefaniak K. R., (2019), Crossing Floors: Developing an Interdisciplinary CURE between an Environmental Toxicology Course and an Analytical Chemistry Course, J. Chem. Educ., 96, 2432–2440.
- Laursen S., Hunter A.-B., Seymour E., Thiry H. and Melton G., (2010), Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real science, John Wiley & Sons.
- Liu Y., Bé A. G., Or V. W., Alves M. R., Grassian V. H. and Geiger F. M., (2020), Challenges and opportunities in molecular-level indoor surface chemistry and physics, Cell Rep. Phys. Sci., 1, 100256.
- Lopatto D., Alvarez C., Barnard D., Chandrasekaran C., Chung H.-M., Du C., Eckdahl T., Goodman A. L., Hauser C. and Jones C. J., (2008), Genomics education partnership, Science, 322, 684–685.
- Miller A. and Gift A., (2019), Community Awareness and Service Learning in Analytical Chemistry Laboratories, J. Chem. Educ., 96, 1395–1400.
- Moshoeshoe M. N. and Obuseng V., (2018), Simultaneous determination of nitrate, nitrite and phosphate in environmental samples by high performance liquid chromatography with UV detection, S. Afr. J. Chem., 71, 79–85.
- Muna G. W., (2021), Stimulating Students’ Learning in Analytical Chemistry through an Environmental-Based CURE Project, J. Chem. Educ., 98, 1221–1226.
- Naiker M. and Wakeling L., (2015), Evaluation of group based inquiry oriented learning in undergraduate chemistry practicals, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ., 23, 1–17.
- National Academies of Sciences, E. and Medicine, (2017), Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: successes, challenges, and opportunities.
- National Commission On Excellence In Education, (1983), A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform, Elementary School J., 84, 113–130.
- softwareNational Research Council, (2011), Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5: Condensed Version.
- National Research Council, (2012), A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, National Academies Press.
- Neiles K. Y. and Arnett K., (2021), Backward Design of Chemistry Laboratories: A Primer, J. Chem. Educ., 2829–2839.
- Ngss Lead States, (2013), Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States [Online]. Available: https://www.nextgenscience.org/[Accessed].
- Olson S. and Riordan D. G., (2012), Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the president, Executive Off. President, 1–103.
- Provost J. J., (2022), Developing Course Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 3842–3848.
- Roberts R., Hall B., Daubner C., Goodman A., Pikaart M., Sikora A. and Craig P., (2019), Flexible Implementation of the BASIL CURE, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 47, 498–505.
- Rodenbusch S. E., Hernandez P. R., Simmons S. L. and Dolan E. L., (2016), Early Engagement in Course-Based Research Increases Graduation Rates and Completion of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Degrees, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 15, ar20.
- Salita J. T., (2015), Writing for lay audiences: a challenge for scientists, Med. Writing, 24, 183–189.
- Scarborough D. L. A., Hall R. D. and Vanderkruk K. E. N., (2022), Laboratory Research Projects in Undergraduate Environmental and Analytical Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 1672–1681.
- Seery M. K., Agustian H. Y., Christiansen F. V., Gammelgaard B. and Malm R. H., (2024), 10 Guiding principles for learning in the laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 25, 383–402.
- Seymour E., Hunter A. B., Laursen S. L. and Deantoni T., (2004), Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study, Sci. Educ., 88, 493–534.
- Shapiro C., Moberg-Parker J., Toma S., Ayon C., Zimmerman H., Roth-Johnson E. A., Hancock S. P., Levis-Fitzgerald M. and Sanders E. R., (2015), Comparing the impact of course-based and apprentice-based research experiences in a life science laboratory curriculum, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 16, 186–197.
- Shortlidge E. E., Bangera G. and Brownell S. E., (2016), Faculty Perspectives on Developing and Teaching Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences, BioScience, 66, 54–62.
- Sikora A., Irby S. M., Hall B. L., Mills S. A., Koeppe J. R., Pikaart M. J., Wilner S. E., Craig P. A. and Roberts R., (2020), Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic by the Biochemistry Authentic Scientific Inquiry Lab (BASIL) CURE Consortium: Reflections and a Case Study on the Switch to Remote Learning, J. Chem. Educ., 97, 3455–3462.
- Spronken-Smith R., Mirosa R. and Darrou M., (2014), ‘Learning is an endless journey for anyone’: undergraduate awareness, experiences and perceptions of the research culture in a research-intensive university, Higher Educ. Res. Dev., 33, 355–371.
- Szteinberg G. A. and Weaver G. C., (2013), Participants' reflections two and three years after an introductory chemistry course-embedded research experience, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, 23–35.
- Tomasik J. H., Lecaptain D., Murphy S., Martin M., Knight R. M., Harke M. A., Burke R., Beck K. and Acevedo-Polakovich I. D., (2014), Island Explorations: Discovering Effects of Environmental Research-Based Lab Activities on Analytical Chemistry Students, J. Chem. Educ., 91, 1887–1894.
- Tong H., Cui R., Lego B. and Kim K. S., (2023), Phytoextraction of Lead in Contaminated Soil—A Collaboration between Introductory Analytical Chemistry and Campus Farm, J. Chem. Educ., 100, 4013–4019.
- Villarejo M., Barlow A. E., Kogan D., Veazey B. D. and Sweeney J. K., (2008), Encouraging minority undergraduates to choose science careers: career paths survey results, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 7, 394–409.
- Watts F. M. and Rodriguez J.-M. G., (2023), A Review of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 100, 3261–3275.
- Weaver G. C., Russell C. B. and Wink D. J., (2008), Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science, Nat. Chem. Biol., 4, 577–580.
- Weaver G., Wink D., Varma-Nelson P., Lytle F., Morris R., Fornes W., Russell C. and Boone W., (2006), Developing a new model to provide first and second-year undergraduates with chemistry research experience: Early findings of the Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE). Chem. Educ., 11, 125–129.
- Wiggins G. P. and Mctighe J., (2005), Understanding by design, Ascd.
- Wink D. J. and Weaver G. C., (2008), Evaluation of the Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE) model of undergraduate research, Workshop linking evidence to promising practices in STEM undergraduate education, Citeseer, p. 14.
Footnotes |
| † Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5rp00015g |
| ‡ Present address: Department of Chemistry and Physics, Drake University, Des Moines IA, 50311. |
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |